What climate change is not

[Schmelzer]

Are you aware of the "alarming" climate change events in that region of world?

The point being? If there is a warming, glaciers will melt. That as a consequence the former white areas become dark, in this way enhancing the warming, is a well-known effect, it is behind the difference between ice ages and interglacial periods. This effect is obviously limited.

I'll repost them. These are Real Time statistics. If you check the link, you will see the running numbers, which started with 0.00 on Jan 1, 2020 through the time I posted the link.

Except that they have nothing to do with reality. They use the data for the change during the last year and extrapolate them. A method of alarmists to impress fools. Honest people would publish the original numbers they use, with error bars.

p.s. About 20 million net population growth this year. The exponential function hard at work.

No, it isn't:

If the exponential function would be at work, then the purple curve would be a constant line. Instead, it is decreasing.

And the peak number of children has been already reached. The remaining population growth is caused only by the reduction of mortality. https://www.gapminder.org/news/world-peak-number-of-children-is-now/

 

[Write4U]

and there are many more if you google for it...

And the seldom mentioned secondary effect is the lowering of reflective properties of ice and snow and the increased heat absorbtion by the newly exposed dark surface. These primary, secondary, and tertiary effects tend to cause an cascading run-away effect, where no predictions and/or preparations are possible .
The recent firestorm in Australia is just an example of a run-away natural disaster.

 

[Write4U]

If the exponential function would be at work, then the purple curve would be a constant line. Instead, it is decreasing.

OK, do you see the green area decreasing? That's the population! By 2100 (80 years from now) the population will have increased by 3.2 billion people from today. Do the math from your own chart.

You do not understand the exponential function. Any growth p/yr will have doubling time. A lower growth rate just has a longer doubling time.

Look at the worldometer link and its detailed analyses of the statistics.

A 1% growth p/yr has an exponential doubling time of 70 years. A single lifetime. Your children will witness.
A .5 % growth p/yr will have an exponential doubling time of 140 years . Two lifetimes. Your grandchildren will witness.
Only a 0% growth p/yr will not have a related exponential doubling time. The result is just a flattening of the population growth. No decline.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The point being? If there is a warming, glaciers will melt. That as a consequence the former white areas become dark, in this way enhancing the warming, is a well-known effect, it is behind the difference between ice ages and interglacial periods. This effect is obviously limited.

and the water that sustains your tropical rain forest will vanish... ok...bye bye mosquitoes...

 

[Write4U]

and the water that sustains your tropical rain forest will vanish... ok...bye bye mosquitoes...

Along with the rain forest itself! And its secondary effect of lowered CO2 sequestration.

 

[Write4U]

Except that they have nothing to do with reality. They use the data for the change during the last year and extrapolate them. A method of alarmists to impress fools. Honest people would publish the original numbers they use, with error bars.

Nooooooo!
These are 2020 running statistics. Today the world's population is + 7.8 billion people. Do you see the word billion anywhere in the current statistics? These numbers are today's real time growth numbers in millions as reported by several world organizations.
It is your chart that shows the continued growth in billions, albeit at a slower rate. Which meshes perfectly with today's numbers and a slow downward trend.

It's your chart that is making a prediction. The worldometer counter does not make predictions it gathers numbers from which the predictions are arrived.

Why do you fight this? You think you know better that the people who actually keep the records? C'mon man...

 

[Schmelzer]

And the seldom mentioned secondary effect is the lowering of reflective properties of ice and snow and the increased heat absorbtion by the newly exposed dark surface. These primary, secondary, and tertiary effects tend to cause an cascading run-away effect, where no predictions and/or preparations are possible .

As you can see from my previous post, I mention even "seldom mentioned secondary effects". I wrote there "That as a consequence the former white areas become dark, in this way enhancing the warming, is a well-known effect, it is behind the difference between ice ages and interglacial periods."

and the water that sustains your tropical rain forest will vanish... ok...bye bye mosquitoes...

Along with the rain forest itself! And its secondary effect of lowered CO2 sequestration.

There is no reason to expect this, given that in the average precipitation will rise. Remember, 20% more arid, n% almost unchanged, (80-n)% less arid. more wet.

OK, do you see the green area decreasing? That's the population! By 2100 (80 years from now) the population will have increased by 3.2 billion people from today. Do the math from your own chart.

No necessity. If you would read my posts, you would have seen that I do not claim that the population is actually decreasing. What I have said is that the number of children is already no longer increasing.

You do not understand the exponential function. Any growth p/yr will have doubling time. A lower growth rate just has a longer doubling time.

If you would know how an exponential function looks like, you would not use this word looking at the green area.

A 1% growth p/yr has an exponential doubling time of 70 years. A single lifetime. Your children will witness.
A .5 % growth p/yr will have an exponential doubling time of 140 years . Two lifetimes. Your grandchildren will witness.
Only a 0% growth p/yr will not have a related exponential doubling time. The result is just a flattening of the population growth. No decline.

Continue the purple line a little bit more, and you will reach zero. 2110 or 2120 or so. After this, decline, negative growth rates.

Nooooooo!
These are 2020 running statistics. Today the world's population is + 7.8 billion people. Do you see the word billion anywhere in the current statistics? These numbers are today's real time growth numbers in millions as reported by several world organizations.
Why do you fight this? You think you know better that the people who actually keep the records? C'mon man...

LOL, do you really think the people who have created that website keep actual records?????? ROTFLBTC, you made my day.

I explain you how such sites work. They take two data points, probably some datum from last year, some datum from the year before. Then they draw a straight line giving these two data points. And then they compute what would be the actual number if this straight line would be correct. That's all. If you would know elementary mathematics, you could do this too.

The quality of the two data point per counter is dubious.

Moreover, if one would follow scientific standards, such counters are simply misleading because they suggest an accuracy which does not exist at all in the input data they use. So, the original data could be, say, 128 mio two years ago and 132 mio last year. Based on these two data they may compute something like 135,123,456 today and 135,234,567 tomorrow, suggesting high accuracy when in reality they know only that it is a number roughly around 135 mio (and even this only if the data used are really accurate and a linear extension has something to do with reality).

 

[iceaura]

Yes. But the idea that the increased volatility means there will be no regularity at all is nonsensical alarmism too.

Nobody made that claim. The increased volatility is itself a regularity, after all, of a kind - it harms agriculture, was the point. And it is an expected consequence of AGW.

In reality, the borders between different ecosystems will move, and the effect that at some places there will be sudden changes of the ecosystem will be there from the start, and the change of the boundaries will be a warning for all those living close to these boundaries.

Those aren't thresholds - the major finding of that article was about thresholds.

I have not denied any science at all here.

You have by turns denied all of the science here - every research report, every major finding, every journal article and accurate media report anyone has provided you. You have done that in almost every post you have made in this thread.
For example: here is you, denying the science - including the findings reported in an article you were handed, right here on this thread - yet again, 18 pages in:

No. This will somewhere harm, but in general and on average it will be positive.

You declare the scientific reports to be wrong, and flatly contradict the findings of the AGW researchers - you deny the science.

Only if your trivial misinterpretation of what follows from such thresholds on the ground would be true, there would be no warning.

They aren't my findings. They are the findings of the AGW researchers. You can read about them in the article I handed you.

And give me, as a homework, the task of finding evidence for your claims.

Your homework is to inform yourself about the subject you are attempting to address here - AGW and its expected consequences, as deduced from the body of scientific research done over the past fifty years or so. I am flattered that you assume informing yourself about the research and findings in the various fields is the same as finding evidence for my claims, but how do you know?

I would have no problem, if articles about climate change would look like this:

You might have no problem with articles that contain falsehoods and contradict their own research findings, but scientists would - they have a much different agenda than yours.

I think indeed that science supports my views.

You have no idea what the science is. You're still blathering about the borders of ecosystems and aridity of the 20%,

(And, of course, the claim that I have not read the article is a wild fantasy of iceaura, as usual.)

and that's just the one article - you haven't even read that one article.

The question remains: why?
Why have the US fascist propaganda operations chosen to con their minions into attacking AGW research and all who pay attention to its findings?
This is one possible answer:

Or rather, it seems to me that he feels the science actually benefits his political agenda, and therefore he wishes to discourage preventative action.

But besides the obscure and confused phrasing it partly begs the question: why would US rightwing authoritarian corporate propagandists plant an idea like that in their media reps?

 

[Schmelzer]

Nobody made that claim. The increased volatility is itself a regularity, after all, of a kind - it harms agriculture, was the point. And it is an expected consequence of AGW.

Fine that we sometimes find even points where I can agree with you.

Those aren't thresholds - the major finding of that article was about thresholds.

Yawn. Of course, they are not thresholds themselves but the consequences of such thresholds.

Repeated nonsensical accusations of denial of science, repeated wrong claims, "supported" by wrong claims that those claims are supported by the Berdugo et al paper, which they are not, and the repeated failure to support this by an explicit quote from the paper. It becomes boring.

You have no idea what the science is. You're still blathering about the borders of ecosystems and aridity of the 20%,

Learn to read, learn how to behave in a civilized discussion, learn elementary rules of a scientific discussion, and, first of all, stop lying.

 

[Write4U]

LOL, do you really think the people who have created that website keep actual records?????? ROTFLBTC, you made my day.

I see, a grand conspiracy. I put you on ignore once before. You are still posting misleading statements and I should not have changed my mind. Be well. Click!

 

[Schmelzer]

I see, a grand conspiracy. I put you on ignore once before. You are still posting misleading statements and I should not have changed my mind. Be well. Click!

LOL, which grand conspiracy? Simply elementary knowledge about how such sites work. But thank you for putting me on ignore, answering your posts is even more boring than iceaura.

 

[CptBork]

But besides the obscure and confused phrasing it partly begs the question: why would US rightwing authoritarian corporate propagandists plant an idea like that in their media reps?

Well as I've said before, his propaganda doesn't come from US right wing media unless it's picked up and amplified by Russian state media for their own purposes. Russia is cold, he thinks warming it up will present an economic advantage for his people over everyone else, and even if Russia suffers more than benefits, he expects everyone else to suffer even more and thus narrow the gap of his tribal inferiority. Besides, other than child prostitution, what else does Russia have to offer the world except more of the pollutant that's causing this problem in the first place?

 

[Schmelzer]

Besides, other than child prostitution, what else does Russia have to offer the world except more of the pollutant that's causing this problem in the first place?

LOL, child prostitution existed in Russia during the Jeltsin time, when it was a nice democracy and everything was fine there according to Western media. Probably the Western journalists had indeed some fun there which was not possible to gain in the West.

But this was stopped when Putin gained power. The most important thing was simply that the street children were taken away from the streets into children's homes. Actually I would expect there is more child prostitution in Germany or the US than in Russia. That's probably the main reason why Western journalists hate Putin that much.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is no reason to expect this, given that in the average precipitation will rise. Remember, 20% more arid, n% almost unchanged, (80-n)% less arid. more wet.

Speaking of Anthropogenic Global Greening (AGG) reminded me of the terrible and alarming situation in Greenland and the loss of glaciers...perhaps when all that water floods our shorelines, sea levels rise and we lose a great percentage of arable land, not to mention desalination of our oceans killing most of the ocean life we shall see Greenland literally become green? lol.
A green Antarctic sounds kinda great too...
Not mention a green Siberia...

Except...once all that stored methane is released the Anthropogenic Green House Effect (AGHE) will be the least of our problems...

Also as you well know AGG doesn't allow for ocean heating and acidification, you know, where 75% of planets surface area dies an acid death due to too much CO2 being absorbed...

but hey Green oceans, maybe lime green, will be kind a cool to look at but rather warm to swim in...and maybe just maybe your mosquitoes will have evolved to rule the world.

 

[CptBork]

LOL, child prostitution existed in Russia during the Jeltsin time, when it was a nice democracy and everything was fine there according to Western media. Probably the Western journalists had indeed some fun there which was not possible to gain in the West.

But this was stopped when Putin gained power. The most important thing was simply that the street children were taken away from the streets into children's homes. Actually I would expect there is more child prostitution in Germany or the US than in Russia. That's probably the main reason why Western journalists hate Putin that much.

How fortunate for you then that Putin is scheduled to remain President/Prime Minister until 2076. I hear he has also achieved 100% annihilation of both HIV and the Coronavirus. What an amazing guy, I have no doubt he'd beat prime Shaq in a slam dunk contest any day.

 

[iceaura]

Yawn. Of course, they are not thresholds themselves but the consequences of such thresholds.

You first claimed they were thresholds - you posted your experience with them as experience of the thresholds in the article, in response to my observation that you didn't know what the article was reporting and discussing - and now you change your mind. That's good, but your new claim is also wrong and likewise reveals that you don't know what's in that article I handed you: They are not consequences of the thresholds in that article, either.

You don't know what the AGW researchers are finding, analyzing, or reporting. You don't even know what's in that one article.

Look at this complete failure of comprehension, this bollixing of everything from basic arithmetic to the meanings of simple declarative sentences, for example:

There is no reason to expect this, given that in the average precipitation will rise. Remember, 20% more arid, n% almost unchanged, (80-n)% less arid. more wet.

You have now refused to read not only the article, but any of the half dozen corrections of that goofy set of assumptions people have wasted their time posting for you.
For starters, again: Nobody found 20% more arid, n% almost unchanged, (80-n) % less arid, more wet. No AGW researcher reported that, any of the parts of that, or anything similar to that, as an expectation or finding or likelihood or anything. That's not in the article, not in my posts, nowhere. Your "evidence", from which you reasoned, is entirely imaginary.

On top of that, your reasoning is invalid. On top of that, your conclusion is a denial of the findings of the article I handed you - a flat denial, without argument or evidence, of the science that provided you with those 20% and 80% numbers you found so confusing. And on top of it all, what you have so completely screwed up is basic to an understanding of AGW and its likely consequences. You have no idea what the AGW researchers have found and reported, what they expect as most likely, or any of its implications.

Repeated nonsensical accusations of denial of science,

With quoted examples.

You keep denying the science - apparently, in your case, because you don't know what it is, so you simply don't know when you are contradicting it, declaring it to be wrong, claiming it does not exist, etc. That is the gentle, civilized take.

Another obvious possibility is that you are following a different, but equally common and characteristic, pattern of the US Republican media feed purveyors: proactively accusing others of your own bad behavior. Look at how often and how strangely you call me a liar, accuse me of lying, etc, for example.

It becomes boring.

Then quit spamming this forum with Republican media wing bs. Go read up on AGW research, maybe (it's fascinating stuff, if you find that you care, and if you find that you don't you can just drop the topic).
- - - -

 

[iceaura]

Well as I've said before, his propaganda doesn't come from US right wing media .

His propaganda has no other source in the world than the media operations of the American fascist movement, currently in control of the Republican Party. His vocabulary, analytical framework, and characteristic errors are an exact match not only at the given moment but over time as it changes - he's not only in agreement but in step, and with the same phrases and terms and errors of both fact and reason. That is not believable coincidence.

For example, note his claim that the AGW reports are identifiable as "alarmist" because they do not include good news and benefits from global warming - and note in particular his example of that here, that the planet as a whole, on average, is getting "greener" by more than was expected by most researchers.

Again he is screwing up "averages" and their implications - another indication of his reliance on nonscientific (to be gentle) sources -

but more to the point here:
That common news item is a well known recent finding of NASA's satellite observation programs, a significant improvement on the less detailed and thorough compilations of the past few decades, which has been much discussed and analyzed among some AGW researchers and those in related fields https://www.iflscience.com/environment/despite-decades-deforestation-earth-getting-greener/ and carries implications, albeit somewhat different than Schmelzer assumes, of great interest to many:

Apart from the effect of rainfall patterns, our study also agreed with other studies observing a gradual greening trend for the past two decades, even where there was no change or even a small decrease in rainfall.

This has been ascribed mainly to the increasing number of trees and shrubs growing on semi-arid grasslands. - - -

(The implications of this are numerous and complex and important, ranging from agriculture and wildfire to cloud cover and surface albedo)
but he frames it as being ignored, overlooked, dismissed, downplayed by the "alarmists" who dominate "the media" in pursuit of their political agenda. (These "alarmists" he has previously identified - the category includes the entire body of AGW researchers and many in related scientific fields.).

That frame of that scientific finding and its media treatment did not originate in Russian media. It originated in corporate rightwing US media operations, as a propaganda feed. The framing of AGW research and reports and media handling - the entire scientific field - as leftwing, liberal, grant-corrupted, politicly biased, sensationalizing, alarmist, one-sided, Statist, etc, has no other origin.

 

[CptBork]

That frame of that scientific finding and its media treatment did not originate in Russian media. It originated in corporate rightwing US media operations, as a propaganda feed. The framing of AGW research and reports and media handling - the entire scientific field - as leftwing, liberal, grant-corrupted, politicly biased, sensationalizing, alarmist, one-sided, Statist, etc, has no other origin.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but like I say, even if the propaganda originates in US right wing media, he only picks it up after it's been passed on by Russian state media. Russia's state apparatus has an interest in sowing and magnifying political division among Americans by promoting the extreme political fringes at both ends of the US spectrum, and they give special preference to the right wing side in particular because they know it's the least interested in confronting Russian crimes against humanity and territorial encroachments at the expense of corporate profits.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but like I say, even if the propaganda originates in US right wing media, he only picks it up after it's been passed on by Russian state media. Russia's state apparatus has an interest in sowing and magnifying political division among Americans by promoting the extreme political fringes at both ends of the US spectrum, and they give special preference to the right wing side in particular because they know it's the least interested in confronting Russian crimes against humanity and territorial encroachments at the expense of corporate profits.

Actually I agree with you. Having read some of the Russian media I found they seem to be a better breeding ground for Republican diatribe than the USA media ,which to be frank, is really weird...

 

[iceaura]

Having read some of the Russian media I found they seem to be a better breeding ground for Republican diatribe than the USA media

They do not originate it - some tweaks here and there, but like Schmelzer they repeat not only the basic contentions and false assertions but specific vocabulary and phrasing, specific errors of fact, specific and unique provocations we know to have been focus group vetted and field tested by the now Republican (formerly just factionally fascist) media operations.

That is the only source, for example, of the claim that climate researchers must produce findings consistent with US liberal, lefty, neoliberal, elitist, Statists's plans for world government or see their careers damaged and their grants - big money and easy living - cut off.

breeding ground for Republican diatribe than the USA media

Of course the US media themselves are not coming up with this stuff - that's the job of the think tanks and privately funded lobbying/marketing businesses and coopted university departments (universities being easy to bribe). The rightwing media are the bred not the breeders, the mouth not the brain. Frank Lunz was (is?) not a media employee.