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

GERALD FLEMING ON RTE LAST NIGHT

1234568

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭John.Icy


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Temperatures have been falling since 2016.. why? Cause we are in solar min. And the sun controls our climate.

    Unless 2019 continues as projected and becomes the 2nd (maybe 3rd) hottest year on record. Then we have a more muddled picture once again as we had consecutive rises from 2014-2016, a consecutive fall from 2017-2018 - and now a rise again (potentially, the predictions made in October so we will see).


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    So is it "climate change" or are we back to calling it "Global warming" again...I suppose we can use both depending on what recent weather is doing...How convenient:rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    I watched this the other night and I think you too will find it interesting.

    I thought it pretty fair and balanced on the whole regarding sea level rise issue. The guy speaking is an aspiring physicist and climate scientist.


    I am not sure what you wanted me to see in that? Its much the same thing, the sea level is rising at an accelerating pace and this is likely to continue accelerating.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    John.Icy wrote: »
    Unless 2019 continues as projected and becomes the 2nd (maybe 3rd) hottest year on record. Then we have a more muddled picture once again as we had consecutive rises from 2014-2016, a consecutive fall from 2017-2018 - and now a rise again (potentially, the predictions made in October so we will see).

    Third hottest year on record means it will be the 3rd lowest since 2016. Temps have been dropping since 2016 and I'd be really surprised if there wasn't a dramatic drop in 2019 after last years winter, Russia coldest summer in decades, early winter and North America late winter last year and early winter this year. Even the heatwave in Europe this summer, the week before it Netherlands recorded its coldest ever temp in July. I'm kind of surprised they are predicting this year as a warm year. Looking forward to the numbers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    easypazz wrote: »
    I am not sure what you wanted me to see in that? Its much the same thing, the sea level is rising at an accelerating pace and this is likely to continue accelerating.

    Time to roll up the sleeves I think!

    https://www.wikihow.com/Build-an-Ark

    New Moon



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Russia coldest summer in decades,.
    Since records began I heard, but don't know how true that is or not.

    Here's an excellent chart showing daily global temperature anomalies since 2014:

    d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2019-11-18.gif

    Source: https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/

    A drop since 2016 as you say, though a 'bounce back' does seem to be occurring in the present time.

    It is interesting to note from that graph that during the early part of 2014, which coincided with a very zonal flow over the entire N Atlantic and Europe region, that global temps briefly fell to near or, in some brief instances, below average. Wonder was there a connection somehow?

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,602 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Since records began I heard, but don't know how true that is or not.

    Here's an excellent chart showing daily global temperature anomalies since 2014:

    d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2019-11-18.gif

    Source: https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/

    A drop since 2016 as you say, though a 'bounce back' does seem to be occurring in the present time.

    It is interesting to note from that graph that during the early part of 2014, which coincided with a very zonal flow over the entire N Atlantic and Europe region, that global temps briefly fell to near or, in some brief instances, below average. Wonder was there a connection somehow?

    The lack of long term/reliable temp records over large parts of the planet is another complicationg factor


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    What the feck? Those scientists eh? How dare they split the atom.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    easypazz wrote: »
    My primary concern is the sea is rising at over 3 mm per year. If this increases to 10mm per year, as projected, then we are in big trouble on this island.

    .

    I'm glad you brought that up again, as I still didn't get an answer on when this will happen. Maybe you could help out where Oldbee was unable/unwilling.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    I'm glad you brought that up again, as I still didn't get an answer on when this will happen. Maybe you could help out where Oldbee was unable/unwilling.

    Unfortunately as I dont have a crystal ball I cant tell you.

    You know nobody can tell if or when this will happen, but you keep asking.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    easypazz wrote: »
    Unfortunately as I dont have a crystal ball I cant tell you.

    You know nobody can tell if or when this will happen, but you keep asking.

    No, Oldbee was certain that my estimation was way off, therefore he must know himself. Problem is he's done a runner after several requests for the answer.

    Wait, you're now saying nobody can tell IF it will happen. But you earlier stated it would -"as projected" - and even misquoted me the other day about it. Are you now not so sure that it will happen?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    I follow these discussions with interest, but lose hope when it deginerates into name calling. I'm middle of the fence. I think there are 2 separate issues

    1) Climate Change.. this is solar driven and always has been. Google Valentina zharkova her science is pretty convincing.

    2) pollution. This is man made and we need to clean up our act both for ourselves and future generations.
    But it's not just CO2, it's all pesticides pollutants, and poisons in our water air and food. CO2 won't actually kill us but the poisons will.

    And to add a point Science is NEVER settled, a theory holds until it is disproven (Einstein quote) we are always learning and improving our understanding.

    I found this article interesting https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/01/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-believing-co2-controls-the-climate-is-pretty-close-to-believing-in-magic/

    His point: of all warming gasses CO2 consists of 2% of them and a doubling of that 2% won't have the catastrophic effect predicted.

    Temperatures have been falling since 2016.. why? Cause we are in solar min. And the sun controls our climate.

    But that does NOT give us free reign to poison and plunder at will, we need to learn to live in harmony with our planet for future generations.

    And I think an gov if serious about Climate Change would make proper steps such as:
    -make it law that you work from home if you can.
    -business air travel to be taxed severely. Make people use Skype for business meetings.
    Limit leisure travel to 3/4 trips per year?
    Free trees to houses with gardens.
    Free apiary courses and hives for those who will manage one.

    There are three sides to every story, yours theirs and the truth. The climate story is evolving and we are only grasping at the edges of the overall truth. The fact the IPCC does not take solar forcing into account in any of its models gives me pause for concern. But I understand that is to be corrected from 2020? Be interesting to see what the science says then.

    That's just my tuppence worth :-)

    Excellent points, and well put across - quite close to my own thoughts too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The lack of long term/reliable temp records over large parts of the planet is another complicationg factor

    And even more important is the lack of observations of the ocean depths, both past and present. Our level of understanding of longterm (and short-term) oceanic processes is literally like a drop in the ocean.


  • Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Carol25


    George Lee is on Maura and Daithi now for more hyping and scaremongering...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    Carol25 wrote: »
    George Lee is on Maura and Daithi now for more hyping and scaremongering...

    I must lob a couple of shovels of coal on the fire and watch it on rte player in a while in comfort.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    The good news is if the planet is warming up we wont need to light fires anymore;):rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    The sooner exstinksion rebellion go extinct the better:pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Mr Bumble


    easypazz wrote: »
    Here is a pic of the Liffey about 200m from O'Connell bridge. Its already more or less level with the road. I know there is an incline to O'Connell bridge but its clear that if we got 400mm of sea level rise by 2050 there would be a lot of problems along the Dublin quays.

    An awful lot of flood defence work would need to be done around Ireland, but where would it stop, do we design for 1m, 2m, 5m?

    dublin-flood.jpg


    Worth pointing out that most of the land in the image on either side of the river is reclaimed land. It used to be a mudflat and estuary. The more you pen a watercourse between concrete - from source to sea - the higher the tide. The more you build houses on floodplains, the more flooded houses you'll have. The more you build houses in hills subject to wild fires, the more wild fires you'll have and the more houses will burn.
    I find it hilarious that bad engineering and awful planning decisions made for greed have somehow become conflated with climate change. Everyone seems surprised when floods happen. Like farmers on the Shannon standing in a flooded field for the 50th time in 50 years complaining that nothing has been done when the logical mind would tell him to go somewhere else to farm.
    Climate change is happening, with or without human interference. One rogue asteroid could throw us into a 100 year winter. We are, by the looks of things, in a notable solar minimum which has coincided with exceptionally cold winters in the Northern hemisphere throughout history. It is rarely mentioned by those who believe CO 2 is the enemy.
    Historic cold records and snow depths are being recorded across large parts of North America for this time of year. The same happened in spring and last autumn. Baffin Island is breaking snow records. That's where the Laurentian Glacier kicked off the last Ice Age.
    Mention these things and the answer is always that these are regional impacts of CO2 based climate change.
    It seems more credible that it's the Sun driving all of this, not cows farting


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    How do we define when we have stopped climate change?

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    How is it possible to have a colder year than the previous year?

    With my basic understanding of AWG.

    Humans have increased the amount of CO2, Methane and CFCs all of which are the leaders in AWG change. Water vapor being the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse (GH) effect ~60%?

    So if the planet warms we get more water vapour which increase the GH effect?

    I'm confused on a few things tho, we have increased our CO2 emissions year on year for the past 35 years, our farming industry for live stock is bigger than it's ever been. Our population continues to grow, we continue deforestation, no measure to to stop CO2 emissions has worked. So all of those factors that contributed to our theory on why 2016 was a hot year have increased. Yet potentially 2019 will show a decrease from 2016 temps.

    I feel it's one of these things:
    * Data is wrong
    * We are collecting the wrong data
    * Collecting data in the wrong places
    * Warming contributors can also act as cooling agents
    * We don't know
    * The 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ton fire ball in space is playing a larger factor than we give it credit


    I'm conflicted on the topic because of the way it's handled and the neglect from the science community to tackle predictions or curves that don't meet warming agenda.
    The political side is the most disturbing, the responsibility for this has been added to the avergae person. We are made feel guilty for driving our car or increasing our home heating from 24c to 26c. We light our houses with 40 watt bulbs. Al of this is BS.
    Industry is the largest polluter, this is approved by state policies. We import bottled water from italy, cheap met from Argentina, garlic from China, Apples from South America, wine from Australia, books from India, clothes from Indonesia, electronics from Taiwan, cars from Japan.... The list goes on. Cheap foreign labor, making big business owners richer.

    People who are truly concerned with the Climate should lobby for tax on foods out of season, add a higher import tax on goods which could be produced locally and subside house holds who contribute to the energy grid (to name a few). The tax increase on carbon based fuels has no evidence that it works to stem the release of CO2.

    It seems the chain of command is - Wealthy >Economy >Environment >Population


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    We want more tax god damn it...which wont do anything to stop climate change and will only benefit the wealthy corrupt people..lets go out marching for them :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    I'm confused on a few things tho, we have increased our CO2 emissions year on year for the past 35 years, our farming industry for live stock is bigger than it's ever been. Our population continues to grow, we continue deforestation, no measure to to stop CO2 emissions has worked. So all of those factors that contributed to our theory on why 2016 was a hot year have increased. Yet potentially 2019 will show a decrease from 2016 temps.

    Nabber you're assuming that the rise is perfectly linear it's not, during the warming period the rate of warming has varied and there are dips every so often in a line that is rising on the mean temperature graph.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

    giss_temperature.png

    Why the variations? ocean currents (El Nina/El Nino in the Pacific being the obvious example) but many others more subtle in nature and cause

    http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/currents.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,400 ✭✭✭jammiedodgers


    How do we define when we have stopped climate change?

    When we've implemented enough taxes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    How do we define when we have stopped climate change?

    We won't. The best that can be achieved is to slow the rate. A large part of climate change is probably already baked in - in the oceans which will reach the point where absorption slows to a halt. It's not an infinite heat-sink due to the way ocean current work - upper and lower which are largely discreet and about 70% of the absorption is in the top 700 meters of seas which average 4 KM deep.

    As oceans warm oxygen levels in the water fall and that will have it's own consequences for life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,795 ✭✭✭DellyBelly


    How do we define when we have stopped climate change?

    I'd say the experts will tell us. Readings of Gas etc..someone like Greta I would think but the scary thing it might not be during her lifetime...


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    The majority of the global average surface warming patterns come from the northern hemisphere. A primary driver is the range of very slowly-changing oceanic modes, such as the AMO and PDO. These signals are very clear in the temperature data (e.g. 1920-50s and 1980+). The other driver is increased land temperatures, in many cases due to increased urbanisation of stations.

    Of course, year to year, shorter-term modes like El Niño and La Niña, etc., play a primary role too. Overall, we know very little about oceanic processes of large timescales, but for now it seems very clear that many climate trends (temperature, Arctic and Greenland ice-melt, etc.) owe much of their variability to the longer-term largescale drivers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    When we've implemented enough taxes.

    I've always wondered how a €15 bag of coal with €10 carbon tax added on, burns more cleanly than the same €15 bag of coal with just €5 carbon tax.

    It's amazing. The nuggets of coal in the bag collectively know that they must release less C02 if more carbon tax has been paid. More carbon tax = more clever coal. Magic stuff.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Mortelaro


    Danno wrote: »
    I've always wondered how a €15 bag of coal with €10 carbon tax added on, burns more cleanly than the same €15 bag of coal with just €5 carbon tax.

    It's amazing. The nuggets of coal in the bag collectively know that they must release less C02 if more carbon tax has been paid. More carbon tax = more clever coal. Magic stuff.

    Its similar to the carbon tax on the petrol and diesel in the budget this year
    A couple of days later petrol and diesel prices were actually a couple of cent per litre lower than when the tax was added and still are
    Shur what use is that

    Governments definitely do use carbon taxes as a soft touch to bring in more money
    If we saw them using the money to offset vrt on electric or hybrid vehicles, their motives would be more believable
    But they won't because its all about bringing in money to be set against budget defecits


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    Mortelaro wrote: »
    Its similar to the carbon tax on the petrol and diesel in the budget this year
    A couple of days later petrol and diesel prices were actually a couple of cent per litre lower than when the tax was added and still are
    Shur what use is that

    Governments definitely do use carbon taxes as a soft touch to bring in more money
    If we saw them using the money to offset vrt on electric or hybrid vehicles, their motives would be more believable
    But they won't because its all about bringing in money to be set against budget defecits

    There are rebates on electric vehicles vrt, and various incentives and grants to move away from fossil fuels in general.

    No politician likes raising taxes, anybody with the "its only an excuse to raise taxes" argument is a bit clueless about politicians motives tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭SeaBreezes


    Mortelaro wrote: »
    Its similar to the carbon tax on the petrol and diesel in the budget this year
    A couple of days later petrol and diesel prices were actually a couple of cent per litre lower than when the tax was added and still are
    Shur what use is that

    Governments definitely do use carbon taxes as a soft touch to bring in more money
    If we saw them using the money to offset vrt on electric or hybrid vehicles, their motives would be more believable
    But they won't because its all about bringing in money to be set against budget defecits

    What really annoys me is the people who suffer most from these blanket taxes are the ones already struggling.
    If I saw a limit to leisure air flight, or perhaps 4 flights a year tax free then double carbon tax after that. That would be a carbon tax I could get behind.


Advertisement