Heating up down under

[eclipsenow]

If you really wanted to have a conversation, you wouldn't keep producing gish gallops. You're trying to win by posting walls of text (a lot of which appears to just be cut and paste) no one would want to deal with. It's an immature tactic.

You throw around a cluster-bomb of cheap accusations, line after line of them, with NO attempt to back them up with credible sources. Like cluster-bombs that are cheap and easy to deploy, people googling random stuff might read them years later - and be convinced by one of these deceptive MAGA-memes. Each line takes several paragraphs to answer sufficiently, but then YOU spank me for having to do due diligence? When you have not shown due diligence in any of your cheap assertions ONCE yet? Yet you accuse ME of using a Gish Gallop and being immature! Nice! I at least try to do DUE DILIGENCE before posting to you!

Then to top it all off - most of these are the SAME MEMES we've already addressed.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt thanks.

So we'll just deal with one at a time - because this is a BIG, DEEP conversation for ADULTS WHO READ STUFF.

Like, "Climate's changed before you know? It's natural. It always changes!"​

That's in the top 10 denial hymns of all time - did you know that?
But it's especially trite - and cheap - and annoying - because the person asserting it just ASSUMES they know better than the climatologists! As if climatologist don't KNOW this!?? Do you have any idea how it comes across that YOU think you can sneer at a whole, huge discipline of science like this - without knowing how utterly uninformed the very assertion is? It's almost like saying "If the world were round, why wouldn't people fall off the bottom?"

Today's climate models RELY on knowing HOW and WHY the climate has changed before. It's also essential to model what might happen from here - HOW DANGEROUS climate change might be.

HOW?
WHY?
HOW DANGEROUS!?

Can it get more fundamental than that? THAT THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED BEFORE IS CLIMATE 101!!!

This includes studying ancient paleoclimate data measured and studied through temperature proxies left in the earth's crust.

To break it down:-

1. They start with the basic physics.
The repeatable, demonstrable physics of how CO2 traps heat. Do a little maths and we're trapping 4 Hiroshima bombs of extra heat *every second* of every day.

2. But what does that MEAN!?
Can the biosphere take it? That's where paleoclimate comes in, as they are trying to measure the Climate Sensitivity. Temperature proxies are signs of the earth's average temperature that year left in the earth's crust. NOAA list them as:- "corals, pollen, ice cores, tree rings, caves, pack rat middens, ocean and lake sediments, and historical data. By analysing records taken from these and other proxy sources, scientists can extend our understanding of climate far beyond the instrumental record."
What Are Proxy Data?

After studying these proxies for decades, they have modelled both the temperatures and atmospheric content back to 1.2 MILLION years by checking the gases trapped in ice-core samples from Antarctica that are that old.
There are even older indicators of CO2 content in the fossil record. Ginko plants change the number of stomata they have based on the atmosphere. They're not as exact as ice-cores - but work to a certain extent. That takes us back to hundreds of millions of years for atmospheric proxies - along with temperature proxies in other stuff above.

Today's climate is fragile. The natural forcings are NOT major players in driving today's climate. The biggest player across the last few million years has been the Milankovitch cycles, wobbles in the earth's orbit and tilt that match up every 30,000 years to start an ice age. This is not due for tens of thousands of years.

The bottom line? KNOWING that the climate has changed before is a REQUIREMENT to estimate both today's climate SENSITIVITY, and the RISKS!

People who chant "The climate's changed before ya'all!" are just showing their ignorance of the basic story of climate science!

 

[Servus]

You throw around a cluster-bomb of cheap accusations, line after line of them, with NO attempt to back them up with credible sources. Like cluster-bombs that are cheap and easy to deploy, people googling random stuff might read them years later - and be convinced by one of these deceptive MAGA-memes. Each line takes several paragraphs to answer sufficiently,

No, my concise post do not require that. Few people have replied to my posts with walls of text in the 27 years I've posted on internet forums starting with Usenet. Practically no one reads wall of text posts. Personally I've chosen not to see them from now on.

but then YOU spank me for having to do due diligence? When you have not shown due diligence in any of your cheap assertions ONCE yet? Yet you accuse ME of using a Gish Gallop and being immature! Nice! I at least try to do DUE DILIGENCE before posting to you!

Then to top it all off - most of these are the SAME MEMES we've already addressed.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt thanks.

So we'll just deal with one at a time - because this is a BIG, DEEP conversation for ADULTS WHO READ STUFF.

Like, "Climate's changed before you know? It's natural. It always changes!"​

That's in the top 10 denial hymns of all time - did you know that?
But it's especially trite - and cheap - and annoying - because the person asserting it just ASSUMES they know better than the climatologists! As if climatologist don't KNOW this!?? Do you have any idea how it comes across that YOU think you can sneer at a whole, huge discipline of science like this - without knowing how utterly uninformed the very assertion is? It's almost like saying "If the world were round, why wouldn't people fall off the bottom?"

Today's climate models RELY on knowing HOW and WHY the climate has changed before. It's also essential to model what might happen from here - HOW DANGEROUS climate change might be.

HOW?
WHY?
HOW DANGEROUS!?

Can it get more fundamental than that? THAT THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED BEFORE IS CLIMATE 101!!!

This includes studying ancient paleoclimate data measured and studied through temperature proxies left in the earth's crust.

To break it down:-

1. They start with the basic physics.
The repeatable, demonstrable physics of how CO2 traps heat. Do a little maths and we're trapping 4 Hiroshima bombs of extra heat *every second* of every day.

2. But what does that MEAN!?
Can the biosphere take it? That's where paleoclimate comes in, as they are trying to measure the Climate Sensitivity. Temperature proxies are signs of the earth's average temperature that year left in the earth's crust. NOAA list them as:- "corals, pollen, ice cores, tree rings, caves, pack rat middens, ocean and lake sediments, and historical data. By analysing records taken from these and other proxy sources, scientists can extend our understanding of climate far beyond the instrumental record."
What Are Proxy Data?

After studying these proxies for decades, they have modelled both the temperatures and atmospheric content back to 1.2 MILLION years by checking the gases trapped in ice-core samples from Antarctica that are that old.
There are even older indicators of CO2 content in the fossil record. Ginko plants change the number of stomata they have based on the atmosphere. They're not as exact as ice-cores - but work to a certain extent. That takes us back to hundreds of millions of years for atmospheric proxies - along with temperature proxies in other stuff above.

Today's climate is fragile. The natural forcings are NOT major players in driving today's climate. The biggest player across the last few million years has been the Milankovitch cycles, wobbles in the earth's orbit and tilt that match up every 30,000 years to start an ice age. This is not due for tens of thousands of years.

The bottom line? KNOWING that the climate has changed before is a REQUIREMENT to estimate both today's climate SENSITIVITY, and the RISKS!

People who chant "The climate's changed before ya'all!" are just showing their ignorance of the basic story of climate science!

 

[eclipsenow]

No, my concise post do not require that. Very few people have ever replied to my posts with walls of text in the 27 years I've posted on internet forums starting with Usenet.

Well at least I'm glad you have now demonstrated to the list how willing you are to read outside your comfort zone, and how much of the basic science you know!

Hey - did you know climate science has changed before!? Amazing that! All those silly climate scientists going on about climate change today - ha ha ha - how do they live with themselves?

 

[eclipsenow]

Australia took ten of the 15 world hot spots on Monday.

Hottest place on Earth located in Australia as 'heat engine' cranks into gear

Parts of Pilbara and Kimberley surpassed 40 degrees Celsius yesterday but meteorologists say the temperatures will not trigger a heatwave warning yet.

www.abc.net.au

But it is not regarded as a heat wave - not yet anyway.

Sydney's hot Wednesday downgraded to just 38 degrees. It's insane to think that IF that was accompanied by 100% humidity - it would probably crash the grid and kill millions across Sydney.

Not that Sydney is estimated to get Wet Bulb Global Temperatures in the deadly range any time soon.

But on the current trajectory we're heading towards over 2.5 degrees of warming, the TOP THIRD of Australia will be...

outside the “human climate niche”​

Finity Consulting

finity.com.au

 

[Servus]

Well at least I'm glad you have now demonstrated to the list how willing you are to read outside your comfort zone, and how much of the basic science you know!

Another issue is all the condescending vitriol in the form ad hominem personal attacks. Which is something a true scientific intellectual would completely avoid.

Hey - did you know climate science has changed before!? Amazing that! All those silly climate scientists going on about climate change today - ha ha ha - how do they live with themselves?

One doesn't really hear from the actual scientists much. Rather most of what one hears is hyperbolic interpretations of their research and findings. Based on many years of experience, most internet forum climate panic activists don't even know the names of climate scientists without looking it up. Rather they just grab and paste stuff off of activist websites.

 

[AV1611VET]

One doesn't really hear from the actual scientists much.

Years ago here two of our posters duked it out big time.

One was Thaumaturgy, the other was [the real] Glenn Morton.

Post 542

 

[Aaron112]

Years ago here two of our posters duked it out big time.
One was Thaumaturgy, the other was [the real] Glenn Morton.
Post 542

from that reference post- thread: little if any honesty or humility or truth. Seemingly no benefit from forum.

This is what interests me in this forum. How an why do people become immune to reason. The phenomenom is especially apparent in politics and religion.

 

[Fervent]

No, I said AGW is real, but it doesn't warrant all of the doomsday exaggeration and hyperbole.

How did you determine that the projections are "exaggeration and hyperbole"? We are already seeing serious consequences of AGW with respect to marine ecology, which is bound to have cascading effects. But even if all the "doomsday" scenarios are false, what harm is supposed to come from prudent energy policy that moves us towards renewable resources that are carbon neutral? Why champion inaction, if you believe the problem is real? Or what solutions do you support as an alternative to those proposed by "the left"?

 

[eclipsenow]

Another issue is all the condescending vitriol in the form ad hominem personal attacks. Which is something a true scientific intellectual would completely avoid.

I can get like that - I'm an emotional sort of guy. But I can also calm down and try to be reasonable if I see some growth or recognition of contributing factors from online debate opponents. I guess I got fired up at the "Gish Gallop" attack - when I was trying to do due diligence to the REPEATED memes you're throwing my way.

One doesn't really hear from the actual scientists much. Rather most of what one hears is hyperbolic interpretations of their research and findings.

That is so true - yet you are still happy to attack the entire climate movement based on Greta Thunberg!

What I have not seen, ironically, is evidence from yourself that you have ever engaged with the actual science.

Did you know the first head editor of the IPCC reports was Sir John Houghton - a physicist and a Christian?

What about Professor Katharine Hayhoe? She is the daughter of missionaries, is married to a pastor, and is herself a climate scientist. Please listen to this interview where theologian and historian Dr John Dickson asks what it’s like to advocate for climate science while being married to a Baptist pastor.
(It's got excellent production values, audio snippets from "The Newsroom" - and is a lot of fun as well as being thoroughly biblical.)
Good Earth

Katharine Hayhoe - Wikipedia

 

[Servus]

How did you determine that the projections are "exaggeration and hyperbole"? We are already seeing serious consequences of AGW with respect to marine ecology, which is bound to have cascading effects. But even if all the "doomsday" scenarios are false, what harm is supposed to come from prudent energy policy that moves us towards renewable resources that are carbon neutral? Why champion inaction, if you believe the problem is real? Or what solutions do you support as an alternative to those proposed by "the left"?

I've seen and participated in lots of climate debates over the years, which is how I determine what all I've heard/read. What it come down to is the Green Industry (which has problems of its own) vs the fossil fuel industry. The $8 Trillion green industry seeks to replace the fossil fuel industry. Which it will eventually as a matter of progress. But of course they don't want eventually, they want ASAP. The Democrat party uses this as part of their "we will save the world" platform. So the idea being promoted is "if you want to save the world, vote Democrat". And of course the planet has to be seen as being in great peril in order to prompt that kind of support.

 

[Fervent]

I've seen and participated in lots of climate debates over the years, which is how I determine what all I've heard/read.

Ok

What it come down to is the Green Industry (which has problems of its own) vs the fossil fuel industry. The $8 Trillion green industry seeks to replace the fossil fuel industry.

What's the point in throwing in how much revenue(is that a revenue figure or just total economic activity?) of the green industry in there for? Or mentioning that there are problems? Is that somehow supposed to justify not taking action to address what you admit is a real problem?

Which it will eventually as a matter of progress. But of course they don't want eventually, they want ASAP.

Sure, and for pretty good reason. As the saying goes, "a stitch in time saves nine."

The Democrat party uses this as part of their "we will save the world" platform. So the idea being promoted is "if you want to save the world, vote Democrat". And of course the planet has to be seen as being in great peril in order to prompt that kind of support.

Perhaps if the republican party acknowledged the problem and proposed solutions, it wouldn't be such a monopoly issue for the Democrats and the supposed scaremongering wouldn't generate support.

 

[eclipsenow]

Perhaps if the republican party acknowledged the problem and proposed solutions, it wouldn't be such a monopoly issue for the Democrats and the supposed scaremongering wouldn't generate support.

Excellent point! Which I'm sure someone above raised!

Some try to present the destabilisation of the biosphere via global warming pushing the earth into a new super-heated climate state as merely "Democrat hyperbole" to scare people and get their votes!

These MAGA activists might even pay lip service to the science. "Oh of course climate change is REAL - it's just the Democrats have exaggerated it!" But then, when it comes down to it, they cannot justify their assertions.

 

[Servus]

Ok

What's the point in throwing in how much revenue(is that a revenue figure or just total economic activity?) of the green industry in there for? Or mentioning that there are problems? Is that somehow supposed to justify not taking action to address what you admit is a real problem?

Sure, and for pretty good reason. As the saying goes, "a stitch in time saves nine."

Perhaps if the republican party acknowledged the problem and proposed solutions, it wouldn't be such a monopoly issue for the Democrats and the supposed scaremongering wouldn't generate support.

While climate change is real, I think the so called problem is being overexaggerated in order to induce panic. And I really shouldn't have to explain why I'm adverse to fearmongering. Nor do I see why the republican party should go along with it.

 

[eclipsenow]

While climate change is real, I think the so called problem is being overexaggerated in order to induce panic. And I really shouldn't have to explain why I'm adverse to fearmongering. Nor do I see why the republican party should go along with it.

I understand your concern that we might not have heard from the actual scientists - and that some politicians might have exaggerated it. Especially when AOC says some clumsy things in her zeal. Especially when your own leader is one of the most pathological liars I have ever seen in politics - since probably the big socialist and fascist dictators of the 20th Century!

Johan Rockström is a real climate scientist.
Here is his TED talk. It's 18 minutes.
Please watch this and then tell us what you think?
How does his more dry, scientific approach line up with Democrat claims?
Where do the Democrats go too far?
I'd really value your perspective.

 

[Servus]

I understand your concern that we might not have heard from the actual scientists - and that some politicians might have exaggerated it. Especially when AOC says some clumsy things in her zeal. Especially when your own leader is one of the most pathological liars I have ever seen in politics - since probably the big socialist and fascist dictators of the 20th Century!

Johan Rockström is a real climate scientist.
Here is his TED talk. It's 18 minutes.
Please watch this and then tell us what you think?
How does his more dry, scientific approach line up with Democrat claims?
Where do the Democrats go too far?
I'd really value your perspective.

Criticism of Johan Rockström centers on his planetary boundaries framework, with critics arguing that the exact numerical thresholds for some boundaries are arbitrary or unproven, and that the framework is not always practical for policy-making. Some also claim that the framework's alarming tone can be sensationalized by the media, leading to public alarm that isn't supported by facts.

 

[eclipsenow]

Nice! So what else does ChatGPT say?

What have YOU read about him? Johan himself started off in agricultural and soil science. Then the wiki explains: "He received his Ph.D. in 1997 from Stockholm University, where his research was on "Systems Ecology and Natural Resource Management.""
That is a huge, multi-disciplinary subject.

In 2009 he lead a team of academics - many of whom are world famous climate scientists and atmospheric physicists.
It's not the 2000+ scientists of the IPCC - but it's a respectable group. (See names below)
Do you recognise any of these names as climate scientists?

His TED talk is follow up work from his climate peers - analysing the Climate Sensitivity.

(That the "climate's changed before, ya know?" thing that helps them know just how serious this is!)

And here's the deal. They used to think the CLIMATE FEEDBACKS kicked in at 5 degrees. Time passed, more paleoclimate data came in - and then it was 4 degrees. Etc etc until now it's 1.5 degrees of warming and we start to enter danger zones where natural feedbacks can start to warm the planet even further than we have. There are 12 feedback systems that are getting primed. Some of them kick off earlier than others. The earlier ones might cook the planet up to the next stage when the next one fires - and like a series of dominoes - within a few generations we're on a planet we hardly recognise!

This is a point Christian climatologist Katharine Hayhoe says.

It's more likely that the conservative projections of the IPCC are UNDER representing the actual level of risk!

Johan Rockström
Will Steffen
Kevin Noone
Åsa Persson
Stuart III Chapin
Eric Lambin
Timothy M. Lenton
Marten Scheffer
Carl Folke
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
Björn Nykvist
Cynthia A. de Wit
Terry Hughes
Sander van der Leeuw
Henning Rodhe
Sverker Sörlin
Peter K. Snyder
Robert Costanza
Uno Svedin
Malin Falkenmark
Louise Karlberg
Robert W. Corell
Victoria J. Fabry
James Hansen
Brian Walker
Diana Liverman
Katherine Richardson
Paul Crutzen
Jonathan Foley

 

[Fervent]

While climate change is real, I think the so called problem is being overexaggerated in order to induce panic. And I really shouldn't have to explain why I'm adverse to fearmongering. Nor do I see why the republican party should go along with it.

I'm going to make 2 statements for you to agree or disagree with. First, climate change is a problem. Second, the sooner we address the problem, the less severe the repercussions. Now, I'm not speculating about how severe the repercussions will be, so no scare mongering. Do you agree with those two propositions? If so, why delay action and kick the can down the road? Shouldn't we act to prevent greater harm, even if its not as drastic as sensationalists make it out to be?

 

[AV1611VET]

from that reference post- thread: little if any honesty or humility or truth. Seemingly no benefit from forum.

Well, they were duking it out.

 

[Servus]

I'm going to make 2 statements for you to agree or disagree with. First, climate change is a problem. Second, the sooner we address the problem, the less severe the repercussions. Now, I'm not speculating about how severe the repercussions will be, so no scare mongering. Do you agree with those two propositions? If so, why delay action and kick the can down the road? Shouldn't we act to prevent greater harm, even if its not as drastic as sensationalists make it out to be?

Why delay what? This has been going on for over 50 years. In 1992 there was a girl just like Greta Thunberg addressing the UN about how horrible things will be when she becomes an adult. She might be a grandmother by now. So no, I don't think it's that much of a problem, because I've been hearing it's a drastic problem right around the corner, ever since I was a child back in the 70s.

 

[BCP1928]

Why delay what? This has been going on for over 50 years. In 1992 there was a girl just like Greta Thunberg addressing the UN about how horrible things will be when she becomes an adult. She might be a grandmother by now. So no, I don't think it's that much of a problem, because I've been hearing it's a drastic problem right around the corner, ever since I was a child back in the 70s.

It's not right around the corner any more, it's happening now--and we are the only modern industrial country which is "delaying."