Gaoth Lag wrote: » Here's Prof. Sweeny's excellent article in full.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ireland-is-already-encountering-climate-change-and-its-going-to-get-worse-expert-warns-36548645.html
“Everywhere in the country today is half a degree warmer than it was 30 years ago,” he said during a discussion on Ireland’s progress in meeting carbon emission reduction targets.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » Just a note too. Typically we have 2-3 storms from the start of the year until now. This year we've had seven in quick succession Georgina, Fionn, Brian, Eleanor, Hector, Larry and Geoffrey. Coincidence or climate change right before our eyes?
“But the real climate change impacts in Ireland will come from rainfall changes,” he said. “There will be increased winter rainfall for the west of Ireland in particular and decreased summer rainfall in the east where (the majority of) our people are located and where public water supply will become a growing concern,” he told the committee. He warned that the extreme weather episodes we have recently witnessed – including flooding in Galway city and Mountmellick, Co Laois – will “change much more quickly and the extremes will change much more radically than the mean.” For example, the winter of 2013-14 was “the stormiest winter in both Ireland the UK for at least the last 143 years – that’s an extreme event,” he said. The winter of 2015-16 was also the wettest on record in much of the country.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » When it comes to climate, Prof. Sweeney likes to paint the most pessimistic picture whenever he can.
Akrasia wrote: » This year hasn't been especially bad for storms, apart from a few fairly bad flooding events, and ex tropical storm Ophelia which was far from a normal meteorological event given where it formed and how far it travelled north while maintaining major hurricane force winds, but according to John Sweeney from NUI Maynooth, the winter of 2013/2014 was the stormiest in 140 years in both Ireland and the UK, and the winter of 2015/2016 was the wettest on record for much of the country. Its a very legitimate concern that the storms hitting Ireland every winter appear to be getting stronger and wetter and are changing from the typical atlantic depressions that we have been exposed to in the past.
sryanbruen wrote: » I have edited my post with some evidence.
Meteorite58 wrote: » Mod Note: Please show courtesy when posting and refrain from making harsh statements.
sryanbruen wrote: » Not at all, what a load of rubbish.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » I already stated I wouldn’t share thanks to Gaoth Laidirs bad attitude.
1. What assessments of global glacier volume and of its changes in recent decades are available? How uncertain are they? Are monitored glaciers representative of the total glacier mass balance? What is the level of the associated uncertainty (for the past and future)? A complete inventory of the Earth’s glaciers does not yet exist. Estimates of the overall ice volume of glaciers and ice caps therefore contain large uncertainties. Yet, improved extrapolation and scaling efforts have constrained the total mass in glaciers and ice caps to be slightly above 0.5 m sea level equivalent. Our current understanding of the recent past and the actual rates of changes have improved since the AR4, and are within acceptable ranges of uncertainty. However, uncertainties are still quite large for the future. The spatial distribution of existing glacier mass balance monitoring is not representative of the global glacier coverage contributing to sea level rise. There is an urgent need for improved data from the largest glaciers and ice caps. Further monitoring of mass balance is also required in poorly sampled climatic regions, as is homogenization and quality control of existing mass balance series.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » Zero evidence or are you not looking properly. Poor research I would’ve thought.
nacho libre wrote: » Did you miss this post:https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105995996&postcount=268 Surely if you have information you feel can sway the argument in your favour, you would be keen to share it.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » SyranBruen dismisses it as rubbish just as Gaoth Laidir did. Oh and Gaoth Laidir, good lad selecting the bits from papers that back up his arguments neglecting other passages that put a very different spin on things.
Akrasia wrote: » The precise amount of acceptable risk is debatable, but there is a principle in risk management that low probability high impact events should be planned for as much as high probability low impact events. When an apartment building is discovered to have been built without regard to the fire dampening regulations, the people in that apartment building are told they have to leave and can not live there until remedial action takes place. This is because even though a fire in that apartment building is something that might never happen, the consequences of a fire in a large building that hasn't been built to code can be catastrophic. This is the 'alarmist' message. Not that climate change is definitely going to be catastrophic, but that there is enough uncertainty and the fact that if we reach certain tipping points, the consequences are irreversible, that we should concentrate on mitigating the risk and take it seriously.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » No, I was just referring to the best estimates of the future Irish Climate for the rest of the century, which show little in the way of concerning changes up to 2100. I attended the IMO lecture by the Maynooth group a couple of years back that focused on that. So on the one hand you're asking us to take heed of global predictions of doomsday forecasts, yet on the other hand you're saying these forecasts are probably nowhere near reliable enough.
the chance of a total AMOC shutdown is negligible. Doesn't matter what was mentioned about it in the paragraph above, if the chance is negligible then we can, by definition, neglect it.
Akrasia wrote: » Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The long term climate forecasts/projections are guidelines that make assumptions which are justified on the basis of probable outcomes in various scenarios. I have never said that the future is certain, in fact, there are so many uncertainties, that we would be very prudent to act faster to minimize carbon emissions because there are low probability high impact risks that we cannot rule out. you, on the other hand are saying that you are highly confident that future climate change will be much less damaging and disruptive than the majority of experts, and therefore we shouldn't worry about it too much, and we can afford to be passive and just transition from fossil fuels whenever the economics and geopolitics get around to doing it
I'm curious why you chose to quote this part of that paper but not the paragraph immediately preceeding it which says that the negative consequences associated with a complete shutdown of the AMOC could also happen with a collapse of SPG convection, so there clearly isn't 'nothing to worry about'
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.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » 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.
The paradigm that the potential for NA abrupt changes mainly depends on the fate of the AMOC is clearly incomplete. In addition to the potential existence of a tipping point for an AMOC shutdown, we argue that a separate one involving a collapse of SPG convection46 also exists. Both AMOC disruption and SPG convection collapse are possible responses to the ongoing global warming trend43,44 and changes in the hydrological cycle that are freshening the northern NA31,55. However, while the risk of an AMOC shutdown has been largely debated24,30, an assessment of the possibility of a local SPG convection collapse and its potential impacts was missing so far. Our results highlight that in CMIP5 models the occurrence of a NA abrupt cooling due to an SPG convection collapse is almost four times more likely than the occurrence of a NA abrupt cooling due to an AMOC disruption.https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14375
Gaoth Lag wrote: » ???? When did I say there was cause for panic? Different climate doesn't necessarily mean a catastrophe.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Gaoth Lag wrote: » Look, you can choose to keep the faith with your primitive data and predictions. I will sleep comfortably knowing that the climate in Ireland in 2050 will be quite different. I assume then that if you can sleep comfortably then your forecast doesn't paint a bad picture for us by then. Lads, panic averted, go back to what you were doing. Keep Calm and Carry On.
Gaoth Lag wrote: » Look, you can choose to keep the faith with your primitive data and predictions. I will sleep comfortably knowing that the climate in Ireland in 2050 will be quite different.
