Reverie

Climate Change

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,735
22,845
113
too bad for you the natural exchanges of co2 volumes between land/ atmosphere/ oceans is massive relative to human emissions

tis has been pointed out to you more than once

your so called overwhelming evidence is primarily propaganda based on faulty computer models
your so called consensus is irrelevant , as scientific hypothesis validation is based on observable experimental data, not manipulated opinion polls
The measurements of air and sea temperatures have confirmed the accuracy of the models for years now.
There is literally no evidence to back up your faulty logic.

The models are impressively accurate, temperatures have risen as expected.






Sea temperatures are rising and 9/10's of the planet's warming is in the seas.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,547
3,151
113
would anyone other than frankfooter care to comment?

if there is a logical and intelligent explanation for the observations below i would like to hear it

the direct cause and effect relationship between emissions and co2 concentration is just not following the alarmist narrative/ propaganda.


we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
in 2008-2009 and then again with the lockdowns / pandemic

1699105114843.png




yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
simple dy/dx


1699105347827.png


the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.

do any alarmists have a logical explanation?

while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,735
22,845
113
would anyone other than frankfooter care to comment?

if there is a logical and intelligent explanation for the observations below i would like to hear it
You think a dip of emissions of 2/35 or about 5% in one year should show up clearer in a chart with a longer term time scale.
Your second chart shows waves that are annual, the wavy red line goes up and down annually with global patterns,.
So a 5% change in output would show as a 5% difference in two of those annual red waves.

Is your chart zoomed in enough to be able to show a 5% difference?
No.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,547
3,151
113
You think a dip of emissions of 2/35 or about 5% in one year should show up clearer in a chart with a longer term time scale.
Your second chart shows waves that are annual, the wavy red line goes up and down annually with global patterns,.
So a 5% change in output would show as a 5% difference in two of those annual red waves.

Is your chart zoomed in enough to be able to show a 5% difference?
No.
so you are claiming the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is not very sensitive to changes in human emissions?

OK
after all the natural exchanges in co2 between land/ atmosphere/ oceans are massive relative to human emissions

so you say the emissions reductions that resulted from
  1. a devastating economic recession (2008/2009) or
  2. a global lockdown (2020)
were so insignificant that they did not alter the ever increasing concentration of co2 in the atmosphere

so exactly how much economic contraction and human suffering do you think will be required to alter the ever increasing concentration of co2 in the atmosphere ?

and please do not insult us by claiming EVs, renewables, carbon taxes , windmills and solar panels are a realistic pathway to the comical net zero fantasy.
the net zero lie has been laid bare

you do not think carefully about what you post
Strick adherence to your ideology is not a substitute for critical thinking
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,735
22,845
113
so you are claiming the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is not very sensitive to changes in human emissions?
.....

you do not think carefully about what you post
Strick adherence to your ideology is not a substitute for critical thinking
Reread my post larue.

You are expecting to see a 5% change in one of the annual red waves in your CO2 chart. Its there but its zoomed out too far for you to see.
Its like you posted a chart of annual temperatures and expected to be able to see daily changes.

You need to look at a chart where you can zoom into one of those waves and there you will see the changes you expect.
For instance, the NASA chart for CO2 on this page allows you to zoom in on the years in question and there you can see the 5% or so change you would expect.

I challenge you to to the NASA site and look at the years in question and tell me if you can detect the 5% annual change you would expect or not.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,547
3,151
113
1699203411820.png
the fine detail up/ down pattern is every year (not just 2008 or just 2020) and is very likely due the growth / decomposition of plants spring and fall in the northern hemisphere which has far more land mass
or
due to absorbing / outgassing of co2 from the southern hemisphere oceans spring / fall (far more ocean than in the Northern Hemisphere)

either way there is no distinguishable change in slope unique to 2008 or 2020, which is required for your fantasy hypothesis

Frankie gets another F- in science class

so you are claiming the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is not very sensitive to changes in human emissions?

OK
after all the natural exchanges in co2 between land/ atmosphere/ oceans are massive relative to human emissions

so you say the emissions reductions that resulted from
  1. a devastating economic recession (2008/2009) or
  2. a global lockdown (2020)
were so insignificant that they did not alter the ever increasing concentration of co2 in the atmosphere

so exactly how much economic contraction and human suffering do you think will be required to alter the ever increasing concentration of co2 in the atmosphere ?

and please do not insult us by claiming EVs, renewables, carbon taxes , windmills and solar panels are a realistic pathway to the comical net zero fantasy.
the net zero lie has been laid bare

again
you do not think carefully about what you post
Strick adherence to your ideology is not a substitute for critical thinking
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,547
3,151
113
you do not pay attention


the fine detail up/ down pattern is every year (not just 2008 or just 2020) and is very likely due the growth / decomposition of plants spring and fall in the northern hemisphere which has far more land mass
or
due to absorbing / outgassing of co2 from the southern hemisphere oceans spring / fall (far more ocean than in the Northern Hemisphere)

either way there is no distinguishable change in slope unique to 2008 or 2020, which is required for your fantasy hypothesis

Frankie gets another F- in science class

wtf is wrong with you?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,735
22,845
113
View attachment 272160
the fine detail up/ down pattern is every year (not just 2008 or just 2020) and is very likely due the growth / decomposition of plants spring and fall in the northern hemisphere which has far more land mass
or
due to absorbing / outgassing of co2 from the southern hemisphere oceans spring / fall (far more ocean than in the Northern Hemisphere)

either way there is no distinguishable change in slope unique to 2008 or 2020, which is required for your fantasy hypothesis

Frankie gets another F- in science class
Larue, you didn't even read the full page which answers your question about why CO2 changes seasonally. Its due to photosynthesis and its changes over the year.

Hungsowel also notes that you're looking for a change of 0.16% to show up in the chart, which as HS notes is less than one pixel. You expect to see that change?


This annual rise and fall of CO2 levels is caused by seasonal cycles in photosynthesis on a massive scale. In Northern Hemisphere spring, plants come to life and draw in CO2 to fuel their growth. This begins the process of lowering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In northern autumn, plant growth stops or slows down, and the whole process reverses itself. Much of the plant matter decomposes, releasing CO2 back to the atmosphere.

A similar but less intense pattern repeats in the Southern Hemisphere in opposite seasons. Spring growth starts in September and winter decomposition begins in March, so CO2 records in the Southern Hemisphere show the opposite pattern of that seen in Mauna Loa. However, because there is a lot more land and vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere than the southern, the global seasonal cycle more closely aligns with the northern pattern.


 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,735
22,845
113
either way there is no distinguishable change in slope unique to 2008 or 2020, which is required for your fantasy hypothesis

Frankie gets another F- in science class

wtf is wrong with you?
The change you are looking for in that chart is less than 1 pixel.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,632
8,383
113
Room 112
would anyone other than frankfooter care to comment?

if there is a logical and intelligent explanation for the observations below i would like to hear it

the direct cause and effect relationship between emissions and co2 concentration is just not following the alarmist narrative/ propaganda.


we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
in 2008-2009 and then again with the lockdowns / pandemic

1699105114843.png




yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
simple dy/dx


1699105347827.png


the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.

do any alarmists have a logical explanation?

while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
The reason is rather simple - the majority of the CO2 atmospheric emissions are naturally occurring in the environment.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,547
3,151
113
The reason is rather simple - the majority of the CO2 atmospheric emissions are naturally occurring in the environment.
you are correct

the human reduction in co2 emissions experiment has been run twice already
2008 and 2020 and the hypothesis failed both times as global annual co2 emissions declined, yet co2 concentration increased without a change in slope

so why do we need to destroy the global economy / inflict much hardship and suffering as well as risk global famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,735
22,845
113
you are correct

the human reduction in co2 emissions experiment has been run twice already
2008 and 2020 and the hypothesis failed both times as global annual co2 emissions declined, yet co2 concentration increased without a change in slope

so why do we need to destroy the global economy / inflict much hardship and suffering as well as risk global famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
This claim has been debunked above.
You can't just pretend its correct.

Are you that dishonest?
 

Addict2sex

Well-known member
Jan 29, 2017
2,535
1,358
113

Why Are The Globalists Calling "Climate Change" A "Public Health Crisis"?

THURSDAY, NOV 02, 2023 - 11:50 PM
Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,
The global elite plan to introduce a near-permanent “global state of emergency” by re-branding climate change as a “public health crisis” that is “worse than covid”.





This is not news. But the ongoing campaign has been accelerating in recent weeks.

I have written about this a lot over the last few years – see here and here and here. It started almost as soon as Covid started, and has been steadily progressing ever since, with some reports calling climate change “worse than covid”.

But if they keep talking about it, I’ll keep writing. And hopefully the awareness will spread.

Anyway, there’s a renewed push on the “climate = public health crisis” front. It started, as so many things do, with Bill Gates, stating in an interview with MSNBC in late September:

We have to put it all together; it’s not just climate’s over here and health is over here, the two are interacting
Since then there’s been a LOT of “climate change is a public health crisis” in the papers, likely part of the build-up to the UN’s COP28 summit later this year.

Following Gate’s lead, what was once a slow-burn propaganda drive has become a dash for the finish line, with that phrase repeated in articles all over the world as a feverish catechism.

It was an editorial in the October edition of the British Medical Journal that got the ball rolling, claiming to speak for over 200 medical journals, it declares it’s…

Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency”
Everyone from the Guardian to the CBC to the Weather Channel picked up this ball and ran with it.

Other publications get more specific, but the message is the same. Climate change is bad for the health of women, and children, and poor people, and Kenyans, and workers and…you get the idea.

And that’s all from just the last few days.

It’s not only the press, but governments and NGOs too. The “One Earth” non-profit reported, two days ago:

Why climate change is a public health issue
Again, based entirely on that letter to the BMJ. The UN’s “climate champions” are naturally all over it, alongside the UK’s “Health Alliance on Climate Change”, whoever they are.

Both the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders have published (or updated) articles on their website in the last few days using variations on the phrase “The climate crisis is a health crisis.”

Local public health officials from as far apart as Western Australia and Arkansas are busy “discussing the health effects of climate change”

Tellingly, the Wikipedia article on “effects of climate change on human health” has received more edits in the last 3 weeks than the previous 3 months combined.

All of this is, of course, presided over by the World Health Organization.

On October 12th the WHO updated its climate change fact sheet, making it much longer than the previous version and including some telling new claims:

WHO data indicates 2 billion people lack safe drinking water and 600 million suffer from foodborne illnesses annually, with children under 5 bearing 30% of foodborne fatalities. Climate stressors heighten waterborne and foodborne disease risks. In 2020, 770 million faced hunger, predominantly in Africa and Asia. Climate change affects food availability, quality and diversity, exacerbating food and nutrition crises.
Temperature and precipitation changes enhance the spread of vector-borne diseases. Without preventive actions, deaths from such diseases, currently over 700,000 annually, may rise. Climate change induces both immediate mental health issues, like anxiety and post-traumatic stress, and long-term disorders due to factors like displacement and disrupted social cohesion.
They are tying “climate change” to anyone who is malnourished, has intestinal parasites or contaminated drinking water. As well as anyone who dies from heat, cold, fire or flood. Even mental health disorders.

We’ve already seen the world’s first “diagnosis of climate change”. With parameters set this wide, we will see more in no time.

Just as a “Covid death” was anybody who died “of any cause after testing positive for Covid”, they are putting language in place that can redefine almost any illness or accident as a “climate change-related health issue”.

Two days ago, the Director General of the World Health Organization, the UN’s Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health and COP28 President co-authored an opinion piece for the Telegraph, headlined:

Climate change is one of our biggest health threats – humanity faces a staggering toll unless we act
The WHO Director went on to repeat the claim almost word for word on Twitter yesterday:



At the same time, the Pandemic Treaty is busily working its way through the bureaucratic maze, destined to become law sometime in the next year or so.

We’ve written about that a lot too.

Consider, the WHO is the only body on Earth empowered to declare a “pandemic”.

Consider, the official term is not “pandemic”, but rather “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”.

Consider, a “public health emergency of international concern”, does not necessarily mean a disease.

It could mean, and I’m just spit-balling here, oh, I don’t know – maybe… climate change?

Consider, finally, that one clause in the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” would empower the WHO to declare a PHEIC on “precautionary principle” [my emphasis]:

Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted
Essentially, once the new legislation is in place, the plan writes itself:

  • Put new laws in place enabling global “emergency measures” in the event of a future “public health emergency”
  • Declare climate change a public health emergency, or maybe a “potential public health emergency”
  • Activate emergency measures – like climate lockdowns – until climate change is “fixed”
See the end game here? It’s just that simple.

Oh, and we won’t be able to complain, because “climate denial” is going to be illegal. At least, if prominent climate activists like this one get their way.

That’s only a whisper in the background right now, but it will get louder after COP28, just wait.

Until then, like I said, I’m stuck here writing forever.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,735
22,845
113

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,547
3,151
113
This claim has been debunked above.
You can't just pretend its correct.

Are you that dishonest?
de-bunked?... debunked by you?
not a chance
you still do not understand the issue

you are the most dis-honest person on this board
it is second nature for you to try to mislead others and that is utterly despicable and sickening
slither away now
 
  • Love
Reactions: dvous11

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,735
22,845
113
de-bunked?... debunked by you?
not a chance
you still do not understand the issue

you are the most dis-honest person on this board
it is second nature for you to try to mislead others and that is utterly despicable and sickening
slither away now
You can't debate the facts so all you have is insults.
Your claim was nonsense, your lack of skills reading charts lead you to expect to see a 0.16% change that would be represented by one pixel.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,547
3,151
113
You can't debate the facts so all you have is insults.
Your claim was nonsense, your lack of skills reading charts lead you to expect to see a 0.16% change that would be represented by one pixel.
you were presented with non-debatable facts
1. emissions were reduced in 2008 and in 2020 at great economic cost and great human suffering
2. these emission reductions produced no change in the upward trajectory of atmosheric concentration

these are non-debatable FACTS


you fail to see the implications of no effect on the annual co2 concentration change from the emission reductions of both a devastating recession / global lockdown.

the obvious question is the one you refuse to answer

just how much more emission reduction in excess of a full global lock down or a full global recession do you expect to drive with your foolish and idiotic propaganda ?

any grade 10 student could see the implications of these two graphs and ask the above question
i always figured you dropped out of school in grade 11, however it appears we need to lower that estimate

again
you do not think carefully about what you post
Strick adherence to your ideology is not a substitute for critical thinking

you are the most dishonest person on this board
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
92,735
22,845
113
you were presented with non-debatable facts
1. emissions were reduced in 2008 and in 2020 at great economic cost and great human suffering
2. these emission reductions produced no change in the upward trajectory of atmosheric concentration

these are non-debatable FACTS
1 - emissions declined less than 5% in two years because of recession and pandemic, not through action to fight climate change
2 - the change in emissions were calculated by Hungsowel to be about 0.16% of global CO2, or less than 1 pixel on your chart

Those are non deniable facts.

This debate is symptomatic of shoddy thinking, of your own self delusion that you are smarter than every climatologist at NASA and the IPCC.
You take a weak argument, ignore the facts, refuse to actually discuss the terms of your argument then resort to insults when called out.

Why do you think you are smarter than all of NASA and the IPCC?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,547
3,151
113
You think a dip of emissions of 2/35 or about 5% in one year should show up clearer in a chart with a longer term time scale.
Your second chart shows waves that are annual, the wavy red line goes up and down annually with global patterns,.
So a 5% change in output would show as a 5% difference in two of those annual red waves.

Is your chart zoomed in enough to be able to show a 5% difference?
No.
you once again miss the big picture

if a devastating recession and global lockdown each results in only a 5% reduction in emissions and no distinguishable change in the upwards trajectory of co2 concentration, then

Q1. just how much more emission reduction in excess of a full global lock down or a full global recession do you expect to drive with your foolish and idiotic propaganda ?



driving more emissions reductions in excess of a full global lock down or a full global recession will be economically disastrous and kill a lot of people


Q2 how many people do you Frankfooter expect to kill pushing your net-aero insanity ?? rough estimates in the millions will suffice

answer these questions or say nothing



and please do not insult us by claiming EVs, renewables, carbon taxes , windmills and solar panels are a realistic pathway to the comical net zero fantasy.
the net zero lie has been laid bare

as pointed out, the other fact you choose to ignore
if a 5% reduction in emissions produces no distinguishable change in the upwards trajectory of co2 concentration, then atmospheric co2 concentration is not very sensitive to changes in human emissions

again
you do not think carefully about what you post
Strick adherence to your ideology is not a substitute for critical thinking

you are the most despicable, dis-honest person on this board
 
Toronto Escorts