Extinction Rebellion Ireland

WinnyThePoo

gozunda wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

You keep fighting the 'let's do nothing'. The links you provided directly disagree with your nonsense. I mean you could have read the link before posting it Again your going to ridiculed for spouting stupidityagain I see most of the ridicule has went over your head

Ok this time put your money where your mouth is and link the comment where I have written "let's do absolutely nothing'".(sic)

Again as for the rest nothing you've said there makes any sense whatsoever. I can't help you with that or the fairy stories with ' Gretna'. So not bothering tbh. Thanks.

(Btw - you've you posted the sa
me comment twice)

Hey boards must have liked my post they published it twice

its great that you know there's a place called Gretna in Scotland. That's awesome man.


Anyway you've spent the entire thread passionately telling everyone you are going to sit on your hands and do absolutely nothing and everyone should listen you.


You've spent the thread clearly showing yourself to be threatened by a 11 old girl. There's something weird going on there.

To top it all off you then posted a link completely refuting you(maybe should have read the link buddy. I mean atleast you know there's a place in Scotland called Gretna )

Seriously if your going to hold a stupid position atleast post material trying to back It up. Oh my lord.. That is too funny. Thank you for the laughs.

gozunda

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

...
Anyway you've spent the entire thread passionately telling everyone you are going to sit on your hands and do absolutely nothing and everyone should listen you.

Same nonsense? Lol


Provide the LINK where I made that comment.

WinnyThePoo

gozunda wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

...
Anyway you've spent the entire thread passionately telling everyone you are going to sit on your hands and do absolutely nothing and everyone should listen you.

Same nonsense?

Provide the LINK where I made that comment. Otherwise you are evidently trying to derail the thread.

T -1

Haha in bold aswell.... How cute... Which post do you want me to link to....ive got the choice of every single post of yours. Do you want something from today or yesterday?.

Again.. You posted a link that refutes your entire output on this thread. Embarrassing.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Maybe so however - however that is far from the full story. The fact is this protest movement is based on hyperbole and misinformation. It is little better than a doomsday cult imo

Additionally people running around with placards and banners which bear no resemblence to any science is certainly not going to convince anyone as to the bonafides of this movement. Hence this discussion.

What part of the official extinction rebellion statement is hyperbole?

(I do not contest at all that there were probably some placards that were exaggerated or had errors in them, but focusing on inconsequential errors in laypersons or non expert opinion seems to me to be a easy way of avoiding the hard questions posed by the actual scientific studies on climate change)

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Thanks for that. It obviously took you some time and effort to type all that out. But seriously there was no need - I have read the IPCC report cover to cover.

And really not sure what any of that has got to do with Ms Thunberg and her use of hyperbole and doomsday scenarios for 2030 tbh.

This is Miss Thunberg



This is what one of the scientists responsible for the IPCC report said.



And again an independent scientist




Theres very little need to say more as far as I'm concerned tbh.

You've read what the proper scientists have to say. Why not actually listen to them instead of ignoring them and focusing on a 16 year old's passionate but understandably not 100% informed beliefs.

They do not contradict the message of the climate extinction activists which in turn is based on what the consensus of the scientific community say on this subject. They just say that it's not a black and white cliff edge scenario. We're not going to be either safe or doomed. We're basically screwed either way, but we can be a lot more screwed if we delay action and allow CO2 concentrations to keep building up.

It's too late to avoid climate change, but it's not too late yet to avoid runaway climate change.

Akrasia

RollieFingers wrote: »

Will all the protesters who were at the Extinction Rebellion in Dublin and taking pictures and videos of what they were doing to upload on social media be getting rid of the smartphones they used if they are so concerned about the environment? Research last year stated that smartphones and data centers are damaging to the environment and will have the biggest carbon footprint in the tech industry by 2040. Or is it just certain things they are protesting about being harmful to the environment?

'research last year'
Where's the link or even a reference so we can check if you're representing that research correctly.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

What part of the official extinction rebellion statement is hyperbole?

(I do not contest at all that there were probably some placards that were exaggerated or had errors in them, but focusing on inconsequential errors in laypersons or non expert opinion seems to me to be a easy way of avoiding the hard questions posed by the actual scientific studies on climate change)

The main one I highlighted as an example in this instance is the official banner declaring "12 years to save Earth"

See the quotes from Climate scientists in my last comment which refute that sentiment .

Tbh I find the groups manifesto and demands to be little better. I'll put together a post about that at another time. Too late tonight ok.

s7ryf3925pivug

RollieFingers wrote: »

Will all the protesters who were at the Extinction Rebellion in Dublin and taking pictures and videos of what they were doing to upload on social media be getting rid of the smartphones they used if they are so concerned about the environment? Research last year stated that smartphones and data centers are damaging to the environment and will have the biggest carbon footprint in the tech industry by 2040. Or is it just certain things they are protesting about being harmful to the environment?

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-iphone-x-environmental-report/

.08 tonnes of CO2. Reasonably efficient domestic central heating produces over 4 tonnes of CO2 a year, to give context.

The stat you gave refers to the entire communications industry, as per the following article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/17/internet-climate-carbon-footprint-data-centres

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

I dont believe anyone has stated that here tbh.

However it remains that "Water vapour is ... recognized as being an important part of the global warming process. The water vapour feedback process is most likely responsible for a doubling of the greenhouse effect when compared to the addition of carbon dioxide on its own"

As with many of greenhouse gases much remains unknown as to the complex processes involved. And that being the case and we know that "feedback process is most likely responsible for a doubling of the greenhouse effect when compared to the addition of carbon dioxide on its own" then it would certainly warrant serious investment in research and investigation in order to explore how this can be mitigated.

Its still strange it's hardly ever mentioned tbh.

What reseach out there is conflicting tbh eg

"These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change."

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour

You can't mitigate against evaporation because of warmer air from global warming. In a house, we build extractor fans to blow that moisture away. What do you want to do, build a continent sized de-humidifier (powered by the bullsh1t and hot air coming from climate change skeptics)

The only way to stop the water vapour feedback from being significant, is to stop CO2 from amplifying the greenhouse effect and allowing the atmosphere to hold more humid air.

Again, the fact that you don't understand this should be embarrassing to you. Go and educate yourself, and when you discover that you were wrong, question your other incorrect beliefs that led you to become a science denier.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

The main one I highlighted as an example in this instance is the official banner declaring "12 years to save Earth"

See the quotes from Climate scientists in my last comment which refute that sentiment .

Tbh I find the groups manifesto and demands to be little better. I'll put together a post about that at another time. Too late tonight ok.

12 years to save the earth is a perfectly acceptable distillation of the predicament we find ourselves in. It's a placard, not a thesis.

The scientific literature says if we don't significantly reduce CO2 emissions towards approaching carbon neutral by about 2030 we run the risk of runaway climate change. Runaway climate change means that we trigger positive feedbacks that cause more warming than we can prevent from even completely stopping 100% of carbon emissions.

(BTW, i usually post links to studies within the relevant posts, but i don't have time tonight, if you want the links, ask and I'll send them, but then I'll check to make sure you've actually read them)

RollieFingers

Akrasia wrote: »

'research last year'
Where's the link or even a reference so we can check if you're representing that research correctly.

https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/study-shows-smartphones-harm-the-environment/

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

12 years to save the earth is a perfectly acceptable distillation of the predicament we find ourselves in. It's a placard, not a thesis.

The scientific literature says if we don't significantly reduce CO2 emissions towards approaching carbon neutral by about 2030 we run the risk of runaway climate change. Runaway climate change means that we trigger positive feedbacks that cause more warming than we can prevent from even completely stopping 100% of carbon emissions.

(BTW, i usually post links to studies within the relevant posts, but i don't have time tonight, if you want the links, ask and I'll send them, but then I'll check to make sure you've actually read them)

Btw for readability - I'm going to keep this simple.

I'd disagree. Extinction rebellion are using hyperbole and pushing doomsday scenarios tbh. It's clearly scare and fear tactics to gain supoort. And yeah its bull****.

This from Professor Myles Allen

some of the slogans being bandied around are genuinely frightening: a colleague recently told me of her 11-year-old coming home in tears after being told that, because of climate change, human civilisation might not survive for her to have children.

You've seen the climate scientist comments I quoted above regarding 2030 . These are not Joe soap interpretations unlike the propaganda used by XR on that banner "12 years to save earth" (sic)

Re 'Runaway climate change'

The 2030 figure you detail above appears to relates the IPCC dateline for reducing global emissions -

However on the Earth the IPCC has previously stated that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."

https://archive.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf

'Though the IPCC reports multiple Arctic feedback sources - it does not recognize runaway'

https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/runaway.html

I've read lots of the scientific literature btw. "You'll check I've read them"? lol. Send on the links if you like. I'll know if I've seen them previously. Thanks.
.

Akrasia

RollieFingers wrote: »

https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/study-shows-smartphones-harm-the-environment/

you linked to a press release, the actual paper is here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261733233X

It's a study of relative greenhouse gas emissions. If traditional communications networks (including road, rail and sea networks) are replaced by electronic communications, is this a net gain or loss in the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted per unit of economic transaction..

In other words, when you're calling environmental activists hypocrites for using their phones, are you arguing that they would be more environmentally friendly to write a letter to the editor of their local newspaper who would then need to print that hundreds of thousands of times and physically deliver thousands of tonnes of paper to thousands of shops where they are then collected by hundreds of thousands of consumers and brought home to read.... and then need to be collected as waste afterwards......

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

You can't mitigate against evaporation because of warmer air from global warming. In a house, we build extractor fans to blow that moisture away. What do you want to do, build a continent sized de-humidifier (powered by the bullsh1t and hot air coming from climate change skeptics) The only way to stop the water vapour feedback from being significant, is to stop CO2 from amplifying the greenhouse effect and allowing the atmosphere to hold more humid air.Again, the fact that you don't understand this should be embarrassing to you. Go and educate yourself, and when you discover that you were wrong, question your other incorrect beliefs that led you to become a science denier.

Yes I've done the research and reviewed the literature and the consensus is that little is known of the actual processes involved with regard to water vapour as a major greenhouse gas.

Btw no need to get personal and try the shame game tbh. The link and quote I provide above clearly details that not only are there some indications that water vapour plays a part in warming but that not enough is currently known about this.

Again funny we never hear the various protestors highlighting any of this tbh - and as a qualified scientist btw - I am far from being a 'science denier' (sic) or even worse imo a propagandist for climate misinformation. Goodnight.

RollieFingers

Akrasia wrote: »

you linked to a press release, the actual paper is here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261733233X

It's a study of relative greenhouse gas emissions. If traditional communications networks (including road, rail and sea networks) are replaced by electronic communications, is this a net gain or loss in the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted per unit of economic transaction..

In other words, when you're calling environmental activists hypocrites for using their phones, are you arguing that they would be more environmentally friendly to write a letter to the editor of their local newspaper who would then need to print that hundreds of thousands of times and physically deliver thousands of tonnes of paper to thousands of shops where they are then collected by hundreds of thousands of consumers and brought home to read.... and then need to be collected as waste afterwards......

Not arguing anything. Was just asking a question as it seems a bit hypocritical that lots of the activists in images online at the protest can be seen with smartphones, when evidence exists to indicate smartphone use isn't good for the environment.

pjohnson

gozunda wrote: »

Yes I've done my research and reviewed the literature and the consensus is that little is known of the actual processes involved with regard to water vapour as a major greenhouse gas.

Btw no need to get personal and try the shame game tbh. The link and quote I provide above clearly details that not only are there some indications that water vapour plays a part in warming but that not enough is currently known about this.

Again funny we never hear the various protestors highlighting any of this tbh - oh and as a qualified scientist btw - I am far from being a 'science denier' (sic) or even worse imo a propagandist for climate misinformation. Goodnight.

A "qualified scientist"?

This reminds me of the "nurse" who was an anti-vaxxer only to eventually admit they dropped out of the course :pac:

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

You've read what the proper scientists have to say. Why not actually listen to them instead of ignoring them and focusing on a 16 year old's passionate but understandably not 100% informed beliefs.

I have thanks. And no I don't count teenage activists as good sources of information or for a balanced interpretation of current research.

Akrasia wrote: »

They do not contradict the message of the climate extinction activists which in turn is based on what the consensus of the scientific community say on this subject. They just say that it's not a black and white cliff edge scenario. We're not going to be either safe or doomed. We're basically screwed either way, but we can be a lot more screwed if we delay action and allow CO2 concentrations to keep building up.
It's too late to avoid climate change, but it's not too late yet to avoid runaway climate change.

Whoa - Cart before the horse there. Much of the extinction rebellion exaggerated self promotion does not align with the current IPCC analysis of the issues relating to climate change. And again the IPCC does not refer to 'runaway climate change'.

Yurt2

pjohnson wrote: »

A "qualified scientist"?

This reminds me of the "nurse" who was an anti-vaxxer only to eventually admit they dropped out of the course :pac:

gozunda

pjohnson wrote: »

.....This reminds me of the "nurse" who was an anti-vaxxer only to eventually admit they dropped out of the course

Lol. And that reminds me of the usual idiotic idiot whataboutery encountered in these discussions. Not really surprising tbh. It's there having being deemed a 'science denier - god help us! (sic) Will you engage in the discussion or are you just here for the usual **** and giggles?

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

I have thanks. And no I don't count teenage activists as good sources of information or for a balanced interpretation of current research.



Whoa - Cart before the horse there. Much of the extinction rebellion exaggerated self promotion does not align with the current IPCC analysis of the issues relating to climate change. And again the IPCC do not refer to 'runaway climate change'.

Runaway climate change is just a reference to what happens if cdrtain tipping points are passed. Do you know what a tipping point is?

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Yes I've done my research and reviewed the literature and the consensus is that little is known of the actual processes involved with regard to water vapour as a major greenhouse gas.

Btw no need to get personal and try the shame game tbh. The link and quote I provide above clearly details that not only are there some indications that water vapour plays a part in warming but that not enough is currently known about this.

Again funny we never hear the various protestors highlighting any of this tbh - and as a qualified scientist btw - I am far from being a 'science denier' (sic) or even worse imo a propagandist for climate misinformation. Goodnight.

Absolute nonsense. If you are in fact a qualified scientist i hope you kept the receipt for whatever course you did because you should look for a refund.

Show me a single paper that says water vapour is a driver of climate change rather than a feedback.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

Runaway climate change is just a reference to what happens if cdrtain tipping points are passed. Do you know what a tipping point is?

Yes I do. Do you?

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. If you are in fact a qualified scientist i hope you kept the receipt for whatever course you did because you should look for a refund.

Show me a single paper that says water vapour is a driver of climate change rather than a feedback.

Yeah less of the ad hominem- I could say the same for the incorrect use of "runaway climate change" terminology etc btw but I wont bother ...

As detailed in a previous comment- much of what is known is contradictory and is far from an absolute. I had already included this by way of example.

What reseach out there is conflicting at best. tbh eg

"These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change."

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour

Akrasia wrote:

Show me a single paper that says water vapour is a driver of climate change rather than a feedback.

^^ Happy now? So you can now apologise for the idiotic ad hominem which went that. Thanks

And the point I was making and which you missed - is that there is clearly little comprenensive research in the processes involved. This should be a priority considering that as known water vapour is the number one greenhouse gas.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Ok fair enough. Yes I do.

Good. So what happens to the planet when these tipping points are passed

1. Ice free arctic summer (hint, albedo and latent heat required to melt ice)
2. Melting permafrost releasing vast amounts of methane

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

Good. So what happens to the planet when these tipping points are passed

1. Ice free arctic summer (hint, albedo and latent heat required to melt ice)
2. Melting permafrost releasing vast amounts of methane

I'll stop you there. Not going down the usual rabbit hole but what If anything has this got to do with the defence that the xr movement are not a doomsday cult as per the topic of the original post?

You used the terminology 'runaway climate change' not me btw.

But to put that to bed ...

The IPCC AR5 defines a tipping point as an abrupt and irreversible change in the climate system. They state that the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point, remain uncertain, and that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature. A more broad definition of tipping points is sometimes used as well, which includes abrupt but reversible tipping points.

markodaly

gozunda wrote: »

I'll stop you there. Not going down the usual rabbit hole but what If anything has this got to do with the defence that the xr movement are not a doomsday cult as per the topic of the original post?

You used the terminology 'runaway climate change' not me btw.

Why?

You like to post inane amounts of whataboutery but when the topic gets pointed and direct about the reality and the facts behind climate change, you want to just revert the thread back to inane amounts of the same whataboutery.

Wonder why?

gozunda

markodaly wrote: »

Why?You like to post inane amounts of whataboutery but when the topic gets pointed and direct about the reality and the facts behind climate change, you want to just revert the thread back to inane amounts of the same whataboutery.Wonder why?

All a bit obsessive no?
Your only other previous comment in the thread

markodaly wrote: »

The 'whataboutery' is strong in this thread.

Might be healthier to discuss the actual topic of the thread tbh.

Perhaps your like to tell us your opinion on the topic of the discussion re. current state of scientific research and the xr protest movement?

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

I'll stop you there. Not going down the usual rabbit hole but what If anything has this got to do with the defence that the xr movement are not a doomsday cult as per the topic of the original post?

You used the terminology 'runaway climate change' not me btw.

You stopped just short of answering your own question.

Passing these tipping points represents a new climate equilibrium, also known as Hothouse earth. A departure from millions of years of interglacial periods. Runaway climate change is the transition to this new climate equibrium. Its scary because it means that humans have caused so much harm that we can no longer slow down or repair the damage. Its like what happens when you ignore tbat mole on your skin that suddenly started to change colour last summer. Runaway climate change is like metastatic cancer.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

You stopped just short of answering your own question.

Passing these tipping points represents a new climate equilibrium, also known as Hothouse earth*. A departure from millions of years of interglacial periods. Runaway climate change is the transition to this new climate equibrium. Its scary because it means that humans have caused so much harm that we can no longer slow down or repair the damage. Its like what happens when you ignore tbat mole on your skin that suddenly started to change colour last summer. Runaway climate change is like metastatic cancer.

You see there you go with that absolutist type terminology again. Tut.

It remains that the IPCC has stated that - "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."

Anyway I have already detailed IPCC current thinking on "Tipping Points".

The IPCC AR5 defines a tipping point as an abrupt and irreversible change in the climate system. They state that the precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger a tipping point, remain uncertain, and that the risk associated with crossing multiple tipping points increases with rising temperature. A more broad definition of tipping points is sometimes used as well, which includes abrupt but reversible tipping points.

And you still haven't answered how this relates to the xr protest movement and doomsday ccult etc - as per the topic of discussion.

Addendum: re "Hothouse Earth" ' another rather misused piece of terminology.

Hothouse Earth” scenario


This from Professor Richard Betts, Climate scientist University of Exeter

Another is that (the use of the term - Hothouse Earth)

The term "Hothouse " describes a scientific climatic extreme. The popularity of the term is growing because it allows for some to use it as a "dramatic narrative" and not surprisingly this has led to this term being used in some sensationalist articles to describe a largely doomsday scenario

"With some exceptions, much of the highest-profile coverage of the essay presents the scenario as definite and imminent. The impression is given that 2°C is a definite “point of no return”, and that beyond that the “hothouse” scenario will rapidly arrive.
Many articles ignore the caveats that the 2°C threshold is extremely uncertain, and that even if it were correct, the extreme conditions would not occur for centuries or millennia.

http://theconversation.com/hothouse-earth-heres-what-the-science-actually-does-and-doesnt-say-101341

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah less of the ad hominem- I could say the same for the incorrect "runaway climate change" terminology etc you used btw but I wont bother ...

As detailed in a previous comment- much of what is known is contradictory and is far from an absolute. I had already included this by way of example.

What reseach out there is conflicting at best. tbh eg

"These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change."

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour

And the point I was making that there is clearly little comprenensive research in the processes involved. This should be a priority considering that as known water vapour is the number one greenhouse gas.

Firstly, when people refer to water vapour as a major greenhouse gas, it's mostly Tropospheric water vapour that they're talking about. Water vapour in the stratosphere is a trace gas and it's contribution to the earths atmospheric radiative forcing is small compared to the other factors.

That paper has been superceeded by others that show increases in water vapour, even in the stratosphere is a positive feedback, not a driver, like this one which was edited by the lead author of your study
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18087

SWV levels can increase as a consequence of warmer air, just like in the troposphere, this is a climate change feedback. Sometimes stratospheric water vapour levels fall due to interdecadal oscillation, as discussed in your link, this is linked to internal climate variability, but regardless the changes to radiative forcing in the stratosphere are much lower compared to the amplifying feedback caused by tropospheric increases in water vapour concentration

There is a scientific consensus that water vapour is a feedback, and a major positive feedback that amplifies the consequences of human CO2 equivalent emissions