What climate change is not

[Write4U]

Interesting to note that "fallowing' the land is more productive over long periods of time. The problem with GW and Pollution is our wanton greed for profit. Hence we force everything to grow faster , bigger, with more artificial lethal chemicals to resist infestations (think DDT) without regard for long term consequences.

Fallow Fields — An Argument for Letting Your Creativity Rest
May 18, 2016 By Kristan Hoffman

“tired field” by Pea Chesh

Set-aside, unlike the bureaucratic language that surrounds it, isn’t actually a new concept. ‘Fallow’ periods were traditionally used by farmers to maintain the natural productivity of their land. The benefits of leaving land fallow for extended periods include rebalancing soil nutrients, re-establishing soil biota, breaking crop pest and disease cycles, and providing a haven for wildlife.

Like many rural skills, the technique evolved along with a sustainable model of settled agriculture that supported the UK’s population for well over 3,000 years. Up until 1939 it was estimated that 800,000 ha of British countryside was voluntarily placed under fixed or rotational fallows at any time. The idea seems bizarre now, that less than a generation ago British farmers would have had the freedom, let alone the financial security, to improve their land in this way.

The fact is farmers are no longer trusted to use their own judgement in managing the British countryside. If they were, set-aside areas would still be managed as the most effective means of building soil fertility. Inevitably, however, fallow farming has been deemed ‘uneconomic’ by the same logic that has seen agricultural imports and exports increase by 74 and 55 per cent respectively since 1962..........more

https://theecologist.org/2008/jun/20/fallow-and-fertile

 

[Schmelzer]

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.

It depends on the dike. A simple dike made up by throwing stones and sand and so on into the ground will let a lot of sea water go through into the groundwater. But if there is some part of it made out of concrete so that water cannot go through, and this concrete goes sufficiently deep, there will be not much that goes through.

Anyway, the standard way to handle it is to pump the water which comes through back into the sea. All one needs is to hold the groundwater level near the dike quite low, lower than deep inside. Then the groundwater flow will be from the land toward the dike. So, except for a small region near the dike itself there will be no saltwater.

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?

In ten years I expect no major changes. Records are exceptions, it would be stupid to try to predict them. As mentioned, that record tropical island around a mighty mountain, the ideal attraction for heavy rains quite often, had agriculture (sugar). (Actually tourism seems more attractive.)

As explained many times, the increase in volatility is something you can see on the ground now. Look at the temperatures predicted at your location, say, in 100 years. Go to areas where these predicted temperatures are the actual ones. Observe the volatility at that place. This is the volatility you can expect in 100 years. This method fails only for the hottest areas. So most of the world will see volatility which we see today too, just at different, hotter places, thus, nothing completely horrible, given that there is a lot successful agriculture in hot areas now.

And don't forget that volatility does not mean unpredictability, these are quite different things, and if unpredictability matters depends on particular time scales too. The difference between rainy season and dry season in the tropics is predictable, but this is nonetheless quite high volatility. The typical age-old prediction for the April in Germany (very short, local rains, fast changes from sunny to rainy) makes the actual rain highly unpredictable, but the volatility depends on the time scale considered, the volatility in weekly averages may be quite low, you have to care about hours to see high volatility. So, for agriculture this type of unpredictability is also completely unproblematic.

In other words, you have chosen a very particular type of volatility, the one which would be the worst one for agriculture (and carefully chosen - one accidental event every ten years is only an insurance problem, something happening every year is something one learns how to handle by an appropriate choice of what to do an how) and present this as if this would be what has to be expected everywhere.

You explicitly reject all studies accurately reported by me, on the grounds that I am your only source of information about them.

No. You make claims, but claims which cannot be checked given that you don't give quotes from and references to those studies. Given how "accurately" you reported the content of Berdugo M. et al. (2020), there is no base to believe your claims at all, even if you are really "reporting" some real studies. Note: That you are the only source of information about them here is your decision - you could give here the references, but you decided not to do this.

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.

Of course, it is happening right now, and of course not only year by year but minute by minute. The time scale of a hundred years is that about serious changes. Some minor changes will be visible on the scale of decades. Of course, some local changes will happen faster. Everything below that scale is weather, not climate.

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 ).

If the soil is used for agriculture, then it will take a lot of water even from such torrential rains. The technology to reach this is to plow the ground. To handle the loss of nutrients, there is also a technology, fertilizers.

 

[Schmelzer]

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.

LOL, learn how the Dutch have handled these problems. Of course, they don't rely on heavy rains, heavy rains have been mentioned in the context of arid regions, but on rivers bringing fresh water. With more precipitation, there will be also more fresh water coming down the rivers.

Agricultural people have always, for thousands of years, badly needed more good soil for agriculture.

Because they had no fertilizers.

The Dutch build the Afsluitdijk given the necessity of more farmland for agriculture. The first parts have been, indeed, used for this purpose. Later, they found other useful things to do with the new land, and the last part was simply left as a freshwater lake for tourism and ecology. So, it is the actual situation that soil for agriculture is not necessary even in the Netherlands, a leading agricultural power.

Good soil remains very useful, of course, but this is no longer decisive.

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.

If some region is used for agriculture depends on many things. First of all, on the prices one can reach. In Russia, a lot of good soil has been left during the process of urbanization. The Dutch example of not using a part initially thought to be used for agriculture but now left as a lake is another example. In regions where salt is relevant because of aridity, it is precipitation which is the decisive thing, not salt. Here a picture from a place in the Sahara where people live - an oasis:

Note the white color at the beach? That's pure salt.

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.

The point being? Of course, if it is not worth to do agriculture there, because even in the average there will be no profit, the insurance companies cannot help and will abandon that market too. Insurance companies will be useful to handle risks which are worth to be taken, because in case of success the profit will be large enough.

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.

Etatist nonsense. But, of course, in the actual corporatist societies there is all that over-regulation in the agriculture too.

There is, btw, a reason why an inefficient overproduction of agriculture is useful for states: Food security. One does not have to fear hunger during the next big political crisis which leads to a shutdown of all international trade. Or, today, to be afraid that US sanctions against your country lead to hunger revolts. If such considerations are an issue, then, indeed, it is the state who pays for this additional security. Insurance will not help against US sanctions at all, that's another question.

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.

People decide what to grow by looking at the actual climate, and at the prices on the market. Which is today a world market, even if the local peasants care only about local prices, and the local risks of growing this or that. Insurance matters if something is high risk but in the average profitable. So usually this plays no big role. It is just for illustration how the world could survive in QQ's alarmist fantasy land where in the the whole world we have this most problematic type of volatility which least to total crop failure every second year or so.

The usual Rep media BS disposed of. The boring repetition of the usual lies in #500 is not worth to be commented too.

Interesting to note that "fallowing' the land is more productive over long periods of time.
https://theecologist.org/2008/jun/20/fallow-and-fertile

That was a useful technique until there were fertilizers available for wide use.

 

[Ocelot]

Schmelzer, as the sea level keeps rising, the salt level does too.
No Dike can stop that, it comes from below.

There you go, give us a wild, imaginative and slightly loony solution to that little oversight of yours.

 

[Write4U]

Because they had no fertilizers.

And a good thing that was. Fertilizers are deadly chemicals. Rotate crops and set aside land to lie fallow and restore its natural health is a much effective over the long run than applying toxic chemicals.

Fertilizer and Plant Food Poisoning - Healthline

Touching the fertilizer may cause skin irritation, and ingesting it may be poisonous. Nitrates are the ingredients that cause the poisoning. Nitrates are a form of nitrogen that plants can easily absorb. Nitrogen is essential for plant growth, but it can be very dangerous when present at high levels in humans. Author: Amber Erickson Gabbey

https://www.healthline.com/health/fertilizers-and-household-plant-foods

 

[CptBork]

Schmelzer, as the sea level keeps rising, the salt level does too.
No Dike can stop that, it comes from below.

There you go, give us a wild, imaginative and slightly loony solution to that little oversight of yours.

Hypersonic nuclear weapons will chase the salt back to Amerika.

 

[Ocelot]

Hypersonic nuclear weapons will chase the salt back to Amerika.

That’s right! And oh dear, more problems for ‘merika.

 

[iceaura]

LOL, learn how the Dutch have handled these problems.

They have handled Dutch problems. Places facing droughts and salinization over deltas and drainage basins under a low latitude climate have different problems.
If AGW is not curbed, the Dutch may well be facing some of those - which they are not sure of being able to handle. Their scientists are pretty worried, especially by the apparently accelerating speed of AGW.

No one knows how to dike Bangladesh, for example, or the deltas of the great SE Asian rivers, or the mangrove swamps of the Asian coastline - and not even the Chinese have the money for the attempt. It would be about as possible, and about as effective, as diking Florida.

Note: That you are the only source of information about them here is your decision - you could give here the references, but you decided not to do this.

Yep.
So we see that (as I have posted many times) your near-complete ignorance is not your fault - obtaining information about AGW in the scientific literature, or distinguishing information from propaganda, is not your job. Without my doing this work for you, you are helpless and will remain ignorant of a subject about which you have made (chosen to make, on purpose) hundreds of posts full if claims and assertions.

Because they had no fertilizers.

That isn't true, of course, but you have noted a factor and identified a problem that only a few agricultural people outside of floodplains have solved: it's hard to farm or graze without degrading the soil, especially within an industrial economy with insurance companies and the like (farmers of my acquaintance refer to the exploitation of fertility necessary to pay off compound interest financing over bad years as "robbing the land").
Yet another reason to notice they were experts at spotting good land. To grow food for an expanding population has always been a - often the - major motive, and finding suitable land to expand into as therefore been an important skill.

Hydroponics is expensive even now, especially if it must provide complete nutrition. We still need good land for productive farming of staples. (There are no hydroponic rice paddies capable of feeding the bulk of China's people - despite great effort expended on that matter. The Chinese scientists know the danger they are in.)

Which is merely to note, as an example of your posting, that your assertion farming cultures find good land by trial and error, that they don't know likely good land when they see it, is ridiculous.

Insurance companies will be useful to handle risks which are worth to be taken, because in case of success the profit will be large enough.

And not useful otherwise. Which is why farmers have to have competent government. (And why socialist cooperatives are so often traditional in farming communities at higher latitudes. And why lending money at compound interest has been a capital crime in almost every pre-industrial agricultural society.)

In regions where salt is relevant because of aridity, it is precipitation which is the decisive thing, not salt.

Sea level rise, torrential rain, severe droughts, Schmelzer - do try to pay attention.

People decide what to grow by looking at the actual climate, and at the prices on the market.

You mean they predict the actual climate, and the future prices. Farming requires prediction, years of it, and therefore a reasonably stable as well as suitable climate. Under AGW's hundreds of years of instability, volatility, and rapid change, farmers will not be able to predict as well as they could before. Under the sudden forced relocations of AGW's effects, they will be in new places as well. They will not have well-suited crops or the requisite experiential knowledge, but they will be forced to make do.

For an example of how that often works out, you might read up on the Potato Famine of the 1840s in northern and central Europe. Imagine if it had been global.

Insurance matters if something is high risk but in the average profitable. So usually this plays no big role.

Modern agriculture in industrial countries depends on governmental insurance and oversight. In older economies, from before compound interest banking, it needed governmental oversight and physical protection in its material aspects (stockpiles, regulation of exploitation, etc.).

 

[CptBork]

For an example of how that often works out, you might read up on the Potato Famine of the 1840s in northern and central Europe. Imagine if it had been global.

I can already tell you what he'll say in response. "Leningrad is withstand partial siege for 2 years! The Russian bear laughs heartily at Mother nature, a few decades of famine is nothing!"

 

[Schmelzer]

They have handled Dutch problems. Places facing droughts and salinization over deltas and drainage basins under a low latitude climate have different problems.

Maybe, but once you refuse to present the problems, these count here only as alarmist fantasies.

So we see that (as I have posted many times) your near-complete ignorance is not your fault - obtaining information about AGW in the scientific literature, or distinguishing information from propaganda, is not your job. Without my doing this work for you, you are helpless and will remain ignorant of a subject about which you have made (chosen to make, on purpose) hundreds of posts full if claims and assertions.

LOL. My near-complete ignorance is your fantasy, you have never been able to show this here. (You only repeat claims without any supporting evidence.) This forum is not the only forum where I participate.

That isn't true, of course, but you have noted a factor and identified a problem that only a few agricultural people outside of floodplains have solved: it's hard to farm or graze without degrading the soil, especially within an industrial economy with insurance companies and the like (farmers of my acquaintance refer to the exploitation of fertility necessary to pay off compound interest financing over bad years as "robbing the land").

This is not a problem of climate change, but of economy in general. In bad years, people tend not to invest but to overuse what they have.

Which is merely to note, as an example of your posting, that your assertion farming cultures find good land by trial and error, that they don't know likely good land when they see it, is ridiculous.

So what? I have discussed a particular context. Namely a region too arid for agriculture, and too salty too. Then climate change increases precipitation, in that only form allowed by alarmists, with a single torrential rain every two years. If you think that people even in this situation will care about the salt content of those regions, so be it. Even if you are right here, it is a quite irrelevant aside.

Which is why farmers have to have competent government.

Competent government is an oxymoron.

You mean they predict the actual climate, and the future prices.

For one-year crops, they predict the weather and the prices for one year. This has nothing to do with climate prediction, it is about the actual climate. Planting trees requires, of course, a longer time scale.

Farming requires prediction, years of it, and therefore a reasonably stable as well as suitable climate. Under AGW's hundreds of years of instability, volatility, and rapid change, farmers will not be able to predict as well as they could before. Under the sudden forced relocations of AGW's effects, they will be in new places as well. They will not have well-suited crops or the requisite experiential knowledge, but they will be forced to make do.

So what? In the past, peasants could rely only on the general rules found by their ancestors. And how to handle particular crops they had to learn from their parents too.

Today there are climate predictions for hundreds of years, made by AGW researchers with a lot of computer power, and one can hope that they will improve. Those who doubt them are only a few evil deniers.

Ok, now we can add iceaura who denies that these climate predictions predict something reasonable and usable for farmers at least for the next few years, and thereby implicitly acknowledges that he does not trust them himself. Whatever, this is a variant of denial I don't care about. I think that, if not today, then in ten-twenty years every peasant can get from some general climate prediction website sufficiently accurate predictions about the climate in his region during the next years, in a much more detailed way than peasants in the past from the experience of their ancestors. Not? (Just to avoid such a misinterpretation: I'm not talking about weather prediction. That will remain reliable only for short term. It is about the expected climate pattern, things like El Nino vs. La Nina and how this will influence the local climate.)

Modern agriculture in industrial countries depends on governmental insurance and oversight.

It gets it, as explained, because states are interested in food security as part of preparation for wars. "Depends" only in the sense that if you play against the rules you get problems with police. Not that something would not work without government oversight.

I can already tell you what he'll say in response. "Leningrad is withstand partial siege for 2 years! The Russian bear laughs heartily at Mother nature, a few decades of famine is nothing!"

Nice try, but in this case I have simply ignored this remark, given that this famine had nothing to do with climate predictions, it was caused by a potato blight. And, as some argue, by actions of the "competent government" of the UK.

Such things may happen, and many Russians even expect them to happen, given all those highly suspect top secret US biological research centers around Russia. Many Russians believe that these are centers for the development of special anti-Russian biological weapons. And if they successfully develop such weapons, they will use them almost certainly. At least nobody expects that some moral considerations or so could prevent this.

 

[iceaura]

Competent government is an oxymoron.

Republican propaganda feed, parroted by the ignorant.
I have lived under competent government most of my life, and found the historical record of many examples in the past.

If the soil is used for agriculture, then it will take a lot of water even from such torrential rains.

You have it backwards.
If the soil is capable of taking a lot of water from torrential rains, and is otherwise undamaged, it might remain useful for agriculture in the drought years between floods.

Unfortunately, a lot of the most productive soils on the planet are expected to cross aridity thresholds under AGW, as is documented rigorously in the one or two scientific papers you have been confronted with and claim to have read. So their soils will not take a lot of water from torrential rains.

And of course the already saturated soils whose water tables and aquifers have been salinated by sea level rise cannot hold torrential rains - those regions will remain salinated between floods, and their farming residents will move or die.

So what? In the past, peasants could rely only on the general rules found by their ancestors. And how to handle particular crops they had to learn from their parents too

That's not true of the recent past in North America or anywhere else that has adopted new agricultural practices since the discovery of the New World and its crop plants.
And it will not be true of the future over most of the planet, under the climate changes of AGW - if the researchers into AGW are right about their findings.

Today there are climate predictions for hundreds of years, made by AGW researchers with a lot of computer power, and one can hope that they will improve. Those who doubt them are only a few evil deniers.

You are among the deniers of those predictions, in every post on this thread and most of your other posting on this topic.

For example, one of those predictions is that unless the CO2 boost is curbed and reversed soon large areas of the currently most productive and densely populated agricultural areas on the planet will be made unsuitable for productive agriculture within the next 50 - 100 years and continuing for at least a century after that, and some will be made uninhabitable by humans. That is due to the climate changes under AGW, which are expected (by all the relevant researchers, the ones gathering evidence and analyzing data with rigor) to be too rapid and volatile for humans (or any other currently stable ecosystem) to handle.

You call that "alarmism". You deny it. You post claims and assertions that conflict directly with it. You do that in nearly complete ignorance of every factor and issue involved, while employing the claims, arguments, rhetorical tactics, errors and falsehoods, and even specific vocabulary of the US rightwing corporate authoritarian media feed.

You parrot the fascist Partisan (Republican Party, to be specific) line on AGW climate change. That's obvious, with you (with the others here, like sculptor, it's more subtle). The only question is why.

 

[Schmelzer]

I have lived under competent government most of my life, and found the historical record of many examples in the past.

Of course, in comparison with actual US governments it is easy to gain the label "competent".

You have it backwards.
If the soil is capable of taking a lot of water from torrential rains, and is otherwise undamaged, it might remain useful for agriculture in the drought years between floods.

... might ... My point is that if it is used, then there is usually some amount of plowing, which gives some amount of ability to take water from torrential rains.

Unfortunately, a lot of the most productive soils on the planet are expected to cross aridity thresholds under AGW, as is documented rigorously in the one or two scientific papers you have been confronted with and claim to have read. So their soils will not take a lot of water from torrential rains.

Except that I was not confronted with anything from your side, but had to find the paper myself. That was the first case of your new hide and seek game of not presenting references in the usual way (author, year, title, journal, vol(issue), pages) but some vague information about something in a recent issue of some journal. Unethical behavior, but what one has to expect from alarmists, given that the content of the paper had not much to do with the claims, which, beyond a single line copypasted from the abstract, were simply off.

And of course the already saturated soils whose water tables and aquifers have been salinated by sea level rise cannot hold torrential rains - those regions will remain salinated between floods, and their farming residents will move or die.

If nothing is done to prevent salination from the sea, they may become salinated. The Dutch have taken land from the sea, land which is below the sea level, and this land has been desalinated. The technology was simply: Pump the groundwater coming through from seaside and pump it back into the sea. If you do enough of this near the dike, the groundwater coming from the rivers and rain will be what supports the groundwater inside.

That's not true of the recent past in North America or anywhere else that has adopted new agricultural practices since the discovery of the New World and its crop plants.

Thanks for correcting me where I have given too much to alarmist propaganda. Indeed, if no knowledge from the ancestors is available or useful, people will nonetheless survive finding new ways to handle new circumstances.

Nonetheless, modern information technology makes things much simpler. People will have local specific predictions about the expected climate and its expected change, they can look up where the predicted climate is the actual one, and look at the solutions of various problems people have found and used there. There is detailed information about many different crops, the conditions they need, what will be optimal for them, actual market prices and so on.

For example, one of those predictions is that unless the CO2 boost is curbed and reversed soon large areas of the currently most productive and densely populated agricultural areas on the planet will be made unsuitable for productive agriculture within the next 50 - 100 years and continuing for at least a century after that, and some will be made uninhabitable by humans. That is due to the climate changes under AGW, which are expected (by all the relevant researchers, the ones gathering evidence and analyzing data with rigor) to be too rapid and volatile for humans (or any other currently stable ecosystem) to handle.

Feel free to provide evidence for this. If you don't do this, this also counts here only as an alarmist fantasy.

You call that "alarmism". You deny it.

No. What you post here without presenting any evidence counts only as an alarmist fantasy. That's all. I do not deny such fantasies, some fantasies may be correct. I simply don't consider them, because such fantasies are useless, especially if presented by known liars like you. But once no evidence is presented here, it is nothing but a fantasy.

Repetitions of the usual boring "you know nothing" and "Rep party line" fantasies disposed of.

 

[iceaura]

Indeed, if no knowledge from the ancestors is available or useful, people will nonetheless survive finding new ways to handle new circumstances.

The AGW researchers say they will have to move - probably. Lots of refugees is among the expected consequences of the climate changes most likely from AGW.
You deny that.

The Dutch have taken land from the sea, land which is below the sea level, and this land has been desalinated. The technology was simply: Pump the groundwater coming through from seaside and pump it back into the sea. If you do enough of this near the dike, the groundwater coming from the rivers and rain will be what supports the groundwater inside.

The Dutch are currently trying to figure out if that will work for counteracting the sea rise under AGW - if they can stay ahead of the incoming. As far as I have followed, it apparently depends on the rate and speed of onset, and the effects of the new storms, river flooding regime, etc. They are worried.
Of course in the Indian and SE Asian areas under threat the geography is unsuitable, and the Dutch tactics won't work in the first place - they would not be attempted even if the afflicted farmers had the time and money, which they do not (according to the latest findings).

If nothing is done to prevent salination from the sea, they may become salinated.

That's an expected consequence of the searise most likely from AGW, according to the research in the field.

.. My point is that if it is used, then there is usually some amount of plowing, which gives some amount of ability to take water from torrential rains.

No, it doesn't. Not in the areas most likely at issue. Not these rains.

Except that I was not confronted with anything from your side, but had to find the paper myself.

And read it yourself - you should do that, as well. You need information, and you can't get it from your current sources.

Feel free to provide evidence for this. If you don't do this, this also counts here only as an alarmist fantasy.
- -
No. What you post here without presenting any evidence counts only as an alarmist fantasy.

"Counts"? Are you keeping score of something?
Like I said:

You call that "alarmism". You deny it. You post claims and assertions that conflict directly with it. You do that in nearly complete ignorance of every factor and issue involved, while employing the claims, arguments, rhetorical tactics, errors and falsehoods, and even specific vocabulary of the US rightwing corporate authoritarian media feed.

You can't distinguish AGW research findings from alarmism, on sight, because you are ignorant of the physical facts and real world situation - you don't know what the science has found, and you don't know what the circumstances are.

And that same exact ignorance (same errors, same assumptions, same foes, same vocabulary even) characterizes and underlies the target population of the US political Party media efforts most involved in doing harm to the US for political advantage.

 

[Schmelzer]

The AGW researchers say they will have to move - probably. Lots of refugees is among the expected consequences of the climate changes most likely from AGW.
You deny that.

As usually, not. Most of the yet existing subsistence farmers have to move, to the towns of their countries. That's the usual process called urbanization. That one names them "refugees" to enhance panic, and to suggest implicitly that they will move to other countries, is, of course, a typical alarmist technique. But there is no reason to deny that hundreds of millions of rural people will have to move to the towns. See https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/migration.php for details.

The Dutch are currently trying to figure out if that will work for counteracting the sea rise under AGW - if they can stay ahead of the incoming. As far as I have followed, it apparently depends on the rate and speed of onset, and the effects of the new storms, river flooding regime, etc. They are worried.

Not really. Of course, their scientists do their job, and once there are a lot of scenarios with a sea level rise around, they have to consider plans what to do in such cases. The

Of course in the Indian and SE Asian areas under threat the geography is unsuitable, and the Dutch tactics won't work in the first place - they would not be attempted even if the afflicted farmers had the time and money, which they do not (according to the latest findings).

LOL. You think that a simple "of course" is sufficient to make this point? Ok, you have never bothered to present anything serious. The geography is essentially the same, a river delta. That copying the Dutch way will not be attempted I agree - because even the Dutch did not finish their own project. Not because something failed, but because there was no necessity in new land:

That's an expected consequence of the searise most likely from AGW, according to the research in the field.

Of course, if nothing is done to prevent it. (As usual, alarmists predictions rely on the implicit assumption that people do nothing. Probably this is a case of projection - themselves, they are unable to do anything useful.

"Counts"? Are you keeping score of something?

Of course your reputation further decreases every time you behave inadequately. I do not count exactly, but the order of magnitude of such behavior is something I memorize automatically.

Repetitions of the usual boring "you know nothing" and "Rep party line" fantasies disposed of. (Do you get paid for repeating such boring claims all the time?)

 

[Ocelot]

Repetitions of the usual boring "you know nothing" and "Rep party line" fantasies disposed of. (Do you get paid for repeating such boring claims all the time?)

Oh dear!
The screaming irony here is that plenty of people get paid paid big bucks to obfuscate the science and muddy the waters around the details and the facts of AGW, you know, the schills of the fossil fuel lobby! I’m sure an intelligent and enquiring mind like yours would be familiar with them.
Unfortunately you’re not being paid.
You’re one of their favourites, the ones who do their puppet show.
Shame on on you for being so fucking gullible.
I know. You don’t see this.
That’s the irony.
In your head, you seem to be a big ‘ideas man’.
You’re not.
You’re an idiot.
The more you insist that you’re not and that everyone else is for not seeing your side of things, the bigger the fool you become.
It’s like watching Trump and wondering just how idiotic he he can get then he opens his mouth and the diarrhoea just gets more foul.

 

[Schmelzer]

I have updated my website and added something about the space-for-time substitution method and its application to identifying those thresholds.

My arguments are given there in a form which is appropriate for a civilized discussion. With quotes of alarmist statements which I identify as alarmist, with quotes from and references to scientific papers, and a quite detailed explanation for laymen how this space-to-time substitution method works.

Instead, we have here a nice example of an uncivilized contribution. Not a single argument about the content, only personal attacks.

And even that personal attack shows a complete failure. All what is proposed in this thread from my side has nothing to do with big ideas - I simply apply common sense to alarmist claims. I take the scientific results, as far as they have been presented, as they are, and argue that all one needs to meet the problems caused by climate change is common sense together with quite old cheap standard technologies. Nothing about big ideas here. And the arguments I propose are not at all about "seeing [my] side of things". I couldn't care less about how you see things. I care if you have arguments. Once you have none, your opinion is completely irrelevant.

 

[Ocelot]

Schmelzer, nothing more from me, you’re a deluded oxygen thief.
I’m not gonna play your silly puerile broken mind games.
Over and out.

 

[iceaura]

The time scale of a hundred years is that about serious changes. Some minor changes will be visible on the scale of decades. Of course, some local changes will happen faster. Everything below that scale is weather, not climate.

Again you deny the findings of the the researchers in the field.

As all the research indicates, the climate - not the local weather, the global climate - is changing rapidly and dramatically. The cause is the unprecedentedly rapid and continuing boost of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which is human in origin (fossil fuel combustion, mostly).

According to all the research, the entire body of science involved, these changes in the climate are now and by all evidence will continue to be significant at the decade level. That is the case even without the indicated thresholds and tipping points, which are expected to continue creating sudden and quite dramatic changes in the climate of many places - at the year, season, even month, scale.

I have updated my website and added something about the space-for-time substitution method and its application to identifying those thresholds.

You have no idea what those thresholds are. You are still confusing them with the boundaries of ecological zones you have seen on mountains.

No. What you post here without presenting any evidence counts only as an alarmist fantasy.

There you go again, denying the science.
Apparently you think I have superpowers - including the ability to convert the findings of decades of careful research into "alarmist fantasy" simply by posting them here. I assure you, I have no such powers.

LOL. You think that a simple "of course" is sufficient to make this point? Ok, you have never bothered to present anything serious. The geography is essentially the same, a river delta.

The reclaimed Dutch lowland is not a river delta. For starters.
Look - here is an article that agrees with you more than anything else I can find (for example, the authors apparently share your delusion that storm and tidal surges correspond linearly to average sea level rise, so that the sea will be rising "slowly"). It includes a couple of maps. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209631300003X
Look at those maps, and try to figure out where you would put the river locks and dams that are essential to the Dutch setup, and how you would channel those rivers accordingly - starting upstream far enough to prevent the expected salinization expected from the hurricanes and tidal surges expected in that region (so basically you intend to ditch and levee the Ganges River clear across the country - like what the US did to the Mississippi through New Orleans.)
When you have given up, you don't need to tell anyone - just quit posting assertions like that when you know you haven't checked your facts.

The geography is essentially the same, a river delta

It is not.
The Dutch do not have mangrove forests and/or aquaculture setups all along their coastline, for example, with hundreds of thousands of people relying on them for food.

Of course, if nothing is done to prevent it. (As usual, alarmists predictions rely on the implicit assumption that people do nothing.

There isn't anything anyone can do about the searise already locked in by the CO2 already accumulated, except rapidly and immediately remove that CO2 from the atmosphere.
The Dutch, for example, are responding to the projected searise along their comparatively small coastline in part by removing the populations of "indefensible lands" - removing the people in advance is a sensible way to reduce the refugee problem, but requires wealth and sound government.

As usually, not. Most of the yet existing subsistence farmers have to move, to the towns of their countries. That's the usual process called urbanization. That one names them "refugees" to enhance panic, and to suggest implicitly that they will move to other countries, is, of course, a typical alarmist technique.

Why are you still - after multiple corrections - banging on about a few subsistence farmers? Nobody is restricting the refugee problem to subsistence farmers except you.
As one finds by paying attention to the actual research, AGW's dramatic and rapid effects are expected to make refugees of the townsfolk as well as the farmers, in the most afflicted regions. That was one of the findings of the paper I referred for you, that you claim to have read.

What climate change is not: Anything posted from the US Republican/corporate rightwing authoritarian/ideology that must not be named.

 

[Schmelzer]

Again you deny the findings of the the researchers in the field.

I deny your fantasies about their findings. You are not known to be a researcher in the field.

As all the research indicates, the climate - not the local weather, the global climate - is changing rapidly and dramatically. The cause is the unprecedentedly rapid and continuing boost of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which is human in origin (fossil fuel combustion, mostly).

Words like "dramatically" have their value in alarmist' claims, not in science. In science, one gives numbers, quotes from papers with references.

According to all the research, the entire body of science involved, these changes in the climate are now and by all evidence will continue to be significant at the decade level. That is the case even without the indicated thresholds and tipping points, which are expected to continue creating sudden and quite dramatic changes in the climate of many places - at the year, season, even month, scale.

You have forgotten the day scale. A large fire can be part of such a process.

You have no idea what those thresholds are. You are still confusing them with the boundaries of ecological zones you have seen on mountains.

They are a nice example to illustrate the effects, with two different such boundaries visible in a single picture. Your empty "you know nothing" repetition is simply boring.

There you go again, denying the science.
Apparently you think I have superpowers - including the ability to convert the findings of decades of careful research into "alarmist fantasy" simply by posting them here. I assure you, I have no such powers.

You have the ability to invent your own alarmist fantasies, to copy alarmist fantasies from alarmist websites. You openly refuse to support your claims with explicit evidence from real research, thus, it is extremely improbable that you fantasies have something to do with real research.

The reclaimed Dutch lowland is not a river delta. For starters.

Except that the IJssel which feeds the IJsselmeer is a branch of the Rhine river, so that my main Dutch example, the Afsluitdijk between the IJsselmeer and the sea, is part of the Rhine river delta.

Look - here is an article that agrees with you more than anything else I can find (for example, the authors apparently share your delusion that storm and tidal surges correspond linearly to average sea level rise, so that the sea will be rising "slowly"). It includes a couple of maps. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209631300003X
Look at those maps, and try to figure out where you would put the river locks and dams that are essential to the Dutch setup, and how you would channel those rivers accordingly - starting upstream far enough to prevent the expected salinization expected from the hurricanes and tidal surges expected in that region (so basically you intend to ditch and levee the Ganges River clear across the country - like what the US did to the Mississippi through New Orleans.)

Yes, levee the Ganges river. And, yes, starting upstream far enough. If even the Americans have managed this, the Bengali people can do this too.

It is not. The Dutch do not have mangrove forests and/or aquaculture setups all along their coastline, for example, with hundreds of thousands of people relying on them for food.

And you think this will prevent them from adapting to different circumstances? To quote the article:

The Bengali people have generations of experience of adapting to changing environmental conditions caused by shifting river channels, land creation and erosion, and the impacts of floods, cyclones and storm surges. Their traditional cropping patterns and practices were closely adapted to micro-scale differences in soil and hydrological conditions (Brammer,2004). They continued to adapt during the period of rapid change since the 1950s when the first major flood embankments were constructed and, later, with the spread of dry-season irrigation and the introduction of high-yielding crop varieties. The country’s government, too, has long experience of managing change, including measures to cope with recurrent natural disasters. Bangladesh is not helpless, therefore, against coping with sea-level rise, but it might need financial and technical assistance with providing practical mitigation measures.

If I would read such things in mass media, I would not have to start writing such pages against alarmism.

There isn't anything anyone can do about the searise already locked in by the CO2 already accumulated, except rapidly and immediately remove that CO2 from the atmosphere.

And there is no necessity.

The Dutch, for example, are responding to the projected searise along their comparatively small coastline in part by removing the populations of "indefensible lands" - removing the people in advance is a sensible way to reduce the refugee problem, but requires wealth and sound government.

There is, of course, no reason to defend every $cm^2$.

Why are you still - after multiple corrections - banging on about a few subsistence farmers? Nobody is restricting the refugee problem to subsistence farmers except you.
As one finds by paying attention to the actual research, AGW's dramatic and rapid effects are expected to make refugees of the townsfolk as well as the farmers, in the most afflicted regions. That was one of the findings of the paper I referred for you, that you claim to have read.

Then why are you not simply quoting the paper to make your point?

We have discussed this, taking Riyad as an example. The townfolks would have no reason to emigrate as long as the world market works. (And if it doesn't, because of some large crisis, there will be no borders open to emigration.) The world market depends on averages, so if some countries have good conditions, they can create a lot of food for the world. Don't forget, in rich countries 1-2% of the working power work in agriculture, that's enough not only for those countries themselves, but even for a lot of export.

 

[CptBork]

Hey Schmelzer if we nuke the moon enough and release genetically engineered bacteria to transmute the soil, will we be able to live there too? Or maybe we can all go live at the bottom of the sea where there's lots of tasty shrimp, since the Atlanteans did it so successfully?