Extinction Rebellion Ireland

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

But to put that to bed ...

Thank you for editing your post to include that quote from the IPCC. I'm glad you did even though it clearly harms your own argument and supports my position. Not sure how it 'puts it to bed' though given my argument is that tipping points can cause runaway climate change, and the IPCC defines tipping points as potentially causing abrupt and irreversible changes to climate

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

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

Getting seriously off track here tbh. But just one small observation

The article I linked was published in 2016 and is therefore later that the paper you detailed above which was published in 2013.

Observing Water Vapour

Author: Ed Dlugokencky, Sander Houweling, Ruud Dirksen, Marc Schröder, Dale Hurst, Piers Forster, and WMO Secretariat

Bulletin nº : Vol 65 (2) - 2016

Stratospheric water vapor feedback

A. E. Dessler, M. R. Schoeberl, T. Wang, S. M. Davis, and K. H. Rosenlof

PNAS November 5, 2013 110 (45) 18087-18091; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310344110

Edited by Susan Solomon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 9, 2013 (received for review May 30, 2013)

Both interesting but yeah to point - much of the current research is at best contradictory and therefore water vapour as one of the most significant Greenhouse gases requires urgent research imo.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

Thank you for editing your post to include that quote from the IPCC. I'm glad you did even though it clearly harms your own argument and supports my position. Not sure how it 'puts it to bed' though given my argument is that tipping points can cause runaway climate change, and the IPCC defines tipping points as potentially causing abrupt and irreversible changes to climate

Well nope - it doesn't. Because not only do they clearly say nothing about "runaway climate change (sic) the IPCC clearly allow some for uncertainty and state that some TP may be "reversible" - and I'll quote again;

 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.

So no there are no absolutes there.

Now that we've had this lovely long chat about something else entirely

Could you detail exactly all this relates to the xr protest movement and doomsday cult etc - as per the topic of discussion.

Thanks.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

You see there you go with that 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."

The average temperature on Venus is about 460 degrees c.
We don't need venusian levels of runaway climate change to cause serious problems down here. When I say runaway climate change, I mean climate change where the earth is out of equilibrium and natural forces are driving the climate to a new equilibrium state which will continue regardless of human efforts to lower our CO2 emissions.

It's runaway because we can not do anything to stabalise it

Anyway I have already derailed IPCC current thinking on "Tipping Points". See above:

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

They're not a doomsday cult because doomsday cults are fatalistic and dogmatic with no basis in evidence or reason. This movement is trying to agitate for action to listen to the worlds foremost scientists and act now to prevent the worst consequences of climate change

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

This from Professor Richard Betts, Climate scientist University of Exeter

I use it in the correct way. The hothouse earth is a new climate equilibrium where global average temperatures are sufficient to prevent the existence of continental glaciers. It's the opposite of an ice age. The temperature can be at hothouse earth levels for thousands of years before the last glaciers finish melting. This could be at about 4-5c above pre-industrial levels. And yes there is uncertainty about exactly when these tipping points could be reached, but uncertainty is bad, not good. The uncertainty goes in both directions, we could be lucky and it won't be as bad as predicted (by which i mean the predcted bad things take a bit longer to happen), or we could be unlucky and things could be much worse and the changes could be sudden abrupt shifts (for which there is increasing evidence for)

The prudent thing to do is to take action on the very significant risks that climate change poses rather than burying our heads in the sand and pretending it will all be fine while vilifying well meaning activists and turning 16 year old girls into social media pariahs.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Well nope - it doesn't. Because not only do they clearly say nothing about "runaway climate change (sic) the IPCC clearly allow some for uncertainty and state that some TP may be "reversible" - and I'll quote again;

 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.

So no there are no absolutes there.

Now that we've had this lovely long chat about something else entirely

Could you detail exactly all this relates to the xr protest movement and doomsday ccult etc - as per the topic of discussion.

Thanks.

The reason I called you a science denialist before was because this is what science denialists do. You focus on uncertainty relating to climate change while randomly throwing out unsupported facts about climate change on other planets without even the hint of skepticism relating to those uncertainties.

The uncertainties relating to tipping points relate to us not knowing exactly what needs to happen to trigger them. It is to do with timing, not whether or not they are real threats. With these tipping points we will only know for certain we have passed them, after they have already been observed to have taken place (and probably multiple years after). While you're denying there's a problem waiting for certainty, that mole in your arm has turned from treatable skin cancer into metastatic melanoma which is much harder to treat and has much higher mortality rates.

Science is about probability, not certainty, and uncertainty just means we do not have all the information yet, it doesn't mean we can't make judgements based on the probability of events occuring.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

The reason I called you a science denialist before was because this is what science denialists do. You focus on uncertainty relating to climate change while randomly throwing out unsupported facts about climate change on other planets without even the hint of skepticism relating to those uncertainties....

Really lol and the last dig because you lost an argument? I showed you where water vapour was indeed believed to be involved in warming.
You owe me an apology on that one for sure.

I know what science is thanks. And it was the IPCC referring to uncertainties btw not I. All the facts I have detailed are supported by scientific reseach. The text regarding venus etc was an IPCC quote and is detailed. If you dont like those IPCC findings - then have an argument with them about it.

So don't try that clap trap as a defence of using hyperbole and inaccurate/ irrelevant terminology. It doesn't wash.

We can all imagineer our favourite scenarios about 'moles' and 'houses burning down'. (sic). However It is not always helpful that we present those as absolutes.

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

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

...

They're not a doomsday cult because doomsday cults are fatalistic and dogmatic with no basis in evidence or reason. This movement is trying to agitate for action to listen to the worlds foremost scientists and act now to prevent the worst consequences of climate change

I'd disagree. What they are preaching is misinformation based on fear and scare. They taken the available science and either have misunderstood it and / or bastardised it. That helps no one.

....

The prudent thing to do is to take action on the very significant risks that climate change poses rather than burying our heads in the sand and pretending it will all be fine while vilifying well meaning activists and turning 16 year old girls into social media pariahs.

As stated I do not believe that this groups mobilisation amounts to any effective action. All it has done is scare people as in the case of the 11 year old in the example given and created confusion. Btw the Swedish kid is not without valid criticism. I've seen it repeatedly pointed out that any such criticism is unfair and shouldn't be allowed because she is 'young'. And that doesnt wash especially when using what is in effect misinformation to influence and direct others.

Jimmy Garlic

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

This Extinction Rebellion thing appears to be a protest movement, but it's really just sending up an appeal to the political and financial power: "More controls, please. More taxes. More globalism.".

News round up on BBC news the other night just stopped short of apologising for not covering ER even more than they already do. Brainwashed fanatics sent in videos requesting that the BBC lead all of its news bulletins with a "Climate Crisis" related story. Of course this group is approved and given the green light. Any group that really was a threat to the establishment in Britain and elsewhere wouldn't be given such a soft ride and have massive media coverage. It is not a grass roots movement taking on the establishment. It is establishment approved social engineering to soften people up for more poverty, and less freedom ,"for their own good" and to "save the planet" of course.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Really lol and the last dig because you lost an argument? I know what science is thanks. And it was the IPCC referring to uncertainties btw not I. All the facts I have detailed are supported by scientific reseach. The text regarding venus etc was an IPCC quote and is detailed. So don't try that clap trap as a defence of using hyperbole and inaccurate/ irrelevant terminology. It doesn't wash.

We can all imagineer our favourite scenarios about 'moles' and 'houses burning down'. (sic). However It is not always helpful that we present those as absolutes.

Where have I presented them as absolutes. I have said they are risks where the consequences of said risks are so devastating and the likelyhood of them occuring are so high, that it warrants that we take emergency measures to avoid it.
while you're demanding certainty and absolute knowledge, I'm talking about risks and probabilities.

The higher the CO2 concentrations increase, the higher the risk that these negative consequences will become reality. And there are very real risks that some of these changes can happen abruptly and within our own lifetimes.

Yurt2

Akrasia wrote: »

Where have I presented them as absolutes. I have said they are risks where the consequences of said risks are so devastating and the likelyhood of them occuring are so high, that it warrants that we take emergency measures to avoid it.
while you're demanding certainty and absolute knowledge, I'm talking about risks and probabilities.

The higher the CO2 concentrations increase, the higher the risk that these negative consequences will become reality. And there are very real risks that some of these changes can happen abruptly and within our own lifetimes.

Yeah but you have electricity in your home you hypocrite - practice what you preach and live like a 19th century Russian serf.

I was talking to a hippie the other day and he even owned a George Foreman grill to cook his organic string beans. THAT'S CAPITALISM YOU HYPOCRITE, I said to him. You should have seen the look on his face.

Akrasia

Yurt! wrote: »

Yeah but you have electricity in your home you hypocrite - practice what you preach and live like a 19th century Russian serf.

I was talking to a hippie the other day and he even owned a George Foreman grill to cook his organic string beans. THAT'S CAPITALISM YOU HYPOCRITE, I said to him. You should have seen the look on his face.

he probably bartered some homegrown weed for the grill

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

he probably bartered some homegrown weed for the grill

You know when reflecting on the whole thing - there's a good probability - that it's actually those darn moles who are really responsible for the runaway climate change by causing the house to catch fire because the little feckers obviously instigated the tipping point where hothouse earth went up in flames. Who knew eh ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

RHJ

Nice to see that Gemma has weighed in with her opinion on Greta and has shown how ****ing crazy some on the denial side are.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1122235176216682497?s=19

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

You know when reflecting on the whole thing - there's a good probability - that it's actually those darn moles who are really responsible for the runaway climate change by causing the house to catch fire because the little feckers obviously instigated the tipping point where hothouse earth went up in flames. Who knew eh ...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'd say it was the gophers myself. Those little feckers are up to no good

Akrasia

RHJ wrote: »

Nice to see that Gemma has weighed in with her opinion on Greta and has shown how ****ing crazy some on the denial side are.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1122235176216682497?s=19

wow. Greta's a Nazi. who would have thought eh?

Blueshoe

All these protests will achieve is walking us into another tax.
That won't affect the crusties and students who are out protesting though.

Akrasia

Blueshoe wrote: »

All these protests will achieve is walking us into another tax.
That won't affect the crusties and students who are out protesting though.

Why not? Carbon taxes are taxes on consumption, not income tax. If anythng, it would affect crusties and students even more than it affects you.

Blueshoe

Akrasia wrote: »

Why not? Carbon taxes are taxes on consumption, not income tax. If anythng, it would affect crusties and students even more than it affects you.

Where will the tax take be spent?
Will big businesses who have a large carbon footprint be also taxed?

We don't tax corporations at the advertised rate so I won't hold my breath. Joe public will be hit again.

**** this country

Sawduck

I agree with trying to protect the planet and the environment but these people are just going to irritate everyone and make people care less about the environment

Sawduck

Also think the whole Extinction thing is a bit of an overreaction,some of these people just enjoy a good ol' protest

Akrasia

Sawduck wrote: »

Also think the whole Extinction thing is a bit of an overreaction,some of these people just enjoy a good ol' protest

The earth is about 4 billion years old, there had been 5 previous mass extinction events. Humans are now causing the 6th.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn?CMP=share_btn_tw

Jimmy Garlic

Sawduck wrote: »

I agree with trying to protect the planet and the environment but these people are just going to irritate everyone and make people care less about the environment

The co-founder flys to South America to get fu(ked up on hallucinogenic cactus juice. Apparently according to herself she got her ideas on how to change society when panned out in the jungle. I have no doubt designer hippies like herself don't think the no-flying that they are pressing for applies to them.

Harika

Sawduck wrote: »

Also think the whole Extinction thing is a bit of an overreaction,some of these people just enjoy a good ol' protest

You won't raise any eye brow by protesting to keep the earth warming to 1 degree.

s7ryf3925pivug

Sawduck wrote: »

Also think the whole Extinction thing is a bit of an overreaction,some of these people just enjoy a good ol' protest

True, I reckon thousands of people will survive all but the most absolute worst case scenarios. But they will be billionaires with giant doomsday bunkers and their staff. [You're not anyone until you've a giant doomsday bunker.]

I saw a billionaire once.

Subcomandante Marcos

markodaly wrote: »

The 'whataboutery' is strong in this thread.

And the same old heads are brazen in their inability to hide their blatant conflict of interest.

Everything boils down to "omg WAB China!?!?!?!!?!" Like a country that contains 1 out of every 5 people on earth wouldn't logically have the highest net emissions.

Subcomandante Marcos

The most mental thing about a beef and/or dairy farmer from Ireland whinging about action to try avert catastrophic warming is the complete ignorance on the effects of higher temperatures on beef and dairy yields.

Good luck with your production, minus subsidies + temperature over the next 15 years.

You'll have nobody but yourself to blame when you go bust.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

The earth is about 4 billion years old, there had been 5 previous mass extinction events. Humans are now causing the 6th.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn?CMP=share_btn_tw

Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis

And the amazing thing about this is that the Earth will go on it's way without a bother. Hopefully the next succesive ecology doesn't include placard waving millennials and born again hippies, whose leader likes to fly around the world getting smashed out of their little head. But somehow believe that waving banners, misinformation and fear and scare tactics are going to save the planet.

Harika

gozunda wrote: »

And the amazing thing about this is that the Earth will go on it's way without a bother. Hopefully the next succesive ecology doesn't include placard waving millennials and born again hippies, who like to fly around the world getting smashed out of their little heads. But somehow believe that waving banners, misinformation and fear and scare tactics are going to save the planet.

So what about us humans going extinct?

gozunda

Harika wrote: »

So what about us humans going extinct?

Exactly. There's a need to think that one trough though...

Harika

gozunda wrote: »

Harika wrote: »

So what about us humans going extinct?

Exactly. There's a need to think that one trough though...

How about having some protests with a catchy name to bring spotlight to the issue.