Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

It is not the graph, it is your almost fawning over your own beliefs that is the issue.

And as anybody that actually knows and understands the scientific method can tell you, correlation does not equal proof or fact. You just pick out things that you believe are related, and refuse to accept any conclusion other than the one you have already determined in your head to be correct. Of course, most of those who only argue based on faith have huge issues when things are presented that contradict their dogma. They pretty much universally dismiss such things and repeat their dogma again.

 

And just more attacking the messenger and not addressing the message as usual.

So what branch of science are you researching, and what field of science did you do your PhD in?

And what is your scientific evidence that the recent global warming isn't caused by increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity?

 

Adapted hell, we evolved in a global climate much hotter than it is today. Our very species evolved during an interglacial as an endurance hunter, and this is actually our third interglacial. If anything, it is us being able to adapt to the cold that helps us stand out. But to be accurate there was no "adaptation" needed for this ability, it is how we evolved in the first place. Which is very different from Neanderthal, which was not an endurance hunter and evolved specifically for life in a colder climate.

 

It is not an attack, it is a statement of fact. But funny, you sure do attack a hell of a lot. I guess you dismiss everybody that does not have a PhD that agrees with you.

Have a good day.

 

So what area of science do you do your research in?

And what is your scientific evidence that the recent global warming isn't caused by increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity?

 

Yep. Already addressed up-thread.

 

It's a great thing, but winter heating will require a lot more electricity if natural gas is to be eliminated.

 

Natural gas connections are banned on new houses.

 

China is getting better at moving pollution out of cities. Even out of the country. A lot of the coal burned to create EVs and batteries for China is being burned in Indonesia. Exporting pollution is big business.

We export pollution to China. They export pollution to Indonesia. We subsidize the entire process.

High percentage of silent vehicles combined with cell phone zombies seems like a bad combination. Wonder if pedestrian deaths are increasing? Something to research when I have time…

 

And were the temperatures during the interglacial more or less than 40 degrees C?

 

I'm reading a book called "The Sheer Ecstasy of being a Lunatic Farmer". This guy is a grass farmer, with animals and rotating pastures. He speaks about a lot of the items you mention above. We have a few goats who graze the land. I especially like them because they prefer the tumbleweeds (when they're young and green) to the grass. After having them on this prairieland for a number of years, I notice that our place greens-up before everybody else's. My neighbor commented on that.

 

Yes, and very vague as well as inaccurate.

That is not accurate, as "Humans" covers every species in the Homo genus. That includes everything after Australopithecus, in other words all from Homo Habilis to Homo Sapiens. Erectus, Neanderthal, Heidelbergensis, Denisovans, all are "Humans". And we know for a fact that Neanderthal evolved originally during an Ice Age, because as a species they were often referred to as "hyperarctic" because they were almost perfectly adapted for extreme cold environments.

And that is not true of "humans" that in the past tens of thousands of years have evolved farther in extreme climates. One thing more than any other is that as we populated the planet, we were able to evolve to fit into our new environment. That is something quite unique in "humans", as none prior to us seem to have had that ability. The Inuit and other modern people who live in extreme cold conditions have evolved many of the same features that Neanderthal had in order to preserve heat (even though they have almost no Neanderthal DNA). Humans in high altitudes also see changes after a generation or two to allow them to thrive in those conditions.

However, our cousins did not have that ability. Even the late Neanderthals in southern Spain still maintained all of their extreme cold adaptations. H. Sapiens has shown that it can quite radically change their own genetics in a relatively small number of generations. Something that none of the other Homo species seemed to have the ability to do. Which is why we are still here, and they are gone.[/quote]

 

Yes, nature has been perfecting solutions to our problems for eons. The common narrative is that large ruminants are destroying the planet. But large ruminants are one of the best soil carbon sequestration devices known. They also are carbon managers, making sure carbon stays in the soil. We are even learning that large herbivores/ruminants are vital to maintaining permafrost (they were key in creating it).

The problem is humans always want to try and misuse resources. Instead of grazing animals like the book you are reading, we want to destroy prairies of native grasses, grow corn cattle weren’t “designed” to eat on soils that we took from 6% organic matter to 1-2% organic matter with huge amounts of fossil fuel produced nitrogen fertilizer and then complain about the freaking cow. It’s not her fault! She’s exactly what the planet needs. The planet designed her!

I saw you said you had goats the other day. We are down to about 75 now. Used to run about 250. They are fascinating critters. And they certainly have a very important role in keeping land healthy and productive. As browsers they really complement grazers like cattle. Here on our home place where we keep most of them they have really done well keeping grazing areas from being taken over by wild plum and other brushy species. They have definitely improved the land. I’m glad they are doing the same for you.

What breed/breeds are your goats? We have Nubians, LaMancha, Alpines, and a few Toggenburgs.

I’ve transitioned some farm ground back to grass over the last few years. Some of my neighbors think I’m nuts, but I’m not particularly concerned about that. I’ve seen firsthand what happens when you take native grass and convert it to farmland. It’s not pretty and it makes quite an impression on you if you care about the environment.

 

[/QUOTE]

Humans primarily evolved in temps warmer than today. Yes there are exceptions. That’s why I said primarily.

The temperatures I quoted are accurate for the time periods of speciation quoted.

Inuits survive because they have highly functional brains. They know how to conserve and input energy into their systems. They also exhibit slightly different genetics selected for by their environment concerning metabolism etc. But none can live without energy inputs (outside of dietary) like seals and polar bears. And they are the exception, remember I said “primarily”.

That’s the point.

 

You've got some big goats. We have Nigerian dwarfs and one Nubian dwarf mix. At one time, with some new borns, we had about 17 goats, but the freaking HOA (#%$@^*) started complaining. We're down to 6 now. They're wonderful. My wife is totally hooked!

 

So we kind of half agree. Human expansion and culture has changed our relationship with the environment. Most like warm and cool but not too hot and not too cold. But cultural attachment and adaptation means some people love the extremes.

My only point with population and population density in tropical areas is to demonstrate the argument AGW increased global temperatures threaten human existence is a false premise.

Yes but that's current data. We haven't hit the significantly increased global temperatures yet. So we don't know what all aspects of our discussion will be like in 100 years. It will certainly be hotter. I guess there will be time for adaptation - or, more likely, technological accommodation to the tropical extremes becoming even hotter.

Again, though - and this is how I qualify your data through interpretation, while survival is obviously critical, there is more to human existence than mere survival. I'll be more convinced of the gist and depth of your argument when there are better-developed and organized cities in the tropics. You can almost count them on your finger: Cairns, Miami, Brunei and Honululu, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur (not quite there). Not many yet!?

For many people quality of life is just as if not more important than mere survival.
Also there is significant research suggesting that tropical heat can pose challenges to, if not mortality, then urban development.

Of course, urban planning can mitigate heat to an extent. And given the way the Earth is warming will have no choice, eh?

Further reading:

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/13/6/1368

 

It looks like it will definitely be hotter. We are increasing emissions globally annually at often record pace. We may have to start paying attention to and addressing anthropogenic warming pathways besides greenhouse gas emissions! The approach of singular focus on emissions doesn’t seem to be working….

Does the comfort of people in climates cooler than they “like” matter, or only people who don’t like being too warm today?

I’m not sure how organization has anything to do with it. Are you saying we need to do better using the tools we have to decrease the urban heat island effect?

Not sure how you compiled your list either. Is Darwin not organized? Bangkok?

My argument is about temperatures best suited for human survival.

Are you saying people are happier dead? I’m not opposed to folks being happy at all. But I’m much more concerned about them being not dead. Is your argument we should increase mortality to ensure happiness in a subset of survivors?

Should comfort for some take priority over mortality rates of the species?

I find this argument analogous to saying we should advocate against exercise. Because many people find it uncomfortable, the voluminous evidence it saves lives should be ignored. The comfort of those who don’t enjoy exercise should take precedence over evidence produced through application of the scientific method that human mortality is decreased by exercise.

Unless we are willing to shift some focus from reducing emissions to other anthropogenic drivers of warming and to sequestration of carbon it looks like warming will continue.

Yes. Since UHI effects increase temps by up to 5°C above ambient temps outside the urban area, urban planning is where to focus attention. Not AGW.

Yep. Urban heat islands are a problem. They also increase the global average temperature. If people want to live comfortably crammed into cities they may have to learn to put up with more greenery, less dark colored surfaces, and more water features. They may have to address the causes of their problems instead of focusing on the much less relevant global average temperature. Decisions have consequences.

 

It depends who you're talking about. I don't equate Indians struggling with their winter cold to living in climates that are cooler than they like. Their struggles are best probably better mitigated with warming technology than a warmer climate.

Buy better organised I mean better collaborative functioning. First World cities. I was careful how to define them because you'd probably start talking about Baltimore or somewhere..

I just thought of some. Forgot about Darwin. I actually don't think of it as a city. Oops. Bangkok scrapes the barrel for livebility, imo, but it does have nice areas. That's my bias.

Agreed! Except AGW should remain a focus.

(Fortunately most people like that)

Yes I absolutely think that the comfort of many should be balanced against the mortality of a subset. I don't think one should necessarily exclude or preclude the other. I also think what people want regardless of how educated we think they might be counts for something. If people prefer living in their cooler climates where they can think more clearly, and partake in educational and cultural opportunities not available elsewhere and enjoy the activities that come with that particular weather, then despite the (patently) increased risks of mortality their wishes should carry weight. We obviously shouldn't be corralling people into hotter climates just because statistically speaking there's a body of cross correlation studies that suggests they might live a bit longer (as long as they don't move about or exert themselves too much outside).

 

Mitty has demonstrated no ability even to engage in argument, let alone destroy any (other than his own).

 

Because that is the most "recent" warming he could be referring to. Before that, there were several years of cooling, so he could not have been talking about the longer time frame.

You mean since higher solar activity returned the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years?

See why it is important to define what you mean by "recent"?

Yes, well, IME it is sometimes helpful to identify fallacious and disingenuous trash as such, and not give it undeserved respect.

 

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. Your deceitful propaganda graphs have been posted here many times before; I already explained why they are disingenuous nonscience, and you have not even attempted to address my criticisms.

 

I already did, and you have not even attempted to address my criticisms.

Identifying a disingenuous and counterfactual appeal to oneself as an authority as a fallacy is not "attacking the messenger," sorry.

Like you, I do not hold a PhD. But unlike you, I have actually studied science, including planetary physics and atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university.

A hot summer in one local region -- and historically, Western Australia is often very hot -- is just normal climate variability, not "global warming," sorry.

 

No, because increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever source, is not the primary cause of global warming.

I would suggest developing better methods that maintain yields without stripping topsoil. More atmospheric CO2 would certainly help.

 

Which field of science do you do your research in? Is it in climatology or agriculture or marine biology?
And what is the cause of the recent global warming if it's not the increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity, given that it's not caused by increases in solar activity?
And what evidence do you have that recent removal of topsoil has increased global warming?
And what would "more atmospheric CO2" actually help, and would it actually reduce global warming?.

 

There's your error.