dense wrote: Maintaining a set of double standards really seem to be a way of life for those pushing the virtuous pseudo science behind climate justice and a new world order.
Wanderer78 wrote: » What is the crack with all this new world order stuff?
Akrasia wrote: » It's the root of his ideology. Dense is a conspiracy theorist who thinks socialists are trying to take over the world and they are using climate change as a vehicle to establish a new world order. A large section of the 'skeptic' movement online are of a similar world view.
atellite altimetry has shown that global mean sea level has been rising at a rate of ∼3 ± 0.4 mm/y since 1993. Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections. If sea level continues to change at this rate and acceleration, sea-level rise by 2100 (∼65 cm) will be more than double the amount if the rate was constant at 3 mm/y.
Akrasia wrote: » A new study published in PNAS (tee hee) shows that sea level rises are accellerating
the large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. (Reductions in methane lifetimes due to shipping-based NOx emissions vary between 1.5% and 5% in different calculations) The effect on concentrations of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and O3) and aerosols have differing impacts on the radiation balance of the earth-atmosphere system. Ship-derived aerosols also cause a significant indirect impact, through changes in cloud microphysics. In summary, most studies so far indicate that ship emissions actually lead to a net global cooling. This net global cooling effect is not being experienced in other transport sectors. However, it should be stressed that the uncertainties with this conclusion are large, in particular for indirect effects, and global temperature is only a first measure of the extent of climate change in any event.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Well all I know is that in 2008 we crossed the point where we were generating more than 1.21 gigawatts of electrical energy from wind in Ireland! Great scot!
Jakey Rolling wrote: » That's great. At this moment, wind is generating approx 200MW and we are importing approx 1000MW from the UK, some of which will be nuclear generated. Wind production was down to 59MW on 5th Feb.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Another fun fact, water and diesel (or biodiesel or vegetable oil) can be emulsified and used as a fuel.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016816301958 Water mist injection directly into turbo diesel engines can provide a similar result (water methanol is more common though). LPG fumigation is also a Nox reducer for diesel engines. (This kind of thing is old tech and was used in WW2 fighter plane piston engines). It goes to show that tech needs to be forced by legislation or manufacturers go the laziest route. Its probably far too late for this kind of tech and electric vehicles will punish the manufacturers who dont keep up.
Akrasia wrote: » Future energy grids will have to have a diversity of power generation sources and storage solutions to cope with the the various possible disturbances to supply which include meteorological events and geo political events (Like oil and gas pipelines getting shut down for geo strategic reasons Putin, for example threatened to shut off european gas supplies a few years ago.)
Akrasia wrote: » This is why inter-connectors are a good idea. I have absolutely no issue with buying British Nuclear power if we need to.
Jakey Rolling wrote: » Wonder how many more levvies people will accept on their bills to subsidise all this though?
dense wrote: The Citizens Assembly on Climate Change which we are told is representative of society has just voted in favour lots of additional climate change taxes.
Wanderer78 wrote: » Let me guess, more taxes on the individual, and not as many on big business? We can't keep doing this, we will keep having more and more people opting out if we keep using the stick approach.
dense wrote: » There's ultimately little difference. Do you not think taxes on big business just trickle down as costs to their customers anyway? For example we are using more and more energy efficient items along with more renewable energy yet our electricity prices are going up and not down. Nice to see you over on the other thread BTW!
Wanderer78 wrote: » my point being, we cant keep beating the individual to address our environmental issues, we must start to address our overall economic processes and systems, including at the individual level, as we have been, i.e. the end user is not the whole problem, but our approach to date has been to ultimately point the finger at the individual, and to effectively tax the individual both directly and indirectly. this will not work in the long run. i will agree with you though, taxing big business can and does indeed lead to a trickle down effect of cost onto the individual, maybe its time for different approaches to address these issues? maybe the increase of energy costs is linked to things such as 'rent extraction' by the 'rentier class'?
dense wrote: » I'm not sure I follow, the "renty" bit? Is there anything to be said for quantifying the effect that raising climate taxes here in Ireland will have on climate change, BEFORE raising them? Nobody wants to acknowledge the obvious, which is that it won't have an effect. Isn't that the real elephant in the room here?
Wanderer78 wrote: » yes, i do think there is real elephant in the room, but i suspect its very different to your elephant.
dense wrote: » There's a herd of elephants in the room by the sound of that! Will you bring your own one out to show it to us?
Wanderer78 wrote: » ah ive been banging that drum for long enough on this site, but it ll probably derail this thread a bit if i go into them, but i do think its one of the main reasons why we re now debating these issues. theres something fundamentally wrong with our most predominate macro economic theories and their accompanying ideologies, i class them as anti-human and anti-environmental in nature.
equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). ECS quantifies the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature that would occur if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were doubled and the climate system was allowed to reach an equilibrium state. Estimates of ECS vary depending on the evidence used (such as records of Earth’s energy budget9 and analyses4 of present climate conditions produced by models). The estimate1 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2013 is based on several lines of evidence. Cox et al.5 now report estimates based on an analysis of surface-temperature variation predicted by climate models. Their analysis rules out high estimates of ECS. Bars depict ranges for which there is a 66% likelihood of the value being correct; for the top two bars, these ranges have been inferred from the data in references 4 and 9. Best estimates of ECS for each range, if available, are indicated by a blue line.
with medium confidence, global production potential was projected to:[38] increase up to around 3 °C, very likely decrease above about 3 °C.
[Deleted User] wrote: » https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00480-0 New research published January 2018 i.e the climate is not as sensitive to a doubling of Co2 as we have been led to believe. While I`m at it, from the IPCC themselves, higher temps & Co2 = higher agricultural production:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculturehttp://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch19s19-3-1.html
Future climate change will likely negatively affect crop production in low latitude countries, while effects in northern latitudes may be positive or negative.
Published today in the academic journal Environmental Research Letters, the study shows: a worsening of heatwaves for all 571 cities increasing drought conditions, particularlyin southern Europe an increase in river flooding, especially in north-western European cities for the worst projections, increases in all hazards for most European cities Cork, Derry, Waterford, Wrexham, Carlisle, Glasgow, Chester and Aberdeen could be the worst hit cities in the British Isles for river flooding Even in the lowest case scenario, 85% of UK cities with a river are predicted to face increased river flooding
We have analysed 50 climate model projections from the CMIP5 (RCP8.5) ensemble and calculated consistent and comparable metrics of climate impacts for HW, droughts and flooding for 571 European cities. More frequent and hotter HW are expected for all European cities. Southern cities see the largest increase in the number of HW days (as much as 69%). On the other hand, central European cities, where both infrastructure and populace are generally not adapted to extreme heat, see the largest HWTmax increases (up to 14 °C, far above estimates from other studies). Southern European cities will also see an increase in drought conditions in all scenarios and a fundamentally different climate in the high impact scenario with future droughts up to 14 times worse than the ones in the historical period. Although this region is to a certain extent adapted to drought, the level of change projected in the Medium and High impact scenarios is likely to be beyond breaking point in many cases, which supports recent analysis of the potential for a megadrought in major Iberian water resource regions (Guerreiro et al 2017a, Guerreiro et al 2017b). Increases in river flooding, most prevalent in NW Europe, are particularly worrying for the British Isles and several other European cities which could observe more than a 50% increase of their 10 year high river flow.http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaad3/meta
Akrasia wrote: » A new large scale study from Newcastle university shows that under the RCP 8.5 scenario (business as usual), irish cities will face very high increases in flood risk with Cork seeing a possible 110% increase in peak river flowhttp://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2018/02/eucities/ This studies refers to the RCP 8.5 scenario which is otherwise known as business as usual. Even the business as usual scenario involves transitioning away from fossil fuels but on a timescale where fossil fuel reserves become depleted so that price increases make renewables more attractive over time. In order to avoid this scenario, we need to quickly impose solutions that mean the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves are left in the ground and this requires political action. The 'skeptics' on here are staring down the barrel droughts in Iberia potentially 14 times worse than historical experience and flooding in Irish cities more than twice as bad as we have ever experienced before. (flooding would actually be much worse as peak river flow increases can cause exponentially more damage as rivers breach and wash away natural and artificial flood defenses and destroy property that had never been flooded before) And this damage could begin to accumulate well within our own lifetimes. And well within the lifetimes of even the mortgage on property that is purchased today. People buying a house today with a 30 year mortgage could buy in a location that had never before experienced flooding, and may be left with a property in a flood plain before the mortgage is even paid off.
don't really trust long term projections for Irish climate, in fact, all of the expert reports I have seen emphasise the uncertainty for future irish climate in a warmer world.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » But...but...just a few days ago you said to me that you... ... So for that reason it's move along, nothing to see here, yes?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/05bfdb0bc9f81b358ccf2f55186422bb.svg)
