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

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

How about right here, for starters?



https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/953188/eu-news-paris-climate-change-agreement-ireland-fined


https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0601/967646-sse-airtricity-price-increase/

Ireland's a developing country now? Get out of it

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Ireland's a developing country now? Get out of it

Any answers to the two questions I posed to you three days ago?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Ireland's a developing country now? Get out of it

Bingo; now try to use some of that logic to think about just how developed we'd be now, without fossil fuels, eh?

After that, you can let us know if you think that the scientific community has already actually come up with the goods in terms of energy breakthroughs that would power the planet in absentia of fossil fuels if it wasn't for the big oil barons sabotaging them at every turn leaving us with just windmills and solar panels to keep the show on the road.

Bear in mind that just 8% of global electricity production comes from renewable sources.

Those fines though, being fined for something that the environmentalists can't even be bothered quantifying or taking a personal responsibility for, well, it's all a big scam, isn't it??

Wanderer78

dense wrote: »

Bingo; now try to use some of that logic to think about just how developed we'd be now, without fossil fuels, eh?

After that, you can let us know if you think that the scientific community has already actually come up with the goods in terms of energy breakthroughs that would power the planet in absentia of fossil fuels if it wasn't for the big oil barons sabotaging them at every turn leaving us with just windmills and solar panels to keep the show on the road.

Bear in mind that just 8% of global electricity production comes from renewable sources.

Those fines though, being fined for something that the environmentalists can't even be bothered quantifying or taking a personal responsibility for, well, it's all a big scam, isn't it??

plutocratic forces will always shape our approaches to life, even control them, its up to us to democratise our world, it would be naive to think these same plutocratic forces are not already heavily involved in the development of alternative approaches, including renewables. my own suspicions are, fossil fuels are currently cheaper and easier to produce, and ultimately easier to produce quicker profits compared to alternatives, which is causing a serious lack of development in these alternatives, but to be fair, id imagine there are also complex technical issues still to overcome also.

we have no way of knowing where we d be without fossil fuels, but we probably would have developed technologies via alternative methods, including nuclear

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

plutocratic forces will always shape our approaches to life, even control them, its up to us to democratise our world, it would be naive to think these same plutocratic forces are not already heavily involved in the development of alternative approaches, including renewables. my own suspicions are, fossil fuels are currently cheaper and easier to produce, and ultimately easier to produce quicker profits compared to alternatives, which is causing a serious lack of development in these alternatives, but to be fair, id imagine there are also complex technical issues still to overcome also.

I'll go along with your plutocratic comment, to a point, but hesitate because I'd say you're heading for the modern day conclusion that says the tea lady at the large corporation is on an equal footing as the CEO and therefore should be equally remunerated.

But we agree that the scientific community has failed to come up with practical alternatives. Read up the history of electric cars and we've not come terribly far when compared to other technologies.

So it's not near as simple as it's being made out, the promise of a seemless, costless and painless transition to zero emissions to save the planet, if only politicians would sit down and agree.

It isn't remotely possible.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we have no way of knowing where we d be without fossil fuels, but we probably would have developed technologies via alternative methods, including nuclear

I think we've a fair idea.
Ironic that it's the eco activists that shout loudest about nuclear too eh?

Transitioning to zero emissions is a hobby horse wealth distribution scam from the environmentalists.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Bingo; now try to use some of that logic to think about just how developed we'd be now, without fossil fuels, eh?

Woah, you just blew my mind. But, the UK economy was built on coal fired steam turbines... we don't have many of those, how did our economy ever get off the ground?

BTW, these developing countries are still LDCs despite them having exactly the same access to oil and gas markets that we have had. Maybe there's another reason why they've never caught up?

After that, you can let us know if you think that the scientific community has already actually come up with the goods in terms of energy breakthroughs that would power the planet in absentia of fossil fuels if it wasn't for the big oil barons sabotaging them at every turn leaving us with just windmills and solar panels to keep the show on the road.

Many of the LDCs are located in warm sunny climates where solar PV is already cheaper than coal, and the infrastructure costs a fraction of the price of high capacity interconnectors because the power can be generated locally. We don't need to go straight to 100% renewable energy. We just need to start the transition and put a lot of investment into make it as quick and smooth as possible.

Bear in mind that just 8% of global electricity production comes from renewable sources.

Except that your number excludes hydroelectricity. The actual number is closer to 23%

Those fines though, being fined for something that the environmentalists can't even be bothered quantifying or taking a personal responsibility for, well, it's all a big scam, isn't it??

The fines are for not meeting the commitments that we have signed up to. The whole point of the fines is that it gives an incentive to invest in clean energy because it's a hell of a lot better to spend that money on infrastructure than to pay it in a fine.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

All a purely theoretical exercise that has not been proven. Call me a fool all you want, I'll see you back here in 2022.

I call anyone a fool who is so absolutely certain that they know something that is still uncertain.

Taking a sample is one thing, "extracting minerals from an asteroid... to ultimately help solve the problem of scarce natural resources through allowing us access to minerals beyond our own planet" (i.e. harvesting useful quantities of minerals from an asteroid) is another. Again, which minerals are you talking about? And for what?

There are some rare earth metals like Indium that are extremely scarce and hard to extract that are essential for electronic components but we only need trace amounts per device. A mining operation that found a source of Indium or other rare metals like platinum, gold, iridium, paladium etc could return them to earth without having to worry about large volumes of ore. These will probably be the first kinds of mining operations to become viable.

Then there are the industrial sized mining operations that could help us to explore the solar system
Take one asteroid, 16 Psyche, it's made almost entirely out of metal, Iron and Nickle and it would be enough to satisfy global demand for Iron for centuries, or it could be a raw material to build colonies on Mars or Europa or wherever the future takes us.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Some reading for you re. those flood "defenses". This city floods at the drop of a hat. Three 500-year floods in the past decade (excluding Harvey). The same old story with planning; 38,000 acres of wetlands replaced by developments, 53% increase in water-resistant surfaces in one county, etc. As with most of the Gulf coast, Houston is a ticking timebomb. I've family living there for 40 years, and while the Harvey rain was the worst they experienced, flooding is an accepted way of life at this stage.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/hurricane-harvey-why-houston-flooded-2017-8#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

The past 4 '500 year' flooding events all occuring within a 10 year period have been far worse than the usual flooding that they have grown used to. If these 500 year floods become regular flood events, then they will either have to spend a fortune building even better flood defenses, or these ares will become uninhabitable

Akrasia

[HTML][/HTML]

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Just hang on there, soldier. I seem to remember you arguing about how record-breaking Patricia was, and when I made the point that we don't know that it hasn't happened before you were all too keen to rely on early data then. The video you posted last week shows how the tropical activity has been adjusted to account for poor observational coverage in earlier times. All data of course come with error bars, but you seem to only choose the ones that suit you (i.e. the upper bars of the RCP8.5, for example). Are you saying that the 1880 spike in ACE did not occur? Was it flat then? You'd love to remove that peak from the record, wouldn't you?

You're doing the same thing yourself Gaoth, You're saying that the records are unreliable in the past therefore there must have been stronger hurricanes that we don't know about.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Except that your number excludes hydroelectricity. The actual number is closer to 23%

Only 77% to go then.


But I don't see much scope or enthusiasm now for new hydro electric projects given the enthusiasm the greens have for their 8% global electricity production from their solar and wind toys.

Akrasia wrote: »

The fines are for not meeting the commitments that we have signed up to. The whole point of the fines is that it gives an incentive to invest in clean energy because it's a hell of a lot better to spend that money on infrastructure than to pay it in a fine.

Just like your own carbon footprint, Ireland's total carbon footprint is irrelevant.

Therefore consciously signing up to treaties which will punish us for failing to meet targets is stupidity of the highest order.

You understand this because it is how you justify ignoring your own carbon footprint.

I'm just scaling it up using your logic.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Only 77% to go then.


But I don't see much scope or enthusiasm now for new hydro electric projects given the enthusiasm the greens have for their 8% global electricity production from their solar and wind toys.






Just like your own carbon footprint, Ireland's total carbon footprint is irrelevant.

Therefore consciously signing up to treaties which will punish us for failing to meet targets is stupidity of the highest order.

You understand this because it is how you justify ignoring your own carbon footprint.

I'm just scaling it up using your logic.

Ireland is a part of the EU, 28 member states, we are also part of the UN, 193 member states. Ireland as a nation has a much much bigger influence and responsibility than an ordinary citizen in a state of 4.7 million people.

We have a responsibility to protect the environment for our children and future generations.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Woah, you just blew my mind. But, the UK economy was built on coal fired steam turbines... we don't have many of those, how did our economy ever get off the ground?

Coal is a fossil fuel.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I call anyone a fool who is so absolutely certain that they know something that is still uncertain.




There are some rare earth metals like Indium that are extremely scarce and hard to extract that are essential for electronic components but we only need trace amounts per device. A mining operation that found a source of Indium or other rare metals like platinum, gold, iridium, paladium etc could return them to earth without having to worry about large volumes of ore. These will probably be the first kinds of mining operations to become viable.

Then there are the industrial sized mining operations that could help us to explore the solar system
Take one asteroid, 16 Psyche, it's made almost entirely out of metal, Iron and Nickle and it would be enough to satisfy global demand for Iron for centuries, or it could be a raw material to build colonies on Mars or Europa or wherever the future takes us.

Ah here, I think you're losing the plot. How on earth (pun intended) do you see mining global quantities of extraterrestrial iron as viable, economically or otherwise? Some would see that as the definition of a fool. Exactly how would that work? How any million tonnes would we be able to get here to meet global demand?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

The past 4 '500 year' flooding events all occuring within a 10 year period have been far worse than the usual flooding that they have grown used to. If these 500 year floods become regular flood events, then they will either have to spend a fortune building even better flood defenses, or these ares will become uninhabitable

These floods have been greatly exacerbated by the planning problems I outlined above. Without such ****-ups they would not have been classified so.

Meanwhile your solution is to just build better defences? At least acknowledge that the city is in a much worse state now due to these developments.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]
You're doing the same thing yourself Gaoth, You're saying that the records are unreliable in the past therefore there must have been stronger hurricanes that we don't know about.

No I'm not. It is very possible - given historic records such as ACE - that in the past, equally strong storms could have formed and gone either undetected or not as accurately measured as Patricia. Had Patricia formed 80 years ago, long before hi-resolution tools like ASCAT, microwave soundings, hurricane-hunter flights and their GPS dropsondes, etc. I'd be fairly sure it would not have been classified as that strong. It was only technology that allowed "us" to accurately measure its winds as being stronger than older processes would have done.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Ireland's a developing country now? Get out of it

Ireland is what is known as a 'peripheral' state. Highly dependant on outside investment and corporations for inward infrastructure and jobs. We are not a global player, despite what that Macron/Trudeau wannabe Varadka and his media lakies would have us believe. Our so-called 'prosperity' is, like them, superficial.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Ireland is a part of the EU, 28 member states, we are also part of the UN, 193 member states. Ireland as a nation has a much much bigger influence and responsibility than an ordinary citizen in a state of 4.7 million people.

Yes, Ireland is a huge global influencer to be sure....


So is Tuvalu, come to think of it.



So what services do you want to see being underfunded in the future in order to come up with this annual half billion euros in fines that the environmentalists in People Before Profit and the like think we should be paying?


Housing, health?



And hey, isn't it funny that after what, 70 pages, not one person has been able to quantify the contribution they imagine Ireland has made to catastrophic climate warming or whatever.


Imaginary problems, due to cost us, sorry, the tax payer, half a billion a year in fines.


That's more good work from Paul Murphy and the environmentalists.

Oneiric 3

dense wrote: »

Yes, Ireland is a huge global influencer to be sure....

Indeed, Varadka was the prominent figure at the G7 summit today...

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No I'm not. It is very possible - given historic records such as ACE - that in the past, equally strong storms could have formed and gone either undetected or not as accurately measured as Patricia. Had Patricia formed 80 years ago, long before hi-resolution tools like ASCAT, microwave soundings, hurricane-hunter flights and their GPS dropsondes, etc. I'd be fairly sure it would not have been classified as that strong. It was only technology that allowed "us" to accurately measure its winds as being stronger than older processes would have done.

“I’m concerned when hurricanes are used as the poster child for global warming,” said Dr. Chris Landsea, who is the science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in Miami.

“It’s very difficult to say how hurricanes are now versus 100 years ago. We’re still challenged today in knowing how strong a hurricane is, even in 2018,” said Landsea.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/Is-There-a-Link-to-Superstorms-and-Global-Warming-484364611.html

Gaoth Laidir

dense wrote: »

Yes, Ireland is a huge global influencer to be sure....


So is Tuvalu, come to think of it.



So what services do you want to see being underfunded in the future in order to come up with this annual half billion euros in fines that the environmentalists in People Before Profit and the like think we should be paying?


Housing, health?



And hey, isn't it funny that after what, 70 pages, not one person has been able to quantify the contribution they imagine Ireland has made to catastrophic climate warming or whatever.


Imaginary problems, due to cost us, sorry, the tax payer, half a billion a year in fines.


That's more good work from Paul Murphy and the environmentalists.

Dense, please, single line between paragraphs!

Gaoth Laidir

dense wrote: »

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/Is-There-a-Link-to-Superstorms-and-Global-Warming-484364611.html

Akrasia him/herself posted a video the other day in which the speaker stated the same. Maybe he/she missed that bit.

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Dense, please, single line between paragraphs!

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Akrasia him/herself posted a video the other day in which the speaker stated the same. Maybe he/she missed that bit.

From Chris Landsea on his resigning from the UNIPCC:

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.

http://landscapesandcycles.net/chris-landsea-resigns-from-ipcc.html

Pa ElGrande

Wait a minute... you mean wind power is NOT sustainable. . . . ?????


http://smartgriddashboard.eirgrid.com/#roi/generation

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

These floods have been greatly exacerbated by the planning problems I outlined above. Without such ****-ups they would not have been classified so.

Meanwhile your solution is to just build better defences? At least acknowledge that the city is in a much worse state now due to these developments.

My solution isn't to build better flood defenses, I'm saying that Houston could find that a lot of these places will be uninhabitable if these 1 in 500 year rainfall events keep happening 4 times a decade.

You consistently refuse to acknowledge the role extreme rainfall is playing in extreme flooding.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Coal is a fossil fuel.

Yes I know. you missed my point, steam engines are out dated technology, Developing countries can develop perfectly fine using the latest renewable technology, and they'll have cleaner air and less water pollution.

Counting down until one of you says 'gotcha, even nuclear power stations are still basically steam powered turbines" but you know what I mean

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

My solution isn't to build better flood defenses, I'm saying that Houston could find that a lot of these places will be uninhabitable if these 1 in 500 year rainfall events keep happening 4 times a decade.

You consistently refuse to acknowledge the role extreme rainfall is playing in extreme flooding.

Houston’s flooding is rooted in geography and aggravated by urban development. The city is only about 50 feet above sea level in an area that receives over 40 inches of rain per year. Buildings, pavement, and other urban landscapes increase the speed that water flows into the ditches and bayous causing those channels to quickly become overwhelmed. This problem worsens as the city grows.

http://houstonlifestyles.com/historical-houstons-flooded-history-normal-crisis/



https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/For-years-the-Houston-area-has-been-losing-ground-7951625.php#photo-10156366

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

My solution isn't to build better flood defenses, I'm saying that Houston could find that a lot of these places will be uninhabitable if these 1 in 500 year rainfall events keep happening 4 times a decade.

You consistently refuse to acknowledge the role extreme rainfall is playing in extreme flooding.

And you're still not acknowleding the effect of exploding population and its effects on natural drainage in the severity of these floods.

Just for your info, here are some record events from 1900-2009. Had those the earlier ones (e.g. 1935 flood, Carla (1961), Claudette (1979), etc.) occured in today's Houston, with all its new weaknesses, then I reckon the effects would have been much worse.

https://www.weather.gov/hgx/climate_holidays_hundred#6

THE GREAT STORM - SEPTEMBER 8, 1900
(also known as the 1900 Galveston Hurricane)

◾DEATH TOLL ESTIMATED BETWEEN 6,000 AND 8,000
◾GREATEST NATURAL DISASTER IN U.S. HISTORY IN TERMS OF LIVES LOST
◾SUSTAINED WINDS WERE IN EXCESS OF 130 MPH
◾STORM TIDES REACHED 20 FEET
◾STORM DAMAGE WAS ESTIMATED IN EXCESS OF $30 MILLION DOLLARS#
# - Monetary values assigned to storms are from the year of the event. Values have not been adjusted for inflation.

DECEMBER 8 1935 HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD

◾HEAVY RAIN PRODUCED WIDESPREAD FLOODING ACROSS HARRIS COUNTY
◾BUFFALO BAYOU ROSE TO AN UNPRECEDENTED 52 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL (NORMAL WAS 6 FEET) AT THE CAPITOL STREET BRIDGE
◾FLOOD WATERS ROSE TO THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS AT MANY DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS
◾HOUSTON'S CENTRAL WATER PLANT WAS UNDER WATER AND
INOPERABLE FOR WEEKS
◾DAMAGE ESTIMATED AT $12.6 MILLION DOLLARS#
◾THE IMPACT OF THIS FLOOD WAS SO SEVERE...THAT THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT WAS CREATED TO ALLEVIATE THE FLOODING PROBLEMS WHICH PLAGUED THE CITY
# - Monetary values assigned to storms are from the year of the event. Values have not been adjusted for inflation.

HURRICANE CARLA - SEPTEMBER 11, 1961


◾A STRONG CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE WHICH MADE LANDFALL NEAR PORT O'CONNOR
◾SUSTAINED WINDS NEAR 125 MPH WITH GUSTS ESTIMATED NEAR 175
MPH
◾CARLA PRODUCED A 22 FOOT STORM SURGE IN MATAGORDA BAY
◾OVER 40 PERSONS KILLED
◾CARLA SPAWNED A STRONG F3 TORNADO WHICH DESTROYED PARTS OF DOWNTOWN GALVESTON AND KILLED OVER A DOZEN PERSONS

TROPICAL STORM CLAUDETTE - JULY 24-26, 1979

◾24 HOUR DELUGE JUST SOUTH OF HOUSTON PRODUCING A 24 HOUR UNITED STATES RAINFALL RECORD OF 43.0 INCHES 2 MILES EAST NORTHEAST OF ALVIN. THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN ALVIN REPORTED 28.7 INCHES OF RAIN IN 20 HOURS
◾CLEAR CREEK EXPANDED TO A WIDTH GREATER THAN A MILE...RISING 9 FEET ABOVE NORMAL
◾15,000 HOMES AND 17,000 AUTOMOBILES DAMAGED BY FLOOD WATERS
◾TOTAL DAMAGE ESTIMATED NEAR $750 MILLION DOLLARS#
# - Monetary values assigned to storms are from the year of the event. Values have not been adjusted for inflation.

https://www.weather.gov/hgx/pns_memorable_events2000s

TROPICAL STORM ALLISON - JUNE 5 2001 THROUGH JUNE JUNE 9 2001

ALLISON WAS A WEAK TROPICAL STORM THAT MADE LANDFALL NEAR
GALVESTON ON TUESDAY EVENING JUNE 5TH. THE STORM DUMPED 8 TO 10 INCHES OF RAIN ACROSS PARTS OF BRAZORIA...GALVESTON AND HARRIS COUNTIES AT LANDFALL. THE STORM LINGERED ACROSS THE REGION FOR 5 DAYS SLOWLY DRIFTING BACK TO THE COAST. PARAMETERS CAME TOGETHER FOR TORRENTIAL RAIN TO DEVELOP FRIDAY NIGHT INTO SATURDAY MORNING (JUNE8-9). RAIN WAS FALLING AT THE RATE OF 4 INCHES PER HOUR. SEVERAL AREAS IN EASTERN HARRIS COUNTY RECEIVED 25 INCHES OF RAIN ON FRIDAY NIGHT AND PARTS OF THE HOUSTON AREA RECEIVED OVER 35 INCHES OF RAIN IN 5 DAYS. DAMAGES WERE ESTIMATED NEAR 5 BILLION DOLLARS AND 23 PERSON LOST THEIR LIVES DURING THIS FLOOD EVENT.

HEAVY RAIN EVENT - JUNE 19 2006

A SLOW MOVING UPPER LEVEL LOW OVER EXTREME EAST TEXAS DRIFTED
SLOWLY WEST DURING THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 19TH. INTENSE RAINFALL DEVELOPED WITH PARTS OF LIBERTY...CHAMBERS AND
EASTERN HARRIS COUNTY RECEIVING 8 TO 12 INCHES OF RAIN. HOBBY
AIRPORT RECEIVED 5.75 INCHES OF RAIN IN 75 MINUTES AND 9.29 INCHES OF RAIN BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND NOON. OVER 3300 HOMES IN HARRIS COUNTY SUFFERED SOME LEVEL OF FLOOD DAMAGE.

Gaoth Laidir

Galveston has a good precipitation record going back to 1871. Here are the monthly totals. August 2017 is an obvious outlier. Before that, the highest totals all occur before 1979, and mostly before 1940.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Galveston has a good precipitation record going back to 1871. Here are the monthly totals. August 2017 is an obvious outlier. Before that, the highest totals all occur before 1979, and mostly before 1940.

So those other flood events were all made up then.