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
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
So we get the summer we have always cried for in Ireland
source - https://greennews.ie/ireland-dramatic-climate-change-by-2050/
From that article:
"Ireland’s climate is set to look drastically different by mid-century, according to a new super-computer generated projection".
"More heatwaves, according to the report, will have a “direct impact” on public health and mortality, but may be offset by the projected decrease in colder days".
I sometimes wonder if these people are really just taking the piss at this stage. There was talk on here about mass paranoia etc and how silly people are for following it, and that is a fair point. Yet, it is actual scientists who are pushing this mass hysteria. From 'end of the world atomic count downs' to climate change apocalypse to this, that and the friggin other.New Moon
0 -
From that article:
"Ireland’s climate is set to look drastically different by mid-century, according to a new super-computer generated projection".
"More heatwaves, according to the report, will have a “direct impact” on public health and mortality, but may be offset by the projected decrease in colder days".
I sometimes wonder if these people are really just taking the piss at this stage. There was talk on here about mass paranoia etc and how silly people are for following it, and that is a fair point. Yet, it is actual scientists who are pushing this mass hysteria. From 'end of the world atomic count downs' to climate change apocalypse to this, that and the friggin other.
They have been coming out with that kind of hysterical nonsense for nearly 30 years now. I remember similar "predictions" back in 2000 which said that by 2020 Ireland would have a "Med" climate with snow to be a thing of the past:rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
They have been coming out with that kind of hysterical nonsense for nearly 30 years now. I remember similar "predictions" back in 2000 which said that by 2020 Ireland would have a "Med" climate with snow to be a thing of the past:rolleyes:
I do wonder what is powering that "new super-computer generated projection" that speaks to us its worldly wisdoms. Somehow, I doubt it is of a 'green' source. My bets is that it uses more fossil powered energy in a week than a whole family would use in an entire year.
But anyway, who am I and who are we to speak such things?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?sh=69dec571535e
'Intuition
is
awakening
suspicion..."New Moon
0 -
-
Imagine, anyone who went against Al Gores ice free artic was ridiculed.
Yet year after year we see outlandish predictionsOil will run out by 2020
2020, "millions will die" from climate change
We have been bombarded with this for 30years. Failed prediction? No problem it's not about being right or responsible. It's about optics, are you supporting the right cause?
The planet would be in a better place if the trillions invested into Solar/Wind/Hyrdo was put into nuclear energy.
The reason nuclear is opposed is not because of the risk, but rather the fact that it doesn't play into the social narrative built over the past 30 years. Eco warriors and their populist sheep don't want a solution to the carbon issue they champion.
Imagine a carbon scrubber that consumed lesson carbon than it removed? You think the fanboys in here would want that?
Live how you want as we can scrub your carbon..... It would force the keyboard warriors to look at actual issues, like aggressive farming practices, habitat destruction, chemical pollutants ect. You know the real issues with actual measurable impacts and not whimsical vague links to things like 'snowflakes are 2% smaller than 1880'
On top of all of this, we have wasted seats in the Dail used up by a hypocritical green party.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
From the genius who brought us the shocking news that David Attenborough and the other naturalists only film endangered animals because they take sexual pleasure in seeing them suffer we now have new revelations that scientists who use electricity in their research are the ones destroying the planet... :rolleyes:I do wonder what is powering that "new super-computer generated projection" that speaks to us its worldly wisdoms. Somehow, I doubt it is of a 'green' source. My bets is that it uses more fossil powered energy in a week than a whole family would use in an entire year.
But anyway, who am I and who are we to speak such things?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?sh=69dec571535e
'Intuition
is
awakening
suspicion..."
Wonder what new heights the Boards.ie Mensa chapter will reach in 2021?0 -
-
-
-
From the genius who brought us the shocking news that David Attenborough and the other naturalists only film endangered animals because they take sexual pleasure in seeing them suffer we now have new revelations that scientists who use electricity in their research are the ones destroying the planet... :rolleyes:
Wonder what new heights the Boards.ie Mensa chapter will reach in 2021?
New Moon
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Banana Republic 1 wrote: »So you don’t believe human activity is a substantial cause of climate change. If your going to use acronyms in a statement you should let the reader know what they stand for, at least once.
AGW = anthropogenic global warming or in everyday English global warming associated with human activity.
You'd have to define substantial, % terms would help. I'd agree with you statement on the reader if this was the first post, but AGW has been used several times in this Tread over the past ~6months. The onus is on the reader to read all of the material and not expect each post to have an acronyms typed out. This is common English written standard.
You should also read the contents of the post. It was a challenge to the idea that the climate is not as predictable nor gradual in their changes as the AGW narrative suggests.
I stated that:Although these don't prove or disprove AGW warming,
To answer you question as vague as it is.
I do think humans impact the climate in a negative way. Probably just not the way you think it does.
My issue(s) as with most people if have discussed with who would be labelled 'deniers' is with the narrative that has been created around climate change. It's turned into good vs evil issue and lets not forget the abundant misinformation that is preached from Hollywood, Politicians, Media ect..
The fact that very little investigative work is done on 'green' initiatives which are typically neither carbon neutral nor good for the environment.
The moral high ground taken by household activists who never bother to confirm how green their trend du jour is but will climb onto their pedestal (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit) all of which are unnecessary pollutants to tell us all how the world is doomed. But that wasteful carbon they have generated to preach is all offset because their orange peels from South Africa & the avocado skin from Mexico are wrapped up in compostable bag from the UK, dropped into a wheelie bin from China picked up by a truck made in Korea run on Oil from Kuwait and sent somewhere they don't know, nor do they really care!!!
So regardless if you are a firm believer in AGW or not, if you live in a developed country you are the cause not the solution.
The only folks who are carbon neutral are the unfortunates in 3rd world countries struggling each day to survive.
But hey lets sacrifice the kids in the Congo for our 10% greener batteries. Go team Green
0 -
You'd have to define substantial, % terms would help. I'd agree with you statement on the reader if this was the first post, but AGW has been used several times in this Tread over the past ~6months. The onus is on the reader to read all of the material and not expect each post to have an acronyms typed out. This is common English written standard.
You should also read the contents of the post. It was a challenge to the idea that the climate is not as predictable nor gradual in their changes as the AGW narrative suggests.
I stated that:
To answer you question as vague as it is.
I do think humans impact the climate in a negative way. Probably just not the way you think it does.
My issue(s) as with most people if have discussed with who would be labelled 'deniers' is with the narrative that has been created around climate change. It's turned into good vs evil issue and lets not forget the abundant misinformation that is preached from Hollywood, Politicians, Media ect..
The fact that very little investigative work is done on 'green' initiatives which are typically neither carbon neutral nor good for the environment.
The moral high ground taken by household activists who never bother to confirm how green their trend du jour is but will climb onto their pedestal (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit) all of which are unnecessary pollutants to tell us all how the world is doomed. But that wasteful carbon they have generated to preach is all offset because their orange peels from South Africa & the avocado skin from Mexico are wrapped up in compostable bag from the UK, dropped into a wheelie bin from China picked up by a truck made in Korea run on Oil from Kuwait and sent somewhere they don't know, nor do they really care!!!
So regardless if you are a firm believer in AGW or not, if you live in a developed country you are the cause not the solution.
The only folks who are carbon neutral are the unfortunates in 3rd world countries struggling each day to survive.
But hey lets sacrifice the kids in the Congo for our 10% greener batteries. Go team Green
Firstly I didn't ask a question I made a statement.
My qualifications on the topic for what they're worth come from Harvard. That said I didn't do a masters the on the subject. I did not choose to be born in the west and Im well aware that for centuries the African continent has been rapped for it resources so don't spout your "Go team Green" nonsense at me your are reading this on smart phone or PC after all.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: »Just posted the 1991-2020 CET values in a thread over on NW, basically most days (and therefore months) are now running 0.2 C warmer than the 1981-2010 period, June being the exception (no real changes there).
We'll see if the next decade continues this trend or begins to flat-line. That may help to answer the question of what proportions the AGW signal and natural variability actually have.
But we should keep in mind that we are also facing a much different climate challenge on a different time scale, that posed by the next glacial maximum. All indications are that this is not going to develop quickly, but rather in a slow decline over thousands of years accelerating about 20k years from now. To get to that conclusion, one must place one's faith in the Milankovich theories, which have been widely accepted (despite a few nagging concerns about second-order correlation issues). However, what if other unforeseen causations come along and plunge us more rapidly into a glacial climate? (for example, major volcanic activity, global war, sustained solar quiet). Then this debate will look fairly insignificant.
Huge variations in temperatures near the end of the last glacial were probably closely related to ice cover within relatively short distances, and fresh water entering the Atlantic when various ice dams in North America broke down, releasing massive and frigid bodies of water like Lake Agassiz. We have no reason to expect naturally occurring swings on that scale in the modern climate. Even after the Maunder, the mean temperature in the CET series only warmed by 1.0 to 1.5 C deg. The 20th century in North America has run about 1.5 C warmer than the 19th century. We don't see any examples of much larger variations than those.
A chart that may interest you a little MT and one that may reflect, somewhat, what may be occurring in CET zone also:
Chart shows the 365 day running average number of days with daily temp averages below -1.5c (from the 1981-00 mean) here in Ireland. We can observe that all was hunky dory until 1986 (late October 1986 if we are to be pedantic) when 70s/80s cold seem to peak, but then sharply and inexplicably fell thereafter to more 'modern' values. If anything, we are seeing a slight uptick again in the number of significantly colder than average days over the last decade or so, but not really enough in a way to say that things are looking 'up' again at this stage and may be nothing more than statistical noise.
Edit: just to add, the yellow line is the running decadal trend.
Data from Met Eireann.
Edit: I've pointed this out before, but something happened in 1986 that changed the temp profile sharply over these lands and as I have also said before, 1986 was the year of Chernobyl. Maybe this has nothing to do with anything, but I think it is too much of a coincidence to ignore. Did nuclear radiation fallout from Chernobyl have some detrimental long-term effect on the polar ice caps? I don't know, but perhaps someone else does.New Moon
0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement