What climate change is not
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Of course, not. The world record in rain per min is about 3 cm/min, that for 24 hour is 1,820 mm, so that your number is anyway alarmists fantasy. The question if the infrastructure I have considered survives (terraces in the mountains) depends on its ability to survive short heavy peaks. How long they last, 1 h or 24 h or one week, does not matter for this structure, it matters elsewhere downstream. But an extreme amount in short time could, in principle, destroy such a structure somewhere at the foot of the mountain.
The message is, torrential rains in itself are not the problem. If they are a problem or not depends on the regional circumstances and the infrastructure in question.
Who cultivates wheat in a climate where such things appear regularly? Reunion, where that record happened, cultivated sugar. Note, this is by nature a place for a lot of heavy rain, an island around two quite high mountains.
Are you suggesting the growing of wheat on terraces on sides of mountains?
Corn? Soy bean?
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
O
Ocelot
Guest
But you are suggesting building dikes to stop sea level rise, etc., etc.
And you keep saying everyone who points out to you the clear science is an alarmist.
‘Alarmist fantasy’ seems to be your mantra.
What should we say about you?
Denialist Woo Woo?
I know, I know, you’re not a denialist!
Guess that leaves us with Woo Woo.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Of course, these are reasonable, realistic ways to solve such problems if they appear. This is my point against alarmism: Let's look at the details, without panicking, see what is predicted, and see which existing technologies can solve these problems.
No. I have not questioned scientific papers presented here. I may sometimes reject a particular scientific paper, say, if the paper estimates the harm of climate change for agriculture, and it follows from the method used to estimate it that it presupposes that the people don't change anything (say, switching to other crops more adequate for the new climate). But these are exceptions, not the rule. The rule is that I accept the results of the scientific papers presented.
I apply it regularly to iceaura, who posts a lot of such fantasies but never supports them with scientific evidence. Sometimes I apply it to QQ, like above, if he asks me about what to do with an example of rain which beats the world record.
Whatever your own ideology (or your paymasters) prescribes. I couldn't care less how you name me, given that you provide no arguments at all. I'm not writing here with the aim to be named a good guy.
You're like the guy who nailed the fire escape doors shut in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory.
"This factory cannot possibly burn down; anyone who claims it can is an alarmist who has baseless fantasies of unstoppable flames. If a minor fire starts we can take simple, commonsense measures like taking the nails out of the door. Since my factory has never burned down before, there is zero evidence that it ever will. And you want me to waste money on fire escapes and sprinkler systems based on these unsupported claims? Sure, there are all these studies that show that nailing fire doors shut is a bad idea. But until I have hard proof that people in my factory are actually dying, I am not going to buy into some fantasy that everyone is going to die."
O
Ocelot
Guest
You see, I love Schmelzer’s positivity, sort of like - if you got shot through the chest, you’d have a lovely new air vent in your shirt.
Seeing solutions to everything.
Seeing solutions to everything.
It's ok if a few million people die here or there, it will help combat potential fertilizer shortages.
According to the researchers in the matter, they are a problem in the circumstances and with the infrastructure available in all the major agricultural regions of the planet. So are the extra extremes of hail, snow, fog, and other manifestations of AGW.
The researchers expect all subjected agriculture (including pastoral, abetted foraging, salt and freshwater farming, orchardry and forestry, as well as row crops and fenced animal husbandry) to be on average seriously damaged by the expected extra precipitation from AGW, as well as the expected increase in drought and aridity.
Or irregularly, if frequent enough.
Nobody, of course. Hence some of the expected damage from AGW.
That's not a presupposition - it's a finding from evidence. You deny the evidence, and the findings, of those papers. You do that without argument or evidence of your own (your notion that people can simply switch to different crops to match the effects of AGW is of course simply ignorance on your part - you don't know anything about agriculture, and you don't know anything about AGW, either one.)
You have flatly denied the recorded evidence, findings, and arguments, of every scientific paper I have referred you to on this forum. In the case of AGW research papers you have also labeled them "alarmist" - every single one of them.
Like this:
Not AGW. Not in the paper I referred you to earlier here - or in any other paper in the field.
You are once again denying the evidence, arguments, and findings of the scientific research in the field. Notice that you present no argument, no evidence, no support whatsoever - as always, you simply declare things to be the case that are not, in fact, the case.
Notice that you do not acknowledge the research into AGW even when its findings agree with your claims.
For example, a recent report you could have found (would have, with the smallest effort) during a recent discussion here contained a reassurance that the methane bomb threat was not increasing as rapidly as feared from the sudden sharp rise in methane and its increasing residence time.
That report supported your claim (otherwise unsupported) that methane was unlikely to rise catastrophically, by reporting that researchers had found the major sources of the recent increase and they were anthropic, industrial, not thawing hydrates or other natural feedback sources. So the recent sharp increase is not feedback, and therefore not the early phase of the methane bomb. That's good news, eh? (The threat remains, of course, but at its original low probability - you are still in denial, but not as flagrantly).
You not only fail to notice such things, but you go on to label the entire body of AGW research "alarmist" for not including them - when they are right in front of your face.
And in that key and characteristic denial you again mimic - perfectly - the Republican Party media feed that has framed public discussion in the US for decades.
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
You ain't exactly been following the bouncing ball, have you daddio
I've been following it. I just haven't taken any of the detours away from the issue that you have tried to send people on. Excellent try, though, and some great strawmen!
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The differences:
I don't reject any studies. I reject only iceaura's claims once they are not supported by any links to some studies.
I do not try to nail something. I reject only ideas to spend trillions or so of money for something which may be completely useless.
And I do all this not because I want to save my money. My money are not involved in this at all. I see that the mass media are full of lies about this. I see an intentional, well-coordinated campaign to create panic, not simply harmless exaggerations. And I think it is a moral obligation to fight such dangerous media campaigns.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
No, only according to iceaura. If these fantasy researchers exist remains unknown, given that no quotes and no references are presented. Further similar nonsense, combined with the usual lies, disposed of. But this particular thing is too funny to delete it:
LOL, switching crops becomes something modern peasants are unable to do. You know, in the past, before fertilizers, there was an established technique to switch regularly between different crops. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-field_system Modern education makes peasants so stupid that they cannot even do what has been done all the time in medieval times?
Ok, for some questions, like the increase of the sea level if the Antarctica melts completely, the time scale is not hundreds but thousands of years. I have given the references (you not).
Nonsense. I acknowledge research, if presented. I ignore your claims, even if they agree with me, because there is no evidence presented.
Fine but useless for me, once you refuse to give the references. I do not play hide and seek games with scientific references, once you have not given it, it is as if it does not exist. Learn to behave in a civilized way instead of playing childish games.
How many billions of times I have to repeat the corrections until you stop repeating these lies? I don't deny any research, and I have not labeled research alarmist. It is you personally who has been labeled an alarmist. Not the researchers which appear in your fantasies, or may be in reality too, but one cannot know and given your history of explicit lies it is not very probable. Research which you have not presented here in a civilized way simply does not count as research. Nice that you add something positive to your usual alarmist fantasies, but if there is really something positive in real research or if this your trick to present yourself as neutral and objective remains unclear. What has been presented here is only your fantasies.
Coming back to this point because I never addressed it. Water doesn't just stop at the beach, it soaks into the ground and carries salt with it. Higher ocean level = more salt in the ground further inland. You can't prevent that by building dikes, it would take far more. That's of course in addition to the increasing salinity of agricultural land in dry areas as the fresh water sources dry up and they're forced to dig ever deeper into the ground for more.
a world record that will be more frequently broken..as evaporation rates (land and sea) increase globally...
3 cm a minute equates to 180 cm ( 1.8 meters ) and hour.
Even half of that is enough to kill off major agriculture , especially as it is happening every 2 or 3 years and in an unpredictable fashion.
In 10 years from now what sort of rainfall record are you anticipating?
You explicitly reject all studies accurately reported by me, on the grounds that I am your only source of information about them.
That's stupid, of course - but you are the one claiming to do that:
So?
I was referring to your latest attempt to claim that the "climate change" at issue here - the subject matter of this thread - takes hundreds of years.
That claim is an obvious error: AGW is happening right now, year by year, and the researchers explicitly find that serious - even disastrous - climate change from AGW is not just possible but expected more than once within the next few decades. According to all the research so far, including specific articles you claim to have read, climate change from AGW is not taking and will not take hundreds of years.
But your attempt to deflect was anticipated; that's why I posted the quote, to base my reply. I do so again. This quote of yours is wrong. You are making a false claim here:
The time scale for AGW climate change is single digits of years - two orders of magnitude faster than your claim.
That is wrong.
Water that runs away on the surface instead of soaking through the topsoil (as happens in desertified regions, ones that have crossed that aridity threshold you still haven't bothered to figure out) will not "wash away" salt (or the nutrients and soil organisms that crops need, leaching it of its value as cropland - desert soils are usually more fertile than rain forest soils, better for agriculture, because they get less rain and it mostly runs off ).
Meanwhile: Soil that is salinated by sea level rise usually will not recover its fertility from being heavily rained on a couple of times. It often will not even lose its salt, even while being eroded and leached otherwise - the searise salt water is always there, contaminating the aquifer, rising into the water table and above, surging with every king tide and heavy storm, while the AGW rain is occasional and unreliable, while the lost nutrients and topsoil biomes take decades and centuries to build up. It certainly will not function as productive farmland any time soon - the farmers will move or die.
Agricultural people have always, for thousands of years, badly needed more good soil for agriculture. Humans have been battling the destruction of soil fertility by ill-informed or ill-motivated farming and pastoral practices for thousands of years. In Hardin's original Tragedy the commons chosen as a familiar example was grazing land.
If there is even one record of any agricultural people ignoring a nearby tract of newly desalinated fertile land - it would be obvious to even casual observation from a distance, as soon as the salt somehow disappeared - I would be flat out astonished; farmers are not nearly as oblivious to physical reality as propagandists.
These little fairy tales we get from fans of unregulated private corporate capitalism and readers of the first few chapters of an elementary economics textbook are sweet, but we are not children here.
As they have with other such afflicted industry, insurance companies will obtain government protection or abandon the market - if they can't make enough money to offset the risk, they leave. Farmers will be forced to rely on their governments, as they always have in the past - all successful farming, herding, even abetted or enhanced foraging, has always been heavily controlled and regulated by a government. It doesn't survive, otherwise.
And nobody will switch from wheat to trees because of predicted insurance premium hikes caused by volatile and damaging weather. Trees, like most long term investments, are higher risk in a more volatile climate. People can't eat them. And they do not sell in the same market, to the same people, via the same financing, etc.
Once again your imagination has not been informed by physical fact, but instead provided with a script.
And that level of ignorance, that body of mutually reinforcing fantasy, is the common presumption of Republican Party media feeds from hired professionals, has been for decades now. They are inculcating it, providing for its defense against attack, and widening the scope of its influence, intentionally.
So?
You have, as I posted and considered in some detail, denied the evidence, analyses, and findings of AGW researchers - the body of AGW research and climate change science of the past fifty plus years, as puglished in peer-reviewed journals etc.
You have also denied, explicitly, the findings and analyses of every scientific paper I have referred you to, and every finding of AGW researchers you have seen and acknowledged as posted on this forum.
By "denied", I do not mean argued against or analyzed unfavorably - I mean posting such as I just quoted, and other similar attempts at deflection and misrepresentation and innuendo.
And you can see similar posts here, similar strawmen and bs innuendos, from others, all of them repetitions of the media feed from the one American body of political sources.