Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

D wrote:

  On Thu, 19 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

D wrote:

>
>

>
You are concurring with Lynn's claim that global warming is due to the sun. It is not.  We do study variations in the sun's output very closely, and such variations do not explain the current warming.
>
This has been known for decades.
>
You are also concurring with Lynn's claim that almost all climate change in the past was due to solar change.  We know this not to be the case, in particular with the ice ages.  We've known this for decades, suspected it for more than a century.
>
The world has often in the distant past been warmer than it is now. Yet the sun was dimmer.   Clearly, other factors also count, even dominate at times.
>
In your first paragraph you confuse climate with weather.  That's a mistake. Further, it does sometimes happen that night is warmer than day.  Weather's like that.
>
The press does indeed sometimes print stories about solar change.  It does not print that many for reasons given in the first paragraph.
>
But ignorance is not stupidity, it can be cured easily enough.
>
Lynn has maintained that he cannot believe in global change because it would be bad for his business. He is probably wrong in this, but it is for this reason that Lynn sees ignorance, or pretended ignorance, as being in his financial interests.  That is why I did not respond to Lynn.
>
While politics can attach itself to anything, at heart this is not a political question.  Observations  show the earth to be warming, and we know why.  Unexpected predictions, like Stratospheric cooling, were made in the 1960s and have been shown to be true (this alone contradicts warming by increased solar output, though one ill-informed person on this group cited it as evidence *against* AGW).
>
We have not yet begun to feel the worst effects, but weather events around the world tell us that change is here.  As do rigorous statistical studies.
>
What to do about it? Now that is indeed a political question.   One might propose doing nothing, just adapting to change.  One might propose a severe cut in GHG emissions.  One might propose geoengineering.   Or some mix of the above.  But we'll never make progress on these issues without accepting that the change is here, and worse is on the way.
>
Thirty five years ago, I said technology. It was clear that humans were going to use more and more energy, so that unless our energy sources were cleaned we wouldn't stop below 4XC02. But we didn't put the effort into it that was required.  No matter how fast we implement the low carbon technologies we now have or are developing, that alone will not alone save us from a 3C warmer world.
>
I would guess that you and Lynn would be for adaptation - get used to the higher  temperatures and more acid ocean, somehow, - or geoengineering. Either of those would probably have a less heavy regulatory framework than emissions cuts and that would fit with your political views.
>
But you won't make progress on either of those areas while wasting time arguing against reality. The more effort you put at that, the more the question of what solutions to adapt will be dominated by other people, and those will not be the solutions you prefer.
>
In part through the use of fossil fuels our ancestors created a society where ordinary people are live in comfort and safety beyond the dreams even of the richest people of earlier days, and have opportunities denied their ancestors for millennia.  But many good things have bad side effects and the task of those who received the benefits is to deal with those side effects.
>
That task has fallen to us.
>
It is one thing to fail our descendants because we were wrong.  Far worse to fail them because we didn't try.
>
>
>
William Hyde
>

 Hmm, this is very strange. No insults, no ad hominems, somewhere in your text, surely an insult or two are hiding? Can't find it!

I leave those to you, and you provide plenty.

 Needless to say, there are loads of scientists who are of the opinion that what we see is natural and not man made.

When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be unqualified individuals.
But it doesn't matter, only arguments do.  Neither you nor Lynn have offered a scintilla of evidence in defense of your position (the solar constant variations you mention in another post are the ones I cited above, and do not explain global warming at all).
Frankly, if a hundred  Nobel prize winning scientists told me GW was untrue I wouldn't believe them unless they had evidence showing it to be so.  I might doubt my own sanity, mind you.
For a start, one of  those scientists you mention could explain why the pattern of warming is not that we would expect from a hotter sun.  In particular, why is  the stratosphere cooling?
  We also must remember that

science is not democracy, where you vote, so it doesn't matter if 10 people believe X if 1 person can prove Y.

But you can't prove Y.  You haven't even tried. But I've presented evidence for X.
  Of course there is inertia in

the system, so the 10 won't change over night, but eventually, with a paradigm shift or two they will.

On the contrary, if the world of 2100 is two C warmer than today, denialists will still be denying.

 So since neither will convince the other,

You don't even try.  And your declaration of closed-mindedness is disturbing.
That's not how science works.  It is how dogma works, though.
  let's put that question aside,

and focus on the second part.
 Regardless of if it is man made or natural, what to do?

Nowhere below do you mention the increasingly acid ocean.  That place where our oxygen largely comes from.  Life can adapt to slow changes in PH.  But this is not slow.
What is your plan for that?  And how much will it cost?

 Since climate, coast lines, temperatures and what ever has shifted numerous times before (without the help of man) humanity has adapted or moved to a better place.
 The same strategy will work now as well. For instance, where I now live, there was once 3 km of ice (without the help of man, and it disappeared without the help of man too), and at that time no one lived here. Now people live here.

This is one of the fundamental errors of denialists.  To compare change that took place over eighteen thousand years with change due to take place  over a couple of centuries.
Life can adapt to slow change, not so well to fast change.  We actually depend quite a great deal on the natural world, not least for pollinators.
After all, at one point the Earth was a cloud of gas, so vaporizing it wouldn't be such a bad thing, would it?

 So if one areas gets hot, people will move to another.

Great, let's move 30 million Brazilians to the US. I'm sure the republican party will have no problem with that!
And how about a hundred million Indians while you're at it?  They may soon have to switch to more heat-resistant but lower yielding crops in India, so I'm sure some would prefer Kansas.
  There is also AC

and numerous other technologies to deal with that.

Air conditioning does not work for farmland.  Or were you planning on giving up food?
The areas of the world now too cold for agriculture mostly do not have good soil, or in some cases soil at all. Northern Ontario is a vast area, but even if it becomes warm enough to grow crops, it won't produce as much as a county in Iowa.  After a century of effort it might just get there.

 The coast line will move? Not a problem, move inland.

Sure, the cost of abandoning New York, London, Shanghai, Amsterdam, Washington, Miami, Hamburg ... it's a rounding error.  Putting up housing, schools, transport, hospitals, factories, and the like for a billion people will boost the economy!  Buy Toll Brothers!
Have we, as humans ever shown the ability to move large populations without a huge death toll?
eco-fascism,   Power corrupts, and absolute

power corrupts absolutely.

climate-hysteric
  eco-fascist
I seem to recall something about the beam in your own eye.  Maybe from an early SF novel?

 He also explains why all is not doom and gloom. The planet has been warmer, it is currently greening,

Ah, that explains the vast forest fires.   Black is the new green.
Last year's wildfires burnt 185,000 square kilometers in Canada.  They didn't all go out in the winter.  This year isn't so bad, only double thew worst previous year. Four years ago in Australia the toll was 240,000 square km.
  so warmer climate will bring a lot of

good with it.

You provide zero evidence of this.

 So I say, enjoy the ride, enjoy reclaiming deserts,

The general effect of warming is that areas which get a lot of rain get more, areas which get little get less.
So some dry areas are becoming deserts.  Wet areas get flooding.
As the Hadley cell expands, some areas will become desert, and some deserts will indeed green.  But this is still a net negative.
and longer summers,

and do not work to introduce eco-fascism,

Just can't seem to stop the insults, can you?
  which will only bring wars and

death when the public gets desperate.

War is on the way already, if not here. We'll see more as people get desperate.
So, the costs of doing nothing involve moving, housing, and etc, a billion people or so, somehow keeping the ocean sufficiently alkaline, converting  millions of square miles of tundra, permafrost, and lichen-covered rocks into farmland, losing endless cultural and historic sites, dealing with a vastly changed ecology in an attempt to keep our food supply safe, and dealing with wars over water and food.
Sounds much cheaper than greening our economy!
William Hyde