Climate Change, page-506

Hey, great post and thanks for being respectful, and happy to respond.

"I dunno about you, but this looks like cold temps are getting more frequent...not so sure about the warm ones?"The left graph - correct me if I'm wrong - shows colder temps are getting less cold. The coldest temps went from -8 to above -4 (-3?) Whereas the hottest temps remained flat with a big jump in the middle. However, the US isn't the globe, and some parts will get hotter, and some will get colder. Check out polar vortexes for more context. That being said, the Global Average is rising.

"What do these sweeping generalisations actually mean? Global increase in rain? or in different places? or are the patterns more inconsistent? Higher rates of desiccation? Are you saying in some areas there is no rain (because it is somewhere else), therefore increased rates of desiccation in those areas? Does that mean less in areas with more rain? Environmental stability? If you mean in terms of less catastrophic events, then I agree, but isn't that a good thing?"I don't think I said global increase in rain? I said shifting rainfall patterns. The source that I posted (Climate Change and Food Systems (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5_27#:~:text=Considerable%20evidence%20has%20by%20now,2021) has a lot of citations if you wanted to read them. But yes, what the evidence shows is that some areas will receive much less rain, and some areas will receive much more. I don't know how quickly one can move their farm 2000 miles away, but I gather it isn't easy.

"Usually the narrative is "yes they are increasing, but it could have been so much more!"...crikey. I could have won the $1B lotto...but I didn't.More unsupported sweeping statements of catastrophe. Here's the data, globally."

Yes, thanks for innovations, increased productivity, fertilizers etc, yields have risen from 1961 to where we currently are. (although, bananas and potato's are arguably less important than the grains lower on the list, and cassava more of a staple in Africa rather than the Western world, but I digress), These agricultural systems are currently being threatened and with rising populations are already struggling. Add in the consequences (some places already seeing it, but in 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years) of rainfall patterns shifting, longer droughts, more frequent heatwaves etc and your crops will be stressed. (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.925548/full)

"Those that support Darwinism believe that homo sapiens are the first species to not go extinct as a result of their environment. That is because we are able to control our exposure. Homes, air-conditioning and the like, all mean that we can *adapt*. The total count of natural disasters is down. Temperature continues to fluctuate. Deaths related to the environment in any capacity are down."I don't know what you mean by "support Darwinism" can you elaborate? Total natural disasters is down? Which ones? What is the intensity? For example, last research I read on Hurricanes in North America showed that whilst there might be fewer hurricanes, the ones that do form will be much much stronger (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26216813). Heatwaves are getting more frequent, starting earlier, lasting longer, etc (https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/9901f6614a2cac7b2b888f55b4dff9cc.pdf)
We (you and I) live in a wealthy country. As you say, we can turn the air-con on. We have access to fresh cold water, etc etc. There are many many more people that dont.

"1. Show an example of direct cause and effect for a catastrophic event. Saying cows make the temp rise doesn't count. What AGW event caused something so extraordinary that there is no doubt what the root case was, and we can repeat it whenever we choose
- This shows quantifiable root-cause. It is the basis of good science.
- If it isn't catastrophic, who cares.."

Are you asking me to show you a catastrophic event that I can say, "Oh, this (Heatwave, cyclone, etc) was 100% caused by AGW, and it wouldn't have happened without AGW? I just want to clarify, because if that's what you're asking, that's impossible. As I have said many times. AGW exacerbates natural phenomena.

"2. Assume we did *nothing* and actually increased our CO2 output, given the fact that even alarmists keep using computers/phones/cars etc.(in other words, they don't really believe it IMHO)what is the WORST thing that WILL happen and why?
- Not even the IPCC predicts anything more than 4 degrees, with no certainty of impact, so I'm very interested in your thoughts here."

I don't think its a fair assessment to say "alarmists keep using technology and electricity therefore they don't believe in it"

Firstly, I have shown many times that Hagetaka had been an alarmist (you'll have to scroll back a few pages) and misquoted things to make it sound much worse (or better) even though his own source didn't come to that conclusion. And just because someone uses electricity, or a car, or whatever doesn't mean they don't believe in AGW. You can actively take steps to reduce your impact. I have solar panels on the roof. I upgraded my car about 3 years ago to a more fuel efficient one. I try to reduce my consumption where I can. Just because I still consume doesn't mean I don't accept the consequences of my actions.

But I digress.

What is the worst thing that WILL happen?

I don't know. I wont pretend to know what will happen. No one can tell you what will 100% happen. Science doesn't work with that sort of certainty and I think its unfair of you to expect a natural system to not have any variables. I cant think of any science that doesn't have some sort of error bars when describing something. No doctor will tell you that you will survive an operation with 100% certainty. That doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing, it just means that there are variables we cant always account for.

I have posted this YouTube channel before. He does a great job (way better than me) at reporting what the scientific papers have shown. He also calls out BS arguments from both sides - alarmists and "deniers". Always shows sources, and does it in a way that we should all be able to understand. If you have 15 minutes, I'd suggest you have a watch. I've gone out of my way to look at some of the videos that other posters have uploaded.

Anyway, that's all for now.