Akrasia wrote: » 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.
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.
dense wrote: » Funny how you resort to trying to pick at a peer reviewed author's credentials when their peer reviewed research doesn't coincide with your urgent, lefty demands for a "global solution". Your dismissal of a peer reviewed author coincides with the opinion of the editor of The Lancet who has suggested that as much as half of the published scientific "literature" may simply be "untrue".https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext As much as 97% of the climate science literature is false if that's the case I'd guess. P.S. The head of the UNIPCC had no "climate science training" either.
dense wrote: » Funny how you resort
Dohnjoe wrote: » Funny how you have to resort to using every trick and tactic possible to continually push your subjective dogmatic view despite it being countered by simple logic, reason and evidence, doesn't that raise personal alarm bells? if not, that's even more worrying If this was a proper debate with an arbiter your argument would have long been struck off as faulty, circular and pedantic. But there isn't, so here we are. You vs the world in a game of stamina, who can get the last word in
Akrasia wrote: » Who gives a sh1t.
Akrasia wrote: » Individual action is not the solution to a global ecological problem. It requires global political action.
dense wrote: » No, instead your whinging because the facts about UN climate "science" don't tally with what you've been fed over the years and you can't come to terms with it and react by getting upset with the person who is enlightening you.
dense wrote: » What a load of cobblers, you can't even explain where we're going to reliably get 95% of our local energy needs from and you're incessantly waffling about wanting to be globally remotely governed by lefty rabble rousers like Paul Murphy and Ruth Coppinger all with the hands out looking for the free stuff or Professor Sweeney's special star, the well known climate rider, hypocrite and socialist dictator, Evo Morales. .
This means nationalising the main industries that dominate the economy. This will need to be done throughout the world, encompassing the 147 multinational corporations that recent research has shown dominate the globe. The task is urgent. It must involve the political re-armament of the workers’ movement in Britain and internationally with a socialist programme. As a first step, this will require the creation of new mass workers’ parties to replace the discredited former workers’ organisations. These parties, such as the Labour Party in Britain, have totally failed over decades to implement programmes to reverse the degradation of the planet.
dubstepper wrote: » This paragraph is largely incoherent but the point about where to source our energy, while interesting, is nothing to do with whether climate change is man made. it is entirely consistent to agree with anthropogenic climate change, without needing to offer a solution. It is beyond most people to offer solutions. We need scientists and engineers to do that.
Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too.Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation? “I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”
dense wrote: » No, it is utterly stupid and dangerous to be calling for an economy to rapidly transition off of fossil fuels without any consideration to solving what is going to reliably replace the 95% of national energy that fossil fuels provide. It is infantile to say "I dont know, but lets do it anyway". Maybe a rapid mass destruction of civilisation is worth it of course, in order to save the planet: I think the answer is no, don't you? Even the alarmists couldn't be bothered monitoring their own carbon footprints here.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention
Provisional data from the SEAI indicates that 30.1% of electricity, 6.9% of heat and 7.1% of transport energy requirements were met from renewable sources at end 2017. Overall, SEAI analysis shows that 10.6% of Ireland’s energy requirements in 2017 were met from renewable sources, with an expectation that Ireland will achieve at least 80% of its 16% renewable energy target by 2020.https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-05-31/31/
Akrasia wrote: » the actual figure is that Ireland produces 10% of it's total energy from renewable sources as of 2017, and 30% of our electricity from renewable sources
Renewable energy accounted for 3% of Ireland’s total final energy consumption in 2015.
Renewable energy in Ireland reached the highest level ever with a new peak in 2016 of 4,246 ktoe, up from the previous peak in 1995 at 4,105 ktoe.
Total renewable energy increased slightly by 0.3% during 2016 to 1,158 ktoe out of their total of 13250ktoe.
Hydro and wind decreased by 15.6% and 6.5% respectively as there was lower rainfall and less wind blowing in 2016 compared to 2015
In 2016, lower hydro and wind resources and increased electricity exports saw electricity generated from gas increase by 23%.
The investigations were carried out in a laboratory chamber furnace at five different temperatures (from 700 to 1100 °C) and at three different air flow rates providing an excess of oxygen. In many cases the determined emission indicators for biomass combustion were higher than for hard coal.
Akrasia wrote: » The solution to transitioning from fossil fuels, is to increase investment and for the government to provide both positive and negative incentives to funnel market forces towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels. Mature technology exists to have energy storage that can provide better continuity of supply. When we have extra generation capacity, that energy is stored in the form of compressed gas, or gravity potential energy, or battery technology with the ability to release this energy when demand is higher or production is lower. Add to this an interconnected EU power grid and we can have a secure reliable network with plenty of redundancy
In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies. Reverse the decline of observational networks in many parts of the world. Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossible to detect climate change over large parts of the globe.
By mid-century, the majority of primary energy comes from non-fossil-fuels (i.e., renewables and nuclear energy) in most 1.5°C pathways (Table 2.6). Figure 2.15 shows the evolution of primary energy supply over this century across 1.5°C pathways, and in detail for the four illustrative pathway archetypes highlighted in this chapter. Note that this section reports primary energy using the direct equivalent method on a lower heating values basis (Bruckner et al., 2014). Renewable energy (including biomass, hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal) increases across all 1.5°C pathways with the renewable energy share of primary energy reaching 28–88% in 2050 (Table 2.6) with an interquartile range of 49–67%. The magnitude and split between bioenergy, wind, solar, and hydro differ between pathways, as can be seen in the illustrative pathway archetypes in Figure 2.15. Bioenergy is a major supplier of primary energy, contributing to both electricity and other forms of final energy such as liquid fuels for transportation (Bauer et al., 2018). In 1.5°C pathways, there is a significant growth in bioenergy used in combination with CCS for pathways where it is included (Figure 2.15). Nuclear power increases its share in most 1.5°C pathways by 2050, but in some pathways both the absolute capacity and share of power from nuclear generators declines (Table 2.15). There are large differences in nuclear power between models and across pathways (Kim et al., 2014; Rogelj et al., 2018). One of the reasons for this variation is that the future deployment of nuclear can be constrained by societal preferences assumed in narratives underlying the pathways (O’Neill et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2017b). Some 1.5°C pathways no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century, while others project over 200 EJ yr–1 of nuclear power in 2100 (Figure 2.15). The share of primary energy provided by total fossil fuels decreases from 2020 to 2050 in all 1.5°C pathways, however, trends for oil, gas and coal differ (Table 2.6). By 2050, the share of primary energy from coal decreases to 0–13% across 1.5°C pathways with an interquartile range of 1–7%. From 2020 to 2050 the primary energy supplied by oil changes by –93 to +6% (interquartile range –75 to –32%); natural gas changes by –88 to +99% (interquartile range –60 to –13%), with varying levels of CCS. Pathways with higher use of coal and gas tend to deploy CCS to control their carbon emissions (see Section 2.4.2.3). As the energy transition is accelerated by several decades in 1.5°C pathways compared to 2°C pathways, residual fossil-fuel use (i.e., fossil fuels not used for electricity generation) without CCS is generally lower in 2050 than in 2°C pathways, while combined hydro, solar, and wind power deployment is generally higher than in 2°C pathways (Figure 2.15). In addition to the 1.5°C pathways included in the scenario database (Annex 2.A.3), there are other analyses in the literature including, for example, sector-based analyses of energy demand and supply options. Even though not necessarily developed in the context of the 1.5°C target, they explore in greater detail some options for deep reductions in GHG emissions. For example, there are analyses of transition to up to 100% renewable energy by 2050 (Creutzig et al., 2017; Jacobson et al., 2017), which describe what is entailed for a renewable energy share largely from solar and wind (and electrification) that is above the range of 1.5°C pathways available in the database, although there have been challenges to the assumptions used in high renewable analyses (e.g., Clack et al., 2017). There are also analyses that result in a large role for nuclear energy in mitigation of GHGs (Hong et al., 2015; Berger et al., 2017a, 2017b; Xiao and Jiang, 2017). BECCS could also contribute a larger share, but faces challenges related to its land use and impact on food supply (Burns and Nicholson, 2017) (assessed in greater detail in Sections 2.3.4.2, 4.3.7 and 5.4). These analyses could, provided their assumptions prove plausible, expand the range of 1.5°C pathways. In summary, the share of primary energy from renewables increases while that from coal decreases across 1.5°C pathways (high confidence). This statement is true for all 1.5°C pathways in the scenario database and associated literature (Annex 2.A.3), and is consistent with the additional studies mentioned above, an increase in energy supply from lower-carbon-intensity energy supply, and a decrease in energy supply from higher-carbon-intensity energy supply
Akrasia wrote: » http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/ The most dangerous ideology this planet has ever seen is not Nazis, or communists, or feminists. it's Science denialism. Pseudo 'skeptics' and corporate shills who are happily promoting lies and distorting the facts so that they can continue to pollute the planet despite the overwhelming evidence that they are causing long term irreversible harm.
dense wrote: » Best get out on the streets and start calling into houses and get any sceptics rounded up and executed then so everyone left will be in agreement with you about the need to implement the UN socialist policies. You're going to have to resort to some undemocratic measures because the government doesn't care and neither does the public.
Did the IPCC this time define what the preindustrial global temperature was and what period it refers to when it mentions preindustrial?
Pre-industrial: The multi-century period prior to the onset of large-scale industrial activity around 1750. The reference period 1850–1900 is used to approximate pre-industrial GMST.http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
xckjoo wrote: » Is it just me or is there a lot more extreme winds and storms in the last few years? It seems to have coincided with me starting back cycling to work
Studies based on proxy and measurement data or model studies over the North Atlantic for the past which cover more than 100 years show large decadal variations and either no trend or a decrease in storm numbers.
Niles Crane wrote: » Individual action is a waste of time.Unless people are foced into changing by the world changing the way it operates then people won't do anything to change the way they behave. If the politicians do nothing (and I supect they won't as most won't be around to feel the full affect of climate change) then nothing will be done. I suspect there will be some seriously dark days ahead for humanity and we won't cop on and react appropriately until it's far too late.
xckjoo wrote: » An answer to the "why should individuals bother" question just occurred to me. If people care politicians will care. If politicians care, governments will care and so on. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? Obviously it isn't a clear cut in the real world, but it does work to some degree. There's a reason politicians listen to the elderly and it's not kindness; it's because they show up to vote.
Akrasia wrote: » Yes. It's the average temperature between 1850 and 1900
Akrasia wrote: » People need to care at the ballot box and in correspondence to their TDs and local councillors and MEPs, and in letters to the editor in media, and in social media, and in calls to radio stations, and in protests and demonstrations. Every time Danny Healey Rae says something stupid about climate change, he needs to get hundreds of letters and emails from his constituents telling him that they won't vote for his science denialism at the next election. Politicians need to think that if they support measures to update the energy infrastructure and reduce emissions, that they will get support from the public and not just a backlash that makes it more trouble than its worth to them.
“As Professor John Fitzgerald of the Climate Advisory Committee has said: “We are completely off course and heading rapidly in the wrong direction“. This budget was a chance to set us on the right course but the Taoiseach and Minister Donohoe have given up on that opportunity.
Niles Crane wrote: » Individual action is a waste of time.
dense wrote: » Which is obviously not the pre industrial period. An accurate average global temperature for the pre industrial temperature cannot be established due to a lack of observations. And as you often say yourself, historical data has to be approached with scepticism. The lefty political scientists who are on the United Nation's climate panel don't really mind so long as they can drum up a bit of hysteria amongst the easily led.
dense wrote: » Every time some green numpty demands that we radidly transition off of fossil fuels, demand that they explain exactly what they think is going to replace the 95% of our energy requirements that fossil fuels supply. Then tell them to stand for office. The greenies are already crying that another budget based on economic growth that "ignores climate change" has been presented.https://www.greenparty.ie/fine-gael-ignore-climate-change-in-a-pre-election-budget-which-has-no-long-term-vision-for-our-future/
dense wrote: » It's not your carbon footprint thats the problem, it's everyone elses.
