"Green" policies are destroying this country

Just think how wonderful that long cargo bike would be on the pothole laden single lane roads in donegal pissing rain with 50kph winds as you do your 10Km each way trip to the shop for a loaf of bread and some milk, heaven!!!!

How can that yoke even be legal when you considerer all the regulations on carrying a child as a passenger in a car.

I don`t know what they are driving that costs €9200 a year, but even allowing €200 for the dog I imagine people would value the life of their children at more than €4,500 each.

With the Summer we are having they would even run the risk of drowning in that gadget let alone it looking as if a fly hitting it would do it serious damage.

The only drastic action that might stop mother nature doing something by 2025 would be if the whole of humanity all walked off a cliff.

First thing is that, as usual, the IT is confusing the gulf stream with the AMOC. No, the AMOC is not "what scientists call the gulf stream". They aren't the same thing. There is no possibility of the gulf stream collapsing unless the earth stops rotating. The Guardian (along with much of the media makes the same mistake. For a quick reminder:

Now to the item itself. I always read the original papers. There's simply no guarantee (or even likelihood) that the media will report what the studies actually say. Here is the original for anyone interested:

You only need to read the introduction to get a sense of the uncertainties involved. And I don't mean uncertainties in observations, but uncertainties in the very idea that the AMOC is a bistable system subject to tipping points. All of the rest of the paper (which is basically an exercise in statistics, not anything to do with physical science) rests on this assumption. As it says: "using [early warning signals] as actual predictors of a forthcoming transition relies on the assumption of quasi-stationary dynamics".

Just last year we had another paper in Nature saying that AMOC variability is dominated by natural changes:

One quote:

Of course, the most interesting thing is the difference in the MSM reaction to the two papers. For imminent catastrophic collapse by 2025:

And for the "natural variability, nothing to see here" paper:

With all the hysteria I thought it would be worth posting the actual IPCC predictions from AR6 which appear in Table 12 of Chapter 12, page 1856 (pdf link):

The table lists those climate impacts that are considered to have been detected already, or are expected to be detected by 2050 and 2100.

Given the nutty media reporting, I think most people would be surprised to find that the IPCC only positively predicts some more prolonged hot and cold spells, precipitation, ice melt and some sea level rise. There is no expectation of giant tornados or tropical storms, no extreme floods, no extreme drought, no increased fire weather, definitely no world going up in flames. For most climate impacts there is no expectation of any particular direction of change.

Oh, and these are all based on the most extreme RCP8.5 / SSP5-8.5 scenarios which the IPCC themselves now consider unduly pessimistic.

I wonder what are our numbers since we are doing something similar anyway...

Don't know if this was posted already but it really is hilarious. The green agenda is really saving the planet lol!

https://tvpworld.com/71419271/scotland-chops-down-almost-16-million-trees-to-make-way-for-wind-turbines

Yourself and Ryan are still off planet on a fantasy world on us generating so much electricity from wind that all of Europe will be lining up to buy that neither of you can give costing for.

The only thing coming through those extension cables will be electricity we will be begging for to keep the lights on when wind falls of to nothing for an extended period.

But at least somebody had the foresight to run those extension leads to the 5 countries mentioned with all of them having nuclear generated electricity.