atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#4631: What the hell do YOU know?

The arrogance of these people knows no bounds. And the whole schmeer leads with CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Apparently climatologists have decided that 350 ppm is the "right" concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and above that All Is Lost, Earth Is Doomed.

Horseshit. I'm not going to embed, again, the various graphs showing the demonstrated relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature because I'm tired of doing that every damned time someone says something stupid like this. (You can see them here. Oh, and here for a discussion about how climatologists are doctoring the records.)

There is no evidence that our carbon emissions have any effect whatsoever on the climate, nor is there any demonstration that higher temperatures would be bad in the first place even if our carbon emissions did have an effect on climate. There is just as much--and better--evidence to suggest that human carbon emissions have a beneficial effect on our climate.

Next bugaboo, "biodiversity". We don't know what is going on with "biodiversity" on the planet. There is no basis for saying what level of "biodiversity" is good and what level is crisis, nor is there any way to prove that that "90% biodiversity" is a critical level below which All Is Lost, Earth Is Doomed, let alone asserting that it's more desirable than the 84% they cite it's at in "some parts of the world such as Africa".

To say nothing of the fact that if it's only happening in "parts of the world", chances are that any unfilled ecological niches will not remain long unfilled, because--gasp!--animals can migrate. Real world example: after the big West Nile epidemic killed off all the crows around here, suddenly biodiversity increased, and now we have owls and finches and hawks where once there were crows and, uh, robins? Maybe a blue jay once in a while?

The use of phosphorus and nitrogen--they claim we're adding twice as much phosphorus and almost three times as much nitrogen to the environment as it can handle, far exceeding the levels at which All Is Lost, Earth Is Doomed.

Question: what percentage of the Earth's annual nitrogen and phosphorus budget does that amount to? I know in the case of CO2, human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is about 3%. I also know that the 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens by itself spewed more sulfur dioxide and other crap into the atmosphere than man did in the entirety of his history on this planet.

I tend to take this kind of grave pronouncement with a grain of salt, because every time--every time--the people making the pronouncement that All Is Lost, Earth Is Doomed don't tell you by how much the human contribution is dwarfed by the natural contribution. The human emissions basically amount to noise in the data.

And the last reason All Is Lost, Earth Is Doomed: deforestation. Oh gawd, the land mass of the planet should be covered 75% with forests, and it's only at 62%. First off, there's a major problem with how we tally deforestation. A lot of the time, these goobers count previously cleared land, which has since grown back over, as "deforested" even though there is forest there. Simple fact is, even where people are hacking huge rents in the Amazon Jungle, it grows back very quickly because the jungle is, well, a jungle. There's a lot of competition for resources, and because of that stuff grows very fast to take advantage of a newly available resource such as, oh, sunlight. Yeah.

The cleared jungle grows back very quickly unless you keep hacking it back, and in most cases the people cutting down trees aren't going back to cut the grass and weed, you know? They cut down trees because lumber is valuable, and then they walk away and find more trees to cut down. Meanwhile, the clear-cut areas immediately recover, and within a few years you can't really tell what was cut where, unless you get above the canopy and look at the height of the trees.

Simply put, I don't believe their figure, because I know this shit is constantly misrepresented on purpose. (Kind of like global warming and-and-and.)

So that gets us out of the "All Is Lost, Earth Is Doomed" categories, but let's look at the rest of them, too.

Emissions of aerosols: again, one erution--Mount Saint Helens in 1980--dumped more aerosols into the atmosphere than Man has in his entire history. There have been several eruptions since 1980, and the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1992 was so dirty it cooled the whole planet by half a degree.

Human aerosol emissions are not even noise in the volcanic emissions signal.

Ozone depletion: Hoo boy.

What I like about this is the chart's tacit admission that ozone levels over Antarctica recover after they hit their nadir. It says it drops to (not even below!) 200 dobson units (DU) "every spring". It can only do that if it recovers afterwards.

And I'll say it again: the Antarctic ozone "hole" was discovered in 1956 by Dobson himself, and it was explained as a phenomenon related to the antarctic polar vortex, which happens every year...and then the whole thing was quietly forgotten, of interest only to meteorologists, until suddenly All Is Lost, Earth Is Doomed because onoes teh ozonez.

1956 was, by the way, long before CFCs came into common use.

Next up, ocean acidification. Now, I give them points for saying this one's okay, because a lot of econazis are insisting that the ocean pH is already too far out of whack, All Is Lost, Earth Is Doomed, etcetera. The problem is that it's not that far out of whack, and we're really not sure what "normal" is. On the other hand, though, it's already been shown that the link between atmospheric CO2 and ocean pH is questionable at best, and given the fact that climatologists LIE ABOUT GODDAMNED EVERYTHING I for one don't buy the causal link at all.

Freshwater use: this might be of concern on a planet where fresh water does not LITERALLY FALL OUT OF THE FUCKING SKY.

Lastly, the dumping of what I'll lump together under "kitchen sink"--basically anything man-made--and again they get a few points for admitting that they actually don't know what the "boundary" is. But I take those points back for the way they try to scaremonger it by adding that we don't know how much crap is being dumped. That is bullshit; if you can tally fertilizer use and all the other figures that need summing in order to issue a chart full of grave pronouncements like this one, you for damned sure ought at least to be able to come up with some kind of estimate.

But the idea here is to scaremonger: "Well, we don't know at what level All Is Lost, Earth Is Doomed, but we don't really know what we're dumping, either."

In fact, the idea of the whole stinking chart is to scaremonger. None of these things are crises, and the Earth is not going to suddenly turn into a barren, searing desert.

What a load of fatuous crap.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments