Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

I will not share them as I've gone to great lengths to obtain them and have conducted my own research in painstaking fashion. I can sense that you are ready to disagree with me (exemplified by the use of your snide inverted commas in your post above) So I'm in no humor to be ridiculed.

Jesus

I will not share them as I've gone to great lengths to obtain them and have conducted my own research in painstaking fashion. I can sense that you are ready to disagree with me (exemplified by the use of your snide inverted commas in your post above) So I'm in no humor to be ridiculed.

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Akrasia;105994189

None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenland

Now you're talking,a lot of the forecasts are the result of a primative calculation based upon historical data, there is no regard for shift or probability outcomes of the type of event that you have described. A good forecast like the ones I've seen will incorporate or at least try to factor these unpredictible events into their prediction.

So show us these "good forecasts" then. Why would you not share them?

Akrasia wrote: »

Can you elaborate please?

Projections for Ireland up to 2100 show very minor changes overall, most notably warmer winter nights and slightly drier summers. Fairly benign in the greater scheme of things when you look at some of the horror stories being quoted.

You say these forecasts don't allow for the non-neglible chance of the Gulf Stream getting cut off. Well, if that's the case then the forecasts are not worth much and highlight the uncertainty associated with future climate predictions.

In any case, the paper you quoted says the chance of the AMOC overturning is negligible, so nothing to worry about.

Furthermore, when considering only the most realistic models in simulating the present-day SPG stratification, the chance of an NA abrupt cooling in the coming century is close to 50%, while the chance of a complete AMOC collapse is negligible.

Akrasia;105994189

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What data would that be? The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it.

None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenland

Now you're talking,a lot of the forecasts are the result of a primative calculation based upon historical data, there is no regard for shift or probability outcomes of the type of event that you have described. A good forecast like the ones I've seen will incorporate or at least try to factor these unpredictible events into their prediction.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So you're saying the forecasts that you so readily quote may be way off the mark? If that's the case then what other forecasts are also wrong?

Can you elaborate please?

Akrasia wrote: »

None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenland

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/24/drastic-cooling-north-atlantic-beyond-worst-fears-scientists-warn

So you're saying the forecasts that you so readily quote may be way off the mark? If that's the case then what other forecasts are also wrong?

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What data would that be? The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it.

None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenland

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/24/drastic-cooling-north-atlantic-beyond-worst-fears-scientists-warn

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

"The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it."

Commercially available data indicates as such. The purists amongst us dig deep for their information, so in this instance, I'm not happy to share it.
"Strange username too, BTW. Only registered today. Hmmm"
Ok Sherlock.

?? Where exactly did you dig? The data I quoted are freely available and non-commercial. If you're unwilling to share data that claim differently then it appears that the data don't exist...or you're just trolling.

"The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it."

Commercially available data indicates as such. The purists amongst us dig deep for their information, so in this instance, I'm not happy to share it.
"Strange username too, BTW. Only registered today. Hmmm"
Ok Sherlock.

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense."

The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!

What data would that be? The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it.

Strange username too, BTW. Only registered today. Hmmm.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

While the trend is no doubt upward, I'd be very cautious with actual figures, given the large uncertainty in measurements due to poor instrumental coverage and XBT bias. A lot of map infilling is mentioned in the article, with various methods cited. I note 10 or more different methods for correcting for XBT bias, none of which is yet satisfactory.

Satellite altimetry gives better coverage but still says little about the vertical temperature profile of all the oceans. There's a tenfold difference between OHC-increase in the Atlantic and Pacific, which itself suggests more than just atmospheric roles at play.

The measurements are uncertain, but this means they're as likely to be underestimating global heat content in the oceans as over estimating it. We should be forming our opinion based on the best available evidence. We're never ever going to know for 100% certain, but unless you believe that these scientists are distorting the data and choosing to amplify the warming signal, then the best evidence we have at the moment is that global oceans are warmer now than we any point since detailed records began.

In terms of variation between the changes in OCH in different geographic regions, the ocean is a dynamic place that is constantly redistributing heat through a complex network of currents that oceanographic institutes dedicate their time to studying and understanding.

I like to let the experts do the talking where possible.
Here's a very interesting panel discussion featuring Oceanographers from several of the most respected oceanographic institutes in the world

That's even more snide that Gaoth Laidir's post.

"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense."

The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!

You know, I'm all for climate charities myself.

So much so that I'm thinking of setting up one.

An essential part of it will selling the idea to potential corporate "partners".

I'm confident they'll be delighted to be on board, and delighted to contribute in a meaningful way, and by that I mean in cold hard donations.

After all, my charity is not going to run itself, and I don't expect my assistants in the enterprise to work for nothing, nor they me.

Corporate entities, often seen as cold, uncaring machines can benefit greatly from getting their softer, more human green side into the public domain, and, you know, a refusal to play ball with a worthy climate change charity might not look great, given the gravity of the situation.

Kind of like, yeah, we are a business, but WE CARE, OK?????

Once we have the corporate thing sewn up we'll be targeting the children.

Klimate Kandy.

Has a good ring to it, yaw?

The finer details have yet to be worked out, but I can say that we'll all have a real fun time.

It's early days, but Italy and Brazil are showing interest even at this stage.

Join me in this noble venture.

"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense."

The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!

Akrasia wrote: »

Nah, I'm not going to bother runnning through your hoops Dense. 20 twh is a significant amount of energy

.

That's debatable. Which is why we're here.

Total net electricity generation in the EU-28 was 3.07 million gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2015

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview

And the EU says that vacuum cleaner regulations saving "up to" (could be much less) 20Twh is "significant".

It's a maximum estimated 00.66% saving by my calculations.

Hardly "significant" by any measure. Pretty insignificant actually.

Unless of course they're into hyping things up.

Can happen in the climate change debate.

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU has a role in regulating all kinds of consumer electronics for safety and environmental standards.

What's next, the kettle directive?
Toasters to be used by licence only?

Akrasia wrote: »

If companies are ripping off consumers by making their appliances needlessly power hungry so they can market them as 'more powerful' than their competitors then I'm glad they're doing it.

Fair enough.

Akrasia wrote: »

A new Study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences has shown that 2017 was the warmest year on record in the oceans down to at least 2km below the surface

So we have 2017 as the 2nd warmest year on record for the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures, and the warmest year on
record down to 2km below ocean surfaces.

The top 5 warmest years have all been within the past 5 years which have included both El Nino and La Nina events.

http://159.226.119.58/aas/EN/10.1007/s00376-018-8011-z#

While the trend is no doubt upward, I'd be very cautious with actual figures, given the large uncertainty in measurements due to poor instrumental coverage and XBT bias. A lot of map infilling is mentioned in the article, with various methods cited. I note 10 or more different methods for correcting for XBT bias, none of which is yet satisfactory.

Satellite altimetry gives better coverage but still says little about the vertical temperature profile of all the oceans. There's a tenfold difference between OHC-increase in the Atlantic and Pacific, which itself suggests more than just atmospheric roles at play.

dense wrote: »

In what context?

What is the total EU annual Twh energy consumption figure, of which vacuum cleaning energy demand and consumption is now being deemed to be so "significant" in the EU?

In 2015, household usage accounted for 25% of total energy used in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Final_energy_consumption,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png

It doesn't give a breakdown of how much of that was used for vaccum cleaning.

Therefore I find it difficult to believe that (mainly) domestic vacuum cleaners constitute any "significant part" of total energy demand and consumption" in the EU.

(Industrial, wet and dry, central systems and floor polishers are outside of the scope of these regulations.)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0665

Nah, I'm not going to bother runnning through your hoops Dense. 20 twh is a significant amount of energy. The EU has a role in regulating all kinds of consumer electronics for safety and environmental standards. If companies are ripping off consumers by making their appliances needlessly power hungry so they can market them as 'more powerful' than their competitors then I'm glad they're doing it. If it wasn't for EU regulations we'd still have american style fuel consumption in our cars rather than strict efficiency targets that force manufacturers to research new technology to make their product modern and efficient.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0665

Akrasia wrote: »

20Twh per year in energy savings. Even if you don't believe in climate change, it's still a good regulation

In what context?

What is the total EU annual Twh energy consumption figure, of which vacuum cleaning energy demand and consumption is now being deemed to be so "significant" in the EU?

In 2015, household usage accounted for 25% of total energy used in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Final_energy_consumption,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png

It doesn't give a breakdown of how much of that was used for vaccum cleaning.

Therefore I find it difficult to believe that (mainly) domestic vacuum cleaners constitute any "significant part" of total energy demand and consumption" in the EU.

(Industrial, wet and dry, central systems and floor polishers are outside of the scope of these regulations.)

The energy used by vacuum cleaners accounts for a Significant Part of total energy demand in the Union.

The scope for reducing the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners is substantial.

20Twh per year in energy savings. Even if you don't believe in climate change, it's still a good regulation

Akrasia wrote: »

You're right. Taxation of consumers isn't a great way of effecting change, regulating industry is better, but then look at the amount of whinging that happened when the EU tried to ban incandescent light bulbs, and improve efficiency of vacuum cleaners.

Because, and I quote, it has been deemed that:

The energy used by vacuum cleaners accounts for a significant part of total energy demand in the Union. The scope for reducing the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners is substantial.

However,

Wet, wet and dry, robot, industrial, central and battery operated vacuum cleaners and floor polishers and outdoor vacuums have particular characteristics and should therefore be exempted from the scope of this Regulation.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0665

I've heard of nonsense like Dancing against Climate Change, now it's surely time for another "climate charity" to pop up to propose and coordinate an annual National Day of Vaccuming Less To Save the Planet*

*Only applicable to certain models of vacuum cleaners.

A new Study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences has shown that 2017 was the warmest year on record in the oceans down to at least 2km below the surface

So we have 2017 as the 2nd warmest year on record for the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures, and the warmest year on
record down to 2km below ocean surfaces.

The top 5 warmest years have all been within the past 5 years which have included both El Nino and La Nina events.

http://159.226.119.58/aas/EN/10.1007/s00376-018-8011-z#

Meteorite58

Mod Note: It is with regret that the Climate Change Thread needed to be shut as it was turning to disarray due to personal attacks, aggressive and sniping posting leading to a hostile environment .

The forum is for the purpose of discussion, the exchange of ideas and sharing a common interest in all things associated with Meteorology. Opinions will differ, people will have different preferences, likes and dislikes and all have the right to post once it is in keeping with the forum charter and the Boards Charter.

It gives the Mod Team no pleasure in having to deal accordingly with posters who constantly go against the charter and the spirit of the forum and drag down the discussion into a personal slagging match. A friendly, welcoming and a free from hostility atmosphere needs to be maintained for all.

Any more of the above mentioned unacceptable behavior will result in recieving infractions or bans.

Meteorite58

Mod Note: Closing this thread until further notice.

gabeeg

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes I am.

I sincerely doubt it

gabeeg wrote: »

I do not have a scientific contribution to make, as I'm not a scientist.
Nor do you, for exactly the same reason.

That's my point.

Yes I am.

Gonzo

Mod Note: This thread is really starting to fill up with an unfriendly atmosphere, sniping and aggressive posting. it doesn't make pleasant or helpful reading and is not what this forum is about. If I see one more negative post I will suspend this thread for further investigation.

A final reminder to be aware of the rules:

1. Please refrain from direct personal attacks on any person whether they are members of boards.ie or not.

2. Everyone is entitled to post and has equal rights whether they are weather experts or complete newbies.

3. If you wish to challenge someone's views (on the topic of weather) then please question the post, do not just attack poster.

Posters are asked to show courtesy to one another.

gabeeg

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've had a look back at your posts and I'm struggling to find any that actually contribute anything other than jabs at people, pulling people up on/misrepresenting/not even bothering to read what they say, telling people to check dictionaries, etc. Do you have any scientific contribution to make or is it all going to be personal?

I do not have a scientific contribution to make, as I'm not a scientist.
Nor do you, for exactly the same reason.

That's my point.

gabeeg wrote: »

That's the smartest reply you've managed in this thread

I've had a look back at your posts and I'm struggling to find any that actually contribute anything other than jabs at people, pulling people up on/misrepresenting/not even bothering to read what they say, telling people to check dictionaries, etc. Do you have any scientific contribution to make or is it all going to be personal?