Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

1356756

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Coles


    Well it's a good thing then that the rate of melt in Greenland has stopped increasing for now anyway. For a minute there people were thinking it would be a runaway melt, with larger and larger amounts of ice being lost every year. Nice to see that's not the case.



    495185.PNG
    Again, this is completely misleading and disingenuous.

    The melt rate is only part of the equation. To see the full picture you need to look at the mass balance.

    In the 1990's the mass balance was approximately -35 cubic kilometers. What this means is that while 400 cubic km was melting it was being replaced by 360cu km of water in ice or snow form.

    Now the mass balance is -250 cubic kilometers. This is a seven fold acceleration in the rate of loss of Greenland's ice.

    This is happening. I'm not sure what purpose it serves to pretend it's not.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/greenland-ice-loss-rate-7-times-higher-2019-12


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Coles


    Hooter23 wrote: »
    Climate change or not you can bet whatever happens the media will always make it out to be something bad no such thing as good news always the end of the world...

    Remember the millenium bug where everyone thought the world was going to meltdown over a date changing :rolleyes:

    We are just as stupid today its just crisis after crisis:rolleyes:

    The reason the 'millennium bug' wasn't a major disturbance was because software and hardware engineers had enough notice and understanding of the problem to actually take action. If it was left to "millennium bug deniers" then the entire economy would have collapsed.ðŸ‘


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Coles wrote: »
    Again, this is completely misleading and disingenuous.

    The melt rate is only part of the equation. To see the full picture you need to look at the mass balance.

    In the 1990's the mass balance was approximately -35 cubic kilometers. What this means is that while 400 cubic km was melting it was being replaced by 360cu km of water in ice or snow form.

    Now the mass balance is -250 cubic kilometers. This is a seven fold acceleration in the rate of loss of Greenland's ice.

    This is happening. I'm not sure what purpose it serves to pretend it's not.

    https://arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/EasyDNNNews/thumbs/697/794tedesco-Fig3.png]

    I'm not sure you understand the term acceleration. The mass balance is showing no acceleration, at least since the start of the GRACE dataset in 2002. Around 270 Gt/y, which equates to around 0.7 mm/y (7 mm/decade)sea level rise. Greenland is around 210 Gt/y, about 0.4 mm/y (4 mm/decade).


    tedesco-fig3.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Coles wrote: »
    My qualifications to say "listen to the science"? What qualifications do I need?

    So do you now ackknowledge that MT is qualified enough to satisfy your concerns and you can now start discussing WHAT he's written instead of if he was qualified to write it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    My credentials are not really the point here, I think if any reasonably knowledgeable weather enthusiast advanced a theory about climate change, I would be inclined to take it seriously and give it a fair chance, even if that person had no actual training in meteorology or climatology. The basic concepts here are not that complicated. It's the interpretation part that causes controversy. Most people reading this will probably agree that it has warmed up over past decades, and many will agree that said warming seems to have slowed down in the past decade. We are just debating why these things are happening.

    On another forum I am being asked to accept that the data over the past 120 years show only a human caused warming and that greater than the actual warming since otherwise it would now be colder than 120 years ago.

    That's hard enough to believe for European weather, but for eastern North America? I just find it entirely laughable, that invites me to believe that strong warming signals that began in the 1890s and pulsed strongly in the 1910s and 1930s had a human origin, and that the weather even then would have been considerably colder without a human presence. So I try to imagine what weather would have been taking place in our absence, and cannot see how it could therefore be anything but an entirely different circulation pattern. You're not going to take some modified arctic air mass, blow a bit of methane and carbon dioxide into it, and get the 1911 or 1936 heat waves. So that assertion that they make as proven science that all must accept is nonsense on the face of it.

    If this were just an academic debate, that would be bad enough. But it has also become the basis of political actions and movements. The leader of the Green Party of Canada says "you can't debate physics." By that she means you can't debate the stated science of climate change. But I think you can debate that part of physics and should, until it gets fixed and squared with reality.

    Reality forces me to accept two things -- yes it is getting warmer, but no it is not all because of human activity.

    I've been told this is a belief structure and not science, but I counter that by saying it is closer to real science than its alternative competing version. And it suggests different outcomes in the future, so the predictive frameworks are therefore different now and more different by 2050 or 2100.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    Somewhat off topic, but if you're a young person looking for a career in engineering or science, I would say work on some scheme that could evaporate large amounts of sea water. If there was a byproduct of desalinated fresh water, or electrical generation, that would be even better.

    This whole "problem" of melting polar ice would be much reduced if we had some means of evaporating sea water on a large scale. It probably sounds far-fetched but then technological change over 100-200 year intervals has already been unimaginable to people who lived a century or two centuries ago. So I would not be quick to dismiss the possibility this result could be developed.

    Someone earlier asked what effect on climate would there be if ocean surface area was increased, in a specific case, into parts of the Sahara in west Africa?

    That is a fairly complex question and I don't feel qualified to answer it. My guess though is that it would make very little difference to the climate on the nearby land mass in that location. At different latitudes in different climate zones it might make larger differences. If I am wrong about this, it is probably not in the direction of having a worse climate for human habitation, any change would more likely be for the better (perhaps it would be somewhat cooler in summer and very infrequent rain would be slightly less infrequent).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Welcome to the party MT. You’re about 2 decades late and still missing the point but at least you’re not denying the human influence on climate

    I have no idea how you can conclude that human activity is 1/3 of the climate forcing given that you know that the planet should be in a naturally cooling phase. This means that human influence is overwhelming the natural cooling and that human influence is to cause greater than 100% of the observed warming, mitigated by the natural cooling

    I’m glad that you now accept the need to act but you still have a bit more road to travel before you overcome whatever bias you have that prevented you from accepting this sooner


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Most people reading this will probably agree that it has warmed up over past decades, and many will agree that said warming seems to have slowed down in the past decade.

    Warming hasn’t slowed at all. Since 2015 temperatures have surged by .2 of a degree

    Without cherry-picking the start and end dates climate change has been accelerating

    PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5[\img]https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Welcome to the party MT. You’re about 2 decades late and still missing the point but at least you’re not denying the human influence on climate

    I have no idea how you can conclude that human activity is 1/3 of the climate forcing given that you know that the planet should be in a naturally cooling phase. This means that human influence is overwhelming the natural cooling and that human influence is to cause greater than 100% of the observed warming, mitigated by the natural cooling

    I’m glad that you now accept the need to act but you still have a bit more road to travel before you overcome whatever bias you have that prevented you from accepting this sooner
    Sweet Jesus, should I start digging a bunker or building an ark??

    I see a lot of people here presenting graphs and other solid evidence/research supporting their argument. I would love to know what the sources are for your claims?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Sweet Jesus, should I start digging a bunker or building an ark??

    I see a lot of people here presenting graphs and other solid evidence/research supporting their argument. I would love to know what the sources are for your claims?

    Which of my claims do you need a source for and I’ll happily provide some for you ( from reputable scientific papers or institutions)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Warming hasn’t slowed at all. Since 2015 temperatures have surged by .2 of a degree

    Without cherry-picking the start and end dates climate change has been accelerating

    PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5[\img]https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates

    The link said it was unsecure for me.

    You love your verbs. "Surged" and other such superlative verbs are used instead of a simple "increased". But anyway, you say 0.2 degrees, but it's pretty notable the difference of about 0.12 degrees between the HADCRUT and GISTEMP datasets at the most recent point. When fractions of a degree per decade are being argued over, those datasets should be pretty damn well overlapping.

    Here's the chart you were trying to post. I wonder if the current most recent spike will last the same as the exact same spike that occured in the 1940s. Time will tell.

    PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5


  • Registered Users Posts: 163 ✭✭Ruhanna


    Many will agree that said warming seems to have slowed down in the past decade.


    They'd be wrong.


    We are just debating why these things are happening.


    There is no legitimate or evidence-based debate on that topic. The observed warming over the past decades is anthropogenic. The cause (GHG emissions) is anthropogenic. The reduction in global ice mass balance is anthropogenic. The acceleration in atmospheric CO2 and sea level rise is anthropogenic. The ongoing trend in record high temperatures is anthropogenic.

    All else is distraction and diversion, and attempts to claim otherwise are motivated by politics or ideology.

    It seems your perspective on this subject has barely changed in the past 12 years:
    Ask me again in 2020, because the jury is still somewhat out on this, despite many stories in the news about scientists say this, blah blah, there is probably still quite a bit of uncertainty. First of all, is the globe really warming or is it just some regional climate shifts in recent years. Some parts are definitely warming, others haven't seen that much change.

    Secondly, it is far from certain that such warming as may have happened is really from human causes. It could be a natural cycle that would be quite capable of reversing (some wonder if it just did last year).

    Third big problem, many believe that solar cycles on the longer time scale are important, and we are overdue for a "quieter regime" than our Sun has been in for the past century. If this relative minimum does show up, there could be a natural cooling tendency that might outweigh a smaller human=related warming tendency.

    So, all things considered, I believe it is wise to push for cleaner technology and alternate fuel sources (cheaper ones, hopefully), but it is also wise to be open to any number of possible outcomes, including a cooling trend at some future point, a steady-state climate like the present, or warming that we can't control, that would raise sea levels whether we have programs in place to reduce greenhouse gases or not. Any of these outcomes are possible.

    I would say "b.s." might be too strong a term, but if you asked, is global warming proven beyond doubt, I would say no, and its causes may not be as much of our fault as some are saying. So we should be cautious about what to do, and what to expect, because it would be just our luck (speaking about the human race in general) for an ice age to set in just when the atmosphere is restored to its pristine glory. At least we'll see the ice coming. :)


  • Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ruhanna wrote: »
    They'd be wrong.






    There is no legitimate or evidence-based debate on that topic. The observed warming over the past decades is anthropogenic. The cause (GHG emissions) is anthropogenic. The reduction in global ice mass balance is anthropogenic. The acceleration in atmospheric CO2 and sea level rise is anthropogenic. The ongoing trend in record high temperatures is anthropogenic.

    All else is distraction and diversion, and attempts to claim otherwise are motivated by politics or ideology.

    It seems your perspective on this subject has barely changed in the past 12 years:

    Demonstrate or support


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Ruhanna wrote: »
    There is no legitimate or evidence-based debate on that topic. The observed warming over the past decades is anthropogenic. The cause (GHG emissions) is anthropogenic. The reduction in global ice mass balance is anthropogenic. The acceleration in atmospheric CO2 and sea level rise is anthropogenic. The ongoing trend in record high temperatures is anthropogenic.

    What you have stated is illiterate nonsense. Please rephrase what you stated in a manner that is consistent with the science.


    For your information the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is based on the fundamental assumption that disturbances in the Earth’s energy budget – driven by changes in downward longwave radiation from CO2 - are what cause climate change. However, You should realise it is effectively impossible to clearly discern a human influence on climate and the claims made rest on assumptions.

    Shortwave-vs-Longwave-forcing-2005-2014-uncertainty-Kato-2018.jpg[/QUOTE]



    For your information UK mean temperatures for November have been cooling moderately since 1998 and More real data show Scandinavia, Ireland NOT WARMING over past decades.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭Carol25


    Can I just make a brief point, at the moment there’s a hashtag on twitter called #australiafires. It shows the frightening scale of global warming on the continent. Australia has just had its hottest day on record once again this week. Seems a yearly occurrence. I understand human environmental mismanagement has a huge part to play also but when you see birds dropping dead from the sky due to no water, koalas approaching humans for water, people reporting hearing animals screams as they burn and children playing on a swing while a bush fire rages in the background, it should make the most skeptical of climate change deniers sit up and take notice.


  • Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Carol25 wrote: »
    Can I just make a brief point, at the moment there’s a hashtag on twitter called #australiafires. It shows the frightening scale of global warming on the continent. Australia has just had its hottest day on record once again this week. Seems a yearly occurrence. I understand human environmental mismanagement has a huge part to play also but when you see birds dropping dead from the sky due to no water, koalas approaching humans for water, people reporting hearing animals screams as they burn and children playing on a swing while a bush fire rages in the background, it should make the most skeptical of climate change deniers sit up and take notice.

    My understanding is records only began very recently,, and the fires were arson


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Carol25 wrote: »
    Can I just make a brief point, at the moment there’s a hashtag on twitter called #australiafires. It shows the frightening scale of global warming on the continent. Australia has just had its hottest day on record once again this week. Seems a yearly occurrence. I understand human environmental mismanagement has a huge part to play also but when you see birds dropping dead from the sky due to no water, koalas approaching humans for water, people reporting hearing animals screams as they burn and children playing on a swing while a bush fire rages in the background, it should make the most skeptical of climate change deniers sit up and take notice.


    Australias hottest day on record was in January 1896.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭Carol25


    My understanding is records only began very recently,, and the fires were arson

    Are you really going to deny the scale of what is happening in Australia. Take a look at this map of the current fires burning. Are they all arson? All at the same time? Where is all the water to put them out? Nowhere because they have none due to severe drought.
    Are you a supportter of their current PM climate denier who flew to Hawaii on a 250million private jet, wants to increase coal production and left his volunteer fire fighters to die while trying to deal with this mess?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Warming hasn’t slowed at all. Since 2015 temperatures have surged by .2 of a degree

    Without cherry-picking the start and end dates climate change has been accelerating

    PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5[\img]https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-2015-2019-climate-change-accelerates

    That link now works for me. I'm just curious, with people accusing others of cherrypicking, did the WMO do a similar study for the 10 years befoe 2015, you know, where there was no real warming? As I said, just curious.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭Carol25




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Carol25 wrote: »

    The BBC and other media organisations are reporting what has been put on the wire services. They have not actually checked the data.

    Here is an anecdotal report from 1896 of the effects.
    The Death Roll.

    A Melancholy List.

    Apoplexy, Thirst, and Sunstroke.

    SYDNEY, Tuesday.

    William Clark, aged 51, proprietor of the Royal Hotel, Singleton, died yesterday of heat apoplexy.

    Arthur Hassett, a director of the White Reef Company, Wyalong, was attending a meeting inside the company's office, when he was stricken. His condition is critical.

    John McCarker, 26, of Jerilderie, seized with heat apoplexy, has expired.

    Six infants have died at Goulburn since January 1 through the excessive heat.

    A child sent to the mountains to escape the city heat died at the moment that the train arrived.

    The coroner at Collarendabri has returned to the town after holding an inquest on the body of a man which was found in the bush at Burren. The verdict was that deceased (whose name is supposed to be George Schweiss) had cut his throat, having apparently become insane through the heat and want of water.

    A little girl has died at Mount Hope as an effect of the heat.

    Two more deaths have occurred at Bourke. One, Mrs. Costello, aged eighty, was found dead in her chair.

    This makes at least a dozen victims in the Bourke district.

    There were many casualties in the city.

    A man at Surry Hills sustained a sunstroke. He was taken to the hospital, where he recovered.

    A young girl walking along a city street suddenly became demented.

    Sydney Merewether, aged 63, a miner from New Zealand, was transacting some business in the Union Bank, when he was stricken down.He was at once removed to the hospital, but expired.

    William Foulston, employed at the post-office tunnel works, was taken to the hospital unconscious through the excessive heat, and died.

    James Quinn was working at the embankment at Lady Macquarie's Chair, when he was overcome, and very soon died.

    Several men were taken to the hospitals and, under proper treatment, recovered.

    Duggle McLachlan, a widower with four children, residing at Balmain, was returning to his home from the city, when he was stricken. Before medical help could be obtained he was dead.

    A man, his wife, and their child went out in a boat at Balmain, hoping to escape some of the heat. They were caught in the buster and the boat was capsized. The child was drowned.

    source

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Carol25 wrote: »
    Are you really going to deny the scale of what is happening in Australia. Take a look at this map of the current fires burning. Are they all arson? All at the same time? Where is all the water to put them out? Nowhere because they have none due to severe drought.
    Are you a supportter of their current PM climate denier who flew to Hawaii on a 250million private jet, wants to increase coal production and left his volunteer fire fighters to die while trying to deal with this mess?

    Nobody is denying what's going on in Australia. I don't know where you've got that from.

    And the BBJ that the prime minister uses is nowhere near 250 million (you didn't say the currency), but in US dollars the typical cost is around 60-80 million. It's not his own, it's a state aircraft leased from Belavia.


  • Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭Carol25


    The BBC and other media organisations are reporting what has been put on the wire services. They have not actually checked the data.

    Here is an anecdotal report from 1896 of the effects.


    Here is a map of current fires burning across the whole continent of Australia, apologies I haven't found an easier way to share this - this is unprecedented.

    https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/sites/default/files/resize/images/AustraliaMap-750x434.png

    The older temperature records I have serious reservations about, take for example Ireland's highest temperature record from the same time period. I highly doubt their instruments, location, etc., were like for like with what we use nowadays.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The link said it was unsecure for me.

    You love your verbs. "Surged" and other such superlative verbs are used instead of a simple "increased". But anyway, you say 0.2 degrees, but it's pretty notable the difference of about 0.12 degrees between the HADCRUT and GISTEMP datasets at the most recent point. When fractions of a degree per decade are being argued over, those datasets should be pretty damn well overlapping.

    Here's the chart you were trying to post. I wonder if the current most recent spike will last the same as the exact same spike that occured in the 1940s. Time will tell.

    PR_1.png?m94ftIaW70WJSKYmRX8UEAl5MIrBEOP5

    I don’t understand your points. Are you saying climate change hasn’t been accelerating when you take the full dataset? Or do you just want to focus on snippets of time that suit your narrative (cherry-picking)


  • Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭Carol25


    Nobody is denying what's going on in Australia. I don't know where you've got that from.

    And the BBJ that the prime minister uses is nowhere near 250 million (you didn't say the currency), but in US dollars the typical cost is around 60-80 million. It's not his own, it's a state aircraft leased from Belavia.

    People are denying why Australia is in the mess it is now in. When I was there, i was surprised how their approach to everything was fossil fuel, the bigger the truck/car the better. Their own Great Barrier Reef is bleaching and you've a PM and others denying any changes in heat/temperature... Some of the scientific links here are interesting to read, so thank you to all the contributors for those.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Carol25 wrote: »
    Here is a map of current fires burning across the whole continent of Australia, apologies I haven't found an easier way to share this - this is unprecedented.

    https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/sites/default/files/resize/images/AustraliaMap-750x434.png

    The older temperature records I have serious reservations about, take for example Ireland's highest temperature record from the same time period. I highly doubt their instruments, location, etc., were like for like with what we use nowadays.

    What causes you to doubt it? And if you do, do you also then doubt the early global instrumental record against which our current warming is being measured?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    That link now works for me. I'm just curious, with people accusing others of cherrypicking, did the WMO do a similar study for the 10 years befoe 2015, you know, where there was no real warming? As I said, just curious.

    This is gas, I show a graph the entire temperature series since records began to make the point that we shouldn’t engage in cherry-picking while you keep trying to pick out short carefully selected periods from the series that you think support your argument (the very definition of cherry-picking)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I don’t understand your points. Are you saying climate change hasn’t been accelerating when you take the full dataset? Or do you just want to focus on snippets of time that suit your narrative (cherry-picking)

    You mean global warming (let's give it its original name)? There is very little acceleration between the early 19th century and the past few decades. Certainly not enough to support the runaway projections of ice-free summers and inundated cities in the next few decades (or the end of civilisaiton in the next one).

    And on the topic of cherrypicking...you posted a link dealing with just the 2015-19 period. Kettle and pot. And you didn't give me that link on report on the flatter trend immediately preceding it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    This is gas, I show a graph the entire temperature series since records began to make the point that we shouldn’t engage in cherry-picking while you keep trying to pick out short carefully selected periods from the series that you think support your argument (the very definition of cherry-picking)

    You are joking, right?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Carol25 wrote: »
    The older temperature records I have serious reservations about, take for example Ireland's highest temperature record from the same time period. I highly doubt their instruments, location, etc., were like for like with what we use nowadays.


    They were using Stevenson screens and calibrated mercury thermometers back then so that argument does not stand. It may interest you to know that modern instruments are also subject to error, effects of local site conditions and instrumentation failures if you want to stick with that argument and occasionally those errors taken with modern instruments have been allowed to stand.
    So, as Graham Lloyd explains on page 5 of today’s Weekend Australian, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have discarded the first 40 years of the temperature record for Bourke. This includes the hottest ever temperature recorded in a Stevenson screen for, I think, anywhere in Australia. A rather hot 51.7 degree Celsius was recorded in a new Stevenson screen in the yard of the Bourke post office on 3rd January 1909.

    source

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    You are joking, right?

    No. I’m not. Every single one of your replies to me has included some attempt at cutting out a slice of data to refute the significance of the overall accelerating trend in global warming

    The accelerating trend is undeniable (Unless denying facts is something you make a habit of doing)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Carol25 wrote: »
    People are denying why Australia is in the mess it is now in. When I was there, i was surprised how their approach to everything was fossil fuel, the bigger the truck/car the better. Their own Great Barrier Reef is bleaching and you've a PM and others denying any changes in heat/temperature... Some of the scientific links here are interesting to read, so thank you to all the contributors for those.

    Here is Dr. Peter Ridd on the matter



    5:40 minutes in talks about bleaching statistics.
    • In 2016, 8% of the reef died, but regeneration is rapid — it can recover in a year.
    • The general rule for corals is the hotter the better. If you want to see the worst corals, go and see Sydney Harbour. There are even corals in Scotland. If it was warmer, there would be more corals. Temperatures for coral go right up to 38C in the red sea and corals are happy with that.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    No. I’m not. Every single one of your replies to me has included some attempt at cutting out a slice of data to refute the significance of the overall accelerating trend in global warming

    The accelerating trend is undeniable (Unless denying facts is something you make a habit of doing)

    But you're the one who brought up the 2015-19 report. You said the temperature has surged by 0.2 degrees. Is that not cherrypicking?

    And what about my point on the difference in datasets. What do you think?


  • Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Carol25 wrote: »
    Here is a map of current fires burning across the whole continent of Australia, apologies I haven't found an easier way to share this - this is unprecedented.

    https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/sites/default/files/resize/images/AustraliaMap-750x434.png

    The older temperature records I have serious reservations about, take for example Ireland's highest temperature record from the same time period. I highly doubt their instruments, location, etc., were like for like with what we use nowadays.

    If you doubt accuracy in the past maybe it was even warmer? Why would the error of necessarily be to support your pov?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    But you're the one who brought up the 2015-19 report. You said the temperature has surged by 0.2 degrees. Is that not cherrypicking?

    And what about my point on the difference in datasets. What do you think?

    I was responding to MT saying global warming had slowed recently. In the most recent few years it has more than made up for the so called hiatus

    And over the full dataset, the accelerating trend is clear


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    If you doubt accuracy in the past maybe it was even warmer? Why would the error of necessarily be to support your pov?

    Because the Arctic is melting and most of the worlds glaciers are shrinking with some on the brink of collapse

    There are direct climate measurements as well as proxy records which support the consensus


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I was responding to MT saying global warming had slowed recently. In the most recent few years it has more than made up for the so called hiatus

    And over the full dataset, the accelerating trend is clear

    So did the WMO write that report on the flatter trend or not? Have you not found it yet?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Naggdefy wrote: »
    MT states.. 'about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins'. So your synopsis is incorrect. Also very disingenuous to throw around cheap trite labels like 'climate change denier' to someone with as distinguished and scholarly a background as the OP.
    Who is he? (Assuming you aren't referring to his boards posts.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    So did the WMO write that report on the flatter trend or not? Have you not found it yet?

    Why would I bother?

    Nobody ever expected global warming to be a smooth curve with no peaks or troughs. ‘Skeptics’ seem to only care about the troughs and like to distract from the peaks except when comparing them to subsequent troughs


  • Registered Users Posts: 731 ✭✭✭Carol25


    If you doubt accuracy in the past maybe it was even warmer? Why would the error of necessarily be to support your pov?

    This is the issue I have with internet debates. Some useful data and knowledge can be shared on a thread like this. But it just descends into a completely for or against debate.
    I believe MT set this thread up to debate ideas and possible solutions as to what can be done to try and lessen the impact. Not for pages of arguments and silly responses like this one.
    I highlighted Australia as it is a live situation, and anyone who looks at a map of a whole continent on fire and doesn’t question why it is happening is just in denial. I do not know of an event where a whole continent has been in flames previously. Anecdotal evidence of a heatwave in one small area - Sydney in the past doesn’t suffice as a counter argument to that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Why would I bother?

    Why indeed.

    So what for you is a reasonable minimum timeframe to analyse a dataseries? 10 years? 20?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Carol25 wrote: »
    This is the issue I have with internet debates. Some useful data and knowledge can be shared on a thread like this. But it just descends into a completely for or against debate.
    I believe MT set this thread up to debate ideas and possible solutions as to what can be done to try and lessen the impact. Not for pages of arguments and silly responses like this one.
    I highlighted Australia as it is a live situation, and anyone who looks at a map of a whole continent on fire and doesn’t question why it is happening is just in denial. I do not know of an event where a whole continent has been in flames previously. Anecdotal evidence of a heatwave in one small area - Sydney in the past doesn’t suffice as a counter argument to that.

    But you cast doubt on a temperature record and I was merely asking you what your reasons are. This is a science forum, so if you make a claim then it should be backed up.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,721 Mod ✭✭✭✭igCorcaigh


    I think, with all respect, the OP is wrong.
    The global mean temperature is rising, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels.

    It's quite simple, and we need to stop it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Why indeed.

    So what for you is a reasonable minimum timeframe to analyse a dataseries? 10 years? 20?

    IPCC use a rolling average. I wanted to avoid cherry-picking so I showed the entire series


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson



    Nice larp. Could have used a few selectively-chosen graphs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,606 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    But you cast doubt on a temperature record and I was merely asking you what your reasons are. This is a science forum, so if you make a claim then it should be backed up.

    It’s a pretty legitimate doubt to query an individual outlier record from a Time when record keeping
    was less reliable and instruments were less accurate.

    Individual records are always subject to doubt. Repeatedly confirmed records are less doubtful and the overall trend is much more important than individual snapshots from outlier records

    As someone who is scientifically minded you should agree with everything I just said


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It’s a pretty legitimate doubt to query an individual outlier record from a Time when record keeping
    was less reliable and instruments were less accurate.

    Individual records are always subject to doubt. Repeatedly confirmed records are less doubtful and the overall trend is much more important than individual snapshots from outlier records

    As someone who is scientifically minded you should agree with everything I just said

    She said, and I quote
    The older temperature records I have serious reservations about, take for example Ireland's highest temperature record from the same time period. I highly doubt their instruments, location, etc., were like for like with what we use nowadays.

    She highly doubts. That would imply a particular reason related to this Kilkenny record. I was just asking what the reason was. Of course she or anyone else is entitled to cast doubt on anything, but not without sound reason. If she knows that the Kilkenny station was poorly sited - just like the current one at Shannon Airport is, and many others around the globe - then why would she not show it? Just because a record is from over 100 years ago does not automatically mean it's unreliable.

    On your point about trends. Yes, I've already dealt with that earlier but you've so far ignored my point. I asked what you think of the relatively large difference today between the various datasets you posted but you've yet to answer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 489 ✭✭Mr Bumble


    Coles wrote: »
    My qualifications to say "listen to the science"? What qualifications do I need?


    So you have no credentials then?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    igCorcaigh wrote: »
    I think, with all respect, the OP is wrong.
    The global mean temperature is rising, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels.

    It's quite simple, and we need to stop it.


    It is not simple. For context we have been hearing scare stories about rising temperatures for 30 years now and not one of the disaster scenarios predicted has emerged, not one. Everyone born after 1984 has heard nothing but global warming all their lives and in that time the global population has risen and in general standards of living have risen globally in that time, they have been born into a better world than their descendants and there is no empirical evidence to support the doom laden predictions made by the UN.
    Death and taxes are certain, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is not.


    U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
    June 30, 1989
    UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

    Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

    He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

    source

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,656 ✭✭✭✭fits


    Mr Bumble wrote: »
    So you have no credentials then?

    Why on earth would anyone post credentials here that could identify them almost immediately.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement