Question about climate change

It talked about several studies, all of which flatly debunked your fictional claims about sea level rise. See? Right there. Several studies listed.



Rather than admit your bogus claim about sea level rise not accelerating was bogus, you faked a story that it was just one study, and then faked a story about how that study was flawed.

That's always the pattern with you. When the data contradicts you, as it always does, you simply ignore the data or say it's faked. That's a sure sign of a pseudoscience devotee.

 

All of those reconstructions are based on Church & White which is flawed as you know.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

True, Pielke's stuff is not data. Funny how you rely on his models so heavily.

Some dead civilizations would say otherwise, so your claim is absurd. Even Pielke Jr. doesn't say things that crazy.

The normal denier line is to look at the strong correlation and say "correlation is not causation!". You're the first I've seen deny the correlation, which is strange, given how strong the correlation is. CO2 has gone up, temperature has gone up, so the correlation is obviously there.

 

Because you say so?

Because you say so?

You're talking to reason-based people here, not your fellow cultists. Reason-based people demand evidence. You've given none.

 

The planet greening has nothing to do with global warming ??

What Peilke models ??

What dead civilizations are those ??

In the present warming period global average temperature has warmed, cooled, and remained stable as CO2 increases. In the past global average temperature has increased, decreased, and remained the same both when CO2 increased and decreased.

 

Do your homework. I'm talking to people who refuse to do their homework unless you've completed your suggested reading.

What is the flaw in Church and White ?? A reason-based person would do their homework and know the answer.

BTW how does a reason-based person conclude from your chart that sealevel rate of rise is accelerating ?? What are the measurement error bands on the global sea level rise reconstruction ?? Why are those error bands never included in alarmist charts ??

 

"Chickens hatch from eggs, therefore chickens can't lay eggs" would be more analogous to your claims.

Total albedo feedbacks have been negative so far, and it's been warming. Looks like that albedo effect isn't that strong.

That's how it works for the ice-albedo effect recognized by normal people. It wouldn't be how it works for the raging all-powerful effect you propose, which would reach the poles.

As that theory fails to explain what started the initial melt, that theory still fails to explain how snowball earth melted, thus it is wrong.

https://grist.org/article/heres-why-the-climategate-2-scandal-is-bunk/

 

There is no flaw, as I demonstrated, since it agrees with other independent global studies. I did the homework, so I know that.

In response to that, you made up an absurd story about how all other sea level studies are copies of Church & White. The only homework you did was in creative writing.

They look at the rate of change and see it rising. You do understand what acceleration is, no?

As far as error bars go, they're elsewhere in the study. You bring them up as a desperate deflection because the hard data keeps contradicting you.

 

I hope you're enjoying the conversation with yourself there.

The ones he uses to project that warming is beneficial. How does one predict the future, if not by a model?

Europe is not the world, you know.

After all that, this is still a very strong and very obvious correlation between CO2 and temperature, hence the claim "There has never been a correlation" is very wrong.

 

If global warming were harmful the globe would be browning.

Too funny. Which Pielke study is that ??

Now go back in time and plot temperature vs CO2.

And no examples of dead civilizations ?? Your claim appears to be bogus as you cannot provide an answer.

 

Your lack of initiative and curiosity is out of my control.

BTW please read the Jevrejeva 2008 study paying careful attention to the graph of sea level vs. year from 1700 to 2000. Now please show the increase in sea level rise.

https://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/jevrejevaetal2008.php

The plot of the rate of rise in individual years is a dishonest way of representing the data. Also you are aware that satellite measurements of sea level are flawed as well ?? And that some of the reconstructions in the plot you showed use satellite data ??

So nothing on the reconstruction errors ??

And still no understanding of the Church and White reconstruction problems ??

 

https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/outdoor/air-pollution/nitrogen-dioxide.html

Nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, is a gaseous air pollutant composed of nitrogen and oxygen and is one of a group of related gases called nitrogen oxides, or NOx. NO2 forms when fossil fuels such as coal, oil, gas or diesel are burned at high temperatures. NO2 and other nitrogen oxides in the outdoor air contribute to particle pollution and to the chemical reactions that make ozone. It is one of six widespread air pollutants that have national air quality standards to limit them in the outdoor air. NO2 can also form indoors when fossil fuels like wood or natural gas are burned.

What Are the Health Effects?
Nitrogen dioxide causes a range of harmful effects on the lungs, including:

• Increased inflammation of the airways;
• Worsened cough and wheezing;
• Reduced lung function;
• Increased asthma attacks; and
• Greater likelihood of emergency department and hospital admissions.1

New research warns that NO2 is likely to be a cause of asthma in children.2

A large new study found evidence that people with lung cancer faced greater risk from NO2, ozone, and other outdoor air pollutants. The 2016 study tracked the air pollution levels from 1988 to 2011 experienced by more than 350,000 cancer patients in California. The researchers found that exposure to these air pollutants shortened their survival.3

Looking beyond the lungs, newer research has linked NO2 to cardiovascular harm, lower birth weight in newborns and increased risk of premature death.4

What Are the Sources of Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions?
Cars, trucks, and buses are the largest sources of emissions, followed by power plants, diesel-powered heavy construction equipment and other movable engines, and industrial boilers. Manmade sources in the U.S. emitted 14 million metric tons of nitrogen oxides, mainly from burning fuels, in 2011.5 Emissions of nitrogen dioxide will decline as cleanup of many of these sources continue in future years.

Where Do High NO2 Concentrations Occur?
Monitors show the highest concentrations of outdoor NO2 in large urban regions such as the Northeast corridor, Chicago and Los Angeles.6 Levels are higher on or near heavily travelled roadways.

NO2 can be a problem indoors, as well. Kerosene or gas space heaters and gas stoves also produce substantial amounts of nitrogen dioxide. If those heaters or stoves are not vented fully to the outside, levels of NO2 can build up indoors.
Sources:

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=310879

What part of this can't you comprehend?

This research is not at all disputed by science.

You are a case study in (self-interested) ideological blindness: the science community in every nation on the planet accepts the reality of the negative health effects of filthy fossil-based industry, unlike 'climate science' which is dealing with extraordinarily long time scales and climate data which can be disputed or interpreted differently.

[Ideological blindness similar to ISIS theologians who insist the Koran is the actual Word of God, whereas reason tells us that all scripture is the word of men in search of God (including the Bible; recall Rabin's murderer citing OT mythology about Israel's 'rightful' possession of the 'Promised Land'). Such ideological blindness is egregious, notoriously evident on the self-interested RIght].

The article does say the German transition from filthy fossil to green has been made more difficult by their abandonment of nuclear (post Fukushima); and I don't dispute that the transition will cause economic pain all around the world; but in a contest between health and the hip pocket, the sensible choice is clear - provided the poor are compensated (something often overlooked by Green supporters).

Now this is where MMT comes in: in fact the opportunity exists, if ideological blindness does not get in the way, for the world to go green and achieve a new global economy based on free electricity (as outlined in post #76).

 

Name someone who has died from sub regulation concentrations. You can't all the material above is from computer models which have not been verified.

 

I see: provided a government can afford to effect sub regulation concentrations, fossil is fine. But how do you propose to deal with this:

Monitors show the highest concentrations of outdoor NO2 in large urban regions such as the Northeast corridor, Chicago and Los Angeles.6 Levels are higher on or near heavily travelled roadways.

without transiting from petroleum?

Monitors are not computer models, they measure actual data that identify pollution hotspots.​

And what of governments that cannot afford to clean filthy fossil?

 

So what ?? What is the safety threshold limit ?? Name someone who has died from NO2.

 

It's unclear what you are saying "so what??" to, here.

The recommended limits for each pollutant are available on line - look them up.

Only the ideologically blind will ignore them.

According to WHO, millions of premature deaths.....
Not to mention millions of cigarette smokers.

So: how do you propose to deal with polluted hotspots around high-traffic roads in built up areas, without transiting from oil based ICE vehicles .

 

More computer models. Name some people who have died ?? You can't. Nobody can.

 

I suppose I should not wish for a more intelligent response from you, since I can (I think) now safely assume you are among those blinded by ideological certitude. I will leave it to others to judge the content of our debate, re the quantitative and qualitative effects of particulates.

 

All you have to do to prove your case is to provide the names of those who have died from breathing materials under their safety threshold limits. That should be very easy for you. And explain why the data used to develop the computer models will not be released and has never been repeated. And while you are at it explain why hundreds of thousands of people in NorCal did not die due to breathing smoke from the recent wildfires.

 

Re bushfires: pollution lasts for several weeks only, unlike permanently high pollution levels near high volume traffic zones in urban areas.

Speaking of which: this news today from London:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tion-levy-in-new-blow-to-diesel-idUSKBN1CR0YO

<<<Since the 2015 Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) emissions cheating scandal, a number of major cities including Madrid, Paris and Athens have announced plans particularly focused on cutting diesel emissions including bans, fines and restrictions.
The new charge could further encourage motorists to switch to greener models in one of Europe’s biggest cities as Mayor Sadiq Khan hopes the new levy to reduce toxicity, known as the T-Charge, will help save thousands of lives each year.

“The air is bad, but it’s also a killer,” he told Reuters. “There are children in London whose lungs are underdeveloped. There are adults who suffer a whole host of conditions caused by the poor quality air from asthma to dementia to suffering strokes.”

The tax will apply to up to 34,000 vehicles every month, according to Khan’s office, a small proportion of the 535,000 vehicles which come into the area. But it sets the tone for future policies including an ultra low emission zone due by the end of 2020. >>>

I rest my case. Actually, the experience of seeing the smog (visibility c. one kilometre), and breathing traffic fumes in Bombay several years ago, convinced me even then that the days of petroleum powered ICE vehicles are numbered, regardless of long term exposure to particulates injurious to health.

 

Jevrejeva is regarded as a flawed study. Do you know why? If you'd have done your homework, you'd know. Have you done your homework? You're doing that pseudoscience thing again, where you throw away the best data in favor of your single cherrypick.

Why?

"It disagrees with my claims" is not a flaw.

And it confirms the tidal gauge data. Funny how that works. The different types of data all come to the same conclusion about the acceleration in sea level rise.

Where were your error bars in Jerjeva? Your obvious double is noted, hence it will be laughed at from now on.

If you could demonstrate such a problem, you might be taken seriously. But you can't, so you won't.

 

Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise.

Once the colder sun is corrected for, there's a strong correlation, no matter what era you're in.

Your ignorance of world history is amusing.

How's the former breadbasket of Rome, North Africa, doing these days? Just desert now? Yeah, the warming certainly helped there. Just like it helped the Anasazi in the southwestern USA. Or the Akkadians, Mayans or Khmer, all brought down by drought.

 

Too funny, you agree that the Jevrejeva 2008 is a flawed study. It appears in the graph that you presented which apparently you now agree is flawed.

 

How do you get hotter temperatures with a colder sun ??

Your ignorance of natural history is breathtaking. Hilarious. Your blaming global warming for the destruction of the Mayans, et. al. ??

 

You've made no case. None of the above shows any data on the detrimental effects under the threshold limits.