[Bored chemist]

Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan

Are you claiming that inflation due to poor governance in third world countries or mass migration is due to climatic changes that have happened already are due to climate change/CO2?

I know it sounds like the stuff that comes out of the Green/Communist/Alarmist/Warmist camp because such drivel often does but it just blaming everything on climate change that has not actually happened yet. Find another boggy man.

Let me get this straight.
You make up a nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 and pretend that it might be anything to do with the thread..
Then you try say that this trash is in some way related to the people who actually accept science.

That's certainly an odd way to look at the world..

[alancalverd]

Fact is that natural tree growth has accelerated during the current warming period. Difficult to make any assessment about farmed crops since agricultural practices and crop genetics have probably contributed more to yield variance than any climate change, and annual harvests tend to "reset the zero"  so year-on-year yield figures depend on weather rather than climate. But satellite imagery of wilderness forests, and longterm yields of tree crops like coconuts  does suggest a "benign" effect to date.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

I think that the predictions of reductions in agricultural yealds are lies. Pure and simple. When we want to grow plants quickly we put them in greenhouses with more heat, more water and more CO2 which causes them, all of them, to thrive.

So your commitment to ignorance starts with your knowledge of those plants that thrive in greenhouses and complete lack of knowledge about plants in general? Good to know. This says a lot about your character.

Which area of land produces the most food per unit area The Canadian Paries or Wheat fields in Brazil?

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

...
OK, so we have finally narrowed down the doom list to bad weather due to increased energy in the system. And not the Gulf stream thing.
This is obviously drivel.

Quite.
Your post is obvious drivel- because we haven't excluded the gulf stream at all.
What I did was point out that the weather will be affected.
That has many outcomes- many of them bad for people.

And yet you seem to have treated it as if it's trivial.

OK, back to the potential of a 1% impact, during the height of summer, of the amount of fresh water mixing with the northern side of the Gulf stream and dropping down to the ocean depths which will have a less than 1% impact on anything in the UK.

Do you really think that will be noticable at all???

Please say how much heat energy change in watts per square meter you think it will have. Please say under what conditions this will take place and when.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

...
I think that the predictions of reductions in agricultural yealds are lies. Pure and simple. When we want to grow plants quickly we put them in greenhouses with more heat, more water and more CO2 which causes them, all of them, to thrive.

You point out that we put plants in carefully controlled conditions to get them to grow better.
You are saying that removing the controls that we already have will make them grow fattier.
That's absurd: which one do you mean?
.
And why would anyone bother to lie?

I do not understand the above. The grammer does not seem to make sense to me.

I think that plants grow quicker in warmer wetter conditions with more CO2 given all other factors are the same and you don't go over 35c. I don't know what happens then.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan

Are you claiming that inflation due to poor governance in third world countries or mass migration is due to climatic changes that have happened already are due to climate change/CO2?

I know it sounds like the stuff that comes out of the Green/Communist/Alarmist/Warmist camp because such drivel often does but it just blaming everything on climate change that has not actually happened yet. Find another boggy man.

Let me get this straight.
You make up a nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 and pretend that it might be anything to do with the thread..
Then you try say that this trash is in some way related to the people who actually accept science.

That's certainly an odd way to look at the world..

JefferyH made the nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 not I.

This is what I mean by your normal high intelligence flying away when you are in this subject area.

[Bored chemist]

JefferyH made the nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 not I.

This is what I mean by your normal high intelligence flying away when you are in this subject area.

No
He didn't.
What he said was that climate change would make a bad situation worse.
Whatever my intelligence may be or do, you just say things that are not true.
Why is that?

[jeffreyH]

Fact is that natural tree growth has accelerated during the current warming period. Difficult to make any assessment about farmed crops since agricultural practices and crop genetics have probably contributed more to yield variance than any climate change, and annual harvests tend to "reset the zero"  so year-on-year yield figures depend on weather rather than climate. But satellite imagery of wilderness forests, and longterm yields of tree crops like coconuts  does suggest a "benign" effect to date.

That is interesting. Satellite imagery is a good way to monitor change.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

JefferyH made the nonsensical relationship between inflation rates in the developing world and CO2 not I.

This is what I mean by your normal high intelligence flying away when you are in this subject area.

No
He didn't.
What he said was that climate change would make a bad situation worse.
Whatever my intelligence may be or do, you just say things that are not true.
Why is that?

Quote from: jeffreyH on 17/04/2017 14:25:46

    Rocketing inflation making food unaffordable, war disrupting agriculture and mass migration of refugees. It's here now and won't be improved by a changing climate.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/20/famine-declared-in-south-sudan

Are you claiming that inflation due to poor governance in third world countries or mass migration is due to climatic changes that have happened already are due to climate change/CO2?

I know it sounds like the stuff that comes out of the Green/Communist/Alarmist/Warmist camp because such drivel often does but it just blaming everything on climate change that has not actually happened yet. Find another boggy man.

It was JeffreyH who first brought up this thing about hyperinflation in the third world.

I do not consider inflation to be related to global warming.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Has anybody seen any actual reply that actually has something scary in it and supports it with a mechanism that is it's self supported by some actual science?

Hopefully it will be somebody else's post which you point out.

[PhysBang]

Has anybody seen any actual reply that actually has something scary in it and supports it with a mechanism that is it's self supported by some actual science?

Hopefully it will be somebody else's post which you point out.

Well, no. Because when someone puts up a link, you ask for the mechanism of the mechanism. So you will never find the link you are looking for.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Has anybody seen any actual reply that actually has something scary in it and supports it with a mechanism that is it's self supported by some actual science?

Hopefully it will be somebody else's post which you point out.

Well, no. Because when someone puts up a link, you ask for the mechanism of the mechanism. So you will never find the link you are looking for.

You have to explain what happens (the mechanism) and then post a link to some sort of science to support it.

You have yet to explain any mechanism.

Don't feel too bad about this as nobody else has sone so so far. I live in hope.

[Bored chemist]

Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Well, I read the first one.

What of that do you find troubling?

You see it might just be that I am far more confortable with risk than you are. That I see far more opportunities and look at the supposed bad things and don't see them being suficently well supported by deceny mechamisms to be justified.

So, as always; What is scary? and what mechanism will do it? Same old question.

You are not being "risk averse" you are being fact averse.
The thing that is still scary is the thing we have told you before.
We don't like dead people.
Same old answer.
For the same old reasons, by the same old mechanisms.
The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather.
You seem to be consistently ignoring that.

[Bored chemist]

Has anybody seen any actual reply that actually has something scary in it and supports it with a mechanism that is it's self supported by some actual science?

Hopefully it will be somebody else's post which you point out.

Well, no. Because when someone puts up a link, you ask for the mechanism of the mechanism. So you will never find the link you are looking for.

You have to explain what happens (the mechanism) and then post a link to some sort of science to support it.

You have yet to explain any mechanism.

Don't feel too bad about this as nobody else has sone so so far. I live in hope.

Yes we have- you just keep lying about it.

[alancalverd]

Tim: when someone calls you a liar, my advice is to walk away.

Remember that "they" present "adjusted" data. "We" apparently just tell lies, even when we are only asking for information. You can't win an argument with a gatepost. 

[PhysBang]

Tim: when someone calls you a liar, my advice is to walk away.

Remember that "they" present "adjusted" data. "We" apparently just tell lies, even when we are only asking for information. You can't win an argument with a gatepost. 

Says the liar. And bigot.

[Bored chemist]

My advice if someone calls you a liar is to check if you said something that isn't true; something perhaps like this
"You have yet to explain any mechanism. "
After someone has posted a mechanism
"The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather."

And, if it turns out that you have in fact lied then you have some options;
you can apologise or,
you can take the coward's way out and- as Alan advocates- run away.

Obviously, there's third option.
Ignore reality and carry on as if it didn't happen; keep on peddling the same stuff.
I wonder which approach Tim's going to adopt.
(Spoiler alert- he "has got previous" for option 3.)

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

My advice if someone calls you a liar is to check if you said something that isn't true; something perhaps like this
"You have yet to explain any mechanism. "
After someone has posted a mechanism
"The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather."

And, if it turns out that you have in fact lied then you have some options;
you can apologise or,
you can take the coward's way out and- as Alan advocates- run away.

Obviously, there's third option.
Ignore reality and carry on as if it didn't happen; keep on peddling the same stuff.
I wonder which approach Tim's going to adopt.
(Spoiler alert- he "has got previous" for option 3.)

What I am asking for is for you to explain the mechanism. Not just post a link to something but for you to actually expalin it. Only then will I bother to look at the link. This is because I am constantly fobbed off with the classic religious tactic of refering to a too long to read irrevalent drivel thing to avoid answering a direct question.

So you will need to explain, in your words, why more even temperatures across the world would result in "more extreme weather" and also say what the hell that means.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Tim: when someone calls you a liar, my advice is to walk away.

Remember that "they" present "adjusted" data. "We" apparently just tell lies, even when we are only asking for information. You can't win an argument with a gatepost. 

Given that the likelyhood of changing anybodies mind from the 100% confirmed alarmist camp is low the purpose of my efforts here is not to get BC to agree that there is nothing to worry about but to show to the rest of the world the lack of anything that should cause us to have any concearn over this global warming drivel.

By being attacked in the way I am the absence of any scientific argument from the alarmists glares out for all to see.

This is, I think, the most clear of debates, the most clear of results for the spectators of this. They do most of my job for me.

[Tim the Plumber (OP)]

Here is a New Scientist article outlining the bad things that will accompany warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live-warming-will-be-great/

Well, I read the first one.

What of that do you find troubling?

You see it might just be that I am far more confortable with risk than you are. That I see far more opportunities and look at the supposed bad things and don't see them being suficently well supported by deceny mechamisms to be justified.

So, as always; What is scary? and what mechanism will do it? Same old question.

You are not being "risk averse" you are being fact averse.
The thing that is still scary is the thing we have told you before.
We don't like dead people.
Same old answer.
For the same old reasons, by the same old mechanisms.
The essential mechanism is that you put more power into the heat engine that we call the weather.
You seem to be consistently ignoring that.

Select one of the scary things in there.

Then explain why it will happen.

Then support it with some actual science that says it is likely.

Then we can look at it and see if it is really scary or just another of the panic over nothing things like the gulf stream thing.