Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Sadly, I was not surprised to see an attempt to deflect via an attack on the messenger.
And let's get the format right: Special Issue Feature Papers—Multidisciplinary Sciences 2023

 

Human behavior isn’t really my wheelhouse. That’s your department. I don’t know why people choose certain places. I have a neighbor that snowbirds—lives here in the summer when it’s 90-95° F and goes to the desert of Utah in the winter to stay warm. I’m sure climate is a factor in where Australians choose to live but I’m sure other factors play a part as well. But if they all had to live in northern Queensland they wouldn’t die hand over fist from temperature exposure.

I’m not sure about South Africa. There is a lot more uniqueness to SA compared to the rest of Africa than just climate. But it could play a part. However, population density is much higher in more tropical African countries than in SA. So it’s hard to argue the higher temps threaten human existence.

Do you think Australians would choose to live in the southern regions if they didn’t have access to fossil fuels for heat?

Yep. Without massive energy inputs we just can’t survive on the vast majority of landmasses on this planet. It’s just too bloody cold compared to what we are genetically and phenotypically set up to handle. We don’t just like inputting energy, we have to if we are to survive. The only places huge outside energy sources aren’t required for survival are places like the tropics.

I just enjoyed this burden. I was highly motivated.

 

Just facts. Sorry you don't like them... And sorry that you feel attacked and see what I brought up as an attack.

The multi-disciplinary specialist publication specialises in formulating review through non-disciplinary (i.e. in a sense, non-peer input). This is a great way to get feedback quickly and turn out an interesting exploration. However, it does seem sensible to to hold off giving significant note or weight to this author until he expounds his theory in an appropriate credentialed, peer-reviewed- specific to the discipline - journal. (Hint: there's probably a reason why this hasn't happened yet). And then it would be even better if his perspective is supported from a number of angles and a number of authors of significant credential within high impact journals.

Does this seem fair enough?

 

I don't feel attacked, but I think your narrative about MDPI was an unfair hit job.
Submission to publication took nearly three months. (Submission received: 19 December 2023 / Revised: 23 February 2024 / Accepted: 29 February 2024 / Published: 14 March 2024) That seems reasonable.
The credentials of the academic editors and co-authors look appropriate for the paper's topic.
“Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

Mdpi does have some high impact sub- publications of good quality. But they do have a reputation as well. It's simply something to be aware of.

P.s. having published I consider 3 months relatively quick.

As for that specific paper and theory, let's see if it garners traction and further peer support.

 

Fair enough.

 

I almost feel, given your line of argument that we should be creating some kind of awareness society for the most humid and hot of climates ("where you, god forbid will never feel cold!"). We certainly have a massive one-third of a continent to fill

Moscow has a high population density. Not sure if I populations density is the critical component here.

Australians probably wouldn't be able to exist in the southern regions if it wasn't for fossil fuels! Never mind choice... (especially since we've paper-milled most of our forests).

 

Back and forth - from QUACKERY to CONSPIRACY THEORIES to QUACKERY. Mitty just destroyed this argument..

 

In what way is a NASA publication quackery?

 

Your 1, 2 and 3 are incredibly short term phenomena that don't answer for the significant warming that has been taking place since the industrial era began.

I don't believe rudeness enhances your argument.

 

That's their usual technique when they have no reply to the message, and just attack the messenger instead.

 

Tomorrow our gas water heater will be replaced with one using an electric driven heat exchanger which will be powered by our roof-top solar system, and our electricity account yesterday says that we are still in credit and our yearly electricity bill will probably be below $100 again.
Our daughter has recently installed a roof top solar system and an electric heat exchanger to heat their swimming pool, and they replaced their house gas heater with a reverse cycle air conditioner.

 

IOW you have no evidence to dispute those graphs.

 

And since you can't refute that data and the message, you just attack the messenger instead as usual.
So what did you do your PhD on, and was it coral bleaching or solar activity, or was it why wine grape crops were lost from global warming? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03...-worst-harvest-following-hot-summer/103581016

 

Do you have any scientific evidence to support your hypothesis that soil organic matter has caused the recent increases in atmospheric CO2 and global warming. And if so, how do you suggest we feed the planet without "modern farming methods"?

 

No, we are simply pointing out that every single point you try to make is based entirely upon faith and not the scientific method at all.

 

I was just thinking today that given our history of love of tree killing as a species, if we hadn’t discovered fossil fuels we would have denuded the entire planet over time.

With fossil fuels as replacements we managed to destroy about half!

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. It would be like claiming expansion of geyser basins in Yellowstone National Park threatens thermophilic bacteria. Or more seal hunting ice for polar bears is an existential threat to polar bears. It just isn’t a logical conclusion.

We don’t need to advertise. Humans have already gravitated to the areas most like the climate they evolved to live and reproduce in. Fortunately we as humans grew a better brain that allows us to use energy to our advantage so we can branch out more geographically. Other primates not so much. When’s the last time you saw a feral non human primate raising a family in or near Moscow?

 

Funny, coming from somebody that has none themselves. Every claim you have made is based entirely off of your belief, and you reject anything you do not like because it goes against your belief.

 

What evidence do you have to support your claim that the graph I posted with a strong correlation between increases in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 was based entirely on faith and not scientific method?

 

And just more attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message.

 

Which is why we are installing roof top solar collectors and solar farms and solar batteries and wind turbines and hydro electrical recycling etc

 

Yep. That’s good. I’m all for that.

I prefer a dual approach that includes taking carbon and putting it in the soil and living organisms where it belongs as well as reducing fossil fuel usage. I’m in a position to do both so I do. The carbon budget must be addressed from both ends. Unfortunately there is little interest in the general population in putting carbon to work for us.

At the end of the day, we should all be thankful we humans are already adapted to temperatures above what we see today. Because things aren’t going to cool off using the current approach. We are setting new emissions records annually in spite of the one sided approach to the carbon budget.

It’s time to spend more time and energy on the other side (sequestration) of the carbon budget and less telling people fibs to try and gain support for addressing the emissions side of the budget.

Not everyone is motivated by fear. Sometimes the “carrot” works better than the “stick”.

Anyway, I have more respect for stick wielders and carrot profferers that are willing to take personal actions on what they believe than ones that don’t! Thanks for acting.

 

Yes everything helps, but when I was in China and recently in Vietnam, I didn't see many roof top solar collectors even though our's were made in China, and the carrot is working here.

 

Probably the last thing the Chinese government wants is a citizenry not dependent on a power grid.

There is a pretty good chunk of the US population that abhors EVs, wind power, etc. and always will. The more they are harassed about it the more opposed they become. A large share of those folks would not oppose leveraging available atmospheric CO2 to increase vegetation, agricultural sustainability, soil stability, etc.

We aren’t even educating folks on the ways CO2 can be leveraged to increase quality of life while simultaneously reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. I see that as a problem.

For example. I know a lot of people who don’t want a wind farm on or near their property. But they wouldn’t oppose increased cover crop usage that would limit dust and odor from agricultural endeavors near their property.

The more people we have supporting multiple tools that address ecological problems the better off we all are.

 

I'm sure China is addressing that with new renewable energy systems, and doesn't want air pollution like Hanoi and why you have to be very wary of the silent electric motor cycles in China when crossing the road, unlike the smoking bangers in Hanoi and Saigon. https://www.statista.com/topics/11028/solar-energy-in-china/#topicOverview