"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

dense

Anyone else carrying the personal burden of experiencing catastrophic climate change to a greater extent than the scientific community may take comfort in the IPCC's AR5 which aside from identifying some extra heat found severe difficulty identifying anything else resulting from global warming.

In summary …. it is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., above the 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends.

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.

Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data.

http://euanmearns.com/climate-scientists-confirm-no-global-increase-in-extreme-weather-events/


http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml


Hopefully it might go some way to assuage the hurt being caused to some gullible people by unfounded allegations from eco activists who are alleging that Ireland's emissions are causing disproprtionate catastrophic climate change.



#stopclimatechaos

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

Like when you fell off the wall and everyone laughed at you?

I dunno what that's supposed to mean but maybe someone out there thinks it's clever.

dense wrote: »

In other words, link please, because I don't recall using any of those figures nor do I recall you piping up at the time to say my calculations were incorrect.


If there is an error in my calculations concerning how much energy fossil fuels supply here and how much renewables do, link to it and then correct it.

Actually I'll link to it to save you the trouble and you can check that it's ok.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107955400&postcount=490

Heres the online conversion tool to convert 14m tons of oil equivalence to Twh


http://www.conversion-website.com/energy/ton-of-oil-equivalent-to-terawatt-hour.html


Akrasia's new standard unit of 1 Hiroshima bomb isn't included there however, so I'm a little sceptical of you being able to verify their claims about Ireland setting off the equivalent of 2m of them since 1998 and their impact, if any, in degrees of global warming.

Sure. Look below. I'm sure it's easy to get lost in that tangled mess you leave behind. Nice try on attempting to shift the topic again though. It's probably why you can't remember all the things you said (and can't remember how to use the search function to look for it).

dense wrote: »

Converting 20twh to gwh gives approximately 20,000gwh according to my calculations, which is just 0.6% of the 3.10m gwh of electricity generated per year.


https://www.convertunits.com/from/TWh/to/GWh

Point being, they're SI units so there's no "calculation" involved. The prefix is only telling you the multiple of the original unit (10 to the power of x). Did you know 10 is approximately ten 1's? Will you give me a €100 note for approximately 10 x €10 notes (give or take a few €10)?

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

Point being, they're SI units so there's no "calculation" involved. The prefix is only telling you the multiple of the original unit (10 to the power of x). Did you know 10 is approximately ten 1's? Will you give me a €100 note for approximately 10 x €10 notes (give or take a few €10)?

Is that it? A way to show you couldn't find a fault in what I've calculated:


That renewable energy currently supplies just 8Twh of the 163Twh (14Mtoe) of energy consumed annually here.



You don't seem to appreciate that demands for a rapid transition off fossil fuels leave an annual 155Twh energy supply gap.


That's 95% of the energy this country uses in a year.


Where's it going to reliably come from and at what cost?

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

Is that it? A way to show you couldn't find a fault in what I've calculated:


That renewable energy currently supplies just 8Twh of the 163Twh (14Mtoe) of energy consumed annually here.



You don't seem to appreciate that

demands for a rapid transition off fossil fuels leave an annual 155Twh energy supply gap.


That's 95% of the energy this country uses in a year.


Where's it going to reliably come from and at what cost?

I appreciate plenty. Don't worry about that :pac:

dense

The alleged catastrophic sea level rise is another non issue that the lefties try to exploit in order to wreak energy havoc.


Scientists say satellite imagery shows land area "all over the world" is increasing, coinciding with man made global warming.

Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land - 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) - than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.

"We're (sic) were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100


In other news from the settled science circus, it is confirmed that windmills can also cause climate change.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36131442


Climate science, the gift that keeps on giving.

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

The alleged catastrophic sea level rise is another non issue that the lefties try to exploit in order to wreak energy havoc.


Scientists say satellite imagery shows land area "all over the world" is increasing, coinciding with man made global warming.






https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100


In other news from the settled science circus, it is confirmed that windmills can also cause climate change.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36131442


Climate science, the gift that keeps on giving.

So you concede that mans actions have an impact on the environment???? Are you just arguing the scale of the issue?

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

So you concede that mans actions have an impact on the environment???? Are you just arguing the scale of the issue?

The scale is quite clear.

Irish people are responsible for low crop yields in Honduras and a shortage of rain in Malawi.

According to the report, one Irish person emits 74 times more carbon dioxide per year than one Ethiopian or Malawian. In Honduras crop yields will fall by at least 10 percent by 2020 and rainfall in Malawi could decrease by up to 25 percent by the end of the century.

https://www.trocaire.org/news/irelands-emissions-are-charts

How you can all say your carbon footprint is too small to bother about is pretty amazing, it's 74 times more than one Ethiopian.

dense

‘It is FAR MORE serious than we thought’ Scientists warn tsunamis could hit Britain.
Because, as Tom Jones says, "Its not unusual".

In what must be a major disappointment to the climate fiction alarmists, the UK media reports on new research which suggests that the British Isles were being hit with extreme weather in the form of tsunamis in the pre industrial period when CO2 levels were much lower than today.

New research has found that devastating tsunamis hit the British Isles much more often than previously thought.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-45541721?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1018801/tsunami-warning-uk-tsunamis-news-landslide-british-geological-survey

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Reverting to subjective descriptions of normal weather is another element of circular reasoning for those trying to convince themselves and others that extreme events are becoming more frequent.








https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.php?aid=69558

Well that's the worst paper I've ever seen.

I don't know if it was peer reviewed, it couldn't have been, the references aren't even correct. His 'figures' and graphs are unsourced and clearly just collected from climate change denial blogs along with almost all of his other information. These same blogs that have been found manipulating and falsifying graphs on multiple occasions.

His references section is a cluster**** of climate denial bogs 'think tanks' like the 'global warming policy foundation'

This paper is proof of the programming concept garbage in, garbage out.

MJ Kelly might know a lot about quantum engineering. But he hasn't got a clue about climate science or how to tell good data from propaganda in a politically charged arena full of misinformation

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The scale is quite clear.

Irish people are responsible for low crop yields in Honduras and a shortage of rain in Malawi.


https://www.trocaire.org/news/irelands-emissions-are-charts

How you can all say your carbon footprint is too small to bother about is pretty amazing, it's 74 times more than one Ethiopian.

And according to you, one persons carbon footprint matters, but 4.5million people's carbon footprint is insignificant.

Individual action is not the solution to a global ecological problem. It requires global political action.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

‘It is FAR MORE serious than we thought’ Scientists warn tsunamis could hit Britain.
Because, as Tom Jones says, "Its not unusual".

In what must be a major disappointment to the climate fiction alarmists, the UK media reports on new research which suggests that the British Isles were being hit with extreme weather in the form of tsunamis in the pre industrial period when CO2 levels were much lower than today.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-45541721?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1018801/tsunami-warning-uk-tsunamis-news-landslide-british-geological-survey

Tsunamis aren't weather dense. They're caused by earthquakes, volcanos or landslides, or even asteroid impacts.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Tsunamis aren't weather dense. They're caused by earthquakes, volcanos or landslides, or even asteroid impacts.

You're missing a trick here, you need to exploit any catastrophe involving water, flood and destruction and link it to climate change.

Be a little inventive, like the climatologists.

EG: The Japanese tsunami responsible for calving ice:

Kelly Brunt, a cryosphere specialist at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and colleagues were able to link the calving of icebergs from the Sulzberger Ice Shelf in Antarctica following the Tohoku Tsunami, which originated with an earthquake off the coast of Japan in March 2011.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/565/japans-tsunami-created-icebergs-in-antarctica/


Calving ice responsible for tsunamis (just leave out the last bit and Joe Public will buy it):

Depending on the mass of ice lost and the particular configuration of the water and the fjord into which it surges, these events can also create destructive tsunamis, albeit of a relatively small scale (compared with how big open ocean tsunamis can get).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/23/this-melting-greenland-glacier-is-now-producing-terrifying-tsunamis/?utm_term=.6b114976c6a5

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

MJ Kelly might know a lot about quantum engineering. But he hasn't got a clue about climate science or how to tell good data from propaganda in a politically charged arena full of misinformation

Rajendra K. Pachaur was a railway engineer who didn't have a clue about climate science and it didn't stop him being chairman of the UNIPCC and spreading it's political propaganda, did it?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Well that's the worst paper I've ever seen.

I don't know if it was peer reviewed, it couldn't have been, the references aren't even correct. His 'figures' and graphs are unsourced and clearly just collected from climate change denial blogs along with almost all of his other information. These same blogs that have been found manipulating and falsifying graphs on multiple occasions.

His references section is a cluster**** of climate denial bogs 'think tanks' like the 'global warming policy foundation'

This paper is proof of the programming concept garbage in, garbage out.

That's your typical "fire everything at it reaction" when you dislike a paper's conclusions.

Let's look at what the paper's publisher says about its peer review process.


https://www.omicsonline.org/peer-review-process.php


It's looks very comprehensive:

Every article submitted to the journal is subjected to strict plagiarism check through our double check process involving software and manual checking. Once article passes through this step, articles are subjected to editorial review for scope, relevance and other standard requirements.

Peer review is the major quality maintenance measure for any academic journal. In this process, experts in the relevant fields analyze the scholarly work from every perspective, including its writing, the accuracy of its technical content, its documentation, and its impact on and significance to the discipline.

Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing, and their valuable opinions certify the quality of the article under consideration. Peer review helps to ratify research, establishing a standard for evaluation within research communities.

OMICS journals employ the peer review process in order to maintain academic standards and insure the validity of individual works submitted for publication. In addition, OMICS follows a single-blinded peer review process, to ensure impartial editorial decision-making.

Depending on reviewer commentary and recommendations, manuscripts may be sent back to authors for revision. After the assistant editor receives the revised manuscript, it is assigned to the reviewer(s) once again, for approval of changes. But the final decision to publish is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

OMICS is following different review strategies for each and every individual journal as per their editorial board guidelines. In general following stages of review process table explains the overall outline, however the respective editor can change the general review policy as per their editorial board members interest as and when required. Majorly, OMICS International staff will do only hosting, PDF formatting and design, communicating review process and there is no control on content and editorial practice of journals as its vary from journal to journal and editor to editor. Most of the OMICS journals content is publishing under creative commons attribution licence, and OMICS is not responsible for content of individual authors and their articles. All the journals articles published under the discretion of respective contributors.

Maybe the whole climate science publishing and research game is a cosy self sustaining cluster####??

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

You're missing a trick here, you need to exploit any catastrophe involving water, flood and destruction and link it to climate change.

Be a little inventive, like the climatologists.

EG: The Japanese tsunami responsible for calving ice:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/565/japans-tsunami-created-icebergs-in-antarctica/


Calving ice responsible for tsunamis (just leave out the last bit and Joe Public will buy it):


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/23/this-melting-greenland-glacier-is-now-producing-terrifying-tsunamis/?utm_term=.6b114976c6a5

You've lost it dense. Now you're arguing against imagined lies that you've thought up all by yourself.

Climate scientists are not attributing tsunamis to climate change, and if a tsunami caused the breakup of an ice sheet, then thats what happened in that instance. It's not hard dense. Most people try to find out the truth of what is happening. You seem to be looking for an angle all the time, for how you can get the facts to fit your own world view.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Rajendra K. Pachaur was a railway engineer who didn't have a clue about climate science and it didn't stop him being chairman of the UNIPCC and spreading it's political propaganda, did it?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri

He's an administrator not a climate scientist. He's not doing any research, he's just overseeing the organisation of this extremely complex publication.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

He's not doing any research, he's just overseeing the organisation of this extremely complex publication.

He's not overseeing anything because he resigned in 2015.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-31601122

Akrasia

Who gives a sh1t. You brought him up as a standard dense distraction tactic when I pointed out that the paper you linked to was written by someone with absolutely no climate science training and written in a way using sources of such awful quality that they would get a university undergraduate student a failing grade.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Who gives a sh1t. You brought him up as a standard dense distraction tactic when I pointed out that the paper you linked to was written by someone with absolutely no climate science training and written in a way using sources of such awful quality that they would get a university undergraduate student a failing grade.

Funny how you resort to trying to pick at a peer reviewed author's credentials when their peer reviewed research doesn't coincide with your urgent, lefty demands for a "global solution".



Your dismissal of a peer reviewed author coincides with the opinion of the editor of The Lancet who has suggested that as much as half of the published scientific "literature" may simply be "untrue".

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext



As much as 97% of the climate science literature is false if that's the case I'd guess.



P.S. The head of the UNIPCC had no "climate science training" either.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Funny how you resort to trying to pick at a peer reviewed author's credentials when their peer reviewed research doesn't coincide with your urgent, lefty demands for a "global solution".



Your dismissal of a peer reviewed author coincides with the opinion of the editor of The Lancet who has suggested that as much as half of the published scientific "literature" may simply be "untrue".



https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext



As much as 97% of the climate science literature is false if that's the case I'd guess.



P.S. The head of the UNIPCC had no "climate science training" either.

Literally the definition of science denialism right there. Blogs are trustworthy. Scientific journals can't be trusted unless they're open access online journals that publish bloggers propaganda as fact.

And you still don't know the difference between a researcher and an administrator.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

Funny how you resort

Funny how you have to resort to using every trick and tactic possible to continually push your subjective dogmatic view despite it being countered by simple logic, reason and evidence, doesn't that raise personal alarm bells? if not, that's even more worrying

If this was a proper debate with an arbiter your argument would have long been struck off as faulty, circular and pedantic. But there isn't, so here we are. You vs the world in a game of stamina, who can get the last word in

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Funny how you have to resort to using every trick and tactic possible to continually push your subjective dogmatic view despite it being countered by simple logic, reason and evidence, doesn't that raise personal alarm bells? if not, that's even more worrying

If this was a proper debate with an arbiter your argument would have long been struck off as faulty, circular and pedantic. But there isn't, so here we are. You vs the world in a game of stamina, who can get the last word in

Are you for real?

You have no opinion on Akrasia pretending that the UNIPCC Chairman with a background in railways who resigned in 2015 is still busily working away diligently "overseeing the organisation of this extremely complex publication"?

No, instead your whinging because the facts about UN climate "science" don't tally with what you've been fed over the years and you can't come to terms with it and react by getting upset with the person who is enlightening you.

I don't know if you read books Dohnjoe, but do you fire them across the room if the endings aren't to your liking?

Because that's what your doing now.

Akrasia wrote: »

Who gives a sh1t.

Not Dohnjoe, that's for sure. Couldn't care less about facts.

-Likes you to mislead them with your UN propoganda.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Individual action is not the solution to a global ecological problem. It requires global political action.

What a load of cobblers, you can't even explain where we're going to reliably get 95% of our local energy needs from and you're incessantly waffling about wanting to be globally remotely governed by lefty rabble rousers like Paul Murphy and Ruth Coppinger all with the hands out looking for the free stuff or Professor Sweeney's special star, the well known climate rider, hypocrite and socialist dictator, Evo Morales.

Any chance you'd tell us who told you Ireland's emissions since 1998 were the equivalent of 2m Hiroshima bombs?

A concerned mate at the pub or did you hear it at a Friends of the Earth hoedown?


Or you just made it up, like the suspected half of the "science" found in todays junk science peer reviewed journals.

dubstepper

dense wrote: »

No, instead your whinging because the facts about UN climate "science" don't tally with what you've been fed over the years and you can't come to terms with it and react by getting upset with the person who is enlightening you.

To anyone who reads this thread you have nearly described yourself. Ranting away trying to legitimize conspiracy theories you are reading on various blogs.

dense wrote: »

What a load of cobblers, you can't even explain where we're going to reliably get 95% of our local energy needs from and you're incessantly waffling about wanting to be globally remotely governed by lefty rabble rousers like Paul Murphy and Ruth Coppinger all with the hands out looking for the free stuff or Professor Sweeney's special star, the well known climate rider, hypocrite and socialist dictator, Evo Morales.
.

This paragraph is largely incoherent but the point about where to source our energy, while interesting, is nothing to do with whether climate change is man made. it is entirely consistent to agree with anthropogenic climate change, without needing to offer a solution. It is beyond most people to offer solutions. We need scientists and engineers to do that.

dense

A smell of the the worker being urged to engage in an uprising against the establishment to finally implement the socialists' plans comes off of this explanation of how the planet is to be saved.

Think of the occupy thing here, its from the same stable that urges the takeover of things and always wants stuff for nothing.

I say that because the utopian "economic transformation" global takeover being promoted by the socialists and Christiana Figueres certainly doesnt look like its going to happen voluntarily, but by force:

This means nationalising the main industries that dominate the economy.

This will need to be done throughout the world, encompassing the 147 multinational corporations that recent research has shown dominate the globe.

The task is urgent. It must involve the political re-armament of the workers’ movement in Britain and internationally with a socialist programme.

As a first step, this will require the creation of new mass workers’ parties to replace the discredited former workers’ organisations. These parties, such as the Labour Party in Britain, have totally failed over decades to implement programmes to reverse the degradation of the planet.

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/sv2016-05/08-climate.html

Of course if the means justify the ends, the alarmists can be counted on to endorse violence against those rejecting their faked climate science.

Doctor Jimbob

dense

dubstepper wrote: »

This paragraph is largely incoherent but the point about where to source our energy, while interesting, is nothing to do with whether climate change is man made. it is entirely consistent to agree with anthropogenic climate change, without needing to offer a solution. It is beyond most people to offer solutions. We need scientists and engineers to do that.

No, it is utterly stupid and dangerous to be calling for an economy to rapidly transition off of fossil fuels without any consideration to solving what is going to reliably replace the 95% of national energy that fossil fuels provide.


It is infantile to say "I dont know, but lets do it anyway".


Maybe a rapid mass destruction of civilisation is worth it of course, in order to save the planet:

Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too.

Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation?

“I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”

I think the answer is no, don't you?
Even the alarmists couldn't be bothered monitoring their own carbon footprints here.



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

No, it is utterly stupid and dangerous to be calling for an economy to rapidly transition off of fossil fuels without any consideration to solving what is going to reliably replace the 95% of national energy that fossil fuels provide.


It is infantile to say "I dont know, but lets do it anyway".


Maybe a rapid mass destruction of civilisation is worth it of course, in order to save the planet:




I think the answer is no, don't you?
Even the alarmists couldn't be bothered monitoring their own carbon footprints here.



https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

the actual figure is that Ireland produces 10% of it's total energy from renewable sources as of 2017, and 30% of our electricity from renewable sources

Provisional data from the SEAI indicates that 30.1% of electricity, 6.9% of heat and 7.1% of transport energy requirements were met from renewable sources at end 2017. Overall, SEAI analysis shows that 10.6% of Ireland’s energy requirements in 2017 were met from renewable sources, with an expectation that Ireland will achieve at least 80% of its 16% renewable energy target by 2020.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-05-31/31/

The solution to transitioning from fossil fuels, is to increase investment and for the government to provide both positive and negative incentives to funnel market forces towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels.

Mature technology exists to have energy storage that can provide better continuity of supply. When we have extra generation capacity, that energy is stored in the form of compressed gas, or gravity potential energy, or battery technology with the ability to release this energy when demand is higher or production is lower.

Add to this an interconnected EU power grid and we can have a secure reliable network with plenty of redundancy

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

the actual figure is that Ireland produces 10% of it's total energy from renewable sources as of 2017, and 30% of our electricity from renewable sources

I presume you realise that is not an actual figure, it is a politician giving a figure he hopes no one will check and which has not yet been published by the SEAI.

To get you back to reality, the CSO 2018 Energy Report paints a different story.

Renewable energy accounted for 3% of Ireland’s total final energy consumption in 2015.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii18/energy/



Maybe the greenies really trust their much maligned climate Minister not to lean towards rounding up figures, and maybe there really has been a 300% increase in the role that renewable energy plays in less than 3 years.

Sorry to disappoint, this time from the SEAI:

Renewable energy in Ireland reached the highest level ever with a new peak in 2016 of 4,246 ktoe, up from the
previous peak in 1995 at 4,105 ktoe.

A peak of 4246ktoe, from 4105 in 1995.

From the most recent SEAI report.

Total renewable energy increased slightly by 0.3% during 2016 to 1,158 ktoe out of their total of 13250ktoe.

Someone seems to be telling lies, the CSO or SEAI?

THE SEAI does admit that wind energy is not all its cracked up to be.

Hydro and wind decreased by 15.6% and
6.5% respectively as there was lower rainfall and less wind blowing in 2016 compared to 2015

In 2016, lower hydro and wind resources and increased electricity
exports saw electricity generated from gas increase by 23%.

Not sure if it mentioned that Ireland has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe, but I doubt it.


There's lots of stuff in there too about how much reliance we have on biomass as energy but of course that is now being acknowledged as being more detrimental than coal.

The investigations were carried out in a laboratory chamber furnace at five different temperatures (from 700 to 1100 °C) and at three different air flow rates providing an excess of oxygen. In many cases the determined emission indicators for biomass combustion were higher than for hard coal.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115304025

Akrasia wrote: »

The solution to transitioning from fossil fuels, is to increase investment and for the government to provide both positive and negative incentives to funnel market forces towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels.

Mature technology exists to have energy storage that can provide better continuity of supply. When we have extra generation capacity, that energy is stored in the form of compressed gas, or gravity potential energy, or battery technology with the ability to release this energy when demand is higher or production is lower.

Add to this an interconnected EU power grid and we can have a secure reliable network with plenty of redundancy

Sounds great. So good in fact that most of it isn't in use here and is being rejected around the world.

dense

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.


No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

Reverse the decline of observational networks in many parts of the world. Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossible to detect climate change over large parts of the globe.

-From the ever-sceptical UNIPCC, wisely cautioning it's more highly strung alarmist readers to cool the jets.

The alarmist position is that the science is settled, that we do know all there is to know about equilibrium climate sensitivity and that not only can we predict, but also control future climates and climate change, simply by adjusting our CO2 emissions.