Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Bull.

You posted it in a response to ME.

Plus, you criticize others for ad hom, but you regularly use ad hom yourself, declaring yourself smarter than others (even when you have no other defense), etc.

In fact, you resort to stuf flike $#!+.

 

When you modify the temperature of your environment you are doing it to survive and/or to change what you don’t like. If Indians in cold climates liked being cold, they wouldn’t expend so much fossil and bio energy to stay warm would they?

Australia is pretty warm climatically. About 4°C below India. You guys use 88% of total home climate control energy on heating. Only 12% on cooling.

The US uses 60% of total household energy usage for heating. Europe about 80% of total usage for heating.

If global temps are lower than optimum for human survival and even warm climates like Australia use far more energy for heating (because apparently they don’t like being cold), doesn’t it make as much sense to address people’s desire to be cooler with cooling technology as to address people who want to be warmer with warming technology? Seems like the logic would cut both ways, especially as so much more of the planet is below optimal than above temperature wise.

I agree organization of a city is a bit subjective. You have seen more of them than I have. I maintain the human population of them all are genetically equipped to thrive in warmer temps than today.

Isn’t Darwin nearly as populous as Cairns? All cities scrape the bottom of the barrel for livability for me. There’s no climate that could entice me to live in a city. Not even a 5°C heat island in Bangkok. LOL

Sure. I have no problem still trying to address global emissions. I just see it not having the desired effect. In my world if something you’ve been trying as a solution for a long time isn’t solving the actual problems, you have to attack the problem from a different angle. And in biological systems, it’s rare one angle is effective or sufficient anyway.

I’m not sure anymore. If they really did, we wouldn’t see such heat island effects. Essentially, if people do like those things, someone is already forcing them to live in hot areas against their wishes. We are corralling people into hotter climates.

How do we judge the comfort of many? If Australians use several times as much energy on warming their surroundings then cooling aren’t they telling us what they want? Actions speak louder than words kind of a situation? If I buy 8 tacos and only 2 burritos I’m kind of demonstrating I want more tacos than burritos. I can say I want more burritos than tacos, but my actions don’t show that I do. And mortality related to temperature isn’t a subset. It applies to all humans (with minor exceptions). The subjective metric of “comfort” is what divides humanity into subsets.

It seems we are corralling people in hotter climates—urban heat islands.

I’ve never considered making climate policy on subjective desires of unquantifiable demographics. I’ll give it some thought.

 

Well, I can't find any scholarly data on whether people around the world prefer a warmer or a cooler climate. I thought they might have something, particularly in Iceland I could dig up. Maybe I haven't looked deeply enough. Regarding Iceland I definitely see accounts of the understanding of the negative impact on ecology, tourism and fishing but also the opportunities for a warmer climate. I picked Iceland because my understanding was even though you think they would embrace a warmer climate, but it's not necessarily so from what I've read informally. I'd like some quantitative data though.

As individuals people we like 22 degrees Celsius, which suggests that they would want a global average higher temperature. But actually would they? I guess time will tell if we get studies that address this research question. But even then, say for example if Florida became unbearable in the summer but less Indians were dying. How do you weigh one set of benefits versus the other and who makes that decision? I think in the end it is unquantifiable!

 

@557 reply above.

 

I don't know? Are the two related? I think we would need a specific research question to look at that. Perhaps they would prefer an insulated house or blankets rather than burning firewood. And they might even prefer air conditioning in summer...

It's still depends on what people want. Perhaps Australians are happy consuming energy in winter and that doesn't necessarily mean that they want a hotter Earth. I agree that cooling technology development is important. Probably particularly important in Australia. Again, nothing scholarly asking that direct research question. I don't think they would prefer a cooling Earth though...

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2013/09/ice-age-struck-indigenous-australians-hard/

 

Unsourced, unlinked and already debunked. I await something credible.

 

The data suggest otherwise.

 

@Melb_muser

It’s very difficult to assess what people want. As I mentioned, often what they say they want isn’t what their actions show they want.

How much of what people say they want is influenced by propaganda? If people are told from birth heat kills them and their loved ones more than cold, what are they going to say they want? If people are told from birth AGW is a hoax, what are they going to say they want?

If a person is born into a family that gives tours of glaciers, what are they going to say they want? Of course as I can see every day right in front of my face how AGW benefits me (and society through my increased ability to provide food and hundreds of other consumer products) how can I ignore that?

And if equality or fairness is a policy goal, how can that be done. It’s not “fair” now. I’d like a freaking banana grove. I mean I’d really like that. It’s not fair folks in northern Queensland can grow bananas and I can’t. I can’t open a ski slope either. Not fair that I can’t have what I want and have to maximize productivity of what I have access to. I could probably move, but not everyone has that option.

If I moved to Queensland so I can grow bananas and contributed to the demand for deforested land for cultivation, is that more or less fair to global society than staying here and sequestering carbon in soils denuded by my predecessors?

As far as wanting a cooler earth, I’ve seen folks infer that’s what they want. That blows my mind, but I know it isn’t what they really want. It’s what propaganda has influenced them to want. I don’t think anyone would actually want a cooler planet. Perhaps a psychopath that wants people to die.

We do live on a planet that has global trade now. That helps with the “fairness” assessment. I can trade bananas for leather car seats etc. But as long as we live on a wobbly sphere and get our energy from the sun it’s not going to be equitable. And few get what they want or think they want.

Lots of interesting questions without easy answers. What’s fair? How do you make it fair? Should policy be based on what people want even if it’s known to do harm? Should what people want be influenced by propaganda put out by policy makers? Is there any ethical or moral obligation that propaganda be based on evidence?

It’s fun to have you pull me over from the purely physiological side and examine the questions that can’t be answered easily by figuring up mortality rates and observing effects of temperature on cardiovascular events. Damn the “soft sciences” anyway. LOL

I’m of course joking about the soft sciences. I’ve never understood why just because they are more complex and difficult to study they are the “soft” ones. Might have that colloquial designation backwards. I think at some point we will realize we did get that one backwards. Anyway, that’s my backhanded way of saying thanks.

 

No it's not, and the graphs are 100% credible, and sourced widely, if you'd care to look.

 

Where do they go on vacation? Hawai'i or Greenland? Look at a population map of the world: maximum density near the equator, declining to near-zero by the time you get to 60 latitude. 'Nuff said.

Most of Iceland's population died of cold during the LIA.

The main reason our ancestors were able to thrive at all when they left the tropics was that they got away from tropical diseases. When Europeans first tried to colonize sub-Saharan Africa in the 16th-18th century, most of them died of tropical diseases within two years. That will be less and less of an issue as AI-enabled biotechnology improves.

 

No, that is false. Those graphs are deliberately designed to deceive, and not credible in the slightest degree. I have seen those exact same graphs posted many times, and I have explained many times, very patiently, in clear, simple, grammatical English, why they are nothing but deceitful nonscience:
1. The near-linear, skyrocketing temperature record shown for the last several decades is either uncorrected or deliberately under-corrected for non-CO2 effects on thermometer readings like urban heating, land use changes, contrails, and human heat-producing activities, especially at night, which is when almost all the warming has occurred;
2. The temperature record in those graphs has also been retroactively altered to conform to the CO2 climate narrative by removing the sharp decline in global surface temperature from the 1940s to the 1970s;
3. The use of total solar irradiance as the only permitted index of the sun's effect on climate is deliberately deceitful because it is known not to vary enough to have a significant effect -- no honest, competent scientist who investigates the relationship between solar activity and climate uses TSI as their index of solar activity; and
4. The graphs both end several years ago, before the temperature downtrend of 2016-2022 and the solar activity increase since early 2022.

 

No, you are aware that that is false. I have identified the relevant facts. You have merely realized that you have no way to respond to the facts I identified, so you just make $#!+ up. It's always the same.

 

Take it up with NOAA. They publish the information. They are highly respected and reputable, unlike this Conspiracy Theory rhetoric.

 

Fact. Read the thread.

Yes, but it was a response to your claim about "climate scientists." Not you.

Pay attention.

That's not ad hominem, and I never refer to my education or intellect except when they have been falsely derogated by the other side.

I can't match Jack's equanimity. Sue me.

 

Which is that there is a very strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity. and zero correlation with changes in solar activity.

 

It's not constant in the least, as already explained. Temperature records that have been retroactively altered to show constant warming in conformance with the CO2 climate narrative are not credible or scientifically valid.

But CO2, specifically, is far more beneficial than harmful; so if we want to slow warming (why would we?), there are better ways to do it. One would be to use ocean fertilization to increase the earth's albedo, which would also increase fishery productivity.

To push the CO2 climate narrative, not to understand climate.

 

Already refuted multiple times.

 

Disgraceful.

 

I am aware that NOAA is a government agency subject to political control, not a scientific body.

They were, until they were instructed to push the CO2 climate narrative.

 

It is the responsibility of the poster to provide the sourcing and the link(s). And I already showed why they are debunked. The fact that alarmists cling to them merely illustrates their aversion to actual data.

 

Which is that there is a very strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity. and zero correlation with changes in solar activity.

 

And why there is a very strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity. and zero correlation with changes in solar activity.

 

Neither claim is true.

 

Which is a very strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity. and zero correlation with changes in solar activity.

 

Sorry, but your unsupported claim carries no weight.

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)

1. Perhaps the most beautiful correlation between a solar activity and climate proxies can be found in the work of U. Neff et al., "Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago", Nature 411, 290 (2001).
2. Another beautiful correlation between solar activity and climate can be seen in the work of G. Bond et al., "Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene", Science, 294, 2130-2136, (2001).

Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th ...
ScienceDirect.com
https://www.sciencedirect.com › article › abs › pii

by S Ziskin · 2012 · Cited by 28 — Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century. Author links open overlay panelShlomiZiskinNir J.Shaviv. Show more. Add ...