how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[SSDD]

In your case, the infection zones for illnesses like, say, Cholera are moving northwards through Central America. It makes sense that areas like Florida, California and New Mexico are most at risk.

OK, finally an actual claim. So let's examine it to see how real it actually is. What are the vectors by which cholera spreads? The CDC says that cholera is a danger primarily in places where the water source is contaminated with feces from a person already infected with cholera or places with inadequate water treatment or poor sanitation and inadequate hygene. You may think that the southeast US is a backwater, but we do have water treatment and to the best of my knowledge, feces contaminated water, inadequate water treatment, and poor sanitation are not an issue anywhere within the US.

So that is how the CDC says that cholera becomes a problem in any given area. Clearly, no matter how warm it gets here, especially with a 2 degree increase in the global mean, it will not be an issue. For example, the average mean in Florida is more than 15 degrees higher than it is in my state and Florida does not have a cholera problem.

Then we must necessarily look at the history of cholrera to see if temperature really is the issue here. A quick look at the history of cholera in the US highlights the great cholera outbreak in New York in 1832. The history says that New York was probably hit harder than any other state in the US with cholera. Now the average mean temperature in my state is 55.1 and the average mean temperature in New York is 45.4. New York is 9.7 degrees F colder than my state and yet, it has been the hardest hit by cholera including Florida which has an average mean temperature of 25.3 degrees higher than that of New York.

Further examination of the history of Cholera tells me that it was a chronic problem throughout Europe, even in the northern Climes as well as Russia where 100,000 people died between 1829 and 1951, in Germany where 150,000 people died in 1831, in England, where 55,000 people died in 1832, and even the north pacific coast of the US in 1834. Even Finland was hit multiple times with cholera epidemics during the 19th century. Are you going to tell me that the average mean temperature in Finland is higher than anywhere in the southeast US?

I could go on, but clearly, temperature is not the threat with cholera as it can reach epidemic proportions in a place as cold as Moscow.

Under moderatly close examination, your threat of cholera turns out to be no threat at all unless you are claiming that a 2 degree temperature increase will cause water treatment plants to shut down and people to disregard sanitation and hygene.
This might help you understand the point here:

The density and habitats of Aedes aegypti have expanded both in urban and rural areas. This mosquito is once again infesting regions from which it was previously eradicated.

You can bet that if white people start dying from malaria again as opposed to the brown people in the 3rd world, the ban on DDT will disappear post haste. And there are other means of controlling insects. That threat also doesn't stand up under even moderat examination.

I'm constantly amazed that you are unable to figure these things out for yourself.

I am amazed that such blatantly fraudulent threats could impress you enough so that you would repeat them in public. Cleary you have not actually looked at the history of cholera or malaria otherwise you would know that temperature is not the threat and both can be easily contained via practice.

As for the extent of the temperature rise needed, I doubt even experts can say precisely.

Of course not. "Experts" seem to know all till actually put to the question and then everything becomes vague and ethereal. Clearly 2 degrees would not produce any such issues and at this point, only the real crazies are predicting more than 2 degrees as a result of their fraudulent AGW hypothesis.

Breeding conditions for insects depend a lot on humidity and local conditions, obviously. Mosquitos are difficult little bastards to control.

No they aren't. We did it handily in the 1940's when there was much more rural swampland than there is now. Again, your threat doesn't hold water.

If you had read the article I linked yesterday, it did explain this quite clearly. You poo-poohed it, of course, as you usually do.

I read the article then looked at the video that was provided showing THE preiminent insect disease vector expert in the entire world saying that temperature was not a threat insofar as insect spread disease goes.

I don't see this as a national crisis and I don't think there is any reason to panic, but when you claim US farmers have nothing to fear from climate change, then clearly you have not thought things like this through at all. How much would a single Yellow Fever outbreak in an urban area cost?

So far, you have not named anything that even requires mild concern. The problems you name might have been problems 150 years ago and still are in the third world where they are living as we did 150 years ago due to environmentalist denying them access to electricity and all the benefits that come with it...but they are not issues in the industrial nations today.

 

[SSDD]

Doers have taken over and will save at least some of us from the delay in action that the Denialist culture has imposed on our fate.

Maybe you are unaware that your "doers" are dependent on public support (votes) and at present, climate change doesn't even rate in the top 10 concerns for voters. In fact, politicians up for election or reelection are afraid to even say climate change. So as far as doing, the only thing being done is AGW wackos yammering on the internet and modelers and their models continuing to fail.

 

[PMZ]

Doers have taken over and will save at least some of us from the delay in action that the Denialist culture has imposed on our fate.

Maybe you are unaware that your "doers" are dependent on public support (votes) and at present, climate change doesn't even rate in the top 10 concerns for voters. In fact, politicians up for election or reelection are afraid to even say climate change. So as far as doing, the only thing being done is AGW wackos yammering on the internet and modelers and their models continuing to fail.

Thanks for sharing your typical this is the world as I wish it was and is reinforced daily through extreme conservative cult media.

You continued irrelevance is guaranteed.

 

[SSDD]

Doers have taken over and will save at least some of us from the delay in action that the Denialist culture has imposed on our fate.

Maybe you are unaware that your "doers" are dependent on public support (votes) and at present, climate change doesn't even rate in the top 10 concerns for voters. In fact, politicians up for election or reelection are afraid to even say climate change. So as far as doing, the only thing being done is AGW wackos yammering on the internet and modelers and their models continuing to fail.

Thanks for sharing your typical this is the world as I wish it was and is reinforced daily through extreme conservative cult media.

You continued irrelevance is guaranteed.

You will get an opportunity to see how wrong you are in the upcoming mid term elections. How many politicians, even in liberal states who are up for reelection are in the news regarding action on climate change. Examples please. Obama is a voice in the wilderness simply because he isn't up for reelection.

 

[PMZ]

Maybe you are unaware that your "doers" are dependent on public support (votes) and at present, climate change doesn't even rate in the top 10 concerns for voters. In fact, politicians up for election or reelection are afraid to even say climate change. So as far as doing, the only thing being done is AGW wackos yammering on the internet and modelers and their models continuing to fail.

Thanks for sharing your typical this is the world as I wish it was and is reinforced daily through extreme conservative cult media.

You continued irrelevance is guaranteed.

You will get an opportunity to see how wrong you are in the upcoming mid term elections. How many politicians, even in liberal states who are up for reelection are in the news regarding action on climate change. Examples please. Obama is a voice in the wilderness simply because he isn't up for reelection.

What you don't accept is that you and your cult are the outliers. You are unaware of that as you get your opinions from extreme conservative cult media. They are paid to advertise that you are mainstream.

Those of us who choose to get our input in the form of news, rather than the opinions of others, are more realistic.

As an ardent democracist, I'm perfectly fine waiting for the results from 2014 and 2016 elections. In fact it will take those elections to completely marginalize the scourge of conservatism that has cost us so much.

 

[SSDD]

What you don't accept is that you and your cult are the outliers. You are unaware of that as you get your opinions from extreme conservative cult media. They are paid to advertise that you are mainstream.

Those of us who choose to get our input in the form of news, rather than the opinions of others, are more realistic.

As an ardent democracist, I'm perfectly fine waiting for the results from 2014 and 2016 elections. In fact it will take those elections to completely marginalize the scourge of conservatism that has cost us so much.

As expected...no answer...no rebuttal...no names of those running on a platform including more than the most meager lip service to climate change. Thought I might give you another chance but alas, you are still a troll.

The conversation is over.

 

[PMZ]

One of the reasons that conservatism is so costly is that it is built on the assumption that doing nothing is always an option, and is usually the least expensive one.

Of course in this hyper-dynamic world that foundation is toxic. As we have observed.

The main reason that the extreme conservative cult media imposes the opinion on their followers that weak government is better government is to build towards a plutocracy of the wealthy and business making the job of wealth redistribution up, easier.

The main reason why the cult swallows what they are told is that doing nothing is their favorite thing to do. They interchange the concept of freedom with the concept of irresponsibility. Of doing nothing in the face of problems and challanges.

The time of the fashion of conservatism is however over, and while the bill for it to us appears to be on the order of $20T, no structural damage to the country appears to have been done.

America needs to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and go back to work on all of the problems that languished during their time.

While adapting civilization to a new climate, and rebuilding our energy infrastructure are our most expensive challanges, solving them, like the original building of our now obsolete energy infrastructure, is replete with opportunities as well.

America always moves forward, always against the tide of ignorance and pessimism and greed and self servitude.

This hill maybe a little steeper but it's definitely not insurrmountable to real Americans.

 

[PMZ]

What you don't accept is that you and your cult are the outliers. You are unaware of that as you get your opinions from extreme conservative cult media. They are paid to advertise that you are mainstream.

Those of us who choose to get our input in the form of news, rather than the opinions of others, are more realistic.

As an ardent democracist, I'm perfectly fine waiting for the results from 2014 and 2016 elections. In fact it will take those elections to completely marginalize the scourge of conservatism that has cost us so much.

As expected...no answer...no rebuttal...no names of those running on a platform including more than the most meager lip service to climate change. Thought I might give you another chance but alas, you are still a troll.

The conversation is over.

You have no idea how to hold a conversation.

 

[PMZ]

Those of you who have been around this forum longer than I recognize that the SS Delivered Daily here is the stuff of third grade playground fights. He always avoids responsibility to defend his positions by dragging across the trail any red herring that he can think of, absolving himself from the need to defend his indefensible positions, and requiring those who question him to defend some irrelevant trivia that he chooses.

Useless for everyone. Boring for everyone.

Just say no. Keep him on topic. Stay on the path and not in his weeds. If he wants to yammer on about inconsequential things, think of that as bait to make you inconsequential by avoiding talking about important things. Let him wander off by himself.

It would be nice to think that adult debate trumps third grade playground fights.

I think it's more likely that ignoring playground stuff extinguishes it faster.

 

[Foxfyre]

Once again, for the learning impaired...warmth does not lead to more bugs.


The Distortion of the Malaria Issue by the UN and Al Gore - from The Great Global Warming Swindle - YouTube

This should be interesting to and inspire a desire for further information to ANYBODY who is interested in the science, cause and effect, related to global warming. Yes?

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

 

[mamooth]

You can bet that if white people start dying from malaria again as opposed to the brown people in the 3rd world, the ban on DDT will disappear post haste.

As DDT wasn't banned for malaria control, SSDD's race-baiting big lie look especially dumb. However, if the brainwashing is thorough enough, you can convince yourself that not banning DDT is the same as banning DDT.

Now, back in the real world, DDT had been abandoned for malaria control because it had stopped working. The mass agricultural usage of DDT had led to the mosquitoes becoming DDT-resistant. Along with all the other bugs, like the Boll Weevil. That's why American agriculture didn't protest the agricultural ban, because they were already moving away from the failing DDT.

So, by stopping the process of mass agricultural use that gave mosquitoes DDT resistance, Rachel Carlson and the environmentalists thus made DDT effective for malaria control again.

For that, she's earned the undying hatred of the death-cultists. Such as SSDD, the sick genocidal racist (hey, he made those standards) who wants all brown people dead. Just look at how enraged he is because the environmentalists made DDT effective for malaria control again. I don't know what upsets him more, his lack of success at genocide, or the fact that the environmentalists were proven correct yet another time.

 

[mamooth]

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

Going back to accusations of socking, Fox? Despite your claims to have reformed, you always fall back on that, since you can't hack the art of an honest discussion.

We saw Westwall's diversion. Incredibly, he actually denies warmer temps don't mean more bugs, by trying to only discussion mosquitoes and malaria, as if mosquitoes are the only bug that exists.

Meanwhile, those with common sense understand what winter kills are, and how they reduce insect populations. For example, yellowjacket nests around me are small, because most of the yellowjackets are killed every winter. But go to the deep south, and the the yellowjacket nests can be found growing to terrifying sizes.

Winter kill affects many insect species. Africanized honeybees ("killer bees") are restricted in range by winter kill. Warmer temperatures mean they'll be able to spread significantly further north. (Right now, they're in Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Utah)

The bark beetles were already brought up. And handwaved away.

SSDD is diverting by demanding an insect-by-insect listing of exact results, and then declaring victory when no one bothers humoring him. Sensible people just understand that less winter kill and a longer breeding season means more bugs.

 

[itfitzme]

I am afraid that it is you who is short on facts. *I keep asking for facts and you keep giving me opinion. *Lets see the hard data that proves that AGW exists....following that, state how much warming is due to man's CO2 emissions.

You keep talking about facts but remain incapable of producing any. *The models are based on the AGW hypothesis and they are failing spectacularly. * *Look at this. *It is a graph of the output of 73 climate models compared to the satellite record and actual measurements made with balloons.

All of these models claim to be based on the same set of actual atmospheric physics but look at their output. *None of them produce the same result....in fact, they are all over the place and diverged completely from the observed temperature. *If I build a model, or 50 models based on the Stefan-Boltzman law, or the ideal gas law and run them, the results could not help but be the same because if any number of models were based on a physical law, by definition, their output would have to be the same and the output, if it were in fact based on the physical law, would match observation very closely. *That isn't what is happening with the models...they not only do not match each other even though they claim to be based on physical laws, they do not match observation.

If you are unable to see the uncertainty, flaws, and spectacular failure of the claims made by climate science, then I am afraid it is you who suffers from the closed mind.

Who is Dr Roy Spencer? *How do*CMIP-5 models of*Tropical Tropospheric Temperature fit into the discussion of mean global temperature changes and IPPC models?

I don't know, but I'm getting this sneaky suspicion that the presented graph is out of context.

It was the balloon measurments that seemed odd. *If the discussion is about global average means, balloon readings have nothing to do with it.

You are a full fare paying passenger in the first class section of the AGW crazy train, aren't you? *Those models are the basis for all AGW claims and now you say that they are irrelavent to the conversation. *I agree. *They have always been irrelavent to anything resembling actual science as have the wild claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and all of the horrors that go with it that have been made based upon them. *The have always been based on unjustified, unproven assumptions and flawed physics and for that reason, have failed miserably. *If you want to agree that the models are irrelavent then you must also believe that the claims of AGW are also irrelavent as those models are the sole piece of (cough cough) "evidence" supporting the claims.

Well, now I know why you're so confused.

You are an intentional idiot.

The basis is this one

It has always been that one. It always will be that one. *Anyone with half aa brain can make a reasonable prediction on what the most likely future is from that one. *A sixth grader can tell. *It's not hard.

 

[Foxfyre]

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

Going back to accusations of socking, Fox? Despite your claims to have reformed, you always fall back on that, since you can't hack the art of an honest discussion.

We saw Westwall's diversion. Incredibly, he actually denies warmer temps don't mean more bugs, by trying to only discussion mosquitoes and malaria, as if mosquitoes are the only bug that exists.

Meanwhile, those with common sense understand what winter kills are, and how they reduce insect populations. For example, yellowjacket nests around me are small, because most of the yellowjackets are killed every winter. But go to the deep south, and the the yellowjacket nests can be found growing to terrifying sizes.

Winter kill affects many insect species. Africanized honeybees ("killer bees") are restricted in range by winter kill. Warmer temperatures mean they'll be able to spread significantly further north. (Right now, they're in Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Utah)

The bark beetles were already brought up. And handwaved away.

SSDD is diverting by demanding an insect-by-insect listing of exact results, and then declaring victory when no one bothers humoring him. Sensible people just understand that less winter kill and a longer breeding season means more bugs.

I am not accusing anybody of being socks. Just being amazingly similar in language, spelling, context, method of debating, and claimed education while demonstrating a lot of questionable knowledge. You all may not be socks, but you're either receiving the same talking points and marchng orders or you were all separated from birth and still share a common brain. And it is pretty telling that whenever one of you gets into deep sh*t, the others immediately show up to divert and deflect.

The video didn't spend all its time on bugs though and its purpose was not to spotlight bugs but rather to spotlight disinformation that is being spread as science. What did you think about the other points raised about misinformation being spread as science?

 

[PMZ]

Let me cite as an example, rather than claim as a calculation, of a possibility for the transitory thermodynamics of energy imbalance.

Let's assume that measured climactic temperature rise has slowed over a few years. What could cause that?

How about the melting of millions of tons of polar ice?

The latent heat of fusion of salt water is about 80 C/gm. If incoming solar energy is melting ice, the energy imbalance would go first to that use. When we run out of ice to melt, that energy will go into warming the earth and oceans, until they reach a higher temperature capable of getting enough energy through the resistance of GHGs to rebalance incoming solar energy.

Not only that but many estimates have put the amount of CO2 sequestered in plant and animal remains frozen in tundra at greater than our entire fossil fuel supply. As the ice melts, those remains will decompose, and that CO2 will be put back in the atmosphere from wence it came during the hotter times in earth's history.

Creating a time of low climactic temperature increase followed by a time of very rapid increase.

Our future? Seems so.

 

[Foxfyre]

To wit: deflection #1. How many more to follow?

 

[PMZ]

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? Much less grasp what he is saying?

Going back to accusations of socking, Fox? Despite your claims to have reformed, you always fall back on that, since you can't hack the art of an honest discussion.

We saw Westwall's diversion. Incredibly, he actually denies warmer temps don't mean more bugs, by trying to only discussion mosquitoes and malaria, as if mosquitoes are the only bug that exists.

Meanwhile, those with common sense understand what winter kills are, and how they reduce insect populations. For example, yellowjacket nests around me are small, because most of the yellowjackets are killed every winter. But go to the deep south, and the the yellowjacket nests can be found growing to terrifying sizes.

Winter kill affects many insect species. Africanized honeybees ("killer bees") are restricted in range by winter kill. Warmer temperatures mean they'll be able to spread significantly further north. (Right now, they're in Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Utah)

The bark beetles were already brought up. And handwaved away.

SSDD is diverting by demanding an insect-by-insect listing of exact results, and then declaring victory when no one bothers humoring him. Sensible people just understand that less winter kill and a longer breeding season means more bugs.

I am not accusing anybody of being socks. Just being amazingly similar in language, spelling, context, method of debating, and claimed education while demonstrating a lot of questionable knowledge. You all may not be socks, but you're either receiving the same talking points and marchng orders or you were all separated from birth and still share a common brain. And it is pretty telling that whenever one of you gets into deep sh*t, the others immediately show up to divert and deflect.

The video didn't spend all its time on bugs though and its purpose was not to spotlight bugs but rather to spotlight disinformation that is being spread as science. What did you think about the other points raised about misinformation being spread as science?

The question of socking is clearly an unprovable indictment for the purpose of deflecting debate from the topic of AGW. The opposite of AGW as a proven indictment against extreme conservative cult media's denial of proven AGW science.

 

[Foxfyre]

Deflection #2. Who will be next?

 

[itfitzme]

But do you think any of our siamese quadruplets will even listen to the video? *Much less grasp what he is saying?

Going back to accusations of socking, Fox? Despite your claims to have reformed, you always fall back on that, since you can't hack the art of an honest discussion.
...

I am not accusing anybody of being socks. *Just being amazingly similar in language, spelling, context, method of debating, and claimed education while demonstrating a lot of questionable knowledge. *You all may not be socks, but you're either receiving the same talking points and marchng orders or you were all separated from birth and still share a common brain. *

...

Yeah, like when the police interview witnesses and the witnesses all say the same thing.

Or when an auditor gets the same balance sheet total as the accountant. *

It happens in engineering a lot. *This guy asked the design engineer a question about the product. Then he went and asked the manufacturing engineer the same question. He was amazed that they both said exactly the same thing.

Oh, and two English teachers will spell words exactly the same. *You can ask two English teachers how to spell "receipt", and they will both spell it exactly the same. *It's almost like there was some book that they both read, like they had some sort of dictionary.**Amazing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Deflection #3. How many does it take to consider the deflection successful and/or the thread derailed?