Point taken and accepted..
What climate change is not
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
COP26 postponed ....
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
About methane I have already written, it gives only a temporary effect, it persists only 9-10 years. See https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/methane.php
LOL. Please tell me where you have found the idea of desalination of the oceans as a consequence of climate change.
About the sea level rise: Here is the worst case loss of land, that means, the case where as Greenland, as Antarctica melt completely. Which is a 66 m rise:
Doing the same for the 7.2 m raise of Greenland ice melting completely makes no sense, you could hardly distinguish it from the actual map.
Note also that the worst case, according to the worst case scenario, needs ten thousand years. During the next hundred years, the rise would be, if it remains like today (3 mm/year) 30 cm, in the worst case scenarios 2.4 m. This has the same property: If I would show you the world map, you would be unable to identify the difference.
And don't forget that humanity is not helpless at all against such a thing. The Netherlands is already today in large parts below sea level. They know how to do this since medieval times.
See https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/sea-level.php for more.
Sounds like you support the history of life on Earth as described in the Genesis. Given that according to
life in the ocean was imaginable only during a very short time, a few million years or so, because before this the CO2 was far too much to allow for life in the ocean, Darwin's theory would be dead.
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
After three times correcting the lie, it has been transformed into a half-lie. Ok, fine, at least not another repetition of the same lie. Your claim that my claim is wrong is empty, thus, worthless. I have given the arguments why the thresholds lead to such borders, you have given no counterargument. You have the burden of proof that my argumentation is wrong.
You understand the word "remember"? It refers you to something said earlier, mentioning only a few words as a mem. This refers to #330, there it is precisely described how these n% (and, correspondingly, the 20% and the (80-n)%) are defined. Here is it: "But, ok, let's take a look at what means this 20% number. First of all, let's ask the question what is the part of the land surface which does not go through any such threshold. This would be, say, n% (n for "nothing changes".) It means that in these n% nature remains essentially unchanged, the same ecosystem remains on the same place."
If my reasoning is invalid, explain. In your answer to #330 I have seen no such objection. Now you take a short reference following a "remember" out of context, as if it would be the full argumentation. Crying many many times "you are completely wrong" is not an argument. Learn how to argue.
Every time with explicit proof, that means, with an explicit quote of your lie and an explicit correction. Quite different from your accusations, which you never prove.
BTW, nice to see how all the alarmist propagandists talk about the origins of my position. As if it would matter. I don't care at all if it is some Rep or some Dem propagandist, some Russian, German, or American, some communist, liberal, libertarian or fascist, who presents an argument, I care about the argument. Only those unable to argue against the arguments have to talk ad hominem about the origins of the evil arguments.
Which is why you label anyone who disagrees with you as fascists and terrorists, like all the Ukrainians and Syrians who want you to f--- off and leave them alone.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
BTW, iceaura wondered why I name him so often a liar. It is because of such postings, which is simply a long collection of lies.
And yet another lie: I have not claimed that a whole class of articles is identifiable as alarmist. I have given a criterion which allows to identify a particular article as alarmist, namely, that it hides the positive news related with the question considered in the article. Up to now, I have applied this criterion to mass media articles.
The guys in Ukraine which I name fascists are those which openly support the Ukrainian fascist Bandera, and openly see themselves in this tradition.
In Syria, I name terrorists those which have been declared terrorists by the UN, and those fighting on the same side, under the same command, in coalition which such terrorist organizations. That's all.
A lie, as said many times. And without evidence.
No. It is simply another lie. As far as it goes beyond trivialities, for example, there will be a correlation between me and the Reps in the use the word "coronavirus". That there is more than this natural correlation caused the events which happen in reality as the common cause is simply iceaura's fantasy.
Another lie: I have not made claims about any AGW research in general. None. Never. Whenever I have talked about scientific articles, I have made claims about the particular article in question. What I have named, explicitly, alarmist, are iceaura's claims, which he has not supported by anything, no quotes from articles (with reference to them) in support of his claims. My general claim has always been restricted to mass media. They, indeed, hide good news systematically.
And yet another lie: I have not claimed that a whole class of articles is identifiable as alarmist. I have given a criterion which allows to identify a particular article as alarmist, namely, that it hides the positive news related with the question considered in the article. Up to now, I have applied this criterion to mass media articles.
And again a repetition of the lie. The category includes iceaura, QQ and some other posters here. And the mass media. I have not yet named a single scientific peer-reviewed paper alarmist. I have not made any claims that something is ignored or overlooked or dismissed in scientific research.
I personally leave them alone. I have never been in Syria. Last time I have been in Ukraine was 2012, I have lived several months in Charkov and Odessa, quite a nice time. I had no problem speaking Russian, they all speak Russian there. The only problem was that one antifascist guy thought that, once I'm German, I'm a fascist. At that time, I found this absurd, such a thing has never happened during the five years of my studying in Moscow. Now I understand that this guy obviously had some conflicts with some real, open Bandera fascists.
The guys in Ukraine which I name fascists are those which openly support the Ukrainian fascist Bandera, and openly see themselves in this tradition.
In Syria, I name terrorists those which have been declared terrorists by the UN, and those fighting on the same side, under the same command, in coalition which such terrorist organizations. That's all.
Old news. Before that it lasted 4-8 years, now it lasts more than 12 years, and its rate of buildup is accelerating as the residence time lengthens. That's why there's twice as much of it in the air now as there was a hundred years ago.
The residence time is rising, as the breakdown cycles overload - methane is building up in the atmosphere. It's higher now than it was, it's increasing, and the increase seems to be accelerating. This is partly a consequence of the CO2 boost causing faster natural release of methane, and partly due to the direct anthro boost of methane itself that accompanies the CO2 boost.
Again: the problem with the anthro boosting is its rate - the natural breakdown cycles cannot keep up, with the CO2 or the methane or any of them.
You have had no experience with the thresholds in the article, or any of their consequences (also described in the article). You said you had, but you described some irrelevant borders of climate zones on mountains - so it's clear that you have not. You don't know what the article is talking about. The most likely explanation is that you have not read the article - you have in the past declared that you have no need to read such articles before posting about them, and that's what it looks like you're doing here.
I haven't changed anything in my posts. You claimed you had experience with the "thresholds" in that article - you didn't even know what they were. You still don't know what the article is talking about - exactly as if you hadn't read it. Not reading what I hand you is your standard practice, as you yourself have described. So - - - .
As if you could create a reality by typing.
The quotes are not even falsehoods, let alone lies.
If it remains "like today", it will continue to accelerate as it is doing today - and 2.4 meters would force hundreds of millions of people to move or die. Even 30 cm that quickly would do severe damage, forcing the evacuation of many large coastal cities and destroying most river delta farming (some of the most productive on the planet).
All that was your invention - nobody but you "defined" any such thing. It's not in the article, or any of my posting, or anywhere else you have mentioned.
And immediately after posting that invention or mistake or whatever that was, you accused me of lying.
I'm not arguing with you.
I'm just making sure the Republican propaganda inundating this forum and other such venues gets labeled the ignorant and deceptive bs it is, by somebody, over and over and over.
Why? Because that kind of propaganda wins by unopposed repetition, not argument; wins by wearing out the reasonable, not by reason. And I've seen what happens when the corporate rightwing authoritarian media feed wins too easily. So there's no reason to argue with it, and every reason to call it out with minimal effort.
And when an otherwise reasonably well-educated individual is spouting a stream of obvious one-sided lies and giving absurd inconsistent justifications for them, it's important not only to recognize and identify the fallacies, but to also correctly identify the thinly concealed underlying motives and beliefs. What propagandists like Schmelzer go around telling the world amounts to: "The truth isn't really the truth, and even if it really is true, we should all ignore it anyway."
He'll deny climate science to those willing to accept excuses for denying reality, and for the remainder, he hopes to persuade us that what he personally perceives as beneficial to Russia (warming, thawing, increased coastline access) is actually beneficial for everyone.
You have.
You have, for one example, made false claims (that impugn all AGW research and researchers) about how AGW researchers are biased (in general) by their funding sources and career pressures. And this has been pointed out to you four or five times now.
If I give you the benefit of the doubt, as CptBork recommends I do not, I will say that you don't know your claims are silly and ignorant because you don't know what AGW research "in general" is, you don't know how it's funded or by whom, and you don't know what kinds of career pressures on AGW researchers are most powerful.
It's still a tactic, though, however unintentional. And when you first did that, I actually went to the trouble of correcting your presumptions by digging up links and lists and reasons and names and dates and places and specific examples and so forth - I didn't catch on to the tactic for an embarrassingly long time. I have now.
You have no idea what the "mass media" (you are omitting the largest and most influential media operations) are hiding about AGW, because you don't know what's there to hide. Instead, you simply presume good news of the right kind and quantity must exist, and presume it is being hidden from you if you don't see it. That's a consequence of your gullibility with regard to US fascist propaganda - you were fed those presumptions by US professionals, including the presumption that you don't need to know anything about AGW to recognize bias in the media reports.
Last edited:
The living beings we are and rely on are our concern, not all possible forms of life that have been or could be.
The rate of increase of the CO2, not the absolute amount it will eventually reach, is what's threatening us now.
You've been reminded of that fact repeatedly - as have the rest of the denialists posting here. How many times do you think you will need reminding of that, before you quit posting bs on this topic?
Yes, you have.
Like I said - giving you the benefit of the doubt, you don't know anything about the scientific research or researchers in the field. You haven't even read the one article I linked (or you would have realized you "named" that paper and its authors "alarmist").
That criterion does not allow you to identify anything as alarmist - you are unable to recognize positive or negative news, and unable to identify what has been hidden and what has not.
You don't know which parts of a mass media article are straight from the research, and which are not. So you never know when you are (supposedly) applying your criterion to actual AGW research.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Of course, a permanent release of methane will lead to a higher level even if it is destroyed with time.
It is clear, and was explained, that my experience was with other thresholds (related with temperature and wind, not aridity) and their consequences. But the mechanism how these other thresholds lead to the borders between the different ecosystems is the same, namely, the relevant parameter changes continuously, and at the line where this parameter has a threshold appears a border between the ecosystems. This is quite trivial. Consider a non-constant, continuous level of aridity. There will be regions where it is below the threshold, and others there it is higher than the threshold. In both parts there will be the corresponding ecosystem. Their borders will be at the places where the aridity has the level of the threshold.
Given that this thing is so trivial, so primitive, I think you understand this very well, and you simply don't want to admit this. Your technique of endless repetition of "you don't understand this" and "you have not read" nonsense is a cheap attempt to hide that you cannot argue with the simple logic of the argument.
They are clearly false, and because I have in essentially all cases already repeatedly corrected these falsehoods, repeating them again is already an intentional distribution of these falsehoods, thus, lies.
If it remains like today it does not change, thus, not accelerate. And, no, 2.4 m would not force hundreds of millions of people to move.
Nonsense. 30 cm higher than expected is something easily dealt with if there is a flood if there are enough bags with sand prepared for such cases. In a hundred years, it is nothing. And river delta farming can be protected too. The Dutch are doing this since medieval times.
The 20% were defined in the article - regions becoming more arid and crossing thresholds. I have simply added the two other possibilities: regions with small changes so that no threshold is crossed, and regions becoming less arid and crossing thresholds. The two numbers are some unknown n, namely the n% not crossing thresholds, and the remaining number is, then, defined by (80-n)%.
You don't like this elementary definition, because whatever you would propose as the n, you would lose.
Quote me with link to the source, liar. Repeating falsehoods four or five times, despite corrections, is clearly distributing intentional lies.
And I don't have to care because I do not use arguments which depend on funding.
My general argument is that short time jobs for young scientists are catastrophic, they force young scientists, in their most productive years, to follow the mainstream of science instead of developing alternative approaches. This general economic argument works completely independent of the particular sources of the grants and so on, it is not the claim that they follow the ideological prejudices of the particular grant givers. If the grant givers would like to have followers doing research in their interest, they would have to give them permanent jobs. Without this, the scientist has to care, from the start, about the next job after the grant too, thus, he will follow the mainstream, not that particular grant giver.
There may be many more positive things I don't know. But I know enough positive things, and I have never seen them in the mass media. Except in some cheap attempts to diminish them in polemics against "deniers" (which there never allowed to deny themselves, one should not give such evil deniers any platforms, you know).
But, sorry, it is the absolute amount which defines how many corresponding acid there will be. If you think differently, explain, and please with a reference to a paper where the problem is explained. And if the acid corresponding to 2000 ppm is not problematic in itself, then why is some fast increase in a much lower region a problem?
Quote with link to the source, liar.
Further "you know nothing" bs disposed of.
I did.
You don't know any positive things for sure. You have no way of evaluating them. What you have posted here is ignorant falsehood.
Like this comedy:
The AGW researchers have investigated the consequences of a 30cm rise, and you are once again denying the research and science. You obviously have no clue, so we see yet more evidence that you know nothing about AGW or any of the research focused on AGW.
It is accelerating today. If it remains like today it will continue to accelerate as it is doing today.
You were wrong about the residence time, and now you are displaying ignorance of the risks involved in the accelerating buildup of methane.
Those were not thresholds. The article dealt with thresholds, which are different from the borders etc that you experienced.
It is irrelevant - the article deals with thresholds, not borders. There are no borders, necessarily, involved in what the article reports. Where there are borders, by chance, the mechanism is not the same.
Furthermore: The borders that do exist in the regions affected by threshold change certainly do not change "continuously", according to that report - the lack of continuity in such changes in the regions crossing thresholds is the major finding of the article. That's the threat, newly identified.
You have to read the article, if you want to make sense about it.
The article did not discuss those borders, which may or may not exist in the regions of importance, but instead dealt with the discovery of the thresholds and their consequences.
Your breakdown into 20% more arid, n% largely unchanged, and 80 - n% wetter, was utterly and completely mistaken - not only false, not only different from the article, but missing the entire point and all the implications of the discovery of those thresholds. It's likely you didn't read the article at all - how else to explain such a basic, elementary mistake?
Regions crossing thresholds, in one direction. Forget the aridity - it's confusing you.
Other regions (in the 80%) became significantly more arid without crossing any thresholds, and some of the regions crossing the thresholds became less arid by your definition (higher average rainfall, the bogus definition you insist on). The 20% was not the most arid or the most increased in aridity, but simply the expected area that will have crossed one or more thresholds.
You did. That's why I dug up the link to Lamar Alexander, the guy who controlled the Federal funding of climate research: to prove to you that you were wrong about the direction of political bias in the government funding of AGW research. You ignored it, and kept right on blathering about the neoliberal deep state and world government and yadda yadda yadda.
Because it's happening now, and doing a lot of damage, and soon to do more.
That's the threat from AGW, and the CO2 boost generally: it's happening too fast for any natural process to keep up.
Not to point out the obvious, but . . . .
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
One-line claims without further support - the usual form of lies of this liar - disposed of
The thread of sudden changes of the ecosystem at a given point if the climate changes continuously is something I have understood as a child in the mountains. This is not new at all. What is new are the particular, specific results about these particular thresholds.
Of course, at a fixed point the change is a sudden one.
First, no, I don't forget the aridity. Because this was what the article was about. To quote the article I haven't read according to you:
Second, I do not use higher average rainfall as a definition of less arid. Higher rainfall increases the probability that the region becomes less arid in the definition used in the paper. (That's boring. Iceaura invents arbitrary what I use as a definition and then objects that this is not the definition in the article.)
I cannot deny science and research because you have not referred to any science and research. All what is denied is an unsupported claim of iceaura.
Nonsense. If a rise remains like today, it will not change, but remain constant. BTW, it was explicitly said what it remains: "the rise would be, if it remains like today (3 mm/year)".
I were not wrong, but I have given a quote from a peer-reviewed research paper, with reference. So, up to now we have peer-reviewed research vs. iceaura's claim. Feel free to support your claim with corresponding quotes from the peer-reviewed literature, with reference. Even this would not change the fact that even in the worst case I have simply quoted a scientific paper which made a wrong claim.
The article did not deal with the borders, but I had to deal with them to explain you your "no warning" error.
LOL. If the article does not deal with borders, it cannot make claims about what happens with the borders. In particular, it cannot make claims that the borders change continuously or not. So, it becomes clear that it is you who have not read the paper. You obviously don't even know how to lie about its content consistently.
The thread of sudden changes of the ecosystem at a given point if the climate changes continuously is something I have understood as a child in the mountains. This is not new at all. What is new are the particular, specific results about these particular thresholds.
Of course, at a fixed point the change is a sudden one.
Again you lie. Once I have already corrected your obviously misleading claim about what I use as the definitions, referring you to #330, but you continue to present the short mem following a "remember" as a definition, this is already an intentional lie.
Now you decide to make up the definitions in another way?
First, no, I don't forget the aridity. Because this was what the article was about. To quote the article I haven't read according to you:
So, the context "aridification" shows that the 20% are the area of the terrestrial surface which crosses at least one threshold toward aridification. But, ok, if in your interpretation (which would follow your tradition of out of context misinterpretation) the 20% refers to all areas where thresholds are crossed, independent of the direction, then for the remaining 80% the climate change is not a problem at all up to 2100 (not even the ecosystem changes), and the 20% number gives us nothing at all, given that we don't know how this distributed into parts becoming more arid and parts becoming wetter. We would have yet to guess how many of the 20% cross the threshold toward more are or more wet.
Second, I do not use higher average rainfall as a definition of less arid. Higher rainfall increases the probability that the region becomes less arid in the definition used in the paper. (That's boring. Iceaura invents arbitrary what I use as a definition and then objects that this is not the definition in the article.)
Your memories why you have dug up whatever argument does not mean that it was a valid argument. Your confusion between the pressure toward the scientific mainstream and toward a particular spending existed at that time too.
So, we hear that all the animals and plants of the oceans, which have evolved during times when CO2 was much higher than today, have, once CO2 decreased, all changed their response to acidity levels in such a way that an acidity far below the level at that time is now a deadly danger, if it increases a little bit but very fast. And that is not because of some special strange property of a response to acidity levels, but simply that the process is happening very fast. Ok. And you wonder that I name such nonsense alarmism?
CptBrk seems to think that China has suicidal tendencies. As if it would not be much easier to conquer the rest of Asia except Russia, given the Russian ability for self-defense.
O
Ocelot
Guest
Schmelzer, sorry but when I read your posts, The voice of Trump is going through my head.
You might think it sounds intelligent as you’re writing it but I can assure you, it comes across as complete dribble. Trump style dribble, all authoritarian in delivery but with no substance at all, no facts, no clue, all bluster.
You are on a science forum for fuck’s sake.
You really need to realise you are way out of your depth.
You might think it sounds intelligent as you’re writing it but I can assure you, it comes across as complete dribble. Trump style dribble, all authoritarian in delivery but with no substance at all, no facts, no clue, all bluster.
You are on a science forum for fuck’s sake.
You really need to realise you are way out of your depth.
My bad, you're absolutely right. 1.3 billion Chinese will just sit there starving and drowning to death, with 100 million Russians occupying their lands happily pumping out the oil there to keep the crisis going and the cash flowing, because China has no ability to do anything militarily. It would require at least 300 nukes just to take out Moscow and St. Petersburg, tens of thousands more to wipe out the remaining 5 places in Russia that matter.
Sounds weird hearing Donald Trump speak with a Russian accent doesn't it?
O
Ocelot
Guest
I know. As easy as it is to do Russian accent, (especially when you’ve got a Russian wife as a reference), Trump would fuck it up royally.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The point is not the Chinese ability to destroy something in Russia (they have it), but the Russian second strike ability, which guarantees that after the victory over Russia China is no longer a country where it is worth to live.
I would recommend you to seek medical help.
If you are unable to follow a scientific argumentation, and it sounds like dribble to you, I'm sorry for you. Education may help, but even this is without warranty, say, some gender studies or so would certainly not help. Of course, most of what you read here are trivial personal attacks, and on this level I don't think that my defenses sound very good, I'm not a specialist at this, moreover I'm not a native speaker. Iceaura is clearly much more experienced in dirty propaganda techniques. (I have to admit that I have learned a lot about how such techniques work - unfortunately this is knowledge not very usable for me.)