Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting
Comments
-
-
-
Oh feck off. I didn't say we shouldn't tackle war and famine, I said that it will be in vain in the long term if we don't solve climate change. The human suffering we see today will be amplified massively if we see global average temperatures increase 2 or 3c above pre-industrial temperatures and the temperatures won't stop increasing from there as feedbacks get activated.
As I pointed out the mass human suffering we see today is not due to environmental disaster however it is within the reach of man to resolve violent conflict. World peace is a desirable goal unlike maintaining a static arbitrary temperature value in perpetuity. It is is arrogant of you to pursue such a goal since you do not understand what causes earth's climate cycles and the remedies you are supporting are already hurting less well off people in this country. You live in a part of the northern hemisphere that is quite cold for much of the year and you expect people to be frightened by an unproven allegation that temperatures will rise by 2C if we don't pay more tax and subsidise more wind and solar industrial complexes.
The evidence from past cycles where warming has been dominant is that human civilisation thrives in such conditions, it is the cold cycles that coincide with mass starvation, death and destruction of civilisation.There will never be peace in a world where conflicts of basic resources like fresh water and food are amplified due to climate change
That myth has been blown apart.And Family planning and educating girls is an essential element in poverty reduction and improvements in quality of life for the poorest people in the world.
It is not. Cheap abundant energy is, the kind that frees women from the drudgery of working without labour saving devices such as washing machines. Without that education as you desire it has no value to them and they need the children to take care of them in their old age since no social welfare system is possible.
For those who are interested (4 mins. in), here is a summary by Professor Richard Lindzen outlining how the climate really works, what is known and the shortcomings of the climate alarmists.
If you are so inclined James Cornett outlines the parts of the recent IPCC propaganda bulletin that you might have missed.
Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
Earths climate is very well understood. And we're not trying to maintain an arbitrary static temperature. We're trying to prevent human pollution and changes to land use from flipping the earths climate into a new state that is outside of the framework of the interglacial cycle that humans have evolved under, and into a much warmer state where many parts of the world will become uninhabitable causing massive global upheaval to human civilisation and the rest of the natural worldPa ElGrande wrote: »As I pointed out the mass human suffering we see today is not due to environmental disaster however it is within the reach of man to resolve violent conflict. World peace is a desirable goal unlike maintaining a static arbitrary temperature value in perpetuity. It is is arrogant of you to pursue such a goal since you do not understand what causes earth's climate cycles and the remedies you are supporting are already hurting less well off people in this country. You live in a part of the northern hemisphere that is quite cold for much of the year and you expect people to be frightened by an unproven allegation that temperatures will rise by 2C if we don't pay more tax and subsidise more wind and solar industrial complexes.
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252
There is no precedent for the temperatures we are facing unless we reduce our CO2 equivalent emissions.The evidence from past cycles where warming has been dominant is that human civilisation thrives in such conditions, it is the cold cycles that coincide with mass starvation, death and destruction of civilisation.
We face temperatures hotter than we have experienced in the 2 million or so years since humans evolved as a species
By blown apart, you mean disputed. But as the world warms, the impact of more and more severe heatwaves and droughts will inevitably lead to crop failures and migration and as water supplies dry up, this could lead to conflict between neighbouring countries or communities who may not already be on the best of terms. Your paper dismisses the US military calling climate change a Threat Multiplier. It is obvious that mass migration, famine, resource shortages could exacerbate conflicts between ethnic groups and cultures that don't like each other. American conservatives are sh1tting themselves about the possibility of a few thousand peasants trying to seek asylum in America. Climate change will lead to millions of displaced people from rising seas and people facing water and food shortages due to changes in their local climate.
So you're saying these women should aspire to having washing machines to ease the burdon of their domestic chores.It is not. Cheap abundant energy is, the kind that frees women from the drudgery of working without labour saving devices such as washing machines. Without that education as you desire it has no value to them and they need the children to take care of them in their old age since no social welfare system is possible.
Or perhaps they could be educated and empowered to take control of their own lives and make their own choices
Richard Lindzen is a busted flush. His theories on climate change have all been disproven and none of his predictions have come true and his own colleagues are appalled that he continues to make factually incorrect statements such as 'co2 is not a pollutant'. He's getting very well paid to speak at climate denial events and to appear on propaganda videos like at 'pragerU'For those who are interested (4 mins. in), here is a summary by Professor Richard Lindzen outlining how the climate really works, what is known and the shortcomings of the climate alarmists.
You need better sources. I watched that video and this guy doesn't understand what he's talking about.If you are so inclined James Cornett outlines the parts of the recent IPCC propaganda bulletin that you might have missed.
He's actually a total clown. For example, at about 10 minutes in, says they drew in a line with ms paint onto a graph when it clearly shows on the graph that this red line is an analysis based on Marcott et al. This is the kind of rubbish you get when you have morons who think they know everything rushing through papers looking for things that they misunderstand just enough to think they've found a discrepancy in the science.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?"
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
On the other hand, 'Climate change' has been around for decades, the IPCC has been around since 1988
Climate change has been happening forever. I remember when it used to be called global cooling.
Wrong again. The calculations for climate sensitivity made by Arrhenius in 1896 was about 3c for a doubling of CO2.. This is smack in the middle of the IPCC projections for Climate sensitivity
The physics are very well understood, almost incontrovertible. What we don't fully understand is the effect of all the various feedbacks. We have a good idea of what values they are likely to have, but we don't know for certain and likely won't know until we measure them in hindsight (by which time it's way too late to do anything about them)
Under controlled conditions of a laboratory the results may be predictable and if their hypothesis was right they they would be able to make accurate predictions based on such experiments. For the past 30 years their predictions have been an abject failure. The ice caps are still there at the poles and Greenland and even Kilimanjaro still has snow and those islands that should have been under water a decade ago are still there and the northern passage is still as risky as ever. I guarantee that the ice caps will still be there if I ever get to retire decades from now.
Well the sea has been rising for several hundred years now and we are doing just fine we have the technology to deal with it. If you look at your own country the trend has been rural to urban migration since the 19th century with some exceptional brief periods.Of course people who are displaced are going to migrate to where there is opportunity for a better life. Duh. What do you think will happen when millions of people are displaced from their land because of rising seas or drought. Are they just going to wander around the deserts forever, or are they going to try to make their way to cities or places where there is opportunity to build a better life. What happens when the people living there don't like the mass migration driving down their own wages or standard of living? Conflict. The rise of anti immigrant populism like we're seeing in Europe and America, and ultimately violent conflict.Then they should get a degree in something else then. Actually, lets start by teaching them how to read. Allowing girls to dream of a life other than as a baby factory. Teach them that there is more to the world than subsistence. When they are educated they can become involved in politics, fight for representation so that they're not living hand to mouth.
You need time to learn to read and write you have the conditions that allow you to do that . . . . the things you and I take for granted are not available to over 1 billion people on the planet. Without savings there is no surplus, without a surplus its a hand to mouth existence.Carbon dioxide might be essential for photosynthesis, but it's toxic to humans. If you don't believe me, put a plastic bag over your head and breath (don't actually do this)
CO2 has a natural balance of about 280ppm, this is the carbon cycle in balance. Humans dug up billions of tonnes of oil coal and gas that took the natural carbon cycle tens of millions of years to sequester, and are burning it over the course of only a few centuries. We are fundamentally altering the composition of the atmosphere and you don't do that without consequences.
Without us recycling that sequestered carbon, the biosphere as you know it would starve. It only really starts to become a serious problem for us about 7000 PPM, but even a crowded room can get to 3000 PPM. Besides most of it gets dissolved in the ocean so it's not a problem.Only a lunatic thinks that the worlds governments are all colluding to make climate change seem worse than it is. If anything, there are governments all over the world resisting any attempts to tackle it and doing everything they can to drag their feet and avoid being held to committments to reduce oil, gas and coal consumption.
Even your own link confirms that the language in the SPM document was watered down significantly from it's earlier drafts
Most governments just put on a show they know full well if they try the lunatic ides proposed that they are cutting their own throats metaphorically speaking. People only really become concerned about their environment when the per capita GDP hits about €5000.Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.
0 -
How old are you? There were a couple of scientists predicting a cooling phase in the 70s which got picked up by the press and the usual tabloid exaggeration did not reflect the state of the science at all.Pa ElGrande wrote: »Climate change has been happening forever. I remember when it used to be called global cooling.
These few tabloid headlines have been repeated over and over and over and over again in the Denial blogosphere so that it gives the false impression that there was ever a clamour about potential global cooling.
Climate changes naturally over time due to certain known factors, none of which are responsible for the current warming which is incontrovertibly caused by humans. There is absolutely no scientific debate anymore that the warming in recent decades is caused by humans, and that if we continue to emit CO2 the warming will increase.Under controlled conditions of a laboratory the results may be predictable and if their hypothesis was right they they would be able to make accurate predictions based on such experiments. For the past 30 years their predictions have been an abject failure. The ice caps are still there at the poles and Greenland and even Kilimanjaro still has snow and those islands that should have been under water a decade ago are still there and the northern passage is still as risky as ever. I guarantee that the ice caps will still be there if I ever get to retire decades from now.
Watch this animation and tell me that Arctic sea ice isn't in terminal decline.
Globally glaciers are in decline in most places. Kilamanjaro has lost about 30% of it's mass in recent decades. Record snow is a form of precipitation, or weather, which is not a disproof of climate change.
It's a matter of degree. We can handle a few MM of sea level rise, when we're talking about a centimeter of sea level rises per year, thats when it's dangerous. Similarly with migration. There is always migration of individuals looking to find a better life. When it becomes mass migration of populations, that creates much larger instability and political upheaval.Well the sea has been rising for several hundred years now and we are doing just fine we have the technology to deal with it. If you look at your own country the trend has been rural to urban migration since the 19th century with some exceptional brief periods.
There is a huge discussion to be had about what drives human development. The literature is extremely clear that reduced family sizes and increased education, especially for girls are a huge factor in quality of life and the human development index.You need time to learn to read and write you have the conditions that allow you to do that . . . . the things you and I take for granted are not available to over 1 billion people on the planet. Without savings there is no surplus, without a surplus its a hand to mouth existence.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the best way to help these people is to encourage them to have big families to the limit of their ability to feed them in the hope that some of them will survive long enough to care for the parents in their (premature) old age.
Absolute horseh1t. The carbon cycle was doing perfectly fine before the industrial revolution and the mass emission of carbon into the airWithout us recycling that sequestered carbon, the biosphere as you know it would starve.
CO2 is toxic to humans at much lower levels than that. Studies have shown at above 600ppm it has a marked effect on human cognitive ability. People complain of poor air quality and have poor concentration and decision making.It only really starts to become a serious problem for us about 7000 PPM, but even a crowded room can get to 3000 PPM. Besides most of it gets dissolved in the ocean so it's not a problem.
At above 1000ppm there are significant declines in human cognition and above 2000ppm there are serious deficiencies in human cognition
CO2 in the air also affects the PH in our blood.
Humans have never existed with an atmosphere above 300ppm CO2. Now it's at 405ppm, even if we work hard to reduce our emissions, we're likely to see levels peak at close to 600ppm
When the levels of CO2 are this high in the atmosphere, it's impossible to escape short of breathing through a ventilator.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_serious_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health
people become concerned about their environment when their crops fail and they have no food to eat. Or when their home is flooded due to unprecedented rainfall, or when the temperatures get so high that people can't sleep at night or work during the day or when they get infected with tropical diseases carried by pathogenic insects who are migrating north as temperatures increase....Most governments just put on a show they know full well if they try the lunatic ides proposed that they are cutting their own throats metaphorically speaking. People only really become concerned about their environment when the per capita GDP hits about €5000.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?"
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
https://watchers.news/2018/11/11/valentina-zharkova-solar-magnet-field-and-terrestrial-climate-presentation/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
This prediction revealed the presence of a grand cycle of 350-400 years, with a remarkable resemblance to the sunspot and terrestrial activity features reported in the past millennia: Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645-1715), Wolf (grand) minimum (1200), Oort (grand) minimum (1010-1050), Homer (grand) minimum (800-900 BC); the medieval (900-1200) warm period, Roman (400-10BC) and other warm periods.
This approach also predicts the modern grand minimum upcoming in 2020-2055.
Climate change has F-all to do with CO2, it has everything to do with the terraforming of the planet which has completely destroyed the the local environment is so many areas. A large part of the so called climate change events are entirely caused by human activity, for example replacing a natural valley with houses, concrete and "water management", when the water management fails, it is blamed on climate change rather than the people who built the town. Humans really need to accept responsibility for the damage they are causing and not be duped into believing in false enemies. People are being duped into believing that spending money on reducing CO2 will solve climate change, complete rubbish!
The solution is to return most of the terraformed lands to their natural state, no one is going to admit that this is the correct solution as it is bad for business.
The sun is the prime source of energy on this planet (and all the other planets in the solar system) and any variations in its electromagnetic output will affect the Earth, and it is predicted that the next two cycles will continue to decline while the internal EM fields cancel each other out and then to start increasing again after about 2060.
It is in that unnatural environment that most of the AGW is present, so why do you think that is?
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/urban-effect-on-climate
Far too many people are looking at this issue from the wrong end!
It's a bit like looking at road safety and concentrating on making cars crash safer while ignoring the fact that the drivers are badly trained and the roads are badly engineered.
What has this to do with the changes in solar activity, nothing! But just to highlight the facts that the distraction tactics from those who want growth to continue indefinitely are working.
To successfully tackle climate change would require a reversal of much of the human activity over the past century, reversal of deforestation, reduction of population etc. We know that no one will agree to these steps, so they put up a smokescreen about the "enemy" being CO2!0 -
Deleted User wrote: »To successfully tackle climate change would require a reversal of much of the human activity over the past century, reversal of deforestation, reduction of population etc. We know that no one will agree to these steps, so they put up a smokescreen about the "enemy" being CO2!
Do you think it would be worth it?
The societal chaos that would be wreaked upon civilisation which would occur upon a rapid reduction in fossil fuel consumption leading to an intermittent global energy supply scenario limiting human activities and economic growth, in order to "fix" the perceived climate change problem?
Yes, if one wants to rapidly revert to 19th century ways.
It is possible, from official figures, publicly available from the CSO to determine that just 5% of Ireland's total energy requirements are supplied by renewable energies.
We purport to adhere to democracy.
There is no mandate to dispense with using fossil fuels, nor has Ireland's contribution to global warming ever been quantified.
Nor has any effect on climate change, should the country simply stop emitting any GHG's ever been quantified or analysed, not by the EPA, not by the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change and not by any of the multitude of climate related "charities", from An Taisce to Stop climate chaos.
Yet, we have foolishly and quite inexplicably signed up to impossible targets regarding future emissions, based on dubious moral grounds revolving around pretending to give a shït about Tuvalu, which was sinking once but is now not sinking, or Polar bears, which were allegedly going to suffer most from global warming, but whose numbers are now higher than ever.
Not forgetting the recent stupid and erroneous claims that the oceans have soaked up 60% more heat than was previously thought. Oohhh.
Let us face facts.
CAGW is a scam that entered public consciousness after the threat of nuclear annihilation receded, when activists once busy with the CND found a new activity to busy themselves with, with so much time on their hands from not being able to find a job that was suited to their lack of intelligence.
The test of the CAGW hypothesis lies with the inability to falsify it; for example, global warming is responsible for: too much rain, too much drought, the end of snow, too much snow, freezing winters, warm winters, wet summers, dry summers, summers too cold, summers too hot etc. etc.
Hands up who'd like to experience a rapid transition off of fossil fuels leaving you with a 95% energy deficit?
Thought so.
But while we don't want that, we'll silently and stupidly take a 400% increase in electricity prices in order to facilitate the false notion of "competition" providing choice to the consumer along with the added bonus of saving the planet.
Climate change, feel-good nonsense, put about by environmentalists who won't show their true hand or their hidden agendas.
We know our efforts won't make a blind bit of difference yet there's some weird moral thing which has nothing to do with science or facts permeating the whole climate change bandwagon here in Ireland.
Save yourself from yourselves and save the planet for your neighbour's grandchildren, the usual tripe.
Is it filling the vacuum left by the church's ignominious downfall here?
Looks like it's filling that gap from the quasi religious reasons being peddled regarding our "obligations" regarding climate change and the alleged but unquantified "damage" we're responsible for causing.
Sinning and absolution. Perfect fit.
When someone can demonstrate what percentage of the alleged point nine/point six/variable degree of global warming/climate change that has been observed in the 20th century has been caused by Ireland's use of fossil fuels, we can then move directly forward to debate how best to rectify it.
Climate science is, apparently, and quite uniquely, the settled, cut and dried science, where actual factual debate is supposedly welcome, as opposed to a religious cult where dissent is punished by excommunication.
I'll bookmark this post, it's such a good one
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2q9BT2LIUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA8n9fm5fwE
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement