The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[DBT]

Which is neither here nor there with respect to urbanisation. If, as I illustrated, more people can lead comparable lifestyles while using less resources in an urban setting than in a rural one, urbanisation if anything helps extend those limits.

It's not a question of here or there or if urbanization can increase carrying capacity of a nation, a state or the planet....It can up to a point... but like everything else, urbanization itself has limits.

So when you said the scale of urbanisation is causing problems, you didn't mean that the scale of urbanisation is (note: present tense) causing problems, but that something that has very little to do with urbanisation will (future tense) cause problems long after you've died?

The issue of the long term sustainability of human activity on the planet has nothing to do with me, how long I live or when I happen to die.

 

[Jokodo]

So when you said the scale of urbanisation is causing problems, you didn't mean that the scale of urbanisation is (note: present tense) causing problems, but that something that has very little to do with urbanisation will (future tense) cause problems long after you've died?

The issue of the long term sustainability of human activity on the planet has nothing to do with me, how long I live or when I happen to die.

Of course not. That is however not particularly relevant to your use of "urbanisation" as a paraphrases for "increased consumption" when urbanisation in fact leads to less consumption, all else equal, or to your use of the present tense for something you now say you expect in about 60 years. How about you stop randomly firing smoke grenades to see what sticks and limit yourself to arguments you're willing to defend?

 

[bilby]

Which is neither here nor there with respect to urbanisation. If, as I illustrated, more people can lead comparable lifestyles while using less resources in an urban setting than in a rural one, urbanisation if anything helps extend those limits.

It's not a question of here or there or if urbanization can increase carrying capacity of a nation, a state or the planet....It can up to a point... but like everything else, urbanization itself has limits.

The limit to urbanisation is when every human lives in a single mega-city, at maximum achievable population density.

I rather doubt that this would ever happen. It could make an interesting Sci-Fi premise though. Nine billion people living in New Beijing, with automated farms and mines spread across Eurasia-Africa, and automated ships, trucks and trains bringing the materials in, and taking the non-recyclable garbage out. The Americas, Australasia, Antarctica and the various islands all completely unpopulated wilderness. Until a lone survivalist on an extreme vacation to the Amazon basin becomes separated from his party, thousands of kilometres from civilisation...

 

[bigfield]

Should humanity cease to burn fossil fuels, or even find some magical way to eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow. It would not make one iota of difference to Earth's climate!

I'm well aware of what you believe. It's just amusing to observe the internal contradictions in your worldview.

I've asked you before to post one, just one prediction GW/CC/CD of doom made in the past decade that's actually occurred! Just as well I wasn't holding my breath for a response! The cult has taken hold of many and blinded all rational thought on the subject unless it's pro.

I'm wasn't aware I'd been asked. If you posted it in a thread in Political Discussions, then I haven't read it since the admins have kindly hidden that subforum from me.

I can't think of a single prediction of doom made in the scientific literature that was supposed to come to pass by 2019.

The only prediction of doom I'm aware of is the one I've cited in another thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...he-near-future&p=716879&viewfull=1#post716879

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

 

[Jokodo]

Weeks? Wouldn't there be more inertia than that?

I'm honestly guessing, but look at how quickly the temperature drops at night, especially in arid places. That's how efficiently the Earth sheds heat through radiation even with the current green house effect. Now just imagine the temperature drop to be a couple degrees (C) more every night than it is now, without being (entirely) compensated by more warming during the day. I can see things getting uncomfortable pretty quickly.

I concur. You're likely going to see a feedback effect as water vapour levels in the troposphere will drop rapidly, particularly as air temperatures drop below freezing. So the rate of cooling would accelerate quite noticeably after the first couple of days, and after a few days of rapid falls, probably continue slow cooling for many weeks - at the end of which it would be very cold indeed.

The new equilibrium temperature would be about 15 kelvins lower than current temperatures; I could see that level being reached fairly fast (maybe ten days or so), particularly in continental regions. The oceans would buffer temperatures very effectively, leading to huge storms, as the cold continents draw warm moist air in from the warm oceans.

Continental inland residents might not freeze in the first week or two, but the storms required to transfer enough heat to those areas from the oceans might be harder to survive than mere cold weather would be.

Those in maritime climates would have a much more gradual temperature decline to manage - but are more exposed to those giant cyclonic storms.

So let's not remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Perhaps we could just remove enough to get back to the levels we had in the eighteenth century.

Also note that the 15 kelvins drop its global average temperatures. Given that a smaller green house effect also means more fluctuation (especially daily), nighttime temperatures in many localities might very well drop by 25 kelvins and more.

 

[skepticalbip]

I've asked you before to post one, just one prediction GW/CC/CD of doom made in the past decade that's actually occurred! Just as well I wasn't holding my breath for a response! The cult has taken hold of many and blinded all rational thought on the subject unless it's pro.

I'm wasn't aware I'd been asked. If you posted it in a thread in Political Discussions, then I haven't read it since the admins have kindly hidden that subforum from me.

I can't think of a single prediction of doom made in the scientific literature that was supposed to come to pass by 2019.

The only prediction of doom I'm aware of is the one I've cited in another thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...he-near-future&p=716879&viewfull=1#post716879

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the current predictions of doom that are blindly accepted, believed, and repeated by much of the general public is not in the scientific literature. Such doom scenarios are offered by politicians, newscasters, and such and accepted by many as scientific. Much of the general public accept it as scientific and repeat it, endlessly.

There wasn't mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1990s, The polar bear population is not rapidly declining. The polar ice cap still exists. Miami is not under water, etc.... all prediction widely accepted as scientific that should have already happened.

We now have children in schools (and some adults) who accept AOCs declaration as scientific certainty that the world will collapse in twelve years unless we immediately enact her "green new deal" legislation.

 

[Jokodo]

I've asked you before to post one, just one prediction GW/CC/CD of doom made in the past decade that's actually occurred! Just as well I wasn't holding my breath for a response! The cult has taken hold of many and blinded all rational thought on the subject unless it's pro.

I'm wasn't aware I'd been asked. If you posted it in a thread in Political Discussions, then I haven't read it since the admins have kindly hidden that subforum from me.

I can't think of a single prediction of doom made in the scientific literature that was supposed to come to pass by 2019.

The only prediction of doom I'm aware of is the one I've cited in another thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...he-near-future&p=716879&viewfull=1#post716879

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the current predictions of doom that are blindly accepted, believed, and repeated by much of the general public is not in the scientific literature. Such doom scenarios are offered by politicians, newscasters, and such and accepted by many as scientific. Much of the general public accept it as scientific and repeat it, endlessly.

There wasn't mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1990s, The polar bear population is not rapidly declining. The polar ice cap still exists. Miami is not under water, etc.... all prediction widely accepted as scientific that should have already happened.

I'm sure you can cite some actual publications making any of those claims?

Thought so. Strawman argument.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

So when you said the scale of urbanisation is causing problems, you didn't mean that the scale of urbanisation is (note: present tense) causing problems, but that something that has very little to do with urbanisation will (future tense) cause problems long after you've died?

The issue of the long term sustainability of human activity on the planet has nothing to do with me, how long I live or when I happen to die.

There it is, the eurocentric world view, the eurocentric perceptual reality. No spiritual connection to anything including ancestors or descendants.

 

[skepticalbip]

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the current predictions of doom that are blindly accepted, believed, and repeated by much of the general public is not in the scientific literature. Such doom scenarios are offered by politicians, newscasters, and such and accepted by many as scientific. Much of the general public accept it as scientific and repeat it, endlessly.

There wasn't mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1990s, The polar bear population is not rapidly declining. The polar ice cap still exists. Miami is not under water, etc.... all prediction widely accepted as scientific that should have already happened.

I'm sure you can cite some actual publications making any of those claims?

Thought so. Strawman argument.

Did you read Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? In the 1960s it was widely accepted and repeated, was referenced in newscasts and spawned several other popular books and magazine articles. Did you ever listen to Al Gore in the early 2000? His dire predictions (believed and repeated by many) were an ice free arctic and extinction of polar bears. It didn't happen in the ten year limit he predicted.

In another twenty years, we can examine how well AOC was able to predict global collapse. There is a hell of a lot of people who think her predictions are scientific (because she's a genius?)

 

[Fentoine Lum]

I've asked you before to post one, just one prediction GW/CC/CD of doom made in the past decade that's actually occurred! Just as well I wasn't holding my breath for a response! The cult has taken hold of many and blinded all rational thought on the subject unless it's pro.

I'm wasn't aware I'd been asked. If you posted it in a thread in Political Discussions, then I haven't read it since the admins have kindly hidden that subforum from me.

I can't think of a single prediction of doom made in the scientific literature that was supposed to come to pass by 2019.

The only prediction of doom I'm aware of is the one I've cited in another thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...he-near-future&p=716879&viewfull=1#post716879

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the current predictions of doom that are blindly accepted, believed, and repeated by much of the general public is not in the scientific literature. Such doom scenarios are offered by politicians, newscasters, and such and accepted by many as scientific. Much of the general public accept it as scientific and repeat it, endlessly.

There wasn't mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1990s, The polar bear population is not rapidly declining. The polar ice cap still exists. Miami is not under water, etc.... all prediction widely accepted as scientific that should have already happened.

We now have children in schools (and some adults) who accept AOCs declaration as scientific certainty that the world will collapse in twelve years unless we immediately enact her "green new deal" legislation.

Great, show us the primary peer-reviewed journal articles that lead you to this conclusion. Thanks in advance.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the current predictions of doom that are blindly accepted, believed, and repeated by much of the general public is not in the scientific literature. Such doom scenarios are offered by politicians, newscasters, and such and accepted by many as scientific. Much of the general public accept it as scientific and repeat it, endlessly.

There wasn't mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1990s, The polar bear population is not rapidly declining. The polar ice cap still exists. Miami is not under water, etc.... all prediction widely accepted as scientific that should have already happened.

I'm sure you can cite some actual publications making any of those claims?

Thought so. Strawman argument.

Did you read Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? In the 1960s it was widely accepted and repeated, was referenced in newscasts and spawned several other popular books and magazine articles. Did you ever listen to Al Gore in the early 2000? His dire predictions (believed and repeated by many) were an ice free arctic and extinction of polar bears.

What is happening with/to arctic ice coverage again?

 

[skepticalbip]

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the current predictions of doom that are blindly accepted, believed, and repeated by much of the general public is not in the scientific literature. Such doom scenarios are offered by politicians, newscasters, and such and accepted by many as scientific. Much of the general public accept it as scientific and repeat it, endlessly.

There wasn't mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1990s, The polar bear population is not rapidly declining. The polar ice cap still exists. Miami is not under water, etc.... all prediction widely accepted as scientific that should have already happened.

We now have children in schools (and some adults) who accept AOCs declaration as scientific certainty that the world will collapse in twelve years unless we immediately enact her "green new deal" legislation.

Great, show us the primary peer-reviewed journal articles that lead you to this conclusion. Thanks in advance.

Read the fucking post. I clearly said it was not in science journals. It was political propaganda at worse or just fear mongering nonsense based in ignorance of the science.

 

[Jokodo]

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the current predictions of doom that are blindly accepted, believed, and repeated by much of the general public is not in the scientific literature. Such doom scenarios are offered by politicians, newscasters, and such and accepted by many as scientific. Much of the general public accept it as scientific and repeat it, endlessly.

There wasn't mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1990s, The polar bear population is not rapidly declining. The polar ice cap still exists. Miami is not under water, etc.... all prediction widely accepted as scientific that should have already happened.

I'm sure you can cite some actual publications making any of those claims?

Thought so. Strawman argument.

Did you read Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? In the 1960s it was widely accepted and repeated, was referenced in newscasts and spawned several other popular books and magazine articles. Did you ever listen to Al Gore in the early 2000? His dire predictions (believed and repeated by many) were an ice free arctic and extinction of polar bears. It didn't happen in the ten year limit he predicted.

In another twenty years, we can examine how well AOC was able to predict global collapse. There is a hell of a lot of people who think her predictions are scientific (because she's a genius?)

We all agree Ehrlich is full of shit. That's not science, and everybody knows it. Also, nothing to do with climate, which is the topic here.

Can you give a specific quote for Al Gore predicting ice free arctic in 10 years time? Name dropping isn't citing. You're beginning to sound like a creationist.

 

[skepticalbip]

Did you read Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? In the 1960s it was widely accepted and repeated, was referenced in newscasts and spawned several other popular books and magazine articles. Did you ever listen to Al Gore in the early 2000? His dire predictions (believed and repeated by many) were an ice free arctic and extinction of polar bears. It didn't happen in the ten year limit he predicted.

In another twenty years, we can examine how well AOC was able to predict global collapse. There is a hell of a lot of people who think her predictions are scientific (because she's a genius?)

We all agree Ehrlich is full of shit. That's not science, and everybody knows it. Also, nothing to do with climate, which is the topic here.

Can you give a specific quote for Al Gore predicting ice free arctic in 10 years time? Name dropping isn't citing. You're beginning to sound like a creationist.

Today we agree that Ehrlich is full of shit because his predictions didn't pan out. At the time he was accepted as a guru.

AOC is becoming today's guru. But, as you say about Ehrlich, that's not science.

 

[Jokodo]

Did you read Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? In the 1960s it was widely accepted and repeated, was referenced in newscasts and spawned several other popular books and magazine articles. Did you ever listen to Al Gore in the early 2000? His dire predictions (believed and repeated by many) were an ice free arctic and extinction of polar bears. It didn't happen in the ten year limit he predicted.

In another twenty years, we can examine how well AOC was able to predict global collapse. There is a hell of a lot of people who think her predictions are scientific (because she's a genius?)

We all agree Ehrlich is full of shit. That's not science, and everybody knows it. Also, nothing to do with climate, which is the topic here.

Can you give a specific quote for Al Gore predicting ice free arctic in 10 years time? Name dropping isn't citing. You're beginning to sound like a creationist.

Today we agree that Ehrlich is full of shit because his predictions didn't pan out. At the time he was accepted as a guru.

Still nothing to do with climate, and no quote for your Al Gore claim.

I call bullshit.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the current predictions of doom that are blindly accepted, believed, and repeated by much of the general public is not in the scientific literature. Such doom scenarios are offered by politicians, newscasters, and such and accepted by many as scientific. Much of the general public accept it as scientific and repeat it, endlessly.

There wasn't mass starvation in the U.S. in the 1990s, The polar bear population is not rapidly declining. The polar ice cap still exists. Miami is not under water, etc.... all prediction widely accepted as scientific that should have already happened.

We now have children in schools (and some adults) who accept AOCs declaration as scientific certainty that the world will collapse in twelve years unless we immediately enact her "green new deal" legislation.

Great, show us the primary peer-reviewed journal articles that lead you to this conclusion. Thanks in advance.

Read the fucking post. I clearly said it was not in science journals. It was political propaganda at worse or just fear mongering nonsense based in ignorance of the science.

Ah, so you're unfamiliar with the primary peer-reviewed scientific journal literature?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Did you read Ehrlich's The Population Bomb? In the 1960s it was widely accepted and repeated, was referenced in newscasts and spawned several other popular books and magazine articles. Did you ever listen to Al Gore in the early 2000? His dire predictions (believed and repeated by many) were an ice free arctic and extinction of polar bears. It didn't happen in the ten year limit he predicted.

In another twenty years, we can examine how well AOC was able to predict global collapse. There is a hell of a lot of people who think her predictions are scientific (because she's a genius?)

We all agree Ehrlich is full of shit. That's not science, and everybody knows it. Also, nothing to do with climate, which is the topic here.

Can you give a specific quote for Al Gore predicting ice free arctic in 10 years time? Name dropping isn't citing. You're beginning to sound like a creationist.

Today we agree that Ehrlich is full of shit because his predictions didn't pan out. At the time he was accepted as a guru.

AOC is becoming today's guru. But, as you say about Ehrlich, that's not science.

AOC sure triggers a lot of folk don't she. Good.

 

[Jokodo]

AOC is becoming today's guru. But, as you say about Ehrlich, that's not science.

Sure you can quote three specific claims about climate change AOC has been making and presenting as scientific fact that contradict the majority of current primary research?

We're taking scientific claims, not policy recommendations.

Can you?

Or is this going to end like your remark about Al Gore and your "we know because" statement that assumes CO2 a the sole determinant - silently being dropped.

 

[bigfield]

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the current predictions of doom that are blindly accepted, believed, and repeated by much of the general public is not in the scientific literature. Such doom scenarios are offered by politicians, newscasters, and such and accepted by many as scientific. Much of the general public accept it as scientific and repeat it, endlessly.

And other people point to those claims and say "look, scientists keep making silly predictions and getting things wrong".

It's ironic, because people learn to distrust scientists, rather than the media and political operators who are misrepresenating the science.

We wouldn't be having these problems if mass media did science journalism with some integrity.

 

[skepticalbip]

Today we agree that Ehrlich is full of shit because his predictions didn't pan out. At the time he was accepted as a guru.

Still nothing to do with climate, and no quote for your Al Gore claim.

I call bullshit.

Like you and everyone else on the planet, I don't keep bookmarks of every asinine statement I hear. You demanding a specific quote by Al Gore for what is common knowledge for anyone who sat through an Al Gore talk is ridiculous.

However a first link from a quick google search was this:
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/flashback-7-years-ago-al-gore-said-north-pole-would-be-ice-free-five-years

ETA:
Aha, found a video of part of one of Al's talks so you can see him saying it.

[video]https://static.pjmedia.com/user-content/24/files/2013/12/al_gore_polar_ice_caps_2008-1.mp4[/video]

I have to assume that you actually know diddly-squat about what Al Gore was preaching. You apparently just assumed that what you believe about climate (whether your belief has anything to do with real science or not) is what he was saying.