What climate change is not

[Schmelzer]

As you seem to have forgotten once again: I am not arguing with you.

And I'm not arguing with you. I simply explain what a civilized, educated person would have to do.

The aim is to teach the public how to distinguish propagandists from reasonable persons participating in a civilized discussion.

 

[paddoboy]

The aim is to teach the public how to distinguish propagandists from reasonable persons participating in a civilized discussion.

Perhaps the fly in the ointment here is the fact that this is in the eye of the beholder...

 

[Quantum Quack]

And I'm not arguing with you. I simply explain what a civilized, educated person would have to do.

The aim is to teach the public how to distinguish propagandists from reasonable persons participating in a civilized discussion.

Did you notice the record breaking heat in Cuba?
Thoughts?

 

[Schmelzer]

Did you notice the record breaking heat in Cuba?
Thoughts?

No, I do not care about particular weather events. Why should I care about it? Don't forget that I do not question that there is some global warming.

 

[iceaura]

. I simply explain what a civilized, educated person would have to do.

Only if arguing. I'm not arguing.

Don't forget that I do not question that there is some global warming.

You consistently deny the evidence and findings of those who research and analyze anthropogenic global warming. You also refuse to read their reports, or learn about what they have found and concluded.

Here is another example - one of the dozens in this thread I have not mentioned yet:

The early warning will be that the border toward the more arid ecosystem moves toward the place. It depends, of course, on the particular circumstances what is a dangerous distance to such a border.

The article I handed you explicitly and specifically found that no such borders are involved in the threshold crossing, and that any such borders that exist probably will not move and certainly not move in a consistent direction - instead, some entire regions that are becoming more arid will suddenly and simultaneously and without notice (except for the climate trend itself ) cross thresholds of aridity and see their resident systems change to a very different kind. The "borders", if they exist in a particular case, will not move - they will disappear, if the other side is already in the new ecological state, or continue to exist, if it isn't and does not cross the same threshold itself. Entire regions will change - the expected and most likely event is that 20% of the land surface of the planet will cross one or more of these thresholds.

That was the major finding and warning of the article. What you asserted in that quote directly contradicts it, without argument or evidence or even acknowledgment. That's called "denial".
- - - -

There are many models/hypotheses of climate change.
Never underestimate the value of empirical evidence.

You also, like Schmelzer, ignore and deny the research and findings of those investigating AGW.

Sculptor's standard mode of denial is more subtle than Schmelzer's - sculptor is careful to make no idiotic claims themself, but instead to present information well known among AGW researchers and analysts (even discovered by them) as if it had been overlooked or ignored, and present it in such a way as to confuse the timelines and geographical regions involved -

thereby creating a fog of implausible implication and false innuendo which sculptor can plausibly deny if cornered, while damaging the credibility of the researchers in the field without at any time contrasting sculptor's own (completely unsupported) claims with theirs. That is a bit less honest than Schmelzer's approach, in which areas of ignorance (used as evidence of nonexistence) and omissions (used as denials of existence) are overt and even boasted.

 

[Schmelzer]

Iceaura continues to lie, but in this post we find an exceptionally large collection of explicit lies:

You consistently deny the evidence and findings of those who research and analyze anthropogenic global warming. You also refuse to read their reports, or learn about what they have found and concluded.

Two sentences, two lies.

The article I handed you explicitly and specifically found that no such borders are involved in the threshold crossing, and that any such borders that exist probably will not move and certainly not move in a consistent direction - instead, some entire regions that are becoming more arid will suddenly and simultaneously and without notice (except for the climate trend itself ) cross thresholds of aridity and see their resident systems change to a very different kind.

Another lie. Even several. You did not hand me the article explicitly, I had to search for it myself. And, of course, the article itself found no such things.

That was the major finding and warning of the article. What you asserted in that quote directly contradicts it, without argument or evidence or even acknowledgment. That's called "denial".

And yet another lie. I have explicitly and in many postings presented arguments, quoted the article itself. In fact, the article uses essentially the same method which I have proposed and defended - to use the existing evidence in space (in particular the borders between ecosystems in space) to make predictions about time.

These are all examples of explicit lies, given the discussion above everybody can see that these are not accidental misinterpretations or so, but intentional lies.

 

[iceaura]

I have explicitly and in many postings presented arguments, quoted the article itself.

You have not presented arguments justifying your contradictions of the article's findings or analysis, or any other findings of AGW research.

You have not even acknowledged when and where your assertions conflict with AGW research reports.

You did not hand me the article explicitly

I gave you the publication, location, and date. You have not read it yet, apparently - you certainly have no idea of its contents (granted that could be inability to comprehend).

And I have quoted your explicit failure to do that, several times - most recently in post 425, where I quoted you posing this:

The early warning will be that the border toward the more arid ecosystem moves toward the place. It depends, of course, on the particular circumstances what is a dangerous distance to such a border.

That was merely the easiest example for me to repeat here - directly above your latest denial and slander, scroll up from here one post.

 

[Schmelzer]

You have not presented arguments justifying your contradictions of the article's findings or analysis, or any other findings of AGW research. You have not even acknowledged when and where your assertions conflict with AGW research reports.

Once there are no such contradictions (or at least you have not presented any evidence that they exist) I don't have to present them. Of course, if you would present some evidence for such contradictions, I would take a look at the papers and, if necessary, correct my position. Once you fail to do this, but present only unsupported alarmist nonsense, there is no reason for me to care.

I gave you the publication, location, and date. You have not read it yet, apparently - you certainly have no idea of its contents (granted that could be inability to comprehend).

The journal issue contained a lot of articles, thus, your information was not sufficient, but required additional research. That's why citations in scientific articles are given in a different format, and an article giving references in your form would have been rejected by any reasonable journal. But, ok, no problem, I have done this additional research, found a place where the content of some suspect papers was accessible, and downloaded them.

And I have quoted your explicit failure to do that, several times - most recently in post 425

Except that you were unable to show that this was a failure. There is only your claim that it is false, that's all. No quote from the article which supports your opinion that it is false, no own argument - despite the fact that I have given explicit arguments in favor of this claim, and shown that it is in agreement with the method used in the article itself.

 

[iceaura]

Once there are no such contradictions (or at least you have not presented any evidence that they exist)

I handed you an entire published paper, peer reviewed and journal published and admirably extensive for this thread, every result and finding of which you immediately contradicted.
You have by turns denied the entire contents of that article.
And now you claim that I made the last forty years of AGW research vanish, by not posting links to it here.
My superpowers triumph once again, making all of reality go away so you can't find out what AGW is and what the researchers say about it.

The journal issue contained a lot of articles, thus, your information was not sufficient,

The article's information was sufficient. So is the rest of the information in the several links I have posted here, and all of the research reports and articles available to you easily and at no cost on the internet.

Except that you were unable to show that this was a failure.

So?
More of my superpowers, apparently. Whatever I don't show doesn't exist. Cool.

The aim is to teach the public how to distinguish propagandists from reasonable persons participating in a civilized discussion.

I do believe you are succeeding, in a limited sense.

Starting with the fact that propagandists deny physical reality, and repetitively assert falsehoods - the more ridiculous the better, often, as the bigger and more embarrassing the falsehood the more completely the target becomes dependent on the propagandist (nobody but the US fascist media feed is going to pat them on the head and make them feel smart for believing monsoons illustrate the "volatility" expected from AGW, for example).

t I have given explicit arguments in favor of this claim, and shown that it is in agreement with the method used in the article itself.

You have not.
You have simply posted wrong assertions and errors of reasoning that all of AGW research, the entire body of scientific research in the field including that particular research report, contradicts. (including your link and the article I handed you and the other half dozen links I posted for you here) without a shred of argument or evidence that you have even read any of it.

About AGW you - like the other media fed denialists on this topic - post falsehoods of two kinds: 1) You get the physical facts wrong 2) You get the reported findings of AGW research wrong - you mislabel the contents of the published scientific reports in that field.

I don't know why you get the physical facts wrong, for sure, except to note that you make the same errors and post the same idiocy in the same vocabulary and with the same "reasoning" as one finds in the standard US Republican Party media feed (such as "optimal temperature"). You can see the obvious conclusion anyone familiar with both the physical reality and the Republican schtick would draw, by the tenth or twelfth time they read your posting here. Coincidence all these years strains credulity.

I do know - because you have explained it to me so many times - why you get the contents of AGW research reports wrong: it's because you have not read the primary literature, and the secondary only as propaganda. You are proud of that - proud of your ability to glean "information" from what you have labeled "propaganda". So you end up with no base in physical reality from which to evaluate - or even recognize - AGW reports published by honest, thorough, competent, unbiased, and completely sober researchers.

And so you end up labeling the entire body of research in the field "alarmism", and every researcher in it an "alarmist".

And that is the goal of the US Republican media operations - they want to control the communication between scientists and laymen, frame and label where they cannot censor outright all research findings of economic or political import. You are one of their tools.

 

[sculptor]

Read the IPCC mission statement.

 

[iceaura]

Read the IPCC mission statement.

Ignore innuendo.

If they have anything to say, make sure they say it. No lifeboats, no deniability.

 

[Schmelzer]

Let's see what remains after disposing repetitions of old lies. Yes, this time I have disposed these line sentence by sentence, whenever I have found not only a lie, but a repetition of a lie which I have already corrected, some of them many times. The result is this:

(nobody but the US fascist media feed is going to pat them on the head and make them feel smart for believing monsoons illustrate the "volatility" expected from AGW, for example).

As usual, nothing but the claim that I'm wrong, that's all. Not any attempt to explain what is wrong. Iceaura style criticism.

Whatever, I can use this to give some information about volatility. Volatility is a pure numerical characterization of the expected variability over some period, which has to be specified. We have to care about the variability, given that the infrastructure has to be able to handle the extremes, it would be obviously not sufficient to have infrastructure which works fine only with the average. The variables considered, as well as the time periods considered, are those which are relevant for the infrastructure in question. For the crops in a particular garden, a very heavy rain over an hour may be much worse than the same amount of water distributed over the whole day, but for the water level in a large river, a very heavy rain taken alone is not dangerous at all, large averages over a week or so are more dangerous. The period considered also depends on what is relevant: For most things, a year is a reasonable choice, it is clear that the infrastructure has to survive winter as well as summer. For some climate change considerations, much longer periods may be relevant. Once I care about the infrastructure which is required, to consider the period of one year is not unreasonable, and if what is considered is the average over a hour, a day, or a week does not really matter for the result. I will use here months simply because it is easy to get the relevant data.

In the tropical area, we have usually a time when we have no rain at all, several months, so the lower bound is nothing. And we have another time, also several months, when it is raining almost every day (blue line for rainy days per month):

We have to compare this with the typical European climate. In this climate, there are no such periods completely without rain, in principle it can rain every day, and the differences between the different months are not that great:

So, the volatility of "rainy days per month" is much greater in Bombay than in Paris.

Let's note that volatility is something different from predictability. Alarmists like to present high volatility as meaning the weather would be unpredictable. That's natural, unpredictability gives quite horrible feelings, which is what alarmists want to create. But volatility is simply a characteristic of a given curve which can be computed automatically. It depends on the curve. If the curve can be predicted or not does not change anything in the volatility. So, if tomorrow some genius finds a formula which allows to compute all those observed curves accurately, the volatility would not change even a little bit.

And this is essentially a necessity. Given that one cannot predict what will be predictable by scientists in 100 years, it would be impossible to make predictions for volatility during a climate change if it would somehow depend on predictability. But predictions about an increase of volatility don't have to care at all about predictability. Of course, both are not completely unrelated - if something is considered to be unpredictable from the start, then it is volatility which defines the related risks.

But don't forget the "if" here. The weather in the tropics may be much more predictable than in Europe. But the volatility of the rainfall will be nonetheless higher in the tropics.

 

[iceaura]

So, the volatility of "rainy days per month" is much greater in Bombay than in Paris.

You don't know what the scientists are talking about when they talk about volatility.

As usual, nothing but the claim that I'm wrong, that's all.

Yep.
That's what posting in such complete ignorance, while repeatedly refusing to learn better, while demanding that other people try to educate you against your firm opposition to learning anything, earns as a response.

The fact is that you have all the information you need to verify that you are ignorant in this matter - that you haven't read the literature, or learned the basic terms, or followed the arguments. You know that already. So what would you guess are the odds that anything you say is correct?

Volatility is a pure numerical characterization of the expected variability over some period, which has to be specified.

No, it isn't.

The variables considered, as well as the time periods considered, are those which are relevant for the infrastructure in question

No, they aren't.

Let's note that volatility is something different from predictability.

Thread relevance: Anthropogenic "clmate change" is not what you say it is. Anyone who wants to know what "climate change" is not can find part of the answer in your posts.

 

[Schmelzer]

The usual "no you are wrong" post expected from iceaura, zero bit information because that reaction is independent of the content of my posts, it could have been easily written by a bot.

 

[billvon]

Did you notice the record breaking heat in Cuba?
Thoughts?

It was pretty hot.

Again, single instances do not a pattern make. Since 1980 there have been records for cold broken as well. The important part is the overall pattern.

 

[iceaura]

We have to compare this with the typical European climate.

Not to assess volatility.

So, the volatility of "rainy days per month" is much greater in Bombay than in Paris.

No, if isn't - at least, it wasn't, before AGW.

The usual "no you are wrong" post expected from iceaura, zero bit information because that reaction is independent of the content of my posts, it could have been easily written by a bot.

You posted a few falsehoods, I reminded you that they were false.

Once I care about the infrastructure which is required, to consider the period of one year is not unreasonable, and if what is considered is the average over a hour, a day, or a week does not really matter for the result.

It matters when the volatility increases.
You keep drawing invalid inferences from averages - that's characteristic of the media feed that is your sole source of posted info, but a bit strange from someone supposedly familiar with technical material.
Anyway, thread relevance:

The fact is that you have all the information you need to verify that you are ignorant in this matter - that you haven't read the literature, or learned the basic terms, or followed the arguments. You know that already. So what would you guess are the odds that anything you say is correct?

Thread relevance: Anthropogenic "clmate change" is not what you say it is. Anyone who wants to know what "climate change" is not can find part of the answer in your posts.

 

[Schmelzer]

The fact is that you have all the information you need to verify that you are ignorant in this matter - that you haven't read the literature, or learned the basic terms, or followed the arguments. You know that already. So what would you guess are the odds that anything you say is correct?

No, I have no information of this type. I have only claims of some alarmist, who has never cared about supporting his claims with any evidence, and tries to find out if Goebbels is correct with his idea that repeating even obvious lies often enough is enough to make people believe this.

The odds that what I say is correct are quite large, given that several people here strongly oppose what I say, but nobody has been able to present evidence in conflict with what I said. In fact, by researching a little bit more about some of my claims I found even stronger evidence than I have expected in favor of my claims. This happened already several times. So, I simply thought, without researching, but based on common sense, that salination is not something which becomes more problematic with AGW. Then I have found that, instead, more precipitation (predicted by AGW) even improves the situation, and this happens even if the additional rain is volatile, and most of the water flows away without being used for plant growing.

Not to assess volatility.

To access differences in volatility for different climates.

 

[Write4U]

Then I have found that, instead, more precipitation

That is debatable. It depends on many other conditions.

But even if that is true, what is so good about more precipitation? In the deserts a couple of time a year yes.
In tropical rainforests an over-abundance of rain may well be disasterous.
Negative Effects of Rainy Weather

A good rainstorm nourishes plants, replenishes local water supplies and provides the perfect backdrop for curling up with your favorite book. Of course, as with anything else, too much rain can lead to a host of problems, many of which can linger long after the storm ends. In addition to the obvious impact on mood and outdoor activities, excess rain brings negative effects for wildlife, the environment and even the economy.

https://sciencing.com/negative-effects-rainy-weather-4791.html

In any case, ignoring warning signs of "climate change" is a dangerous path that may lead to some very unpleasant and unexpected consequences. As far as climate is concerned, ignore it at your peril.

Climate change is NOT trivial.

 

[sculptor]

What climate change is not:

well understood
apolitical
objectively examined
viewed in context
etc...

 

[CptBork]

What climate change is not:

well understood

Because, again, being able to make accurate predictions is just a fluke? You still haven't explained why you think current climate models are having such success with forecasting and hindcasting data. I'm still curious how you think this degree of understanding compares to the degree of understanding of the human mind exhibited by psychologists and psychiatrists who vote diseases in and out of existence? Do you look at MRI's of peoples' brains and say "boy, if this guy gets dumped by his girlfriend or loses his job, he's gonna have one hell of an awful time"?

apolitical

Right because on one side you have scientists making accurate calculated predictions with some tree huggers happening to cheer them on in the background, while on the other side you have studies sponsored by oil companies and bellicose pronouncements made by people who can't even mathematically model a game of rock paper scissors.

objectively examined

That's right, a whole bunch of different teams of world-leading mathematicians and physicists running their own simulations got similar results because they each individually chose to tweak the laws of fluids and thermodynamics until they got something that would piss Republicans off. Given how much money would be offered to the first scientist who could objectively demonstrate why we can safely ignore everything and live however the hell we want for as long as we want, it sure seems strange that more of them aren't taking up the offer.

viewed in context

That's right. We don't know yet whether humans can collectively adapt to life at 50 Celsius in the desert, so until we've crossed that bridge let's not get too excited.