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

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

1161719212243

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,966 ✭✭✭Deebles McBeebles


    This thread is hilarious. As if there's any doubt.

    Seriously lads, argue about something where there is an actual argument on both sides.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Sorry Dense, of course the causes of climate change should be totally off topic in a discussion about the causes of climate change. You're totally right

    I totally said you and yours are quite free to discuss the causes of pre human climate change:
    dense wrote: »
    If you, Akrasia or others wish to advance and discuss reasons for climate change in pre human times there is nothing stopping you from doing so if that is your desire.

    Why pretend I said it was off topic?
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Now lets get back to your questions where you're trying to say that the equivalent energy of 2 million nuclear bombs is insignificant because humans are actually responsible for adding the equivalent of 2 billion nuclear bombs.

    Still waiting to find out how you have calculated that Ireland has set off the equivalent of 2m nuclear bombs of energy equivalent since 1998 and what "significant" increase in global temperatures you think Ireland's "detonation" of these nuclear bomb equivalents has caused.


    Will you share your data, calculations, sources and conclusions with us?

    Then we can have a look at you and your lefty friends proposals on how you'd substitute that alleged 2m Hiroshima bombsworth of energy with an alternative, reliable renewable energy source.

    I know they're probably all busy scouring property to occupy at the moment, but they seem highly intelligent and should be able to multitask whenever they're not tweeting about the need for a rapid transition to renewable energy and demanding more free stuff.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    dense wrote: »
    I totally said you and yours are quite free to discuss the causes of pre human climate change:



    Why pretend I said it was off topic?



    Still waiting to find out how you have calculated that Ireland has set off the equivalent of 2m nuclear bombs of energy equivalent since 1998 and what "significant" increase in global temperatures you think Ireland's "detonation" of these nuclear bomb equivalents has caused.


    Will you share your data, calculations, sources and conclusions with us?

    Then we can have a look at you and your lefty friends proposals on how you'd substitute that alleged 2m Hiroshima bombsworth of energy with an alternative, reliable renewable energy source.

    I know they're probably all busy scouring property to occupy at the moment, but they seem highly intelligent and should be able to multitask whenever they're not tweeting about the need for a rapid transition to renewable energy and demanding more free stuff.


    Like when you shared with us how you "calculated" 20twh (sic) to be approximately 20,000gwh (sic) by using a website that does the conversion for you? I wouldn't go asking for too much maths if I were you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    I totally said you and yours are quite free to discuss the causes of pre human climate change:



    Why pretend I said it was off topic?
    There's no point discussing it with other people, everyone else already accepts that CO2 has been one of the main drivers of climate change now, and before humans arrived.

    CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere have been the fundamental predictor of global average temperature for millions of years. The deniers like you, need to explain how come now it's different. How come fluctuations in CO2 concentrations caused big swings in global temperature in the past, but not now, when we have already increased CO2 concnetrations to greater than they have been in at least the last 800k years (probably much more but ice cores only go back that far)
    paleo_keelinginset_v2_610.gif?itok=XThZLRXg

    Especially when the other drivers of climate, solar output, orbital eccentricity and changes to albido are easily ruled out as the drivers of current climate change

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Like when you shared with us how you "calculated" 20twh (sic) to be approximately 20,000gwh (sic) by using a website that does the conversion for you? I wouldn't go asking for too much maths if I were you.


    Like when you fell off the wall and everyone laughed at you?


    In other words, link please, because I don't recall using any of those figures nor do I recall you piping up at the time to say my calculations were incorrect.


    If there is an error in my calculations concerning how much energy fossil fuels supply here and how much renewables do, link to it and then correct it.

    Actually I'll link to it to save you the trouble and you can check that it's ok.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107955400&postcount=490

    Heres the online conversion tool to convert 14m tons of oil equivalence to Twh


    http://www.conversion-website.com/energy/ton-of-oil-equivalent-to-terawatt-hour.html


    Akrasia's new standard unit of 1 Hiroshima bomb isn't included there however, so I'm a little sceptical of you being able to verify their claims about Ireland setting off the equivalent of 2m of them since 1998 and their impact, if any, in degrees of global warming.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There's no point discussing it with other people, everyone else already accepts that CO2 has been one of the main drivers of climate change now, and before humans arrived.



    Especially when the other drivers of climate, solar output, orbital eccentricity and changes to albido are easily ruled out as the drivers of current climate change


    You seem to be uniquely personally burdened with experiencing "climate change" to a greater degree than is being observed.


    Nothing detrimental has come from the barely measurable "observed" (and adjusted) c 1°C of warming averaged from sparse measurements around the earth.



    You really need to stop being so alarmed and calling for urgent knee jerk reactions based on vacuous lefty environmental policy designed to push humanity back to the dark ages whilst harking for a global accord to force you to reduce your own carbon footprint.



    The UNIPCC is less convinced of this drama than you are:


    Detection and attribution



    The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the
    late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does
    not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate
    system has been identified.



    Climate has always varied on all
    time-scales, so the observed change may be natural.



    https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/045.htm


    The difficulties you have in getting others to be similarly alarmed at what essentially is normal weather ia summarised well in this paper:


    But what about the data sets used in these analyses? To detect an observed change in the climate system, particularly a change suitable for an attribution study, a data set of sufficient temporal and spatial coverage is necessary.

    Depending on the climate extreme, there is often a lack of observed climate data to document these events for many parts of the world. If the observations exist they often are not in digital form. Also, although the situation is changing, many countries continue to be reluctant to share them with the research community (Easterling, 2013, Kunkel and Frankson, 2015).

    As noted above, since the analysis of climate extremes often involves examination of the tails of a statistical distribution, a threshold value may be used to determine the number of observations that exceed that value over time creating a time series of exceedance counts.

    Data quality can impact the counts if there are a number of erroneous values that are not screened out by quality assurance methods, or if the quality assurance methods, which are often more concerned with mean values, are too rigorous and exclude true values.

    Additional issues include missing data, especially if those missing data would exceed an established threshold or would affect the calculation of the threshold itself. In terms of global analyses, data may be missing for large regions of the globe resulting in a less than true global analysis (Donat et al., 2013). Finally, if longer term data are available they are often observed at weather observing stations, such as at airports, and may be impacted by issues such as urbanization or less than ideal station siting which may result in lower quality data.



    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094716300020


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    You seem to be uniquely personally burdened with experiencing "climate change" to a greater degree than is being observed.


    Nothing detrimental has come from the barely measurable "observed" (and adjusted) c 1°C of warming averaged from sparse measurements around the earth.



    You really need to stop being so alarmed and calling for urgent knee jerk reactions based on vacuous lefty environmental policy designed to push humanity back to the dark ages whilst harking for a global accord to force you to reduce your own carbon footprint.



    The UNIPCC is less convinced of this drama than you are:





    https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/045.htm
    You are so dishonest. That quoted section is not a conclusion of the IPCC, it is setting out the basis for their conclusions which are
    The SAR concluded nevertheless, on the basis of careful analyses, that �the observed change in global mean, annually averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system�.
    and referring to attribution
    In this way the SAR found that �there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record�. Since the SAR new results have become available which tend to support this conclusion. The present status of the detection of climate change and attribution of its causes is assessed in Chapter 12.

    It is incredibly dishonest to selectively quote a source and misrepresent what that source actually says
    The difficulties you have in getting others to be similarly alarmed at what essentially is normal weather ia summarised well in this paper:
    You just threw out a section of a paper that talks about the challenges in attribution. What does this specific paper actually say about whether we can or can't attribute extreme weather events to climate change?
    Hence, it is often stated in the popular press after a notable extreme weather event that nothing can be said about the role of climate change in that particular event with some caveats that such events can be expected to become more common in the future. This statement is most often patently false. For much can be said about the effect of climate change on many recent extreme weather events in a probabilistic formalism. The rapidly emerging field of Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution has quantified the effect of climate change on a wide variety of extreme weather (for instance see Peterson et al., 2012, 2013; Herring et al. 2014).

    The study starts off by talking about the limitations of relying on weather reports because they cannot be scientifically controlled, and then talks about the incredibly powerful modelling tools that we can use to assess changes to our climate and extreme events.

    The only reason scientists say they can't attribute individual events to climate change is because the sample size is too small. There aren't enough extreme events to allow us to come to firm conclusions, and the only way this can be solved is to wait for more storms to happen and therefore more data to analyse. Needless to say, this makes attribution via observations useless if the aim is to predict how our climate will behave under future atmospheric conditions caused by AGW. So Models are much more useful as they can plug in the conditions for any current or past weather event and then input counter factual conditions to test how those storms would have behaved if for example, oceans had been cooler, or the jet stream hadn't have been meandering so much due to polar warming etc.

    Climate scientists know an awful lot more about this than you do Dense, and they have the tools and understanding that you can only dream of. If you're going to quote their research you should at least have the courtesy to get their conclusions right

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Interesting study just released says that if it wasn't for global warming, Hurricane Florence would have produced only half as much rain and it would have been 80 kilometers smaller

    https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/4/945/files/2018/09/climate_change_Florence_0911201800Z_final-262u19i.pdf

    This is on the basis of physics models and not historical observations.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Interesting study just released says that if it wasn't for global warming, Hurricane Florence would have produced only half as much rain and it would have been 80 kilometers smaller

    https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/4/945/files/2018/09/climate_change_Florence_0911201800Z_final-262u19i.pdf

    This is on the basis of physics models and not historical observations.

    So alarmed alarmed earth scientists have now modelled the models to get them to forecast a human fingerprint.

    Back when CO2 levels were around the famous but undefined "pre industrial period" in 1900, what do you think caused the floods that came with Hurricane Hazel?


    hazel.jpg


    Model T Fords causing the US east cost to be sinking?


    Scientists:
    Parts of North Carolina, New Jersey and South Carolina have been sinking at rates of 8 to 10 inches per century.
    https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/scientists-rhode-island-is-sinking-and-sea-levels-continue-to-rise_20180327075737224/1082490842



    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas/

    Observations show a decrease in historic hurricane activity:
    We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.
    Once an estimate for likely missing storms is accounted for the increase in tropical storms in the Atlantic since the late-19th Century is not distinguishable from no change.
    Atlantic tropical storms lasting more than 2 days have not increased in number.

    Storms lasting less than two days have increased sharply, but this is likely due to better observations. Figure adapted from Landsea, Vecchi, Bengtsson and Knutson (2009, J. Climate)
    When one focuses only on landfalling storms (yellow lines) the nominal trend has been for a decrease.
    https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/
    We have investigated trends in CONUS hurricane activity since 1900 and found no significant trends in landfalling hurricanes, major hurricanes, or normalized damage consistent with what has been found in previous studies.
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1


    Increased financial loss is being fuelled by increasing development in historic hurricane risk paths, not AGW.


    Analyses show that, although economic losses from weather-related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.


    The observed loss increase is caused primarily by increasing exposure and value of capital at risk.
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    You are so dishonest.

    The only reason scientists say they can't attribute individual events to climate change is because the sample size is too small.


    You are now caught up in classic climate change circular reasoning by claiming that the number of extreme weather events caused by global warming is so small that the earth scientists are saying they are having trouble attributing them to global warming.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    You are now caught up in classic climate change circular reasoning by claiming that the number of extreme weather events caused by global warming is so small that the earth scientists are saying they are having trouble attributing them to global warming.

    By definition extreme events are rare, if they weren't they would be normal weather.

    Climate change is causing what used to be considered extreme, to now be normal weather. Its shifting the bell curve

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    By definition extreme events are rare, if they weren't they would be normal weather.

    Climate change is causing what used to be considered extreme, to now be normal weather.


    Reverting to subjective descriptions of normal weather is another element of circular reasoning for those trying to convince themselves and others that extreme events are becoming more frequent.




    Abstract

    It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.



    A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change.




    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.php?aid=69558


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Anyone else carrying the personal burden of experiencing catastrophic climate change to a greater extent than the scientific community may take comfort in the IPCC's AR5 which aside from identifying some extra heat found severe difficulty identifying anything else resulting from global warming.

    In summary …. it is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., above the 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends.

    In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

    In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.

    Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

    In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data.
    http://euanmearns.com/climate-scientists-confirm-no-global-increase-in-extreme-weather-events/


    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml


    Hopefully it might go some way to assuage the hurt being caused to some gullible people by unfounded allegations from eco activists who are alleging that Ireland's emissions are causing disproprtionate catastrophic climate change.



    #stopclimatechaos


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    dense wrote: »
    Like when you fell off the wall and everyone laughed at you?
    I dunno what that's supposed to mean but maybe someone out there thinks it's clever.

    dense wrote: »
    In other words, link please, because I don't recall using any of those figures nor do I recall you piping up at the time to say my calculations were incorrect.


    If there is an error in my calculations concerning how much energy fossil fuels supply here and how much renewables do, link to it and then correct it.

    Actually I'll link to it to save you the trouble and you can check that it's ok.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107955400&postcount=490

    Heres the online conversion tool to convert 14m tons of oil equivalence to Twh


    http://www.conversion-website.com/energy/ton-of-oil-equivalent-to-terawatt-hour.html


    Akrasia's new standard unit of 1 Hiroshima bomb isn't included there however, so I'm a little sceptical of you being able to verify their claims about Ireland setting off the equivalent of 2m of them since 1998 and their impact, if any, in degrees of global warming.


    Sure. Look below. I'm sure it's easy to get lost in that tangled mess you leave behind. Nice try on attempting to shift the topic again though. It's probably why you can't remember all the things you said (and can't remember how to use the search function to look for it).


    dense wrote: »
    Converting 20twh to gwh gives approximately 20,000gwh according to my calculations, which is just 0.6% of the 3.10m gwh of electricity generated per year.


    https://www.convertunits.com/from/TWh/to/GWh



    Point being, they're SI units so there's no "calculation" involved. The prefix is only telling you the multiple of the original unit (10 to the power of x). Did you know 10 is approximately ten 1's? Will you give me a €100 note for approximately 10 x €10 notes (give or take a few €10)?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »

    Point being, they're SI units so there's no "calculation" involved. The prefix is only telling you the multiple of the original unit (10 to the power of x). Did you know 10 is approximately ten 1's? Will you give me a €100 note for approximately 10 x €10 notes (give or take a few €10)?

    Is that it? A way to show you couldn't find a fault in what I've calculated:


    That renewable energy currently supplies just 8Twh of the 163Twh (14Mtoe) of energy consumed annually here.



    You don't seem to appreciate that demands for a rapid transition off fossil fuels leave an annual 155Twh energy supply gap.


    That's 95% of the energy this country uses in a year.


    Where's it going to reliably come from and at what cost?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    dense wrote: »
    Is that it? A way to show you couldn't find a fault in what I've calculated:


    That renewable energy currently supplies just 8Twh of the 163Twh (14Mtoe) of energy consumed annually here.



    You don't seem to appreciate that

    demands for a rapid transition off fossil fuels leave an annual 155Twh energy supply gap.


    That's 95% of the energy this country uses in a year.


    Where's it going to reliably come from and at what cost?


    I appreciate plenty. Don't worry about that :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    The alleged catastrophic sea level rise is another non issue that the lefties try to exploit in order to wreak energy havoc.


    Scientists say satellite imagery shows land area "all over the world" is increasing, coinciding with man made global warming.




    Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land - 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) - than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

    "We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.

    "We're (sic) were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100


    In other news from the settled science circus, it is confirmed that windmills can also cause climate change.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36131442


    Climate science, the gift that keeps on giving.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,483 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    dense wrote: »
    The alleged catastrophic sea level rise is another non issue that the lefties try to exploit in order to wreak energy havoc.


    Scientists say satellite imagery shows land area "all over the world" is increasing, coinciding with man made global warming.






    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100


    In other news from the settled science circus, it is confirmed that windmills can also cause climate change.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36131442


    Climate science, the gift that keeps on giving.


    So you concede that mans actions have an impact on the environment???? Are you just arguing the scale of the issue?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    So you concede that mans actions have an impact on the environment???? Are you just arguing the scale of the issue?


    The scale is quite clear.

    Irish people are responsible for low crop yields in Honduras and a shortage of rain in Malawi.
    According to the report, one Irish person emits 74 times more carbon dioxide per year than one Ethiopian or Malawian. In Honduras crop yields will fall by at least 10 percent by 2020 and rainfall in Malawi could decrease by up to 25 percent by the end of the century.
    https://www.trocaire.org/news/irelands-emissions-are-charts

    How you can all say your carbon footprint is too small to bother about is pretty amazing, it's 74 times more than one Ethiopian.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    ‘It is FAR MORE serious than we thought’ Scientists warn tsunamis could hit Britain.
    Because, as Tom Jones says, "Its not unusual".

    In what must be a major disappointment to the climate fiction alarmists, the UK media reports on new research which suggests that the British Isles were being hit with extreme weather in the form of tsunamis in the pre industrial period when CO2 levels were much lower than today.
    New research has found that devastating tsunamis hit the British Isles much more often than previously thought.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-45541721?__twitter_impression=true
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1018801/tsunami-warning-uk-tsunamis-news-landslide-british-geological-survey


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Reverting to subjective descriptions of normal weather is another element of circular reasoning for those trying to convince themselves and others that extreme events are becoming more frequent.








    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.php?aid=69558
    Well that's the worst paper I've ever seen.

    I don't know if it was peer reviewed, it couldn't have been, the references aren't even correct. His 'figures' and graphs are unsourced and clearly just collected from climate change denial blogs along with almost all of his other information. These same blogs that have been found manipulating and falsifying graphs on multiple occasions.

    His references section is a cluster**** of climate denial bogs 'think tanks' like the 'global warming policy foundation'

    This paper is proof of the programming concept garbage in, garbage out.

    MJ Kelly might know a lot about quantum engineering. But he hasn't got a clue about climate science or how to tell good data from propaganda in a politically charged arena full of misinformation

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    The scale is quite clear.

    Irish people are responsible for low crop yields in Honduras and a shortage of rain in Malawi.


    https://www.trocaire.org/news/irelands-emissions-are-charts

    How you can all say your carbon footprint is too small to bother about is pretty amazing, it's 74 times more than one Ethiopian.
    And according to you, one persons carbon footprint matters, but 4.5million people's carbon footprint is insignificant.

    Individual action is not the solution to a global ecological problem. It requires global political action.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    ‘It is FAR MORE serious than we thought’ Scientists warn tsunamis could hit Britain.
    Because, as Tom Jones says, "Its not unusual".

    In what must be a major disappointment to the climate fiction alarmists, the UK media reports on new research which suggests that the British Isles were being hit with extreme weather in the form of tsunamis in the pre industrial period when CO2 levels were much lower than today.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-45541721?__twitter_impression=true
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1018801/tsunami-warning-uk-tsunamis-news-landslide-british-geological-survey

    Tsunamis aren't weather dense. They're caused by earthquakes, volcanos or landslides, or even asteroid impacts.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Tsunamis aren't weather dense. They're caused by earthquakes, volcanos or landslides, or even asteroid impacts.


    You're missing a trick here, you need to exploit any catastrophe involving water, flood and destruction and link it to climate change.

    Be a little inventive, like the climatologists.

    EG: The Japanese tsunami responsible for calving ice:
    Kelly Brunt, a cryosphere specialist at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and colleagues were able to link the calving of icebergs from the Sulzberger Ice Shelf in Antarctica following the Tohoku Tsunami, which originated with an earthquake off the coast of Japan in March 2011.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/565/japans-tsunami-created-icebergs-in-antarctica/


    Calving ice responsible for tsunamis (just leave out the last bit and Joe Public will buy it):
    Depending on the mass of ice lost and the particular configuration of the water and the fjord into which it surges, these events can also create destructive tsunamis, albeit of a relatively small scale (compared with how big open ocean tsunamis can get).
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/23/this-melting-greenland-glacier-is-now-producing-terrifying-tsunamis/?utm_term=.6b114976c6a5


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    MJ Kelly might know a lot about quantum engineering. But he hasn't got a clue about climate science or how to tell good data from propaganda in a politically charged arena full of misinformation


    Rajendra K. Pachaur was a railway engineer who didn't have a clue about climate science and it didn't stop him being chairman of the UNIPCC and spreading it's political propaganda, did it?


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Well that's the worst paper I've ever seen.

    I don't know if it was peer reviewed, it couldn't have been, the references aren't even correct. His 'figures' and graphs are unsourced and clearly just collected from climate change denial blogs along with almost all of his other information. These same blogs that have been found manipulating and falsifying graphs on multiple occasions.

    His references section is a cluster**** of climate denial bogs 'think tanks' like the 'global warming policy foundation'

    This paper is proof of the programming concept garbage in, garbage out.


    That's your typical "fire everything at it reaction" when you dislike a paper's conclusions.

    Let's look at what the paper's publisher says about its peer review process.


    https://www.omicsonline.org/peer-review-process.php


    It's looks very comprehensive:

    Every article submitted to the journal is subjected to strict plagiarism check through our double check process involving software and manual checking. Once article passes through this step, articles are subjected to editorial review for scope, relevance and other standard requirements.

    Peer review is the major quality maintenance measure for any academic journal. In this process, experts in the relevant fields analyze the scholarly work from every perspective, including its writing, the accuracy of its technical content, its documentation, and its impact on and significance to the discipline.

    Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing, and their valuable opinions certify the quality of the article under consideration. Peer review helps to ratify research, establishing a standard for evaluation within research communities.

    OMICS journals employ the peer review process in order to maintain academic standards and insure the validity of individual works submitted for publication. In addition, OMICS follows a single-blinded peer review process, to ensure impartial editorial decision-making.

    Depending on reviewer commentary and recommendations, manuscripts may be sent back to authors for revision. After the assistant editor receives the revised manuscript, it is assigned to the reviewer(s) once again, for approval of changes. But the final decision to publish is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

    OMICS is following different review strategies for each and every individual journal as per their editorial board guidelines. In general following stages of review process table explains the overall outline, however the respective editor can change the general review policy as per their editorial board members interest as and when required. Majorly, OMICS International staff will do only hosting, PDF formatting and design, communicating review process and there is no control on content and editorial practice of journals as its vary from journal to journal and editor to editor. Most of the OMICS journals content is publishing under creative commons attribution licence, and OMICS is not responsible for content of individual authors and their articles. All the journals articles published under the discretion of respective contributors.

    Maybe the whole climate science publishing and research game is a cosy self sustaining cluster####??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    You're missing a trick here, you need to exploit any catastrophe involving water, flood and destruction and link it to climate change.

    Be a little inventive, like the climatologists.

    EG: The Japanese tsunami responsible for calving ice:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/565/japans-tsunami-created-icebergs-in-antarctica/


    Calving ice responsible for tsunamis (just leave out the last bit and Joe Public will buy it):


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/23/this-melting-greenland-glacier-is-now-producing-terrifying-tsunamis/?utm_term=.6b114976c6a5

    You've lost it dense. Now you're arguing against imagined lies that you've thought up all by yourself.

    Climate scientists are not attributing tsunamis to climate change, and if a tsunami caused the breakup of an ice sheet, then thats what happened in that instance. It's not hard dense. Most people try to find out the truth of what is happening. You seem to be looking for an angle all the time, for how you can get the facts to fit your own world view.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Rajendra K. Pachaur was a railway engineer who didn't have a clue about climate science and it didn't stop him being chairman of the UNIPCC and spreading it's political propaganda, did it?


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri

    He's an administrator not a climate scientist. He's not doing any research, he's just overseeing the organisation of this extremely complex publication.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    He's not doing any research, he's just overseeing the organisation of this extremely complex publication.


    He's not overseeing anything because he resigned in 2015.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-31601122


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,245 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Who gives a sh1t. You brought him up as a standard dense distraction tactic when I pointed out that the paper you linked to was written by someone with absolutely no climate science training and written in a way using sources of such awful quality that they would get a university undergraduate student a failing grade.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



Advertisement