Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

Options
18911131444

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Gaoth Lag wrote: »
    I don’t think it was a deliberate contradiction, when you give that many interviews there’s bound to be a blip or two.

    Now, where are those insults?

    Really? He's a renowned spokesperson on climate in Ireland so should be getting the right message out.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 36 Gaoth Lag


    Everyone makes mistakes, you ever make any?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Gaoth Lag wrote: »
    Everyone makes mistakes, you ever make any?

    I think believing that you have any research to share was my most recent mistake.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,466 ✭✭✭Lumi


    Gaoth Lag is taking a break from the forum for personal abuse
    Don’t respond to any of his posts because he can’t reply
    Can we move on please and get back to some civil discussion

    Thanks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Really? He's a renowned spokesperson on climate in Ireland so should be getting the right message out.


    The clanger about co2 in human breath being part or the problem was a good one too!

    Surprised Pat would be so gentle on someone urging word wide decarbonisation by 2040.

    Maybe he's mellowing in later years or, just can't be bothered after all the stuff was thrown out of the pram the last few times.

    https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Pat+kenny+John+gibbons+&oq=Pat+kenny+John+gibbons+&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.12...1756.16983.0.17678.39.31.4.4.5.0.280.4600.3j23j5.31.0....0...1c.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..8.31.3721.gzM1N_TQKn0


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    dense wrote: »
    The clanger about co2 in human breath being part or the problem was a good one too!

    Surprised Pat would be so gentle on someone urging word wide decarbonisation by 2040.

    Maybe he's mellowing in later years or, just can't be bothered after all the stuff was thrown out of the pram the last few times.

    https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Pat+kenny+John+gibbons+&oq=Pat+kenny+John+gibbons+&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.12...1756.16983.0.17678.39.31.4.4.5.0.280.4600.3j23j5.31.0....0...1c.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..8.31.3721.gzM1N_TQKn0

    What is this Thinkorswim nonsense? I hadn't come across it before.

    Reading the homepage I see more hyperbolic statements such as this
    The prospect of holding global temperature increases to below the deadly +2ºC threshold is now vanishingly remote. To put a number on that, researchers calculate we now have just a 5% chance of avoiding breaching the 2ºC ceiling this century. These are lousy odds, given that the world beyond +2ºC is broadly incompatible with this or any other version of organised human civilisation.

    "Broadly incompatible". What does that mean exactly? Is it the inconvenience of using a 2-pin plug in a 3-pin socket - not ideal but can be done - or is it the other way, a 3-pin plug in a 2-pin socket, impossible, and you might die trying?

    "This or any other version or organised human civilisation". How many versions are there? I thought there was just the one.

    It's hard to take someone like this seriously when they speak nonsense like this. It's like one of those movies on the Movies for Men channel, where 5 tornadoes merge to suck the USA out of the ground and drop it in Russia; and only one TV weatherman can save them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    sryanbruen wrote: »
    Well for a start, this is from a newspaper which are a very unreliable source regarding pretty much everything there is. Everything is exaggerated, especially when it comes to meteorology. Obviously, tabloids are far worse than broadsheets with exaggeration but I still do not consider all newspapers a reliable source. They do anything to sell to oblivious or naive people.

    Secondly, the below quote is a bit misleading. Every 10 years, the meteorological agencies produce a 30 year average - which is based on the preceding 30 years - to compare mean temperatures, rainfall etc with and see how they differ from the averages. 1981-2010 is the latest 30 year average dataset, the next one will be 1991-2020.

    The Irish Mean Temperature (IMT) is a dataset we use to see how warm or cold a month is in Ireland - basically the Irish counterpart of the Central England Temperature (CET). Each decade has been unique for the most part in regards to IMTs. For example, the 1990s/2000s were the warmest decades since the 1940s after a rather cold 1960s & 1980s with a mixed bag in the 1970s. However, the 2010s has taken a death in the mean temperatures for Ireland. It has been a far cooler decade than the 1990s and 2000s. It's been the coolest decade since the 1980s. The IMT for the 2010s up to 2017 stands at 9.8c approximately (it's a definite 9.7c up to 2016), compared to 10.2c and 10.3c in the 1990s and 2000s respectively. I don't see any climate change in regards to this, just the Irish climate being its normal self - either caused by solar activity being far weaker than the previous few solar cycles or just the climate being in a cooler period for now like the 1960s and 1980s - though not as cold (yet) as those decades.





    I quoted your original comment here again because it's very irrelevant and misleading. Like I had said in my edited reply to you with evidence, storms Hector and Larry have not happened - Geoffrey isn't even part of the storm names list for 2017-18 so I have zero clue where you got them from.



    See the problem when we say things like it being the driest on record, the wettest on record etc, we can only compare back to a certain period. We don't have millions of years of data - as somebody had falsely suggested on this thread. The CET is the longest dataset in the entire world going back to 1659. However, the further you go back, the more inaccurate these records tend to be and can be quite skeptical sometimes, namely months like May 1833 or June 1846 for example which were abnormally hot months - as the CET tells us.

    If you look at the EWP series on the Hadley Centre site (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/ranked_seasonal/HadEWP_ranked_ssn.dat), you can see that the wettest Winters are fairly spread out and not all tightly packed together. However, the series only goes back to 1766 so who knows that Winters would have been even wetter before hand?

    Top post Syran, and one that reflects a genuine capacity for critical thinking, not only with regards the interpretation of statistics, but also with regards to the media and journalistic interpretation of facts.


    Regarding Prof Sweeney. I recall that he gave a very misleading statement on BBC program regarding 'The Big Wind' of 1839, in which he stated that such events are likely to become more common place in Ireland with climate change. However, the statistics, which are readily available, say otherwise. Storminess is actually becoming less of a feature during the winter months in Ireland. 'Named' storms, and the number of the them (which was alluded to earlier in this thread) is no indicator that they are becoming more frequent, because the majority of named storms in recent years were not actually storms at all technically speaking.


    Here are some statistics and trends since the 1950s for Claremorris, which, as M.T rightly pointed out, is a good indicator of the 'average' conditions for the country as a whole. being placed in an inland location in the west of Ireland, therefore prone to both the extremes of temperature associated with blocking highs, and the moderating (and occasionally, not so moderate) influences of more Atlantic cyclonic conditions.

    All this data can be found both on the Met Éireann site, and on the European Climate Assement & Database website.

    Winter Wind: Marked decrease in both in winter wind speeds and the actual strength of winter storms since the 1990s. On the flip side of this, however, the number of calm days (days with mean windspeed less than 2 m/s) would appear to be on the decline also.

    Winter Temperature: A stark decline in the frequency of 'cold spells' is evident, as is the frequency of the number of 'ice days'. The number of 'consecutive frost days', shows an almost linear fall in the number since the 1950s, averaging between 6 and 8 days pre 1990, to less than 4 since then.

    Winter Rainfall: Interestingly, and in general accordance with predictions, winter rainfall does seem to be increasing, with the number of very wet days '>20mm) seeing a very marked increase since 2009.

    Summer rainfall and drought: A steady and gradual decrease in the number of consecutive dry days since the 1960s, so summer drought conditions would appear to be becoming less extreme. There is a less noticeable but still evident decline in the number of very wet days (>20mm) during the season.

    Summer heat: Days with max temp > 25c would appear to be overall steady, but also in a notable decline since 1995.

    Don't have time to quote more stats but might later (if I am the mood :P) but those above might serve to give an idea as to which way our climate seems to be heading at the moment.


    All data from the ECA&D & Met Éireann.



    Edit: Winter rainfall total at UCG between 1850 and 2010.

    galway.png

    Will send an email to the IT dept later to see if they will share any data since then so as to add it on the chart to get a better idea of recent trends.

    Data above C/O Met Éireann.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,335 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Nice post Oneric,
    Regarding 'the big wind', This event was a once in a century storm. By saying its likely to be more common, this can still be true if a storm that big becomes a once in a half century storm. Nobody expects the most extreme of storms to become a regular part of our weather unless the warming gets really out of hand (a 2 degree plus increase in average global temps)

    Another thing about storms is that a more powerful storm might get more powerful by having greater peak wind speeds, or by having a larger size. A storm that has a small core of high windspeeds might not have as much energy as a larger system of more moderately high wind speeds.

    Also, larger storms have larger storm surges, so it would be interesting to see what the coastal flooding statistics are, although our evolving coastal defenses would impact this statistic also

    In relation to 'days above 25 degrees' as an indicator for warmer weather in summer, this is interesting, but when Prof Sweeney said that Ireland has been on average a half a degree warmer than 50 years ago, most of this will come from milder winters and slightly warmer temperatures in spring and autumn which might actually feel colder due to additional wind chill and extra dampness on the west of Ireland

    The climate predictions for Ireland are for wetter summers on the west, but drier summers on the east, so Claremorris is in line with this, and we should expect a drier trend from a town on the eastern part of Ireland


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia, did you manage to find any evidence of what you posted below?
    Akrasia wrote: »
    This year hasn't been especially bad for storms, apart from a few fairly bad flooding events, and ex tropical storm Ophelia which was far from a normal meteorological event given where it formed and how far it travelled north while maintaining major hurricane force winds, but according to John Sweeney from NUI Maynooth, the winter of 2013/2014 was the stormiest in 140 years in both Ireland and the UK, and the winter of 2015/2016 was the wettest on record for much of the country.

    Its a very legitimate concern that the storms hitting Ireland every winter appear to be getting stronger and wetter and are changing from the typical atlantic depressions that we have been exposed to in the past.
    Appear to be getting stronger. Any evidence of that?

    Changing from typical Atlantic depressions. Any evidence of that either? Remember, Debbie (not a hurricane) in 1961 was very similar to Ophelia (not a hurricane) but way stronger and set wind records that stand to this day. It's been proven that Ophelia was not linked to climate change. The area of warm-anomaly sea waters where it formed and stayed was just a few months earlier several degrees colder than average. Frances in 1980 made it almost as far east (just 350 km short of Ophelia). Not to mention the Big Wind in Jan 1839.

    When it comes to climate, Prof. Sweeney likes to paint the most pessimistic picture whenever he can.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,335 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Storm Ophelia was record breaking in a number of metrics, Storm Darwin a few years before was the strongest storm I have ever experienced, the storm in Donegal this summer was a once in a century storm for that region, but marked by extreme rainfall which is a predicted element of climate change impacts on Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    What is this Thinkorswim nonsense? I hadn't come across it before.

    Reading the homepage I see more hyperbolic statements such as this



    "Broadly incompatible". What does that mean exactly? Is it the inconvenience of using a 2-pin plug in a 3-pin socket - not ideal but can be done - or is it the other way, a 3-pin plug in a 2-pin socket, impossible, and you might die trying?

    "This or any other version or organised human civilisation". How many versions are there? I thought there was just the one.

    It's hard to take someone like this seriously when they speak nonsense like this. It's like one of those movies on the Movies for Men channel, where 5 tornadoes merge to suck the USA out of the ground and drop it in Russia; and only one TV weatherman can save them.

    It's a pseudo-public climate apocalypse site connected to An Taisce.

    I say "pseudo-public" because although public replies are ostensibly invited, if you reply with anything too awkward to consider it doesn't get past moderation.

    Public debate and propaganda aren't the greatest bedfellows of course, and the "science is settled" conversation stopper is evidence of that.

    It's connected to An Taisce because it's run by An Taisce's Climate Change Spokesperson (who's not adverse to citing its blog entries in An Taisce submissions to Government).

    Coincidentally, An Taisce also has Professor Sweeney as a Director.

    It all gives a completely new meaning to the term "climate contrarians".

    Yesterday I linked to the useful scientific paper generator.

    Today I'll link to the new-age BS generator.
    Substitute a few worthy self enriching global warming phrases and you'll get the picture.

    I think it's used to generate the waffle on the site we've mentioned.

    (May be of some use to any posters looking for a deep tagline, but keep coming up blank.)

    http://sebpearce.com/bull****/

    Press the Reionize Electron button to begin the voyage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Storm Ophelia was record breaking in a number of metrics, Storm Darwin a few years before was the strongest storm I have ever experienced, the storm in Donegal this summer was a once in a century storm for that region, but marked by extreme rainfall which is a predicted element of climate change impacts on Ireland.

    So it's your opinion based on a few single events, all of which have happened previously. You have no evidence of any increasing trends in these events?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    dense wrote: »
    It's a pseudo-public climate apocalypse site connected to An Taisce.

    I say "pseudo-public" because although public replies are ostensibly invited, if you reply with anything too awkward to consider it doesn't get past moderation.

    Public debate and propaganda aren't the greatest bedfellows of course, and the "science is settled" conversation stopper is evidence of that.

    It's connected to An Taisce because it's run by An Taisce's Climate Change Spokesperson (who's not adverse to citing its blog entries in An Taisce submissions to Government).

    Coincidentally, An Taisce also has Professor Sweeney as a Director.

    It all gives a completely new meaning to the term "climate contrarians".

    Yesterday I linked to the useful scientific paper generator.

    Today I'll link to the new-age BS generator.
    Substitute a few worthy self enriching global warming phrases and you'll get the picture.

    I think it's used to generate the waffle on the site we've mentioned.

    (May be of some use to any posters looking for a deep tagline, but keep coming up blank.)

    http://sebpearce.com/bull****/

    Press the Reionize Electron button to begin the voyage.

    I've been searching but can't find John Gibbons' scientific qualifications that would make him a worthy critic of those actually qualified, such as Bates. Maybe he has more than a journalism qualification, but he doesn't seem to mention anything (as far as I can find anyway).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »

    In relation to 'days above 25 degrees' as an indicator for warmer weather in summer, this is interesting, but when Prof Sweeney said that Ireland has been on average a half a degree warmer than 50 years ago, most of this will come from milder winters and slightly warmer temperatures in spring and autumn which might actually feel colder due to additional wind chill and extra dampness on the west of Ireland

    Do you agree with Professor Sweeney's recent admission that co2 emitted in human breath is part of the problem?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    What is this Thinkorswim nonsense? I hadn't come across it before.

    Reading the homepage I see more hyperbolic statements such as this



    "Broadly incompatible". What does that mean exactly? Is it the inconvenience of using a 2-pin plug in a 3-pin socket - not ideal but can be done - or is it the other way, a 3-pin plug in a 2-pin socket, impossible, and you might die trying?

    "This or any other version or organised human civilisation". How many versions are there? I thought there was just the one.

    It's hard to take someone like this seriously when they speak nonsense like this. It's like one of those movies on the Movies for Men channel, where 5 tornadoes merge to suck the USA out of the ground and drop it in Russia; and only one TV weatherman can save them.

    I have a problem with it too - it’s largely defeatist. If we have a 5% chance of solving something why bother? We would need instead to prepare for the post civilisation.

    As a believer in AGW, that attitude is counter productive. We need to make clear there is a solvable problem to solve it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »
    Do you agree with Professor Sweeney's recent admission that co2 emitted in human breath is part of the problem?

    Presumably all carbon dioxide is part of the problem?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    I've been searching but can't find John Gibbons' scientific qualifications that would make him a worthy critic of those actually qualified, such as Bates. Maybe he has more than a journalism qualification, but he doesn't seem to mention anything (as far as I can find anyway).

    There's not much to be found regarding Professor Sweeney's qualifications either.

    He is a retired professor, who according to the NUI has taught a variety of classes "related" to climatology.

    https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/people/john-sweeney

    An Taisce, of which he is a Board Member, in a broadside against Ray Bates, describes him as "Ireland's leading climate scientist".

    http://www.antaisce.org/articles/contrarian-climate-views-professor-john-sweeney-speaks-out


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Presumably all carbon dioxide is part of the problem?

    Can you elaborate on that presumption?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »
    Can you elaborate on that presumption?

    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Are you disputing this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,335 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    So it's your opinion based on a few single events, all of which have happened previously. You have no evidence of any increasing trends in these events?

    The thing about weather, is that it tends to be made up of events, and the thing about the future, is that it hasn't happened yet, so it would be hard for me to use things that haven't happened yet as evidence for things that have been happening.

    Storms are dynamic events that rely on all kinds of factors other than just the temperature of the planet, and storms that make landfall in populated areas are counted as significant events, while storms that remain out to sea or just skirt the coastline are seen as non events. Each storm is unique so comparing them by use of headline statistics can only give a partial story. High res weather models can't even predict storm tracks with certainty a day or two in advance. Climate change is often framed as either man made, or natural variability, but in reality, it's human influences on top of natural variabilty. We also do not know what the underlying natural trend for storminess would be if it wasn't for the human element in climate change. Perhaps we should be in a period of well below average storms which is dramatically increased by climate change, but this fact could be masked by the natural variability element.

    The modelling for future storm activity as a result of global warming is uncertain, there are different results depending on which model is used, and there are very good reasons for this, weather is chaotic. If global warming drags the jet stream out of it's traditional position, then unless your model gets this right, then all of your storm tracks will be wrong.

    There is a good presentation on the changes to Irish weather that have already been observed in Ireland due to climate change
    https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Meetings/Dr-Saji-Varghese-Presentation-.pdf
    he doesn't talk about wind or storms in his presentation it's not easy to find good quality research that does, but there is a new climate attribution project as a collaboration between UCC and Oxford which might give us better data in the next year or two

    You don't seem to value Prof John Sweeney's professional opinion on the matter. That's fine, you probably view him in a similar way to how I view Prof Ray Bates's analysis. The difference is that John Sweeney is is sync with the views of the majority of professional climatologists in Ireland, and also the majority of professional meteorologists and the national MET service in Ireland and these bodies and professionals are in agreement that climate change is a serious threat that should be taken seriously.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »

    You don't seem to value Prof John Sweeney's professional opinion on the matter. That's fine, you probably view him in a similar way to how I view Prof Ray Bates's analysis. The difference is that John Sweeney is is sync with the views of the majority of professional climatologists in Ireland, and also the majority of professional meteorologists and the national MET service in Ireland and these bodies and professionals are in agreement that climate change is a serious threat that should be taken seriously.

    Where have "the majority of professional climatologists in Ireland" made their views on the subject known?

    Who are they?

    This is reading very like somebody saying "97% of scientists" then when asked for some finer detail can't provide it.

    Met Eireann doesn't seem terribly convinced and has been publicly criticised by activists who would apparently prefer the service to adopt a much more apocalyptic outlook than the rather benign and non committal stance evident in the outlook below.


    http://www.met.ie/news/display.asp?ID=340

    http://www.thinkorswim.ie/met-eireann-climate-change-time-to-break-the-silence/


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The thing about weather, is that it tends to be made up of events, and the thing about the future, is that it hasn't happened yet, so it would be hard for me to use things that haven't happened yet as evidence for things that have been happening.

    Storms are dynamic events that rely on all kinds of factors other than just the temperature of the planet, and storms that make landfall in populated areas are counted as significant events, while storms that remain out to sea or just skirt the coastline are seen as non events. Each storm is unique so comparing them by use of headline statistics can only give a partial story. High res weather models can't even predict storm tracks with certainty a day or two in advance. Climate change is often framed as either man made, or natural variability, but in reality, it's human influences on top of natural variabilty. We also do not know what the underlying natural trend for storminess would be if it wasn't for the human element in climate change. Perhaps we should be in a period of well below average storms which is dramatically increased by climate change, but this fact could be masked by the natural variability element.

    The modelling for future storm activity as a result of global warming is uncertain, there are different results depending on which model is used, and there are very good reasons for this, weather is chaotic. If global warming drags the jet stream out of it's traditional position, then unless your model gets this right, then all of your storm tracks will be wrong.

    There is a good presentation on the changes to Irish weather that have already been observed in Ireland due to climate change
    https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Meetings/Dr-Saji-Varghese-Presentation-.pdf
    he doesn't talk about wind or storms in his presentation it's not easy to find good quality research that does, but there is a new climate attribution project as a collaboration between UCC and Oxford which might give us better data in the next year or two

    It's just that you said that we are seeing increased storminess and that these storms are "changing from the typical atlantic depressions that we've been exposed to in the past.
    Its a very legitimate concern that the storms hitting Ireland every winter appear to be getting stronger and wetter and are changing from the typical atlantic depressions that we have been exposed to in the past.

    I'm just wondering what you based this observation on. Are you saying they're becoming different types of storms (tropical, etc.)?
    You don't seem to value Prof John Sweeney's professional opinion on the matter. That's fine, you probably view him in a similar way to how I view Prof Ray Bates's analysis. The difference is that John Sweeney is is sync with the views of the majority of professional climatologists in Ireland, and also the majority of professional meteorologists and the national MET service in Ireland and these bodies and professionals are in agreement that climate change is a serious threat that should be taken seriously.

    I'm sure Prof Sweeney’s properly qualified to comment as he does, the same way that Ray Bates is. Two differing opinions from qualified people. It's just that Sweeney’s comments only seem to consist of the same few claims outlined in the Indo link (with some changes), while Bates has produced a recent paper that appears to update our knowledge of the science and fits the observations. This paper has had numerous citations.

    Who's right? Only time will tell, but as I keep saying, so far observations are slightly lagging the forecasts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Are you disputing this?

    We also breath out water vapour, which is a more potent greenhouse gas. Hey, maybe the growing population of now >7 billion is adding all those extra GHGs to the atmosphere! Maybe we should do like in the Meteor ad and charge people for air.

    On a serious note, water vapour in the atmosphere from warmer air and oceans has not shown any increase in vapour pressure, at least at Valentia. So far no sign of the increasing trend we're to expect in a warmer world.

    From Met.ie

    waterv01.gif


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Are you disputing this?

    To keep this as simple as possible, can Anyone cite any other experts on climate change (other than Professor Sweeney) who believe that human co2 exhaled in breath is part of the problem?

    Akrasia might know?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »
    To keep this as simple as possible, can Anyone cite any other experts on climate change (other than Professor Sweeney) who believe that human co2 exhaled in breath is part of the problem?

    Akrasia might know?

    A simpler than possible answer would to you to answer the question about whether you thought carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas or not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,509 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2018: +0.26 deg. C - -> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/
    Coolest tropics since June, 2012 at -0.12 deg. C.

    The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2018 was +0.26 deg. C, down from the December, 2017 value of +0.41 deg. C:

    The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 13 months are:
    YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
    2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
    2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.20 +0.08
    2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06
    2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
    2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
    2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
    2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
    2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46
    2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54
    2017 10 +0.63 +0.66 +0.59 +0.47
    2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
    2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
    2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12
    

    Note that La Niña cooling in the tropics has finally penetrated the troposphere, with a -0.12 deg. C departure from average. The last time the tropics were cooler than this was June, 2012 (-0.15 deg. C). Out of the 470 month satellite record, the 0.38 deg. C one-month drop in January tropical temperatures was tied for the 3rd largest, beaten only by October 1991 (0.51 deg. C drop) and August, 2014 (0.41 deg. C drop).

    The last time the Southern Hemisphere was this cool (+0.06 deg. C) was July, 2015 (+0.04 deg. C).

    source

    The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.


    Will La Niña have negative impact on '18 growing season? - -> http://www.wisfarmer.com/story/news/2018/01/17/la-nina-have-negative-impact-18-growing-season/1039076001/
    La Niña, the cooler sibling of El Niño, is here.

    The La Niña climate pattern — a natural cycle marked by cooler-than-average ocean water in the central Pacific Ocean — is one of the main drivers of weather in the U.S. and around the world, especially during the late fall, winter and early spring.

    This is the second consecutive La Niña winter. Last year's episode was unusually brief, forming in November and gone by February. DTN Senior Ag Meteorologist Bryce Anderson said this year's La Niña is on the weak side, but it should still continue through the winter.

    Anderson provided his meteorological insight during the Midwinter Weather Update webinar on Jan.16.

    La Niña is a climate pattern marked by cooler than average water in the central Pacific Ocean and has a big impact on the snowfall in the winter. Farmers are watching this weather pattern closely and its potential impact on crop production around the world.

    source

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    A simpler than possible answer would to you to answer the question about whether you thought carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas or not.

    Leave me out of it for the moment please.
    Granted I did I ask you to elaborate on an assumption you had, but scrap that too.

    I've asked an open question, and it's a bit of a show stopper.

    Nobody has answered.
    Possibly no one is reading the thread anymore, or haven't time to respond.........

    So let's not try to make this about me, about MY thoughts on GHGs, just because I picked up on something that was said by Professor Sweeney.

    Two things actually, both of which deserve attention, the inconsistency in divestment and the co2 in human breath claim.

    In focusing on me, it just shows a reluctance to examine whether Ireland's national climate change expert, described as a leading climatologist, and a UNIPCC Lead Author is in the habit of making stupid claims to whoever will listen to him.

    -Because I'm not the one whispering into the government's ear preaching fossil fuel divestment for Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Just on the topic of exhaled CO2. On average, a human exhales around 318 tonnes of air in a lifetime. The composition of exhaled air is around 5% CO2 and 5% water vapour (both GHGs), so that's around 32 tonnes of GHG added per person per lifetime. At an average lifespan of 67.5 years that's almost 0.5 tonnes per person per year. Multiply by 7 billion people and we get around 3 3 billion tonnes of GHG exhaled by the human population per year

    The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.15 x 10^15 tonnes. The concentration of added GHG is therefore around 0.06% per year (~600 ppm). Ignore the water vapour part and we have around 300 ppm of CO2 added per year by the human population. And this isn't even mentioning all the animal life. Hmmm, definitely too many people on the planet.

    Of course, thankfully we have natural sinks (oceans, trees and plant life) consuming all this CO2, but they definitely should think of rationing our air or else our growing population will start suffocating on its own exhaled air. :rolleyes:

    http://minkukel.com/visualize-it/every-breath-you-take/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »
    Leave me out of it for the moment please.
    Granted I did I ask you to elaborate on an assumption you had, but scrap that too.

    I've asked an open question, and it's a bit of a show stopper.

    Nobody has answered.
    Possibly no one is reading the thread anymore, or haven't time to respond.........

    So let's not try to make this about me, about MY thoughts on GHGs, just because I picked up on something that was said by Professor Sweeney.

    Two things actually, both of which deserve attention, the inconsistency in divestment and the co2 in human breath claim.

    In focusing on me, it just shows a reluctance to examine whether Ireland's national climate change expert, described as a leading climatologist, and a UNIPCC Lead Author is in the habit of making stupid claims to whoever will listen to him.

    -Because I'm not the one whispering into the government's ear preaching fossil fuel divestment for Ireland.

    You seem to think you are the only one around here who gets to ask questions.

    Your position on carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is relevant to all the other arguments you make including if humans themselves are causing global warming by breathing.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Just on the topic of exhaled CO2. On average, a human exhales around 318 tonnes of air in a lifetime. The composition of exhaled air is around 5% CO2 and 5% water vapour (both GHGs), so that's around 32 tonnes of GHG added per person per lifetime. At an average lifespan of 67.5 years that's almost 0.5 tonnes per person per year. Multiply by 7 billion people and we get around 3 3 billion tonnes of GHG exhaled by the human population per year

    The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.15 x 10^15 tonnes. The concentration of added GHG is therefore around 0.06% per year (~600 ppm). Ignore the water vapour part and we have around 300 ppm of CO2 added per year by the human population. And this isn't even mentioning all the animal life. Hmmm, definitely too many people on the planet.

    Of course, thankfully we have natural sinks (oceans, trees and plant life) consuming all this CO2, but they definitely should think of rationing our air or else our growing population will start suffocating on its own exhaled air. :rolleyes:

    http://minkukel.com/visualize-it/every-breath-you-take/

    I never doubted that the increase in human exhalation was relatively trivial compared to other sources, however it’s not certain that the sinks are keeping up with carbon inputs or we wouldn’t be where we are.


Advertisement