One of the biggest climate change threats -- Rain

[sculptor]

Sure; the Permian-Triassic mass extinction - ...warming was one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems."
...

Perhaps looking at the permian extinctions much like the death of Rasputin would be appropriate?

To start, divide the Permian into three series or epochs: the Cisuralian (299 to 270.6 mya), Guadalupian (270.6 to 260.4 mya), and Lopingian (260.4 to 251 mya)
Each had minor extinctions as life was adjusting to pangea, Unfortunately, this led to a lack of biodiversity within the various climate zones.
and then
a sequence of events which most likely included several bolide impacts, the remnant of the largest of which may be under Australia.
Perhaps coincidental, and perhaps causal to the volcanic eruptions known as the Siberian traps (which were most likely to largest eruptions in the history of the world, covering about a million square miles. Add in huge coal seams and forests ablaze, and the atmosphere was choked by the ash clouds blotting out the sun and sending the earth into a prolonged volcanic winter, resulting in the deaths of most flora, which then finished off the fauna via starvation, which led to a toxic atmosphere wherein fungi thrived and produced methane along with the rotting corpses.

Ok
first, lack of diversity
2nd bolide impacts
3rd volcanism
4th acid rain and fungal growth
then an atmosphere rich in methane and CO2, acid rain, and warming to finish off the survivors.

warming may well have been one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems.
However much like Rasputin who was poisoned, strangled, shot, stabbed(perhaps castrated?) and thrown into the freezing Neva river to drown-------------------------
which would make the warming part much like the drowning part.

 

[billvon]

warming may well have been one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

Of course. And per several studies, it was the primary cause for the marine extinction, which was by far the larger of the two (terrestrial vs marine.) So overall it was the primary cause. Of course, other things contributed as well.

 

[sculptor]

perspective, it seems, matters

 

[Schmelzer]

And yet the Earth's largest extinction came after rapid warming.

An interesting historical fact, not more.

I would not argue that warming is terrible and cooling is fine. Both changes cause extinctions.

Can cause extinctions.

Given that, we should not be seeking to change the climate as rapidly as possible by burning as many fossil fuels as possible.

Nobody suggests seeking to change the climate.

We have never moved American agriculture to Canada before.

Americans have moved European agriculture to America before. And some American agriculture has been moved to Europe too.

Slavery was quite efficient. So was child labor. So were CFC refrigerants. We ended those things - even though ending them was an "expensive loss of money" - because we did not want to live with the results of those "savings."

No. Slavery and child labor ended essentially when they were no longer efficient, so that they were already in decline for economic reasons. All that was done was that it was ended faster.

That is the true characteristic of an enlightened society - being able to forego immediate gratification to benefit future peoples.

The societies which have done most in this respect - to forego immediate gratification to benefit future peoples - were those of communist societies. It was part of their ideological dogma. Unfortunately, they lived in very bad conditions, and their heirs did not gain anything from this but also lived in conditions worse than in those "bourgeois" societies which did not do such foolish things.

 

[paddoboy]

Can cause extinctions.

So therefore, while any doubt exists [if there is any doubt] we must err on the side of caution.

 

[Schmelzer]

So therefore, while any doubt exists [if there is any doubt] we must err on the side of caution.

You should not forget that what is proposed by alarmists is extremely expensive and harmful for those living now. And this also costs lives, now, simply by increasing poverty now everywhere as a side effect. And these victims will be unnecessary if alarmism is wrong. So, doing everything that alarmists ask for is not only stupid but murderous too.

It would be much better to try to find out what really happens, and what is really dangerous and what is not, instead of crying wolf on the side of caution.

 

[paddoboy]

You should not forget that what is proposed by alarmists is extremely expensive and harmful for those living now. And this also costs lives, now, simply by increasing poverty now everywhere as a side effect. And these victims will be unnecessary if alarmism is wrong. So, doing everything that alarmists ask for is not only stupid but murderous too.

It would be much better to try to find out what really happens, and what is really dangerous and what is not, instead of crying wolf on the side of caution.

Or perhaps, just perhaps more to the point, is that science generally has got it right according to the mountains of evidence, and you as appears to be your nature on all topics so far, are taking an opposing view, and an anti establishment view, just for the sake of it and to attempt to add credibility to whatever agenda drives your anti mainstream agenda.
Again, thank Christ that you have not as yet fooled your fellow scientists, and that the general populace is also now starting to wake up to the dollar driven, anti science and anti climate change campaign by mining companies and the like.

 

[iceaura]

No. Slavery and child labor ended essentially when they were no longer efficient, so that they were already in decline for economic reasons. All that was done was that it was ended faster.

Nonsense.
The chattel slavery in America was increasing in efficiency, as was the child labor, in the years just prior to their being outlawed.

You should not forget that what is proposed by alarmists is extremely expensive and harmful for those living now

No, it isn't.

It would be much better to try to find out what really happens, and what is really dangerous and what is not,

They did.
The researchers in the field found out that rapidly boosting the CO2 concentration of Earth's atmosphere was extremely dangerous and would most likely be disastrous for human civilization.

 

[Schmelzer]

The chattel slavery in America was increasing in efficiency, as was the child labor, in the years just prior to their being outlawed.

Without evidence the claim is worthless. As usual.

They did.
The researchers in the field found out that rapidly boosting the CO2 concentration of Earth's atmosphere was extremely dangerous and would most likely be disastrous for human civilization.

Without evidence the claim is worthless. As usual.

In fact, almost all of the research studies some very particular questions. Each particular question may have some problematic or even dangerous aspects. But such summaries are usually written by alarmists. The research I have seen to estimate the harm caused by warming was clearly inferior, as described: Extrapolation of what is the actual economic response to weather extremes toward higher temperatures. This would be appropriate only if people would not even change the crops in response to warming.

 

[wegs]

This is an interesting article and shows why many people don't believe that we have a climate change problem. Goes to show, science doesn't lie, but people do.

https://www.businessinsider.com/public-religion-report-climate-change-2014-11

 

[sculptor]

warming

Of course. And per several studies, it was the primary cause for the marine extinction, which was by far the larger of the two (terrestrial vs marine.) So overall it was the primary cause. .

That is delusional!
(see above)

 

[billvon]

An interesting historical fact, not more.

Cool, so at least you admit that.

Can cause extinctions.

Can - and have.

Nobody suggests seeking to change the climate.

That's like firing an automatic weapon into a crowd then saying "well, look, nobody was suggesting killing anyone."

No. Slavery and child labor ended essentially when they were no longer efficient, so that they were already in decline for economic reasons.

Oh, they were still quite efficient. That's why, in the US, there was a very bloody civil war to force the people who found it efficient to stop doing it.

The societies which have done most in this respect - to forego immediate gratification to benefit future peoples - were those of communist societies. It was part of their ideological dogma.

And capitalist societies, and monarchial societies. Some examples - the Montreal accord (expensive but benefited future peoples) fusion research (payoff is a long time in the future) genetic research (will someday greatly improve disease cures and may repair genetic problems.) All gave up immediate benefit for future benefit - and two of those have in fact benefited us already.

Unfortunately, nowadays we have people who worship ignorance and short term gain. We have a president who says "I love the poorly educated." Flat eartherism, anti-vaxxing, climate change denial, 9/11 "truthers" and Apollo hoaxers are all on the rise. And that enables the greedy short-term investors to abandon science (and the welfare of future people) in pursuit of lining their pockets immediately. Perfect example - Andrew Wakefield. And he _almost_ got away with it.

 

[billvon]

That is delusional!
(see above)

I am good with you calling me delusional! Means I am on the right track.

 

[billvon]

And this also costs lives, now, simply by increasing poverty now everywhere as a side effect.

You mean like the three million people in the US who have jobs in the renewable energy industry? You want to fire them, and then will claim that they are better off? "You're fired! But good news - this means you won't be poor any more, because denial."

You should not forget that what is proposed by alarmists is extremely expensive and harmful for those living now.

I get all my energy for my home and local transportation from solar. It was not "extremely expensive" and it was not "harmful for people living now." Honestly, you sound like the alarmist here.

And these victims will be unnecessary if alarmism is wrong. So, doing everything that alarmists ask for is not only stupid but murderous too.

Alarmism (however you define it) may well be wrong. Climate change science - and the predictions it makes about warming - are spot on. Even the early IPCC predictions are coming to pass.

It would be much better to try to find out what really happens, and what is really dangerous and what is not, instead of crying wolf on the side of caution.

We are seeing what really happens right now.

 

[iceaura]

Without evidence the claim is worthless. As usual.

You seem to have your failure to pay attention confused with an absence of evidence.
You have been provided with several links, in multiple threads, to evidence of the efficiency and economic profitability of slavery in the American Confederacy. It's just a fact. Slavery was so profitable it was worth raising an army and seceding from the wealthy Union at cannon point to guarantee its continuation.

Without evidence the claim is worthless. As usual.

So pay attention to the evidence, and learn something.

The research I have seen to estimate the harm caused by warming was clearly inferior, as described:

Then go see the better research. There's no point in basing your opinion on inferior research.
And it's easily foundc - your past failure to see things has not made them go away.

Extrapolation of what is the actual economic response to weather extremes toward higher temperatures. This would be appropriate only if people would not even change the crops in response to warming.

And since they can't, often, the findings are "appropriate".
And since changing the crops wouldn't work, often, the findings are "appropriate".
And since other research has taken such options into account, often, the findings are "appropriate".

And since they know what they are talking about, and you don't, your description of their findings is not "appropriate".

 

[Schmelzer]

You seem to have your failure to pay attention confused with an absence of evidence.
You have been provided with several links, in multiple threads, to evidence of the efficiency and economic profitability of slavery in the American Confederacy.

Of course, at the time slavery existed it was sufficiently efficient. Your claim was "increasing in efficiency". These discussions in the past about slavery have been about other questions, those old links are therefore irrelevant. If you think that some of them are relevant, post the relevant links here.

Then go see the better research. There's no point in basing your opinion on inferior research. And it's easily found
...
And since other research has taken such options into account, often, the findings are "appropriate".

Feel free to link better research, if you claim it exists. Else, it is, as usual, an unsupported and therefore worthless claim. If it is easily found, this would be no problem for you. Once you don't do it, it is obviously not that easy. Whatever, that's your problem, once you made the claim that it exists.

And since they can't, often, the findings are "appropriate".

People cannot even switch to crops which are more appropriate to a changed climate? This becomes obscure.

They cannot predict the weather of the next year, thus, have to rely on expectations from the actual climate. So, short time reactions do not contain switches to other crops because of climate change. But if climate changes, they will do this.

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh, they were still quite efficient. That's why, in the US, there was a very bloody civil war to force the people who found it efficient to stop doing it.

The bloody war was not really about slavery, even if iceaura has provided some good evidence that it played some not unimportant role too, it was insufficient to show me that those who claim that it was only a side issue were wrong. That's just a summary, if someone wants to continue this old discussion, find the thread and continue at that place.

Then, one thing is the efficiency, another that the slaveholders have invested a lot, and would have lost all their investments. That they do not throw away their investments does not mean that they have been efficient.

Some examples - the Montreal accord (expensive but benefited future peoples) fusion research (payoff is a long time in the future) genetic research (will someday greatly improve disease cures and may repair genetic problems.) All gave up immediate benefit for future benefit - and two of those have in fact benefited us already.

Scientific research is, of course, benefit for future. But scientific research is not really risky. In the worst case, it gives no result. Different from communism, which has caused a lot of harm.

You mean like the three million people in the US who have jobs in the renewable energy industry?

No. Those who have lost their jobs somewhere in the Third World because the US invested taxpayers money in renewable energy instead of economically more useful things.

You want to fire them, and then will claim that they are better off? "You're fired! But good news - this means you won't be poor any more, because denial."

No reason to fire them. If they produce now something useful, something which is able to survive on the market, no problem. Simply don't give them taxpayers money, but let, instead, the taxpayers decide where to invest them.

I get all my energy for my home and local transportation from solar. It was not "extremely expensive" and it was not "harmful for people living now." Honestly, you sound like the alarmist here.

Fine. No problem. If you prefer this, your choice. But it was harmful for the people living now - they had to pay higher taxes to allow the state to support those firms with various subsidies.

Of course, once one lives in such a society, one cannot avoid such redistribution effects. So, I do not want to blame you. Just the "not harmful" is a fairy tale. Without the state-enforced redistribution, it would have been more expensive. How much? Hard to tell.

 

[iceaura]

Of course, at the time slavery existed it was sufficiently efficient.

The price of slaves was rising, the slaveowners were seeking expansion of their business, they were willing to start a war to keep their slaves.

Else, it is, as usual, an unsupported and therefore worthless claim

None of your claims about AGW (or slavery, or anything really) have ever been supported.

Once you don't do it, it is obviously not that easy

I found it pretty easy - can't answer for you. You maybe haven't had as much practice? Kind of like a little kid - you got used to other people doing your homework, you never learned how to do it yourself.
It's not too late for you - give it a try.

People cannot even switch to crops which are more appropriate to a changed climate? This becomes obscure.

That's often the case, yep. It's especially common when some feature of climate like "variability" or "range" or "season" is involved, and the original agricultural regime was highly adapted, maximally productive.
And it's not obscure - it's common knowledge.

 

[iceaura]

The bloody war was not really about slavery,

The Civil War was about slavery and nothing else. All of the other supposed factors were derived from slavery, based on defending slavery, nonexistent outside their context of slavery.

Without the state-enforced redistribution, it would have been more expensive.

Without the very large state subsidies of fossil fuels it would have been able to take advantage of economies of scale far earlier - saving the economy and the taxpayer a lot of money directly, and probably the cost of two major wars.

Major technological changes do not emerge from free markets - government supports them, charity supports them, or they never happen.

 

[billvon]

The bloody war was not really about slavery, even if iceaura has provided some good evidence that it played some not unimportant role too, it was insufficient to show me that those who claim that it was only a side issue were wrong.

The war was over economic freedom, and that was based on slavery. The South wanted the right to keep slaves to support their economy; without slaves, their economy would have to change drastically. The North opposed it.

Then, one thing is the efficiency, another that the slaveholders have invested a lot, and would have lost all their investments.

Exactly. And they wanted to keep them because the system worked.

Scientific research is, of course, benefit for future. But scientific research is not really risky.

No, just expensive. Like the military, roads, police and fire forces etc.

It's funny. You claim that expensive, taxpayer subsidized research is not really risky. But tax cuts for renewables are harmful. Quite the double standard you have there.

No. Those who have lost their jobs somewhere in the Third World because the US invested taxpayers money in renewable energy instead of economically more useful things.

Given that China is rapidly becoming the #1 supplier of solar panels, your claim is provably wrong.

No reason to fire them. If they produce now something useful, something which is able to survive on the market, no problem. Simply don't give them taxpayers money, but let, instead, the taxpayers decide where to invest them.

I agree. Don't give them taxpayer money. Simply give them incentives in the form of tax cuts. Let them keep their money, and let the taxpayers keep theirs.

Fine. No problem. If you prefer this, your choice. But it was harmful for the people living now - they had to pay higher taxes to allow the state to support those firms with various subsidies.

No more so than the subsidies (actually tax cuts) given to oil, coal and nuclear power industries.

Of course, once one lives in such a society, one cannot avoid such redistribution effects. So, I do not want to blame you. Just the "not harmful" is a fairy tale.

Not harmful, by any sane definition of the word.