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

Akrasia

No idea what you're on about Dense, I'm not gonna bother with your posts anymore.

For anyone who actually cares about the science, a new study has just been published in Nature that did an extensive analysis of Antarctic ice melt, and they have found that the rate of Ice loss in the antarctic has been accellerating rapidly over the period between 1992 to 2017
Total antarctic ice loss in the period between 1992 to 1997 was -47 gigatonnes a year (+-67gts)
In the most recent 5 year period, the ice loss is at -219 gts a year (+-43gts)



Great news for everyone who lives slightly higher than where the current shoreline is. They're gonna have a shorter walk to the beach.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y.epdf?referrer_access_token=FCqLlLjq2MRZ-JOlpsa6aNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PBEKqWHTwARrIrR4OxoHFd5WZGh-A0FX8FPbkdWIZLYTiYEn7sFtTfv0uyTwXeaNPMrjI8nX5EeyZhC0hMOT-5WJGr-6chKWrrX3s_rMxS3qj2YpLUQ4VCllJgafutFAuELX0HV0p_EZyxMAGwCmX48wafEjINYg0k4YA331mQwy9RbzwZioGBAz9fCSEN4TebttPbYYuTbXRvXuvxFsCsfn970qIs_8GeioK6rt7z4w%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.wired.co.uk

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

No idea what you're on about Dense, I'm not gonna bother with your posts anymore.

For anyone who actually cares about the science, a new study has just been published in Nature that did an extensive analysis of Antarctic ice melt, and they have found that the rate of Ice loss in the antarctic has been accellerating rapidly over the period between 1992 to 2017
Total antarctic ice loss in the period between 1992 to 1997 was -47 gigatonnes a year (+-67gts)
In the most recent 5 year period, the ice loss is at -219 gts a year (+-43gts)

Great news for everyone who lives slightly higher than where the current shoreline is. They're gonna have a shorter walk to the beach.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y.epdf?referrer_access_token=FCqLlLjq2MRZ-JOlpsa6aNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PBEKqWHTwARrIrR4OxoHFd5WZGh-A0FX8FPbkdWIZLYTiYEn7sFtTfv0uyTwXeaNPMrjI8nX5EeyZhC0hMOT-5WJGr-6chKWrrX3s_rMxS3qj2YpLUQ4VCllJgafutFAuELX0HV0p_EZyxMAGwCmX48wafEjINYg0k4YA331mQwy9RbzwZioGBAz9fCSEN4TebttPbYYuTbXRvXuvxFsCsfn970qIs_8GeioK6rt7z4w%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.wired.co.uk

Antarctica has lost about 3 trillion metric tons of ice since 1992

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/antarctica-lost-3-trillion-metric-tons-ice-since-1992-sea-level-rise

Meh, 3 trillion tons since 1992?

In this, context is everything.
The total mass of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is about 27,601,654 BILLION metric tons… 27,602 TRILLION metric tons… 3 is 0.011% of 27,602.

That means 99.989% of it hasn't melted.

99.99% is rather close to 100% isn't it?
Source

If the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 57 meters, or 187 feet (Lythe et al. 2001).

While this is unlikely for the foreseeable future, even a partial loss of these huge ice masses could have a significant effect on coastal areas. At present, both ice sheets are shrinking, but the rate is small (in terms of sea level contribution, on the order of about 1 millimeter per year).

One whole millimetre per year. Give or take.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html

Of course just prior to this NASA was telling us that Antarctica was gaining ice.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Some were unhappy about that too, the wrong sort of ice or in the wrong place IIRC.

Pa ElGrande

Climate change a 'man-made problem with a feminist solution' says Robinson

LONDON, June 18 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Women must be at the heart of climate action if the world is to limit the deadly impact of disasters such as floods, former Irish president and U.N. rights commissioner Mary Robinson said on Monday.

Robinson, also a former U.N. climate envoy, said women were most adversely affected by disasters and yet are rarely “put front and centre” of efforts to protect the most vulnerable.

“Climate change is a man-made problem and must have a feminist solution,” she said at a meeting of climate experts at London’s Marshall Institute for Philanthropy and Entrepreneurship.


source

Oneiric 3

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Climate change a 'man-made problem with a feminist solution' says Robinson

"Robinson, also a former U.N. climate envoy, said women were most adversely affected by disasters"

Are they? Are they really?

Would be interesting to know how Robinson came to this conclusion.

Pa ElGrande

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

"Robinson, also a former U.N. climate envoy, said women were most adversely affected by disasters"

Are they? Are they really?

Would be interesting to know how Robinson came to this conclusion.

First world problems of wealthy white establishment women like Robinson (drawn down over 1 million in pensions so far + tax breaks before she got called on it.) using the language of feminism to advance themselves so they too can sit on boards and decide how to distribute resources while lining their own pockets.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

First world problems of wealthy white establishment women like Robinson (drawn down over 1 million in pensions so far + tax breaks before she got called on it.) using the language of feminism to advance themselves so they too can sit on boards and decide how to distribute resources while lining their own pockets.

You guys need to recalibrate your rageometer if this is what gets you angry.

dense

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

First world problems of wealthy white establishment women like Robinson (drawn down over 1 million in pensions so far + tax breaks before she got called on it.) using the language of feminism to advance themselves so they too can sit on boards and decide how to distribute resources while lining their own pockets.

Got to chuckle too at how former UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres is now on the advisory board of Italy's biggest oil company.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=22475933&privcapId=358534

E&P is our main business. It is
currently present in over 40
countries and is focused on finding
and producing oil and gas.

https://www.eni.com/docs/en_IT/enicom/company/company-profile/fact-sheet.pdf

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

You guys need to recalibrate your rageometer if this is what gets you angry.

My own scientific consensus study shows clearly that feminism is a primary causal factor leading to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) in that the growth in workforce participation by women since the 19th century is closely correlated with the rise of CO2 output, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century. Therefore I propose that for the good of the planet the solution is for women to return to their previous roles as home makers living a carbon neutral lifestyle minding children, scrubbing floors and cleaning clothes in an ecologically friendly way like they did before the washing machine and vacuum cleaner were invented. With women making up over 50% of the population think of the instant reduction in CO2 gases made by women simply staying at home and if they want to keep the children occupied while they do the washing they can send them outside to play on a treadmill that keeps the wind turbines moving producing green renewable power . So yes, that's the solution, in order to prevent CAGW feminism must be taxed and regulated to keep their emissions at pre-industrial levels. :cool:

Akrasia

Do you have a link to the peer reviewed publication that has published your paper?

I haven't got any time for 3rd wave feminism in modern western countries, but in the developing world it is sorely needed. When women have access to education, contraception and personal autonomy then we will see the populations of these countries begin to stabilise naturally and poverty levels will decrease.

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

. . . . . When women have access to education, contraception and personal autonomy then we will see the populations of these countries begin to stabilise naturally and poverty levels will decrease.

There is way more to it that than simplistic feminist sound bites. For that to even be possible women need access to washing machines. Washing machines need electricity, electricity needs a distribution network, a distribution network needs a power plant, a power plant needs an energy source and an energy source needs capital to bring it to market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZoKfap4g4w

Oneiric 3

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

First world problems of wealthy white establishment women like Robinson (drawn down over 1 million in pensions so far + tax breaks before she got called on it.) using the language of feminism to advance themselves so they too can sit on boards and decide how to distribute resources while lining their own pockets.

To be honest, when establishment figures begin to indulge in gender or racial identity politics in the effort to give themselves more political/cultural leverage, I lose much respect for them.

Having said that, I am quite happy to pass the climate change problem over to 'feminists' for their consideration. Saves me the bother of having to deal with it. Far too busy enjoying my 'privilege'. (or something)

Gaoth Laidir

Interesting IMS talk by Conor Murphy of ICARUS this evening on his 305-year continuous rainfall record for the Island of Ireland (1711-2016). Well worth a read.

https://www.clim-past.net/14/413/2018/cp-14-413-2018.pdf

Abstract.
A continuous 305-year (1711–2016) monthly rainfall series (IoI_1711) is created for the Island of Ireland. The post 1850 series draws on an existing quality assured rainfall network for Ireland, while pre-1850 values come from instrumental and documentary series compiled, but not published by the UK Met Office. The series is evaluated by comparison with independent long-term observations and reconstructions of precipitation, temperature and circulation indices from across the British–Irish Isles. Strong decadal consistency of IoI_1711 with other long-term observations is evident throughout the annual, boreal spring and autumn series. Annually, the most recent decade (2006–2015) is found to be the wettest in over 300 years. The winter series is probably too dry between the 1740s and 1780s, but strong consistency with other long-term observations strengthens confidence from 1790 onwards. The IoI_1711 series has remarkably wet winters during the 1730s, concurrent with a period of strong westerly airflow, glacial advance throughout Scandinavia and near unprecedented warmth in the Central England Temperature record – all consistent with a strongly positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. Unusually wet summers occurred in the 1750s, consistent with proxy (treering) reconstructions of summer precipitation in the region. Our analysis shows that inter-decadal variability of precipitation is much larger than previously thought, while relationships with key modes of climate variability are time-variant. The IoI_1711 series reveals statistically significant multicentennial trends in winter (increasing) and summer (decreasing) seasonal precipitation. However, given uncertainties in the early winter record, the former finding should be regarded as tentative. The derived record, one of the longest continuous series in Europe, offers valuable insights for understanding multi-decadal and centennial rainfall variability in Ireland, and provides a firm basis for benchmarking other long-term records and reconstructions of past climate. Correlation of Irish rainfall with other parts of Europe increases the utility of the series for understanding historical climate in further regions.

Pa ElGrande

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

To be honest, when establishment figures begin to indulge in gender or racial identity politics in the effort to give themselves more political/cultural leverage, I lose much respect for them.

Having said that, I am quite happy to pass the climate change problem over to 'feminists' for their consideration. Saves me the bother of having to deal with it. Far too busy enjoying my 'privilege'. (or something)

Apparently ecofeminism is a thing and they even have a ranking in the hierarchy of victimhood otherwise known as intersectionality.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Interesting IMS talk by Conor Murphy of ICARUS this evening on his 305-year continuous rainfall record for the Island of Ireland (1711-2016). Well worth a read.

https://www.clim-past.net/14/413/2018/cp-14-413-2018.pdf

It is interesting, it is worth noting, as they did in the paper that their confidence in the data for winters prior to 1790 is low, so these might be artifacts in the data record rather than actual weather events.

What is also interesting is that Conor Murphy, given that he is an expert in climate and hydrology in Ireland is absolutely not a climate change skeptic. He spoke at the citizens assembly passionately urging action to prevent severe consequences for Ireland and for the rest of the world.

For Ireland, under a 2c warming scenario, we will see 100 year floods more likely by between 10-30%, and rainfall intensity increasing by between 10-25% as well as a host of other consequences including much higher increases in the risk of extended heatwaves similar to 1995 (a factor of 50 times more likely) and an 8 times increase in the risk of extremely dry summers like 1995.

Recent national scale extreme events, from the winter storms of 2013/14 to the flooding of the Shannon and other catchments associated with Storm Desmond, serve to highlight Ireland’s vulnerability to extreme events. Much work has been completed by different research groups from Irish Universities and Met Eireann on exploring future impacts. This work shows that here we are likely to experience wetter winters, drier summers and more frequent extreme weather events, with associated implications across multiple sectors. However for communication purposes perhaps the most useful study is that of Matthews et al. (2016) who examined how the probability of memorable extreme events have changed in the past and how frequent such extremes are likely to become in future.

Over the period 1900–2014 records suggest that a summer as warm as 1995 has become 50 times more likely, whilst the probability of a winter as wet as 1994/1995 (the wettest winter on record until winter 2015/2016) has doubled. The likelihood of the driest summer (1995) has also doubled since 1850. Under the business as usual (RCP 8.5) scenario, climate model projections suggest that our hottest summer historically may be seen as an unusually cool summer in future. By the end of the century, summers as cool as 1995 may only occur once every 7 years or so. Winters as wet as 1994/95 and summers as dry as 1995 may become 8 and 10 times more frequent, respectively. Insights into what these changes mean for Irish society is afforded by examining the impacts that these extremes had. The hot and dry summer of 1995 was associated with increased mortality (especially among the elderly and infirm) in Ireland. Rainfall deficits and water shortages in summer 1995 also adversely impacted the agricultural sector. The effects of the latter have the potential to be felt internationally through Ireland’s agricultural exports. The possibility of summer temperatures as warm as 1995 occurring almost 90 percent of the time by the end this century under a business as usual scenario must be of concern.
Water shortages were a common occurrence across Ireland in 1995, with record low water levels on the Shannon impacting tourism. Water supplies for major cities like Dublin were also tested. Given that water supply in Dublin has failed to keep pace with increased demand from population growth and other factors, summers as dry as 1995 becoming 10 times more frequent would pose significant challenges for many of our large urban areas. The wettest winters on record have also been associated with widespread flooding. Under a business as usual scenario, winters as wet as 1994 becoming 8 times more frequent). Together with the population growth expected in Ireland over the coming decades, and the already high flood exposure, such change would likely make flooding a much more familiar experience for Irish society.

To date, only one study has assessed future changes in floods and droughts across Europe in the context of mitigation being successful in limiting global warming to 2oC above preindustrial levels. This study shows that even at 2oC, the impacts of climate change for Ireland are likely to be significant, with Ireland being a hotspot for both floods and droughts within the context of Europe (Roudier et al., 2016). Such research shows that even if we, as a global community, are successful in realising ambitious greenhouse gas reductions, adaptation to climate change induced extremes will remain necessary.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

It is interesting, it is worth noting, as they did in the paper that their confidence in the data for winters prior to 1790 is low, so these might be artifacts in the data record rather than actual weather events.

He stated that while confidence is lower, there is good agreement with many other indices, such as CET, Westerly Index, London-Paris Pressure, etc.

What is interesting is that Conor Murphy, given that he is an expert in climate and cydrology in Ireland is absolutely not a climate change skeptic. He spoke at the citizens assembly passionately urging action to prevent severe consequences for Ireland and for the rest of the world.

For Ireland, under a 2c warming scenario, we will see 100 year floods more likely by between 10-30%, and rainfall intensity increasing by between 10-25% as well as a host of other consequences including much higher increases in the risk of extended heatwaves similar to 1995 (a factor of 50 times more likely) and an 8 times increase in the risk of extremely dry summers like 1995.

Yep, I was thinking you'd be the first in there with the profile analysis and the "skeptic or not" statement.

He also stated - when asked by Ray Bates on what the policy implications of this study are - that observational data are as important as model data, but we're lacking the former. The big push should be on recovering and digitising old data records, such as the one that he found in the UK purely by chance. Until we do that, we can't be sure of the historical context of future events. However, the severe events of the 18th century are fairly well verified.

dense

Brid Smith the socialist is on Newstalk now giving her expert opinion on preventing a two per cent rise in global temperatures.


Two percent mentioned a number of times now.


The universally undefined pre industrial base line that this two percent is increasing from has of course yet to be mentioned.......

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

He stated that while confidence is lower, there is good agreement with many other indices, such as CET, Westerly Index, London-Paris Pressure, etc.



Yep, I was thinking you'd be the first in there with the profile analysis and the "skeptic or not" statement.

He also stated - when asked by Ray Bates on what the policy implications of this study are - that observational data are as important as model data, but we're lacking the former. The big push should be on recovering and digitising old data records, such as the one that he found in the UK purely by chance. Until we do that, we can't be sure of the historical context of future events. However, the severe events of the 18th century are fairly well verified.

The main reason why observational data is important for climatology (other than historical curiosity) is that it allows us to fine tune our model data.
When you're looking at observational records and using them to assess the climate, what you're doing is creating an internal model of the climate system in your own mind and coming to a conclusion based on that.

What computer modelling does, is it allows to create formal models that we can perform experiments on. The more historical data we have and the more background information we have about the causes and consequences of contributing factors to historical weather events, the better our models for the future will be.

What you do Gaoth, is you often create very simple, one dimensional models using small datasets and single reference points to draw conclusions about wider climate systems. And you use these very simple (overly simplistic) models to disregard the complex scientifically verifiable models that are used by professional climatologists and research institutions who have dedicated teams of experts in their fields analysing the data and inputs and outputs of these models to refine them and improve their predictive ability.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

The main reason why observational data is important for climatology (other than historical curiosity) is that it allows us to fine tune our model data.
When you're looking at observational records and using them to assess the climate, what you're doing is creating an internal model of the climate system in your own mind and coming to a conclusion based on that.

What computer modelling does, is it allows to create formal models that we can perform experiments on. The more historical data we have and the more background information we have about the causes and consequences of contributing factors to historical weather events, the better our models for the future will be.

What you do Gaoth, is you often create very simple, one dimensional models using small datasets and single reference points to draw conclusions about wider climate systems. And you use these very simple (overly simplistic) models to disregard the complex scientifically verifiable models that are used by professional climatologists and research institutions who have dedicated teams of experts in their fields analysing the data and inputs and outputs of these models to refine them and improve their predictive ability.

I know how models work. My point is that, without proper historical observational records, these models cannot be as accurate as they could be. That was his point too. That's why I take models for what they are, but I have also put a lot of emphasis on observational records from actual station data. I posted some long-term observational data from stations in the Houston area last week, which you didn't comment on, as they showed a mixed trend, different to the one you were trying to put across. You came up with some outlandish theory of a power plant or resevoir "downwind" (whatever that means in the tropics). You seem to put all your faith in future predictions without actually taking past records into context.

Gaoth Laidir

dense wrote: »

Brid Smith the socialist is on Newstalk now giving her expert opinion on preventing a two per cent rise in global temperatures.


Two percent mentioned a number of times now.


The universally undefined pre industrial base line that this two percent is increasing from has of course yet to be mentioned.......

A 2% rise is around 5.5 degrees Celsius. I bet she never heard of the Absolute Temperature Scale.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I know how models work. My point is that, without proper historical observational records, these models cannot be as accurate as they could be. That was his point too. That's why I take models for what they are, but I have also put a lot of emphasis on observational records from actual station data. I posted some long-term observational data from stations in the Houston area last week, which you didn't comment on, as they showed a mixed trend, different to the one you were trying to put across. You came up with some outlandish theory of a power plant or resevoir "downwind" (whatever that means in the tropics). You seem to put all your faith in future predictions without actually taking past records into context.

it wasn't an outlandish theory, i deliberately picked silly random things that could possibly affect individual weather stations and individual weather events. Weather is chaotic, tiny changes can decide whether one location experiences a rainstorm or stays dry. But Climate is less chaotic, the weather happens because of systemic pent up energy that needs to go somewhere. The chaotic aspect of weather is where exactly the energy goes, the climactic aspect is what kinds of weather these systems will produce.


I don't disregard the past records, I simply acknowledge that the expert climatologists have already considered these when they are talking about changes into the future. I don't consider my own analysis of the context to be more valuable than the analysis of professional experts at the forefront of their field of research.

I try to back my points up with published research, you often counter this research with a small selection of individual station data which you then extrapolate conclusions way beyond the scope of those data-points.

You put all your eggs into the uncertainty basket. You seem to think that when all the data is finally in (whenever that happens), the signal will flip from a warming planet with more extreme weather events like what we have been observing and projecting, into a signal that shows these kinds of events and warming are not unusual, but as I see it, we don't have all the data, but we do have a lot of data, and we need to base our conclusions on the best available evidence rather than postulate that the data we don't have will be the data that overturns all the evidence that we have to point to the kinds of severe changes to climate that the vast majority of relevant studies and analysis show we should expect.

Question Gaoth, how much reliable data do you need to see before you can conclude that the climatologists have enough data to support their findings on climate change? Dependng on what exactly we are studying, we have decades of extremely accurate data, centuries of less accurate but methodologically collected data, and millenia of proxy data. How much more do you need to see before you are satisfied that the expert climatologists have enough data to support their findings?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

it wasn't an outlandish theory, i deliberately picked silly random things that could possibly affect individual weather stations and individual weather events. Weather is chaotic, tiny changes can decide whether one location experiences a rainstorm or stays dry. But Climate is less chaotic, the weather happens because of systemic pent up energy that needs to go somewhere. The chaotic aspect of weather is where exactly the energy goes, the climactic aspect is what kinds of weather these systems will produce.

Silly is right.

I don't disregard the past records, I simply acknowledge that the expert climatologists have already considered these when they are talking about changes into the future. I don't consider my own analysis of the context to be more valuable than the analysis of professional experts at the forefront of their field of research.

I try to back my points up with published research, you often counter this research with a small selection of individual station data which you then extrapolate conclusions way beyond the scope of those data-points.

No I don't. In the case of the Houston area I chose only those stations with longterm records. One showed a slight upward trend in maximum monthly rainfall, two others showed a slight downward one. This was in contrast to your statement that rainfall in that area has been on the increase. How can stations show a downward trend if rainfall is increasing? Oh, maybe someone build a gazebo over the rain gauges...

You put all your eggs into the uncertainty basket. You seem to think that when all the data is finally in (whenever that happens), the signal will flip from a warming planet with more extreme weather events like what we have been observing and projecting, into a signal that shows these kinds of events and warming are not unusual, but as I see it, we don't have all the data, but we do have a lot of data, and we need to base our conclusions on the best available evidence rather than postulate that the data we don't have will be the data that overturns all the evidence that we have to point to the kinds of severe changes to climate that the vast majority of relevant studies and analysis show we should expect.

Again, no I don't. You're just making stuff up now. Please point out where I said I expect a flip in signals?

Question Gaoth, how much reliable data do you need to see before you can conclude that the climatologists have enough data to support their findings on climate change? Dependng on what exactly we are studying, we have decades of extremely accurate data, centuries of less accurate but methodologically collected data, and millenia of proxy data. How much more do you need to see before you are satisfied that the expert climatologists have enough data to support their findings?

Support which findings exactly? The Hockeystick graph? The uncertainty over climate sensitivity? The fact that recent observations have not been keeping up with the RCPs? That winters in the 1700s were most likely wetter than recent ones and droughts were as severe as what is predicted for the future?

You posted about Antarctica the other day, without stating that the WAIS is at most 10% of the total AIS. The EAIS (the other 90%) is stable or growing slightly, but we need more data there. More observations. 4-12 mm of sea level rise from 25 years of WAIS-melt. No mention of the possible offset of a growing EAIS.

You use terms like devastation, extinction, catastrophic without acknowleding that this has occured in the past. If you had been at Conor's talk yesterday you'd have a better appreciation for this. The forgotten famine in Ireland, etc. All due to natural variability but potentially devastating nonetheless.

So to answer your question, we're not there yet with regard to either painting the picture of the past or reliably using it to finetune forecasts for the future, but the doomsday scenarios the likes of you paint may or may not be totally unheard of. Taking yesterday's talk, for example, what struck me was the lack of any clear signal over the past 3 centuries' data.

dense

For some unexplained reason, carbon taxes will be increased in a “steady way” to help Ireland reduce emissions and tackle climate change, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has announced.

Levies on fossil fuels including petrol, diesel, home heating oil and briquettes will ramp-up over the coming years as part of “profound changes” in how we live our lives, he said.

Carbon taxes - including levies on fuel and home heating oil - to rise

https://www.independent.ie/news/environment/carbon-taxes-including-levies-on-fuel-and-home-heating-oil-to-rise-37030393.html

This will no doubt be welcomed by the usual clowns who can't explain what this measure is expected to achieve or what percentage of "climate change" they imagine Ireland is responsible for causing or is expected to be able to alter by adjusting it's fossil fuel usage.

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Taking yesterday's talk, for example, what struck me was the lack of any clear signal over the past 3 centuries' data.

Clearly the opportunity exists for someone to adjust this data to make it conform to the agenda.

Oneiric 3

Just quickly 'eyeballing' that graph posted, and while it does show that the magnitude of high annual rainfall totals in Ireland are not unprecedented, they still look to be becoming more frequent at the end of the scale.


Would be great if they made the actual data available so we could assess it for ourselves.

Oneiric 3

dense wrote: »

This will no doubt be welcomed by the usual clowns

I would wager that if you asked anyone of these suburbanite 'revolutionaries' to explain the basic mechanisms involved in the formation of a mid-latitude warm front, they'd not be able to tell you.


It's all about the occasion and the being seen to be doing something - without actually doing anything at all.

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Just quickly 'eyeballing' that graph posted, and while it does show that the magnitude of high annual rainfall totals in Ireland are not unprecedented, they still look to be becoming more frequent at the end of the scale.


Would be great if they made the actual data available so we could assess it for ourselves.

It's on the Climate Explorer

http://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=MUData/prcp_ireland&STATION=Island_of_Ireland_rainfall&TYPE=p&id=someone@somewhere

Here it is with the decadal means.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Silly is right.




No I don't. In the case of the Houston area I chose only those stations with longterm records. One showed a slight upward trend in maximum monthly rainfall, two others showed a slight downward one. This was in contrast to your statement that rainfall in that area has been on the increase. How can stations show a downward trend if rainfall is increasing? Oh, maybe someone build a gazebo over the rain gauges...



Again, no I don't. You're just making stuff up now. Please point out where I said I expect a flip in signals?



Support which findings exactly? The Hockeystick graph? The uncertainty over climate sensitivity? The fact that recent observations have not been keeping up with the RCPs? That winters in the 1700s were most likely wetter than recent ones and droughts were as severe as what is predicted for the future?

You posted about Antarctica the other day, without stating that the WAIS is at most 10% of the total AIS. The EAIS (the other 90%) is stable or growing slightly, but we need more data there. More observations. 4-12 mm of sea level rise from 25 years of WAIS-melt. No mention of the possible offset of a growing EAIS.

You use terms like devastation, extinction, catastrophic without acknowleding that this has occured in the past. If you had been at Conor's talk yesterday you'd have a better appreciation for this. The forgotten famine in Ireland, etc. All due to natural variability but potentially devastating nonetheless.

So to answer your question, we're not there yet with regard to either painting the picture of the past or reliably using it to finetune forecasts for the future, but the doomsday scenarios the likes of you paint may or may not be totally unheard of. Taking yesterday's talk, for example, what struck me was the lack of any clear signal over the past 3 centuries' data.

The Antarctic I referred to did include figures for Eastern Antarctic as well as total s for the whole continent

Regarding past climactic events, nobody doubts that they happened, but what is facing us is not just medium to short term events affecting regional climates. It's long term climate shifts featuring extreme weather events that affects many regions of the world simultaneously and gets progressively worse over time.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

The Antarctic I referred to did include figures for Eastern Antarctic as well as total s for the whole continent

Yes, but you stated figures of ice-loss without any indication of significance. 2720 Gt lost in 25 years is only 0.01% of the total mass (~26 million Gt). The WAIS is <10% of the total, so at a rate of ~219 ± Gt/yr (and increasing, so let's instead say 500 Gt/yr for argument's sake) it would take over 5000 years for the WAIS to disappear. In the meantime, the EAIS (9 times larger) is growing.

Regarding past climactic events, nobody doubts that they happened, but what is facing us is not just medium to short term events affecting regional climates. It's long term climate shifts featuring extreme weather events that affects many regions of the world simultaneously and gets progressively worse over time.

What shifts have occured to date?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes, but you stated figures of ice-loss without any indication of significance. 2720 Gt lost in 25 years is only 0.01% of the total mass (~26 million Gt). The WAIS is <10% of the total, so at a rate of ~219 ± Gt/yr (and increasing, so let's instead say 500 Gt/yr for argument's sake) it would take over 5000 years for the WAIS to disappear. In the meantime, the EAIS (9 times larger) is growing.



What shifts have occured to date?

If the entire antarctic melts we're talking Kevin Costner movies here. Small changes in Antarctic ice mass can cause measurable ocean level increases. These rapid increases weren't factored into the sea level rise projections in the IPCC. The same phenomenon is happening in Greenland. A new ice cliff instability mechanism was only discovered recently and this answers a lot of questions about rapid changes to sea levels that we have seen in historical records. I think the next IPCC report is gonna revise sea level projections upwards.

What shifts have occurred to date?
I've shown you that bell curve graph multiple times now. That is the shift we've already seen. We can't wait until we see the consequences of climate change before we act. Anything we see today is decades behind the changes we've already locked in. We're at 1c above preindustrial now. We're at half the warming were trying desperately to avoid, but that's still only a small fraction of the amount of energy we'll add to the climate if we get to 2c above 1880.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

If the entire antarctic melts we're talking Kevin Costner movies here. Small changes in Antarctic ice mass can cause measurable ocean level increases. These rapid increases weren't factored into the sea level rise projections in the IPCC. The same phenomenon is happening in Greenland. A new ice cliff instability mechanism was only discovered recently and this answers a lot of questions about rapid changes to sea levels that we have seen in historical records. I think the next IPCC report is gonna revise sea level projections upwards.

What shifts have occurred to date?
I've shown you that bell curve graph multiple times now. That is the shift we've already seen. We can't wait until we see the consequences of climate change before we act. Anything we see today is decades behind the changes we've already locked in. We're at 1c above preindustrial now. We're at half the warming were trying desperately to avoid, but that's still only a small fraction of the amount of energy we'll add to the climate if we get to 2c above 1880.

No, you missed what I said. The whole Antarctic is NOT melting, nor will it. Only 0.01% of it has melted in 25 years, with just a 7-mm rise in sea level. 90% of it shows signs of growth. That melt is the equivalent of just 1 teaspoon of water out of a 50-litre container. That's the context were talking here, yet you're there talking about people and rising shorelines. A little bit of perspective works wonders.