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

dense · 21-12-2018 12:58AM

batgoat wrote: »

I can't wait till dense deals with vaccines as a global conspiracy....

Sorry, cant help you there, buy if you believe vaccines are part of a global conspiracy and are now having random thoughts to that effect, might I suggest an anti vax thread as a more appropriate place to share your complulsion?

batgoat · 21-12-2018 12:00PM

dense wrote: »

Sorry, cant help you there, buy if you believe vaccines are part of a global conspiracy and are now having random thoughts to that effect, might I suggest an anti vax thread as a more appropriate place to share your complulsion?

I think it just fits in pretty well with the fact that you effectively think global warming is a new world order conspiracy to establish a communist regime... Because that is basically what you've said.

dense · 21-12-2018 11:01PM

batgoat wrote: »

I think it just fits in pretty well with the fact that you effectively think global warming is a new world order conspiracy to establish a communist regime... Because that is basically what you've said.

Barking up the wrong tree there bud

But what's wrong with a new world order for the better, based on #climatejustice and sustainability costing the taxpayer €7bn a year to avoid paying fines of €0.6bn a year for something that we are not responsible for causing and are not in a position to rectify?

The lefties here were up in arms about that €13bn from Apple and all the homes they could have built for themselves and their mates with it.

Akrasia · 26-12-2018 11:44PM

Investing in future energy infrastructure and modernising old houses is hardly wasting billions for no benefit

26-12-2018 11:57PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Investing in future energy infrastructure and modernising old houses is hardly wasting billions for no benefit

Modernising old houses can often be a false economy, all you end up with is an old unsuitable house in in the wrong location.

Usually it's better to knock and build modern property designed for the needs of the people who will live there.

For example, demolish "cottages" in urban areas and replace with modern flats that can house several families & couple or single people on the footprint of two or three old two room bungalows that could only house two or three couples in cramped accommodation with poor insulation.

Akrasia · 27-12-2018 11:42AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Modernising old houses can often be a false economy, all you end up with is an old unsuitable house in in the wrong location.

Usually it's better to knock and build modern property designed for the needs of the people who will live there.

For example, demolish "cottages" in urban areas and replace with modern flats that can house several families & couple or single people on the footprint of two or three old two room bungalows that could only house two or three couples in cramped accommodation with poor insulation.

Ok, but we don't live in a totalitarian state and there are downsides to turfing out old people and tearing down their houses.

27-12-2018 12:20PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, but we don't live in a totalitarian state and there are downsides to turfing out old people and tearing down their houses.

You give them a new flat in exchange.
Anyway, much of that property is owned these days by landlords, you just compensate them at market rates.

dense · 27-12-2018 06:28PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Investing in future energy infrastructure and modernising old houses is hardly wasting billions for no benefit

Do you have the cost to benefit analysis to hand?

The SEAI is waving a €35billion carrot in front of "deep retrofit" service providers.

https://www.seai.ie/grants/home-energy-grants/deep-retrofit-grant/

The benefits accruing from deep retrofit are what, and to whom are they accruing exactly?

It certailnly won't be the homeowner because as we have seen, their reduced energy consumption, through attempts at investing in A rated appliances and energy saving light bulbs etc is being rewarded with constantly rising electricity prices.

27-12-2018 06:49PM

dense wrote: »

Do you have the cost to benefit analysis to hand?

The SEAI is waving a €35billion carrot in front of "deep retrofit" service providers.

https://www.seai.ie/grants/home-energy-grants/deep-retrofit-grant/

The benefits accruing from deep retrofit are what, and to whom are they accruing exactly?

It certailnly won't be the homeowner because as we have seen, their reduced energy consumption, through attempts at investing in A rated appliances and energy saving light bulbs etc is being rewarded with constantly rising electricity prices.

With ever increasing energy prices, the rewards are basically not having their energy bills rise as much as they would if they did not insulate and change to low energy lights & appliances.

dense · 27-12-2018 11:24PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With ever increasing energy prices, the rewards are basically not having their energy bills rise as much as they would if they did not insulate and change to low energy lights & appliances.

Looks like a bit of a gamble to be honest.
To see any saving they first have to cough up €30,000 or more for a deep retrofit, which at present is grant aided, but for a limited time only as it is a pilot scheme and the SEAI is still "learning" about any benifits.

"We are currently not accepting applications from individual homeowners. We need to learn through the pilot before developing a model to deliver high quality deep retrofit to individual homeowners."

https://www.seai.ie/grants/home-energy-grants/deep-retrofit-grant/

Insulation potential is not fantastic unless you are literally living in a barn with paper for walls and ceilings.

The majority of houses have some form of insulation by design or chance. In the period between 1700 and 1977 67% of houses were classified as being above the lowest BER rating of F-G.

https://www.thejournal.ie/home-heating-oil-gas-electricity-cso-1891733-Jan2015/

The maximum heat loss through an attic is 30%, so at least 70% is retained with absolutely no insulation whatsoever.

The maximum loss through walls is 35%. so at least 65% heat is retained with absolutely no insulation.

If your doors and windows are falling apart they'll still retain at least 90% of heat.

https://www.seai.ie/sustainable-solutions/deep-retrofit/

As the requirement is to get householders to use less and less energy which is costing more and more, the benefits seem very hard to pin down.

The next distraction will be smart meters, designed to make householders reconsider that extra cup of tea.

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/0410/953366-smart-electricity-meters-are-coming-so-what-can-we-expect/

I wonder can Akrasia shed any light on how this €7bn is being spent annually and what the alleged benefits of spending it are?

dense · 28-12-2018 07:06PM

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/irish-scientist-questions-warnings-on-climate-change-1.3738727?mode=amp

Professor Bates trying to bring a bit of sanity to the global warming asylum.

Akrasia · 28-12-2018 10:08PM

dense wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/irish-scientist-questions-warnings-on-climate-change-1.3738727?mode=amp

Professor Bates trying to bring a bit of sanity to the global warming asylum.

Professor Bates is full of sh1t on this topic and when he refers to 'new evidence since 2013' he should be referring to the fact that 5 of the top 10 hottest years ever recorded have been since then including the top 3 hottest years by a significant margin

He thinks climate sensitivity is less than 1c when we've already exceeded that warming.

Akrasia · 28-12-2018 10:16PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With ever increasing energy prices, the rewards are basically not having their energy bills rise as much as they would if they did not insulate and change to low energy lights & appliances.

Not to mention reducing smog and particulate emissions from old houses with open fires that make the air in our towns and cities toxic during winter months. Open fires are extremely inefficient at converting fuel into usable heat and then poor insulation, damp and draughty housing don't retain that heat for long.

Alf Veedersane · 28-12-2018 10:28PM

dense wrote: »

Insulation potential is not fantastic unless you are literally living in a barn with paper for walls and ceilings.

The majority of houses have some form of insulation by design or chance. In the period between 1700 and 1977 67% of houses were classified as being above the lowest BER rating of F-G.

https://www.thejournal.ie/home-heating-oil-gas-electricity-cso-1891733-Jan2015/

Misleading. There's a fairly low percentage of those houses built up to 1977 that have a BER. 750k homes in the country built before any insulation standards came into being in 1979 and that was only for publicly funded homes.

dense wrote: »

The maximum heat loss through an attic is 30%, so at least 70% is retained with absolutely no insulation whatsoever.

The maximum loss through walls is 35%. so at least 65% heat is retained with absolutely no insulation.

If your doors and windows are falling apart they'll still retain at least 90

They are indicative figures. Heat loss doesn't work like that. If you have no insulation in your attic but highly insulated walls and triple glazed windows, the proportion of heat loss will be much higher.

If you have well insulated attic and walls but you have poor doors and windows, which will typically be areas of poor airtightness, You'll lose more heat there.

dense · 29-12-2018 01:48AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Professor Bates is full of sh1t on this topic and when he refers to 'new evidence since 2013' he should be referring to the fact that 5 of the top 10 hottest years ever recorded have been since then including the top 3 hottest years by a significant margin

He thinks climate sensitivity is less than 1c when we've already exceeded that warming.

Sure maybe he's been bought off by big oil too, eh??

Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the Meteorology and Climate Centre at UCD. He was formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen and a Senior Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre.

Earlier in his career he was Head of Research at Met Éireann. He was Chairman of the RIA’s Climate Change Sciences Committee, 2009-2013, and a member of the RIA’s Climate Change and Environmental Sciences Committee, 2014-18. Prof. Bates' current research area is climate sensitivity. He was awarded the Vilhelm Bjerknes Medal of the European Geosciences Union in 2009. He is a Member of the Royal Irish Academy and of the Academia Europaea.

https://www.ria.ie/john-raphael-ray-bates

How do you expect your claims of hottest years to be taken seriously when only last week you were saying scientists disagree about what the earth's average global temperature is and what it was that it is being compared to?

Couple that with your inability to tell us what the "hottest years" translate to in terms of respective global average temperatures for those years in order to ascertain whether you're on track to limit your warming to 1.5° above some similarly unknown global average temperature and you have serious credibility issues.

You need to know that the UNIPCC is just a UN body used to promote the implementation of the UN's stated agenda of a new world order for the better, by forcing unwanted, unknown and unprecedented changes upon all aspects of society.

OleRodrigo · 29-12-2018 04:50AM

Freeman Dyson on climate hysteria

Very interesting indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

Akrasia · 30-12-2018 01:40PM

Not enough evidence to believe in climate change, but enough evidence to believe in ESP.

There are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent and also extremely wrong about certain things.

My own uncle is a barrister and probably one of the smartest people I know who also believes in homeopathy.

Some people are just natural contrarians who love to rail against the established view. Occasionally this leads to big breakthroughs in our understanding, but you can't accept a contrarian opinion on one thing just because someone has a proven track record on a completely separate field.

Akrasia · 30-12-2018 01:50PM

dense wrote: »

Sure maybe he's been bought off by big oil too, eh??

Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the Meteorology and Climate Centre at UCD. He was formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen and a Senior Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre.

Earlier in his career he was Head of Research at Met reann. He was Chairman of the RIA’s Climate Change Sciences Committee, 2009-2013, and a member of the RIA’s Climate Change and Environmental Sciences Committee, 2014-18. Prof. Bates' current research area is climate sensitivity. He was awarded the Vilhelm Bjerknes Medal of the European Geosciences Union in 2009. He is a Member of the Royal Irish Academy and of the Academia Europaea.

https://www.ria.ie/john-raphael-ray-bates

How do you expect your claims of hottest years to be taken seriously when only last week you were saying scientists disagree about what the earth's average global temperature is and what it was that it is being compared to?

Couple that with your inability to tell us what the "hottest years" translate to in terms of respective global average temperatures for those years in order to ascertain whether you're on track to limit your warming to 1.5° above some similarly unknown global average temperature and you have serious credibility issues.

You need to know that the UNIPCC is just a UN body used to promote the implementation of the UN's stated agenda of a new world order for the better, by forcing unwanted, unknown and unprecedented changes upon all aspects of society.

Ray Bates is like one of the old style eminent geologists who opposed plate tectonics. There are always some scientists who refuse to accept the evidence because they're stuck in a wrong way of thinking. He may eventually change his mind, or he will go to his grave still thinking climate sensitivity is 1c even as the planet is warming well beyond that figure and the evidence continues to pile up that he is wrong.

rossie1977 · 30-12-2018 01:58PM

For around 2,000 years the CO2 levels stayed constant at around 275 ppm. Since the industrial revolution that's seen a big spike almost annually and we currently sit at over 400ppm.

Amount of methane gas in Earth's atmosphere has seen a gigantic increase since the 1850s.

dense · 30-12-2018 05:37PM

rossie1977 wrote: »

For around 2,000 years the CO2 levels stayed constant at around 275 ppm. Since the industrial revolution that's seen a big spike almost annually and we currently sit at over 400ppm.

Do you want to lead us through what you think will happen, and when, if we manage to transition off fossil fuels and reduce CO2 to say, 300ppm?

Go through the unprecedented changes in all aspects of society that will be required to make that transition, and then what you expect that the transition will achieve in terms of forcing a new round of deliberate man made climate change to counter the current alleged man made global warming which is said to be causing climate change?

Pa ElGrande · 31-12-2018 06:12AM

rossie1977 wrote: »

For around 2,000 years the CO2 levels stayed constant at around 275 ppm. Since the industrial revolution that's seen a big spike almost annually and we currently sit at over 400ppm.

Amount of methane gas in Earth's atmosphere has seen a gigantic increase since the 1850s.

We are all doomed I tell ya', doomed . . .

Akrasia · 31-12-2018 07:16PM

You know that it's considered good manners to provide the source of your links and images so others can check them to see if they are credible?

Is this from a study that was published in a reputable peer reviewed journal?

I doubt it considering he refers to Lindzen and Choi's 2009 sensitivity figure which was thoroughly debunked such that they had to revise it themselves in 2011 and Lindzen himself called his own 2009 paper embarrassing.

Lindzen and Choi's 2011 revision paper was also a disaster and rejected by the peer reviewers at PNAS so he got it published in a crappy journal with much lower standards

Climate scientists are aware that there is a diminishing greenhouse effect as concentrations of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. It's a logarithmic scale, this is why climate sensitivity holds as the increase in temperature we should see for each doubling of CO2 concentrations.

The 'saturated gas' argument was made and given a lot of credence in the early 20th century but as we grew in our understanding of the physics of the greenhouse effect, it became clear that this argument is fundamentally flawed and no serious climate scientist would ever put forth that argument in 2018

There is a very good explanation for why on real climate. Read the full article. It's actually very interesting, but if you don't have time, here's the summary.

So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

31-12-2018 07:39PM

OK a google produced this https://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

The chart is in one of the replies.

and https://twitter.com/khaustein/status/948626992508932097

neither have the source of the original image.

But they do allude to the theory that as the CO2 levels increase, their affects on "greeenhouse warming" reduce.

Akrasia · 31-12-2018 08:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

OK a google produced this https://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

The chart is in one of the replies.

and https://twitter.com/khaustein/status/948626992508932097

neither have the source of the original image.

But they do allude to the theory that as the CO2 levels increase, their affects on "greeenhouse warming" reduce.

Climate sensitivity is logarithmic. For every doubling of CO2, we should see the same amount of warming, so lets say ECS is 3c, then we would see a 3c increase in warming between 150ppm and 300ppm, and an additional 3c of warming between 300ppm and 600ppm.

This is only based on the CO2 forcing element. If there are additional feedbacks these would need to be accounted for (like changes to albedo, methane released from permafrost and under the sea etc, water vapour changes etc

31-12-2018 08:22PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Climate sensitivity is logarithmic. For every doubling of CO2, we should see the same amount of warming, so lets say ECS is 3c, then we would see a 3c increase in warming between 150ppm and 300ppm, and an additional 3c of warming between 300ppm and 600ppm.

This is only based on the CO2 forcing element. If there are additional feedbacks these would need to be accounted for (like changes to albedo, methane released from permafrost and under the sea etc, water vapour changes etc

In that case the theory is correct, a doubling in CO2 does not involve a doubling in the temperature increases, it only increases in a linear trend for each doubling.

Pa ElGrande · 31-12-2018 09:33PM

Follow the money, realclimate.org cannot be considered an objective source since it is a front for a PR firm that is paid to disseminate climate change propaganda.

Here is what professor Richard Lindzen had to say about realclimate.org.

“Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) created a website, realclimate.org, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce their worrying.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

source

Here is a job advertisement for the PR firm Fenton Communications from May this year for Climate vice president.

We Are: A pioneering social impact communications firm with 33 years experience working on some of the country’s most important social change movements. Fenton creates top-tier cause and issue campaigns for past and present clients like MoveOn.org, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Save the Children, The Sierra Club, Sungevity, Al Gore, the IPCC, DC Entertainment, Save the Redwoods, the Environmental Defense Fund, 350.org, NRG, Bloomberg Philanthropies and Johnson & Johnson. Fenton has 60+ staff in four offices in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.

source

Akrasia · 31-12-2018 09:47PM

Realclimate was started by actively publishing climate scientists Gavin Schmidt,
Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and
Caspar Ammann.
It's run as a voluntary non profit site and this is what they have to say about Fenton communications

RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain was hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, none of these organizations were in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor SCN nor EMS ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither did they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

Just another thing to add to the List Richard Lindzen is wrong about.

Oh, speaking of him, he has received lots of funding from the energy industry and lied about it
As you said follow the money
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

SEPT 23 1989 · 31-12-2018 09:56PM

Climate is changing and it has changed in the past and a lot more violently than now

31-12-2018 10:04PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Climate is changing and it has changed in the past and a lot more violently than now

Always has changed and always will change, the only difference is now, humans are influencing these changes (the only real debate is "how much?").
Taxing CO2 is simply a scam as it deflects from the activities that have the most affect on the environment.

dense · 01-01-2019 12:33AM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Climate is changing and it has changed in the past and a lot more violently than now

Correct. Rising CO2 has coincided with a decrease in loss of life from climate events.

Absolute-number-of-deaths-from-natural-catastrophes-Final.png

Absolute-number-of-deaths-from-natural-catastrophes-Final.png

Detection and attribution

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

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

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

Comments