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

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Even the lower percentile is still more than you're prepared to acknowledge, and even the lower percentile is still something we need to be very very concerned about.

Em, no, I did acknowledge it. You've just quoted my acknowledgement...

I'm not concerned at all. If observations were in the upper percentile then I'd be saying hmm, these models are underplaying the warming a bit and RCP 8.5 is more likely, but so far it's the opposite, and the horror scenarios look that little bit less likely. We still do need to get off fossil fuels, though, and use renewables.

Absolutely not, nowhere did i even suggest such a thing. What I said was that you ignore nonsense posted on the denier side, but respond to everything that suggests that global warming is a serious issue that we need to deal with.

For example, Dense earlier on posted a big long rant claiming that NASA have shown wildfires are down globally and then used this as evidence that global warming doesn't cause additional wildfires, but from is own link the entire point of the study was that wildfires are reduced because of farming on the Savannah. That wildfires are down because the african people aren't starting as many fires as before because they're converting the savannah into farmland.

It was blatantly obvious that Dense's source didn't support his argument but you didn't challenge it. if Dense was on the other 'side' and posted a link saying fires were more frequent and attributed it to global warming, but that link said the cause was humans starting more fires, you would have picked up on that straight away.

BTW, this is denses' modus operandi. he either uses terrible sources from blogs like 'notrickszone' that have been shown to repeatedly distort the science up to and including doctoring graphs and faking data, or he posts links to reputable sources but takes the exact opposite conclusion from what the source actually says.

I don't agree with some of what dense posts, but do agree with a lot of it. You yourself are quick to post evidence of what you claim to be very concerning trends (e.g. on wildfires), but these too turn out to be more speculative rather than factual. You claim MT takes individual events as evidence for his opinion, yet you do the same yourself.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't have the full article, there is a good discussion about it on realclimate with some criticisms of the conclusions if you're interested.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/01/the-claim-of-reduced-uncertainty-for-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-is-premature/

Thanks for that. I'd prefer to read the whole thing myself but it seems that these guys are not as sure about it as your initial post seemed to be. So it really adds little to the debate and only further shows the uncertainty with climate sensitivity.

dense

Post reported, for inciting other posters to be uncivil and impolite towards me.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Em, no, I did acknowledge it. You've just quoted my acknowledgement...

I'm not concerned at all. If observations were in the upper percentile then I'd be saying hmm, these models are underplaying the warming a bit and RCP 8.5 is more likely, but so far it's the opposite, and the horror scenarios look that little bit less likely. We still do need to get off fossil fuels, though, and use renewables.



I don't agree with some of what dense posts, but do agree with a lot of it. You yourself are quick to post evidence of what you claim to be very concerning trends (e.g. on wildfires), but these too turn out to be more speculative rather than factual. You claim MT takes individual events as evidence for his opinion, yet you do the same yourself.

If you can't see the difference between someone backing up a claim with a source that actually backs up that claim, and someone grossly misrepresenting what his source says, then I don't know what to say.

For example, Dense said "Ask anyone if they think global warming is responsible for more wild fires and they'll invariably say yes, because they have been conditioned to believe that fires are now out of control because of global warming and it is getting worse.


The global reality however is the opposite.

NASA tells us that trends are going in the opposite direction, downwards.

Anyone claiming that wildfires are more damaging than ever before because of global warming needs to be checked."
but the very first paragraph in his source said

"Across the grasslands of Asia, the tropical forests of South America, and the savannas of Africa, shifting livelihoods are leading to a significant decline in burned area. Using NASA satellites to detect fires and burn scars from space, researchers have found that an ongoing transition from nomadic cultures to settled lifestyles and intensifying agriculture has led to a steep drop in the use of fire for land clearing and an overall drop in natural and human-caused fires worldwide.

His source then went on to say

The changes in savanna, grassland, and tropical forest fire patterns are so large that they have so far offset some of the increased risk of fire caused by global warming, said Doug Morton, a forest scientist at NASA Goddard and a co-author of the study. The impact of a warming and drying climate is more obvious at higher latitudes, where fire has increased in Canada and the American West. Regions of China, India, Brazil, and southern Africa also showed increases in burned area.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=90493

That is some high grade distortion right there.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

For example, Dense earlier on posted a big long rant claiming that NASA have shown wildfires are down globally and then used this as evidence that global warming doesn't cause additional wildfires, but from his own link the entire point of the study was that wildfires are reduced because of farming on the Savannah. That wildfires are down because the african people aren't starting as many fires as before because they're converting the savannah into farmland.

It was blatantly obvious that Dense's source didn't support his argument but you didn't challenge it. if Dense was on the other 'side' and posted a link saying fires were more frequent and attributed it to global warming, but that link said the cause was humans starting more fires, you would have picked up on that straight away.

BTW, this is denses' modus operandi. he either uses terrible sources from blogs like 'notrickszone' that have been shown to repeatedly distort the science up to and including doctoring graphs and faking data, or he posts links to reputable sources but takes the exact opposite conclusion from what the source actually says.

NASA Detects Drop in Global Fires


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasa-detects-drop-in-global-fires

Humans have, and always have had, a major impact on wildfire activity, which is expected to increase in our warming world.

Andela et al. use satellite data to show that, unexpectedly, global burned area declined by ∼25% over the past 18 years, despite the influence of climate. The decrease has been largest in savannas and grasslands because of agricultural expansion and intensification. The decline of burned area has consequences for predictions of future changes to the atmosphere, vegetation, and the terrestrial carbon sink.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1356

What would make you happier:

A human-driven decline increase in global burned area?

It would certainly suit the whole "human fingerprint" panic narrative better.

However:

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence.

Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses.

However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available.

For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined.

Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/

dense

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Do you read dense? There is no statistic he won’t manipulate.

This should be required reading for anyone interested in the dark art of manipulating statistics:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

dense

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s one poster in particular who thinks that AGW is a “religion”.

It certainly has all the hallmarks.

Religious leaders unite in support of climate action, special summit planned for Climate Week NYC

https://www.theclimategroup.org/news/religious-leaders-unite-support-climate-action-special-summit-planned-climate-week-nyc

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/27/cults-definition-religion

Gaoth Laidir

Atomic clocks, religious climate conferences.. Jesus, what is the world coming to? For me the real worry is how stupid the human race has become spouting nonsense like that. That's the threat, not the 1-4 degrees.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Atomic clocks, religious climate conferences.. Jesus, what is the world coming to? For me the real worry is how stupid the human race has become spouting nonsense like that. That's the threat, not the 1-4 degrees.

The atomic clock is not terribly scientific but it’s probably true that we are closer to a nuclear war now than we have been for a while. And the world barely survived the Cold War.

As for religious groupings protesting climate change, they are part of civic society. Why wouldn’t they? Protests in New York are worse than a 4 degree temperature rise. Really?

Although you present yourself as rational on the issue, and say you believe in AGW, and believe we should decarbonise you tend to quote approvingly the posts of someone who thinks it all a giant anti capitalist conspiracy to defraud the west.

Rattle

gabeeg wrote: »

I've enjoyed MT and his input here for almost a decade. He's not always right, but he's invariably a good read and a good insight. Funny too.

I've hated seeing him use his vaunted position to express his own doubts.
He's entitled to his opinion. In another context it could be a really illuminating input.
But here, where he is a demigod, its just reckless.

I've found this a fascinating thread, I'm only taking the time to go through it now and still able half way to go. I was with you until this point where I think you've gone badly wrong. People can judge for themselves how well different posters understand what they're talking about. When someone doesn't have time to do the years of research it takes to properly understand something like climate science, all we have to go on is the intuitive plausibility of the arguments and our perceived expertise of who's talking. When you dismiss someone's opinion on the ground that it's reckless it supports those who believe there is a conspiracy to silence dissenting voices.

Nabber

It’s a shame that sciences such as this suffer from public pressure.
When you look at how people are mistreated, it turns you against one side.

Irishsneachtas for example. Poor display on a debate.

I enjoy the debate and listening to both sides. Where both have conspiracies on who the agitators are.

Often the masses are wrong, history will tell you that. AGW, suffers it’s own popularity.

dense

For anyone who hasn't read anything on eco socialism, the close relation of eco fascism, the utterances from the UN's Miss Figueres might appear quite benign:

One of the questions I struggle with on a daily basis as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC is this: how can we scale up and speed up the transformational change needed to tackle climate change?

By “we” I mean all of us. And by “transformational” I mean radical. This is not hyperbole. The world’s top scientists tell us that we need to transform the way we use the planet’s natural resources – from forests to soil to oil – to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism

https://www.theclimategroup.org/news/christiana-figueres-shining-light-transformational-climate-action


http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

Danno

Both of these bags went into my stove over the past two weeks.
Can anyone tell me, by what magic sauce, how the bag on the right managed to release less emissions?

Say my name

Plenty in this article I think for both sides of the debate to ponder.
It's long but I think it's worth the read.

https://www.wired.com/story/meet-the-amateur-scientist-who-discovered-climate-change/amp?__twitter_impression=true

dense

Danno wrote: »

Both of these bags went into my stove over the past two weeks.
Can anyone tell me, by what magic sauce, how the bag on the right managed to release less emissions?

I guess the one on the right should be smokeless?
If not its programmed to behave differently to the other one.

So much for being inventivized to making the switch to a low carbon economy.

Of course, that is the "premium" price that the peddlers of green products enjoy, in a country whose alleged contribution to climate change/global warming can't even be quantified by those making the allegation.

Rattle

Danno wrote: »

Both of these bags went into my stove over the past two weeks.
Can anyone tell me, by what magic sauce, how the bag on the right managed to release less emissions?

In theory with the one on the right includes planting €3.40 worth of trees to make up for the carbon released by the coal. Who actually gets the tax proceeds is another question.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Both of these bags went into my stove over the past two weeks.
Can anyone tell me, by what magic sauce, how the bag on the right managed to release less emissions?

The magic sauce is that the more expensive it is to heat your house using fossil fuels, the more attractive it is to spend money to put in more insulation, and/or change your heating system from coal, to a more efficient heating system.

Couple the increased cost of fossil fuels with grants to improve energy efficiency, with improved building standards to require all new homes to use much less energy to heat and we can wean ourselves off coal and everyone will be better off.

Or it might encourage you to buy a less polluting coal such as the ecoal50 which is made from 50% renewable materials and produces 40% less Co2 and much less ash and smoke than regular coal
https://www.mdoshea.ie/ecoal50-smokeless-coal-20kg

Gaoth Laidir

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The atomic clock is not terribly scientific but it’s probably true that we are closer to a nuclear war now than we have been for a while. And the world barely survived the Cold War.

As for religious groupings protesting climate change, they are part of civic society. Why wouldn’t they? Protests in New York are worse than a 4 degree temperature rise. Really?

Although you present yourself as rational on the issue, and say you believe in AGW, and believe we should decarbonise you tend to quote approvingly the posts of someone who thinks it all a giant anti capitalist conspiracy to defraud the west.

Which quotes are you talking about? I have no time for conspiracy theories, so if you can show me where I have stated otherwise, or quoted someone who does, then fair enough.

Bringing the notion of nuclear war into a discussion on climate just shows that some people will grasp at anything to try to come up with evidence to back up their hyperbolic horrific end-of-the-world stories.

Of course religious groups are free to protest at whatever they like, but I wonder if they were protesting the other way would they get the same column inches.

Gaoth Laidir

Danno wrote: »

Both of these bags went into my stove over the past two weeks.
Can anyone tell me, by what magic sauce, how the bag on the right managed to release less emissions?

It would be better if you showed the actual bags and not doctored the one on the right with text. Without having the info on both I'd assume the smokeless one is more engineered/processed, hence more expensive. The same way Organic food is more expensive yet exactly the same as regular food :rolleyes:

gabeeg

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Which quotes are you talking about? I have no time for conspiracy theories, so if you can show me where I have stated otherwise, or quoted someone who does, then fair enough.

Bringing the notion of nuclear war into a discussion on climate just shows that some people will grasp at anything to try to come up with evidence to back up their hyperbolic horrific end-of-the-world stories.

Of course religious groups are free to protest at whatever they like, but I wonder if they were protesting the other way would they get the same column inches.

So can we try to nail down your position on climate change?

You don't believe there is a conspiracy, as your chum Dense believes. Good.
But you don't believe the science and the overwhelming majority of scientists who are warning of impending disaster.

Why not?

How do you find yourself in a position to second guess an enormous amount of highly intelligent people across an array of scientific fields?

Gaoth Laidir

gabeeg wrote: »

So can we try to nail down your position on climate change?

You don't believe there is a conspiracy, as your chum Dense believes. Good.
But you don't believe the science and the overwhelming majority of scientists who are warning of impending disaster.

Why not?

How do you find yourself in a position to second guess an enormous amount of highly intelligent people across an array of scientific fields?

I've stated my opinion over and over. I never said I don't "believe the science". I said I disagree with some of the numbers. That's a big difference.

Nice attempt at trying to distort the facts

gabeeg

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've stated my opinion over and over. I never said I don't "believe the science". I said I disagree with some of the numbers. That's a big difference.

Nice attempt at trying to distort the facts

I'm not trying to distort anything.

You've claimed you don't deny mmcc. But then you say it's overblown and full of hyperbole.
And then you show sympathy with dense and his wacky position.

So no, I don't know what your position is

Meteorite58

Mod Note: Posters are reminded to adhere to the forum charter especially :

1. Please refrain from direct personal attacks on any person whether they are members of boards.ie or not.

2. Everyone is entitled to post and has equal rights whether they are weather experts or complete newbies.

3. If you wish you to challenge someone's views (on the topic of weather) then please question the post, do not just attack poster.

Posters are asked to show courtesy to one another.

Gaoth Laidir

gabeeg wrote: »

I'm not trying to distort anything.

You've claimed you don't deny mmcc. But then you say it's overblown and full of hyperbole.
And then you show sympathy with dense and his wacky position.

So no, I don't know what your position is

No, I don't show sympathy for any conspiracy theories. Again, show me where I have. Second time of asking.

I said some of the commentary on possible effect is hyperbole. People speaking of the end of our civilisation, greatest threat to humanity, nuclear war, "devastation", INSERT REALLY DRAMATIC TERM HERE __________, etc. That's total nonsense and is a facet of the tabloid environment we live in. There is no threat to the human race. Warming will not cause nuclear war. The clock is not ticking. If people like Akrasia, Wanderer, etc. would stop using terms like this and be a little more rational then it would do no harm at all.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Which quotes are you talking about? I have no time for conspiracy theories, so if you can show me where I have stated otherwise, or quoted someone who does, then fair enough.

Bringing the notion of nuclear war into a discussion on climate just shows that some people will grasp at anything to try to come up with evidence to back up their hyperbolic horrific end-of-the-world stories.

Of course religious groups are free to protest at whatever they like, but I wonder if they were protesting the other way would they get the same column inches.

I assume if they protest against abortion they will get the column inches.

If you have been reading dense then you should know he believes this is all eco fascism or eco socialism, something something the UN, something something anti capitalism, a general worldwide conspiracy to distort facts led by the UN. This is all from the far right American playbook.

There’s a disquieting number of people who still think you can dispute AGW, not just dispute the accuracy of the models. Not saying you are in that camp.

The fact there is a cost to be borne now, like the guy with the more expensive coal, makes people act selfishly and support a status quo which could be disasterous going forward.

I get why people interested in metrology don’t particularly like some of the lay discussion on climate change and weather, since there is definitely a tendency to blame all weather events on warming or climate change. However the planets definitely warming.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

The magic sauce is that the more expensive it is to heat your house using fossil fuels, the more attractive it is to spend money to put in more insulation, and/or change your heating system from coal, to a more efficient heating system.

This would be so laughable if it weren't so serious. So, by taking money off people (the vast of these folk on a fixed weekly wage) you help them "save" for that insulation and spend €1000s on a new heating system.

Some logic. It's no wonder that the Green Party only grab 3% or 4% of the vote.

The sad reality is that it's the average Joe who always gets the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to these policies:

* Average car costs €200 per month to purchase road fuel, at €1.25 per litre that means 160 litres of juice going in there. With 7c per litre of carbon tax paid, that is a nice €135 per annum carbon tax right there.

* Average household pays €60 per annum carbon tax on their gas bill (now we're up to €195 per annum and that's before the VAT is added which is 23% on the road fuel and 13.5% on the gas)

In total we have €166.05 for fuel with the VAT included plus €68.10 on gas inclusive of VAT giving €232.15 coming out of the pockets of householders.

* Average household The electricity bills also get hit - with the PSO levy increased from ~€15 to stand at €75 per annum today with the increases going directly into subsidising wind farms. So here is another €60 per annum going towards "green initiatives" bringing the household contribution up to a sweet €292.15 in these stealth taxes.

Feeling cheated?

The above carbon taxes are applied across the board into businesses too, and these businesses just pass the cost back to the consumer which results in higher charges at the till. Businesses face higher charges for transport too.

George Sunsnow

It’s not eco fascism,it’s primarily being used by insincere politicians as a bandwagon exploitation to raise tax
The rise in tax in theory should change behavior but the insincere politicians and civil service can’t raise them enough to do that so they pay lip service to climate warming whilst getting away with as high (but habit neutral) a tax rise as they can without uproar at election time

Law changes are a better way to go but it would be impossible as it would need to be global and have China India and the US signed up
There are no solar powered Ryanair planes etc so Action is fraught with trade off compatibility ie what the public is willing to give up
With the amount of rural litter I see through around from urban people,I’d suggest not a lot

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I don't show sympathy for any conspiracy theories. Again, show me where I have. Second time of asking.

I said some of the commentary on possible effect is hyperbole. People speaking of the end of our civilisation, greatest threat to humanity, nuclear war, "devastation", INSERT REALLY DRAMATIC TERM HERE __________, etc. That's total nonsense and is a facet of the tabloid environment we live in. There is no threat to the human race. Warming will not cause nuclear war. The clock is not ticking. If people like Akrasia, Wanderer, etc. would stop using terms like this and be a little more rational then it would do no harm at all.

again, some of my sources are actually peer reviewed, i actually have studied environmental matters at third level for a couple of years. please show me where i said 'warming causes nuclear war', and i will amend that idea! thank you

dense

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I assume if they protest against abortion they will get the column inches.

If you have been reading dense then you should know he believes this is all eco fascism or eco socialism, something something the UN, something something anti capitalism, a general worldwide conspiracy to distort facts led by the UN. This is all from the far right American playbook.

There’s a disquieting number of people who still think you can dispute AGW, not just dispute the accuracy of the models. Not saying you are in that camp.

The fact there is a cost to be borne now, like the guy with the more expensive coal, makes people act selfishly and support a status quo which could be disasterous going forward.

I get why people interested in metrology don’t particularly like some of the lay discussion on climate change and weather, since there is definitely a tendency to blame all weather events on warming or climate change. However the planets definitely warming.

A few points.

I didn't make up the quotes from the UNFCCC.
There is an agenda other than just reducing emissions at play.

If you disagree we could go through it line by line to figure what exactly it is.

There are radical environmentalists right here in this country (forget Trump country) brow-beating all and sundry about OUR contribution to climate change and our need to immediately act to avert it.

To me this is a mask slipping, a mask thinly disguising a need to control what I drive, whether I should drive at all, where I live, what bioengineered "meat" I should eat, how many children I should have, how much electricity I should use, basically everything, in order to satisfy their wishes to be in control.

When challenged it often tends to get dirty.

Claiming the globe is measurably warming, by tenths of degrees, based on data that does not exist, or has to be maasively "adjusted" due to convenient calibration errors isnt terribly convincing.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998


People who depend on RTE RADIO 1, or their local terribly PC rural radio equivalent for their climate news won't be aware of much of this.

But they'll be treated to an.in depth package from the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change.

And that's the way the radicals want it.

gabeeg

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I don't show sympathy for any conspiracy theories. Again, show me where I have. Second time of asking.

I said some of the commentary on possible effect is hyperbole. People speaking of the end of our civilisation, greatest threat to humanity, nuclear war, "devastation", INSERT REALLY DRAMATIC TERM HERE __________, etc. That's total nonsense and is a facet of the tabloid environment we live in. There is no threat to the human race. Warming will not cause nuclear war. The clock is not ticking. If people like Akrasia, Wanderer, etc. would stop using terms like this and be a little more rational then it would do no harm at all.

And there again we have a complete denial of everything that we've been warned about from many walks of science.

So I repeat, I have no idea what your position is on all this. You contradict yourself constantly.

I don't think you're going to get this. So let's just forget it and let the conversation move on.