Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1132
    MEMBERS
  • 61069
    MESSAGES
  • 32
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The debate on Climate Change   General Confusion

Started 7/18/17 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 151462 views.
ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

1/20/18

What I believe has been plainly stated ad infinitum. Climate changes, sometimes precipitously - ever hear of the ICE AGE? It has done so over geologic time, and this natural cycle continues apace and without regard to the bad choices of us puny humans or our laudable efforts to reduce pollution.

What I also believe is that the AGW hoax is a scheme to attack freedom and replace it with the control of our lives by an all knowing STATE.

It's baloney, despite what the . . .

Experts say

Ya gotta laugh!  During the temperature rise of 2015/2016, Warmists sedulously ignored the influence of El Nino.  They pretended that the rise was due to CO2 -- anthropogenic global warming.  Now that temperatures are allegedly sinking back, the fall is  all due to El Nino.  To Warmists, having your cake and eating it too is a cinch! Let them eat  cake!

So now they agree with what skeptics said from early 2015 onwards and completely wipe off the recent warming period as irrelevant to their anthropogenic global warming story -- and say that 2017 is still warm even AFTER El Nino has gone.  But wait a minute!  How do we define the El Nino period except via temperature?  According to their own GISS data, temperatures (J-D) broke upward in 2014 and have stayed high ever since.  So who decided that 2017 was not influenced by El Nino -- which is the whole point of the article below?  Nobody knows. What we see below is the product of shifty definitions, nothing else.

In theory, you could detect El Nino by a detailed examination of sea levels but as we see here measuring sea levels is a mug's game.  By choosing different reference points you can get widely different results.  The earth is not a bowl and water does not lie flat on it.  And I won't mention the matter of hokey "corrections" for isostatic balance.

So what appears to have actually happened is that 2014-2017  temperatures have suddenly broken upwards to a new plateau, which is a common natural occurrence in the temperature record.

So say we concede all that they tell us with their array of numbers below.  Say that we really have moved to hotter average temperature levels after the temperature stasis of the first 13 years of the century.  What caused that rise?  Was it CO2?  They offer no proof of that.  It is all "Experts say".  Experts say a lot of things that are often wrong.  And Warmists have yet to make an accurate prediction.  So relying on such "experts" is very cold comfort indeed.  We could just be dealing with some of the many natural phenomena that we don't understand.

And what is the evidence for what "Experts say"?  In the large and colorful article excerpted below I strangely can find not a single statistic for CO2, the supposed cause of global warming. Why? Are the 21st century temperature changes due to changing CO2 levels, as the experts say? Do the temperature changes correspond to CO2 changes?  They do not. Philosopher David Hume insisted that the one precondition for detecting a cause was constant conjunction.  But there is no constant conjunction between CO2 changes and temperature changes.  So one did not cause the other.

Just for fun I have downloaded the CSV data file for monthly CO2 averages from Cape Grim. So is the temperature stasis up to 2013 matched by a plateauing of CO2 levels?  Far from it.  The levels show a steady rise up to the end of 2013 -- continuing to July 2016.  It's only from July 2016 that the CO2 levels get "stuck" on 401 ppm.  They don't resume rising until June 2017.

So what a laugh!  There is NO resemblance between the CO2 and temperature records.  The steady CO2 rise has now resumed and reached a new height in "cooling" August 2017, the last year for which there is data.  No wonder that the Warmist journalist below sticks to "Experts say" rather than dive into that inconvenient data.

Note:  My use of GISS and NOAA data does not constitute an endorsement of it. I use it because Warmists do.  It amuses me to  show that their own data does not support their madcap theory



Last year was the HOTTEST on record without an El Nino: New figures reveal man-made global warming has overtaken the influence of natural trends on the climate

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

1/20/18

Yes, the climate changes regardless of the species who inhabit the planet.

But to say that humans bear no responsibility flies in the face of the overwhelming evidence that supports it.

Look at India.

Related image

Also India:

Image result for India beautiful scenery

This is Zabol, in Iran

Image result for zabol

Also Iran

Image result for iran beautiful scenery

.

So what's the overwhelming difference?

One place has tonnes of PEOPLE, the other doesn't.

I don't understand how this evidence is (in your mind) wrong.

The pollution is measured.  It exists.  You can SEE it.

The ice age happened because of orbital fluctuations that affected the temperature of the planet.

The climate changes if the overall planetary temperature changes.

If we raise the temperature by cooking the planet and pumping more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere than is normal, then the climate will change.

And we will bear some responsibility for that.

There is nothing we can do to outright STOP climate change.  But we can do our best to NOT exacerbate it.

ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

1/25/18

Pollution is not climate.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

1/25/18

Oh for fuck's sake!

There was a hole in the ozone layer caused by CFCs.

People stopped using CFCs.

The hole is closing.

The heath and stability of the atmosphere of the planet is directly related to our protection from the sun's heat and radiation.

If you damage that atmosphere, you endanger the planet.

Pollution damages the atmosphere.

It is actually simpler than you believe.

.

ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

1/26/18

Hooray, so what? Pollution is not climate.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

1/26/18

No.

Pollution is not climate.  I cede that obvious point.

But pollution directly affects climate.

If pollution makes living things sick - then why is the Earth exempt from that sickness?

Life cannot exist on planets within our own solar system if the atmosphere is toxic or nonexistent.

The sun is way too unforgiving and our apple-skin thin atmosphere is our only protection.

Burning that atmosphere away is counterproductive for the future of life on Earth.

ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

1/28/18

*heh*

Air pollution delays the age girls start their periods and makes their menstrual cycles more irregular, according to a study

Greenies have been pumping out studies like this for decades.  Car exhaust has got to be bad for you!  It's got those evil microparticles in it.  It does.  But are they harmful and at what concentration are they harmful? The study below does not allow those basic questions to be answered.

It did not in fact measure anybody's exposure to the particles. The researchers just looked at where people lived during their childhood. And if that area had a lot of pollution they theorized that people brought up there should have bad health.  And they found it was so.

But correlation is not causation and they failed to look at WHY some people lived in more polluted areas. But we know why.  Because they were poor. Leafy areas are for rich people.  The poor live where they can afford it, beside major roads, industrial areas etc.

So what we are most likely seeing here is that it is the poor who  have worse health, which has been known for years.

If the researchers had controlled for income they might have had a story but there seems to be no indication that they did.  And the effects they observed were tiny anyway, making it highly likely that any control would wipe them out.

Control for income would only be a first step, however.  I set out some other problems with this sort of study a month ago

Journal abstract follows the summary below



Air pollution delays the age girls start their periods, according to the first study of its kind.

Exposure to total suspended particulate (TSP), which are particles circulating in the air that measure 0.05mm, during girls' teenage years also makes their menstrual cycles less regular, a trial found.

TSP, which is largely made up of vehicle exhaust and coal combustion fumes, is thought to disrupt hormone production in people's bodies.

In females, this can cause excessive amounts of male sex hormones, such as testosterone, which the researchers believe could delay or disrupt girls' periods.

Study author Dr Shruthi Mahalingaiah from Boston University, said: 'While air pollution exposures have been linked to cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, this study suggests there may be other systems, such as the reproductive endocrine system, that are affected as well.'  

Women exposed to air pollution before getting pregnant are nearly 20 percent more likely to have babies with birth defects, research suggested in January 2018.

Living within 5km of a highly-polluted area one month before conceiving makes women more likely to give birth to babies with defects such as cleft palates or lips, a study by University of Cincinnati found.

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

1/28/18

This is odd.

I thought that all the hormones and genetically modified food was making girls develop earlier.

I suppose we could always go back to leaded petrol...

TOP