Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 887
    MEMBERS
  • 52090
    MESSAGES
  • 25
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The debate on Climate Change   General Confusion

Started 7/18/17 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 113605 views.
ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

9/1/17

Anywho, just wrapping up my morning workout whilst watching my favorite movie. Amazing still how it lifts my spirits, and who knows? Absent my three marriages, I might very well have stayed in SoCal and ended up like the Dude . . .

Image result for dude your opinion man gif

Image result for Big Lebowski abides gifs

Related image

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

9/2/17

Now I know you've heard a lot about Climate Change in the wake of Harvey.

RELAX!  I'm not going there.

Climate change did not CAUSE Hurricane Harvey.

BUT....

1. The rising sea levels make flooding more likely.

2. Rising sea temperatures lead to more evaporation and more chance of Hurricanes.

.

I know it's dry and sciency, but science often is.

Cheers,

Jenifer

ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

9/2/17

Oooo, charts! Graphs!

As so often occurs in science, they may not reflect any cause for alarm . . .

Changes in flooding show no trend over time

Warmists think floods are going to become more frequent but it hasn't happened yet

Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe

Glenn A.Hodgkins et al.

Abstract

Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends.

Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717

 

Did I mention that Petruchio (above) would come running if he heard my car keys jangling? We concluded that he thought he was a dog. Although he didn't hang his head out the window, he would sit on my shoulder so he could survey the passing scene.

Johneeo

From: Johneeo

9/2/17

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

1. The rising sea levels make flooding more likely.

Yeah.  Right.  We were so advanced in the 1800s that we could accurately measure the oceans elevation on the entire planet.  Geeeez, we have no ability to even do that now.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

9/3/17

It's based on tide gauges.

They were necessary for shipping lanes.

Are you saying shipping did not exist in the 1800's?

I think you underestimate the species who brought you fire, electricity and microwave popcorn.

It's a vertical plank with numbers on it.  Not rocket science.

Jeez!

Jenifer

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

9/3/17

Harvey was what is called a 500 year flood.  That means it has a 1 in 500 chance of happening in any given year.

The problem is that 500 year floods are happening with more frequency.

BUT...

There ARE other factors.

The rising sea temperatures mean a higher chance of getting super storms that dump a month's worth of rain in a day.

The amount of Houston that is paved, rather than open - means the water cannot soak into the ground.  Hence the major flooding.

I told you Climate Change did not cause Harvey.

But there are contributing factors that make the storm worse than it should have been.

Cheers,

Jenifer

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

10/24/17

EPA keeps US scientists from presenting climate report, agency accused of censorship

The US Environmental Protection Agency has kept three scientists from speaking at an event, in a move condemned by researchers and Democratic members of Congress as an attempt by the agency to silence a discussion of climate change.

The scientists were scheduled to discuss a report on the health of Narragansett Bay, New England's largest estuary, on Monday (local time).

Among the findings in the 500-page report is that climate change is affecting air and water temperatures, precipitation, sea level and fish.

The EPA did not explain why the scientists were told not to speak, but said in a statement that the agency supports the program that published the document with a $US600,000 annual grant. The EPA is the sole funder of the program.

"EPA scientists are attending, they simply are not presenting; it is not an EPA conference," agency spokeswoman Nancy Grantham said in a statement.

Several people involved in the report and members of the state's congressional delegation likened it to scientific censorship.

They cited EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, a Republican politician, who has rejected the scientific consensus on climate change.

In a March interview with CNBC, Mr Pruitt said he does not agree CO2 is a primary contributor to global warming.

Critics accuse the former Oklahoma attorney-general of trying to weaken the EPA since assuming his role in February.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-24/epa-keeps-scientists-from-speaking-about-climate-report/9079180

.

Image result for science denial cartoon images

.

Take the red pill, Dot...

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

10/24/17

Once were sceptics: What convinced these scientists that climate change is real?

Up until a few years ago, Richard Muller was often quoted by sceptics as a credible, high-profile scientist who doubted the consensus on climate change.

Today, he starts his lectures by stating a few things he believes to be facts.

"Al Gore has grossly exaggerated global warming. And if you watch his movie you have more misinformation than information.

"However, global warming is real. It is caused by humans. It is caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases, and I personally feel we have to stop it somehow."

In 2010, Professor Muller from Berkeley University was funded to carry out a comprehensive study by a group of individuals who doubted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data.

They believed that urban heat islands, data-selection bias, and inaccurate climate models were being glossed over by scientists.

Professor Muller and his team — all of whom doubted climate change was happening or that carbon dioxide was its cause — were shocked to find a correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and warming.

"That was the biggest surprise of all," he said.

"Volcanoes, sunspots, orbital changes, we could all rule out. What we could do is show [that warming] matched the carbon dioxide exceedingly well."

To address what he sees as a lack of transparency in some IPCC reporting, his team made all their data available online.

"The teams that did [the previous studies] said 'trust us'. We said 'don't trust us, here's what we did'. And for that reason I think we were able to win over the sceptics," he said.

However, he said there was still room for scepticism.

"Yes I am a converted sceptic. However, anybody today who is not a sceptic about the solutions being proposed is not thinking them through."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

11/4/17

Climate change: 'Extremely likely' global warming caused by humans, US scientists find

A massive US report has concluded the evidence of global warming is stronger than ever, contradicting a favourite talking point of top Trump administration officials who downplay humanity's role in climate change.

Key points:

  • Climate change comes mostly from the spewing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
  • "Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations," the report says
  • A researcher says "things may have been more serious than we think"

The report released on Friday is one of two scientific assessments required every four years. A draft showing how warming affects the US was also published.

Despite fears by some scientists and environmental advocates, David Fahey of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and several authors said there was no political interference or censoring of the 477-page final report.

It is the most comprehensive summary of climate science since 2013, showing a warming world.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt have repeatedly said carbon dioxide is not the primary contributor to global warming.

But scientists concluded it is "extremely likely", meaning with 95 to 100 per cent certainty, that global warming is man-made, mostly from the spewing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.

"Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations," the report said.

Since 1900, Earth has warmed by 1 degree Celsius and seas have risen by 20cm. Heatwaves, downpours and wildfires have become frequent.

Scientists calculated that human contribution to warming since 1950 is between 92 per cent and 123 per cent.

It is more than 100 per cent on one end, because some natural forces — such as volcanoes and orbital cycle — are working to cool Earth, but are being overwhelmed by the effects of greenhouse gases, said study co-author Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech.

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

11/5/17

The red pill? In objective reality, things are looking just fine . . . BWAHAHA!

Ugly: President Trump Accused of Obstructing Climate Research

US and Overseas scientists have accused the Trump Administration of criminal obstruction of climate research, because the US government has not immediately stepped in to foot the bill for a replacement satellite.

Donald Trump accused of obstructing satellite research into climate change

Republican-controlled Congress ordered destruction of vital sea-ice probe

Robin McKie, Observer science editor
Sunday 5 November 2017 19.00 AEDT

President Trump has been accused of deliberately obstructing research on global warming after it emerged that a critically important technique for investigating sea-ice cover at the poles faces being blocked.

The row has erupted after a key polar satellite broke down a few days ago, leaving the US with only three ageing ones, each operating long past their shelf lives, to measure the Arctic’s dwindling ice cap. Scientists say there is no chance a new one can now be launched until 2023 or later. None of the current satellites will still be in operation then.

The crisis has been worsened because the US Congress this year insisted that a backup sea-ice probe had to be dismantled because it did not want to provide funds to keep it in storage. Congress is currently under the control of Republicans, who are antagonistic to climate science and the study of global warming.

This is like throwing away the medical records of a sick patient,” said David Gallaher of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. “Our world is ailing and we have apparently decided to undermine, quite deliberately, the effectiveness of the records on which its recovery might be based. It is criminal.

Such losses have serious consequences, say researchers. “Sea-ice data provided by satellites is essential for initiating climate models and validating them,” said Andrew Fleming of the British Antarctic Survey. “We will be very much the poorer without that information.”

Read more: 
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
TOP