2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Danno · 28-01-2021 10:34am

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Nobody is saying that places didn’t flood just that these events happen more often. There’s also the fact that the vast vast vast majority of scientists and world governments believe that the climate is overwhelming caused by humanity’s actions since the industrial revolution with significant contributions made over the last 60 odd years.

Why over the last 60 odd years in particular?

The engines of cars, vans, trucks, etc... have become alot more efficient over the last twenty five years in particular, but manufacturers have always been looking for ways of getting more return on the fuel used.

Same for power generation, much more efficient and with strict laws surrounding emissions they're way more cleaner now.

Agriculture has seen strict laws and regulations enacted also. Same for aviation. Thats before we even consider the contribution of renewables to our power grid.

It seems to me that all efforts made by the green lobby have failed spectacularly if you concede what has been highlighted in your statement.

So, then begs the question - if you are saying the green lobby's laws and regulations have failed, why would "even more regulation" work?

Thelonious Monk · 28-01-2021 11:22am

Because there's more power, more agriculture, more consumption of everything now than there was 60 years ago, it's not rocket science. Not only have populations expanded greatly, but we all buy way more stuff now. Engines might be more efficient, but there were few cars 60 years ago, now every housing estate in Ireland has barely enough room for all the cars. Humans consume consume consume, that's what we do.

60% of wildlife gone since the 1970s - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54091048

Apparently the earth is at its hottest for 12,000 years

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arctic-temperature-record-100-4-degrees-earth-warmest-12000-years/

I don't think it's a green agenda in particular, the outlook is bleak from any angle.

Oneiric 3 · 28-01-2021 2:24pm

'Saving' the environment for big profits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2G7jBEUGiQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2G7jBEUGiQ

As an aside, I wonder is there a reason why Greta Thunberg uses a top of the range gold plated Apple phone to read her speeches from? Like being sponsored by them maybe? Is this what the so-called 'left' have become? Middle class, gated community, high consuming walking billboards for big, for profit corps?

Thelonious Monk · 28-01-2021 3:30pm

Even if Greta has a gold plated Ferrari, that doesn't mean the environment doesn't need saving.

Gaoth Laidir · 28-01-2021 3:53pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'Saving' the environment for big profits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2G7jBEUGiQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2G7jBEUGiQ

As an aside, I wonder is there a reason why Greta Thunberg uses a top of the range gold plated Apple phone to read her speeches from? Like being sponsored by them maybe? Is this what the so-called 'left' have become? Middle class, gated community, high consuming walking billboards for big, for profit corps?

Ah, Jimmy Somerville now has an American accent...

R-3700182-1425388687-7190.jpeg.jpg

Nabber · 28-01-2021 6:02pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Nobody is saying that places didn’t flood just that these events happen more often. There’s also the fact that the vast vast vast majority of scientists and world governments believe that the climate is overwhelming caused by humanity’s actions since the industrial revolution with significant contributions made over the last 60 odd years.

Separating more often and more impact is the issue we are facing. Weather disasters expenses are going to increase based on development growth and the expenses invested in construction.

Ireland has a poor history with planning and considerations to enforce developers to provision for flooding.
Ireland flooded in the past and will continue to flood with or without human inference whether local or through AGW.

We are now in a situation where every flood is attributed to global warming and what once were subtle hints towards responsibility has turned to full on blame. "Mary's house on the banks of the Shannon wouldn't have been flooded if it wasn't for global warming".

Whether you support AGW theory or not, it's completely illogical to ignore the direct impact of zoning, planning and development, which with or without Climate change is a serious problem.

If you'd like to stress test your governments commitment to protection and safeguarding for the existential threat of AGW.

How many have regulated/forbid developments that are 2m ASL?
Where are the 10m wall developments coastal cities need to survive?
Why do public AGW activists continue to purchase beach front properties?#
Why is there no Carbon foot print labelled on products?

I'm on board with a cleaner planet, cleaner energy, less carbon sure why not?
I'm wholly against what the AGW message is now. A horrendous abomination, with millions of Twitter Slacktivists, and a crusade of the rich and able. To be green costs €€€, which most of the planet can't afford.

When Hollywood support it, that's usually a clear indication that it's gone rotten.

Gaoth Laidir · 28-01-2021 6:40pm

I learned an interesting fact at work today. The push to remove plastic packaging from consumer products in favour of e.g. recycled paper/card can have a negative environmental impact, i.e. the water consumption involved in producing (at least some) recycled paper outweighs the impact of producting the plastic it replaces. This was an eye-opener for me.

Birdnuts · 28-01-2021 7:00pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I learned an interesting fact at work today. The push to remove plastic packaging from consumer products in favour of e.g. recycled paper/card can have a negative environmental impact, i.e. the water consumption involved in producing (at least some) recycled paper outweighs the impact of producting the plastic it replaces. This was an eye-opener for me.

I would rate the increasing concentration of plastics in food, soil and water via micro plastics as a reason enough to ban the stuff outright.

Birdnuts · 28-01-2021 7:05pm

Danno wrote: »

Why over the last 60 odd years in particular?

The engines of cars, vans, trucks, etc... have become alot more efficient over the last twenty five years in particular, but manufacturers have always been looking for ways of getting more return on the fuel used.

Same for power generation, much more efficient and with strict laws surrounding emissions they're way more cleaner now.

Agriculture has seen strict laws and regulations enacted also. Same for aviation. Thats before we even consider the contribution of renewables to our power grid.

It seems to me that all efforts made by the green lobby have failed spectacularly if you concede what has been highlighted in your statement.

So, then begs the question - if you are saying the green lobby's laws and regulations have failed, why would "even more regulation" work?

According to that "Green" media darling Carla Augustberg on Newstalk this lunchtime - by driving electric cars and building windmills here, they will get fewer hurricanes in the US:rolleyes: These media clowns continue to drag climate science threw the mud:mad:

Oneiric 3 · 28-01-2021 7:37pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

According to that "Green" media darling Carla Augustberg on Newstalk this lunchtime - by driving electric cars and building windmills here, they will get fewer hurricanes in the US:rolleyes: These media clowns continue to drag climate science threw the mud:mad:

Where is the electricity to come from to power these 'electric veh-he-cals'. Where are the materials going to come from to produce these cars in the first place? And are the factories that produce these cars powered by environmentally sound power sources? Questions we should be asking, but are not, because everything today is presented to us on a surface level. It's all about being seen doing the 'right thing', while not actually doing it.

Birdnuts · 28-01-2021 7:41pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Where is the electricity to come from to power these 'electric veh-he-cals'. Where are the materials going to come from to produce these cars in the first place? And are the factories that produce these cars powered by environmentally sound power sources? Questions we should be asking, but are not, because everything today is presented to us on a surface level. It's all about being seen doing the 'right thing', while not actually doing it.

Yep - empty virtue signalling. Its the same with all these Eamon Ryan/GP types

Thelonious Monk · 28-01-2021 8:31pm

Yes, what we really need to do is get rid of the idea of everyone owning a car, electric or not. Hopefully we'll head in that direction eventually, where possible.
It takes planning for the future and designing our cities and countryside better, which we're not exactly good at in Ireland.

Banana Republic 1 · 28-01-2021 10:10pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I learned an interesting fact at work today. The push to remove plastic packaging from consumer products in favour of e.g. recycled paper/card can have a negative environmental impact, i.e. the water consumption involved in producing (at least some) recycled paper outweighs the impact of producting the plastic it replaces. This was an eye-opener for me.

Did big plastic spin that fast ball at you.

Gaoth Laidir · 29-01-2021 12:00am

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Did big plastic spin that fast ball at you.

It was more that someone in our company ran the numbers and said "hang on a minute...!" It is enough to make our large multinational rethink its longterm strategy on a blanket removal of plastic.

Cue the normal accusations that it's these big multinationals who are the littering culprits. Yep, they're the ones who throw plastic bottles and Heineken six-pack rings in the rivers that lead to the ocean. Personal responsibility counts for nothing, it seems.

Tyrone212 · 29-01-2021 12:22am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I learned an interesting fact at work today. The push to remove plastic packaging from consumer products in favour of e.g. recycled paper/card can have a negative environmental impact, i.e. the water consumption involved in producing (at least some) recycled paper outweighs the impact of producting the plastic it replaces. This was an eye-opener for me.

At least some? 5 10 15%?

Gaoth Laidir · 29-01-2021 12:29am

Tyrone212 wrote: »

At least some? 5 10 15%?

I didn't get details, only that it was enough to revise our strategy.

Banana Republic 1 · 29-01-2021 9:44am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It was more that someone in our company ran the numbers and said "hang on a minute...!" It is enough to make our large multinational rethink its longterm strategy on a blanket removal of plastic.

Cue the normal accusations that it's these big multinationals who are the littering culprits. Yep, they're the ones who throw plastic bottles and Heineken six-pack rings in the rivers that lead to the ocean. Personal responsibility counts for nothing, it seems.

So big plastic then.

Akrasia · 29-01-2021 9:51am

Danno wrote: »

Why over the last 60 odd years in particular?

The engines of cars, vans, trucks, etc... have become alot more efficient over the last twenty five years in particular, but manufacturers have always been looking for ways of getting more return on the fuel used.

Same for power generation, much more efficient and with strict laws surrounding emissions they're way more cleaner now.

Agriculture has seen strict laws and regulations enacted also. Same for aviation. Thats before we even consider the contribution of renewables to our power grid.

It seems to me that all efforts made by the green lobby have failed spectacularly if you concede what has been highlighted in your statement.

So, then begs the question - if you are saying the green lobby's laws and regulations have failed, why would "even more regulation" work?

What are you going on about? Pre industrial CO2 concentration in the Atmosphere was stable t about 280ppm
It’s now at about 413ppm and increasing each year. This is very basic stuff Danno

Human CO2 emissions are above the planets ability to sequester it, and until we change that, global warming is going to get worse and worse

Gaoth Laidir · 29-01-2021 10:29am

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

So big plastic then.

If you want to think that that's what we do then go ahead and humour yourself.

Banana Republic 1 · 29-01-2021 12:09pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

If you want to think that that's what we do then go ahead and humour yourself.

I already have,

Akrasia · 29-01-2021 12:20pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Missed this post. That's a graph I posted over the past several years, adding the dots after each year. It was from some IPCC report that I can't remember now but I'll try and dig it out later.

You plotted the graph wrong

Here are the actual numbers from NASA relating to global average temperature

Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C)

Year No_Smoothing Lowess(5)

1880 -0.16 -0.08
1881 -0.07 -0.12
1882 -0.10 -0.16
1883 -0.16 -0.19
1884 -0.28 -0.23
1885 -0.32 -0.25
1886 -0.31 -0.26
1887 -0.35 -0.27
1888 -0.17 -0.26
1889 -0.10 -0.25
1890 -0.35 -0.25
1891 -0.22 -0.25
1892 -0.27 -0.26
1893 -0.31 -0.26
1894 -0.30 -0.23
1895 -0.22 -0.22
1896 -0.11 -0.20
1897 -0.11 -0.18
1898 -0.26 -0.16
1899 -0.17 -0.17
1900 -0.07 -0.19
1901 -0.15 -0.23
1902 -0.27 -0.25
1903 -0.36 -0.28
1904 -0.46 -0.30
1905 -0.26 -0.33
1906 -0.22 -0.35
1907 -0.38 -0.37
1908 -0.42 -0.39
1909 -0.48 -0.40
1910 -0.43 -0.41
1911 -0.43 -0.38
1912 -0.35 -0.34
1913 -0.34 -0.32
1914 -0.15 -0.30
1915 -0.13 -0.30
1916 -0.35 -0.29
1917 -0.45 -0.29
1918 -0.29 -0.29
1919 -0.27 -0.29
1920 -0.27 -0.27
1921 -0.18 -0.26
1922 -0.28 -0.25
1923 -0.26 -0.24
1924 -0.27 -0.23
1925 -0.22 -0.22
1926 -0.10 -0.22
1927 -0.21 -0.21
1928 -0.20 -0.19
1929 -0.36 -0.19
1930 -0.16 -0.19
1931 -0.09 -0.19
1932 -0.16 -0.18
1933 -0.29 -0.17
1934 -0.12 -0.16
1935 -0.20 -0.14
1936 -0.15 -0.11
1937 -0.03 -0.06
1938 0.00 -0.01
1939 -0.02 0.03
1940 0.13 0.06
1941 0.18 0.09
1942 0.07 0.11
1943 0.09 0.10
1944 0.20 0.07
1945 0.09 0.04
1946 -0.07 0.00
1947 -0.03 -0.04
1948 -0.11 -0.07
1949 -0.11 -0.08
1950 -0.17 -0.08
1951 -0.07 -0.07
1952 0.01 -0.07
1953 0.08 -0.07
1954 -0.13 -0.07
1955 -0.14 -0.06
1956 -0.19 -0.05
1957 0.05 -0.04
1958 0.06 -0.01
1959 0.03 0.01
1960 -0.03 0.03
1961 0.06 0.01
1962 0.03 -0.01
1963 0.05 -0.03
1964 -0.20 -0.04
1965 -0.11 -0.05
1966 -0.06 -0.06
1967 -0.02 -0.05
1968 -0.08 -0.03
1969 0.05 -0.02
1970 0.03 -0.00
1971 -0.08 0.00
1972 0.01 0.00
1973 0.16 -0.00
1974 -0.07 0.01
1975 -0.01 0.02
1976 -0.10 0.04
1977 0.18 0.07
1978 0.07 0.12
1979 0.16 0.16
1980 0.26 0.20
1981 0.32 0.21
1982 0.14 0.22
1983 0.31 0.21
1984 0.16 0.21
1985 0.12 0.22
1986 0.18 0.24
1987 0.32 0.27
1988 0.39 0.31
1989 0.27 0.33
1990 0.45 0.33
1991 0.41 0.33
1992 0.22 0.33
1993 0.23 0.33
1994 0.32 0.34
1995 0.45 0.37
1996 0.33 0.40
1997 0.46 0.42
1998 0.61 0.44
1999 0.38 0.47
2000 0.39 0.50
2001 0.54 0.52
2002 0.63 0.55
2003 0.62 0.59
2004 0.54 0.61
2005 0.68 0.62
2006 0.64 0.63
2007 0.67 0.64
2008 0.55 0.64
2009 0.66 0.65
2010 0.72 0.65
2011 0.61 0.67
2012 0.65 0.70
2013 0.68 0.74
2014 0.75 0.79
2015 0.90 0.83
2016 1.02 0.88
2017 0.93 0.92
2018 0.85 0.95
2019 0.99 0.98
2020 1.02 1.01
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

The graph you used takes the mean of temperatures between 1986 and 2005
In the NASA data, that converts to 0.421, so this is the 0c anomaly on your graph
According to Nasa's data the anomaly from 2012 onwards is
year anomaly 1986-2005
2012 0.229
2013 0.259
2014 0.329
2015 0.479
2016 0.599
2017 0.509
2018 0.429
2019 0.569
2020 0.599
so you have plotted the wrong data on the graph from 2016 onwards

I've corrected your graph and it shows a completely different picture now. The red dots on this are what you should have inputted

It's very easy to 'prove' that climate change models and projections are wrong if you use the wrong figures in home made graphs

This DIY 'science' where reputable papers in peer reviewed journals are 'debunked' with a back of the envelope calculation from someone who thinks they know more than the PHD climate scientists who wrote and reviewed the papers is a major cause of misinformation on this important topic. I see it all the time where people on blogs falsely manipulate data either through malice or incompetence, and then use this this to 'debunk' actual scientific findings

Gaoth Laidir · 29-01-2021 12:41pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You plotted the graph wrong

Here are the actual numbers from NASA relating to global average temperature

Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C)

Year No_Smoothing Lowess(5)
1880 -0.16 -0.08
1881 -0.07 -0.12
1882 -0.10 -0.16
1883 -0.16 -0.19
1884 -0.28 -0.23
1885 -0.32 -0.25
1886 -0.31 -0.26
1887 -0.35 -0.27
1888 -0.17 -0.26
1889 -0.10 -0.25
1890 -0.35 -0.25
1891 -0.22 -0.25
1892 -0.27 -0.26
1893 -0.31 -0.26
1894 -0.30 -0.23
1895 -0.22 -0.22
1896 -0.11 -0.20
1897 -0.11 -0.18
1898 -0.26 -0.16
1899 -0.17 -0.17
1900 -0.07 -0.19
1901 -0.15 -0.23
1902 -0.27 -0.25
1903 -0.36 -0.28
1904 -0.46 -0.30
1905 -0.26 -0.33
1906 -0.22 -0.35
1907 -0.38 -0.37
1908 -0.42 -0.39
1909 -0.48 -0.40
1910 -0.43 -0.41
1911 -0.43 -0.38
1912 -0.35 -0.34
1913 -0.34 -0.32
1914 -0.15 -0.30
1915 -0.13 -0.30
1916 -0.35 -0.29
1917 -0.45 -0.29
1918 -0.29 -0.29
1919 -0.27 -0.29
1920 -0.27 -0.27
1921 -0.18 -0.26
1922 -0.28 -0.25
1923 -0.26 -0.24
1924 -0.27 -0.23
1925 -0.22 -0.22
1926 -0.10 -0.22
1927 -0.21 -0.21
1928 -0.20 -0.19
1929 -0.36 -0.19
1930 -0.16 -0.19
1931 -0.09 -0.19
1932 -0.16 -0.18
1933 -0.29 -0.17
1934 -0.12 -0.16
1935 -0.20 -0.14
1936 -0.15 -0.11
1937 -0.03 -0.06
1938 0.00 -0.01
1939 -0.02 0.03
1940 0.13 0.06
1941 0.18 0.09
1942 0.07 0.11
1943 0.09 0.10
1944 0.20 0.07
1945 0.09 0.04
1946 -0.07 0.00
1947 -0.03 -0.04
1948 -0.11 -0.07
1949 -0.11 -0.08
1950 -0.17 -0.08
1951 -0.07 -0.07
1952 0.01 -0.07
1953 0.08 -0.07
1954 -0.13 -0.07
1955 -0.14 -0.06
1956 -0.19 -0.05
1957 0.05 -0.04
1958 0.06 -0.01
1959 0.03 0.01
1960 -0.03 0.03
1961 0.06 0.01
1962 0.03 -0.01
1963 0.05 -0.03
1964 -0.20 -0.04
1965 -0.11 -0.05
1966 -0.06 -0.06
1967 -0.02 -0.05
1968 -0.08 -0.03
1969 0.05 -0.02
1970 0.03 -0.00
1971 -0.08 0.00
1972 0.01 0.00
1973 0.16 -0.00
1974 -0.07 0.01
1975 -0.01 0.02
1976 -0.10 0.04
1977 0.18 0.07
1978 0.07 0.12
1979 0.16 0.16
1980 0.26 0.20
1981 0.32 0.21
1982 0.14 0.22
1983 0.31 0.21
1984 0.16 0.21
1985 0.12 0.22
1986 0.18 0.24
1987 0.32 0.27
1988 0.39 0.31
1989 0.27 0.33
1990 0.45 0.33
1991 0.41 0.33
1992 0.22 0.33
1993 0.23 0.33
1994 0.32 0.34
1995 0.45 0.37
1996 0.33 0.40
1997 0.46 0.42
1998 0.61 0.44
1999 0.38 0.47
2000 0.39 0.50
2001 0.54 0.52
2002 0.63 0.55
2003 0.62 0.59
2004 0.54 0.61
2005 0.68 0.62
2006 0.64 0.63
2007 0.67 0.64
2008 0.55 0.64
2009 0.66 0.65
2010 0.72 0.65
2011 0.61 0.67
2012 0.65 0.70
2013 0.68 0.74
2014 0.75 0.79
2015 0.90 0.83
2016 1.02 0.88
2017 0.93 0.92
2018 0.85 0.95
2019 0.99 0.98
2020 1.02 1.01
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

The graph you used takes the mean of temperatures between 1986 and 2005
In the NASA data, that converts to 0.421, so this is the 0c anomaly on your graph
According to Nasa's data the anomaly from 2012 onwards is
year anomaly 1986-2005
2012 0.229
2013 0.259
2014 0.329
2015 0.479
2016 0.599
2017 0.509
2018 0.429
2019 0.569
2020 0.599
so you have plotted the wrong data on the graph from 2016 onwards

I've corrected your graph and it shows a completely different picture now. The red dots on this are what you should have inputted

It's very easy to 'prove' that climate change models and projections are wrong if you use the wrong figures in home made graphs

This DIY 'science' where reputable papers in peer reviewed journals are 'debunked' with a back of the envelope calculation from someone who thinks they know more than the PHD climate scientists who wrote and reviewed the papers is a major cause of misinformation on this important topic. I see it all the time where people on blogs falsely manipulate data either through malice or incompetence, and then use this this to 'debunk' actual scientific findings

Firstly, I said I plotted the HadCRUT, not GISS.

Secondly, if you plot the unsmoothed figure in the GISS link you gave you get the same as what I plotted. You plotted the LOWESS figure.

Two different representations of the same data.

Akrasia · 29-01-2021 1:19pm

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

In fact the IPCC openly acknowledges that its models should not be trusted.

No it doesn't Your quote doesn't say that at all, the next sentence says this "Rather the focus must be upon the prediction
of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible
states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is
computationally intensive and requires the application of new
methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information
is essential. "

The climate models are not weather forecasting machines, they do not accurately predict the exact state of the climate at any specified point in the future, and they do not try or pretend to do this
What they do, is narrow down probabilities, they make projections of what the future is likely to be like given different scenarios
None of the scenarios are predictions, they are scenarios that are aimed at measuring the impacts of different potential variables all of which are subject to change.

If you do not understand what the models are, or what their purpose is, or how they are intended to be used, then you should refrain from making judgements on how effective they are.

Akrasia · 29-01-2021 1:32pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I learned an interesting fact at work today. The push to remove plastic packaging from consumer products in favour of e.g. recycled paper/card can have a negative environmental impact, i.e. the water consumption involved in producing (at least some) recycled paper outweighs the impact of producting the plastic it replaces. This was an eye-opener for me.

do you have a source for this?

How did they measure this?

Gaoth Laidir · 29-01-2021 1:47pm

Akrasia wrote: »

do you have a source for this?

How did they measure this?

I don't have a source yet. I was just told by head of marketing that they had received this information. I intend on finding out more.

Akrasia · 29-01-2021 1:50pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Firstly, I said I plotted the HadCRUT, not GISS.

Secondly, if you plot the unsmoothed figure in the GISS link you gave you get the same as what I plotted. You plotted the LOWESS figure.

Two different representations of the same data.

Nope, I plotted the unsmoothed figures not the Lowess figure

Doesn't really matter if you use Giss or HadCrut figures, you still plotted them wrong and they show pretty much the same temperature anomaly (no difference on my not very accurate MS paint graph)

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis_gl.txt
The HADCRUT5 1986-2005 average is 0.34915

The temperature anomaly based on their baseline is
2012 0.578
2013 0.624
2014 0.673
2015 0.825
2016 0.933
2017 0.845
2018 0.763
2019 0.891
2020 0.922

And the anomaly based on their 1986-2005 baseline for these years is
2012 0.22885
2013 0.27485
2014 0.32385
2015 0.47585
2016 0.58385
2017 0.49585
2018 0.41385
2019 0.54185
2020 0.57285

Nabber · 29-01-2021 2:00pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I don't have a source yet. I was just told by head of marketing that they had received this information. I intend on finding out more.

I work for a large American Corporation.
Pre Covid they removed stainless steel cutlery in favour of biodegradable cutlery.
They also removed Irish bottled water for aluminum water cans from Italy.
No more plastic lids on salad containers.

They rolled back on all three, turns out stainless steel cutlery is better, uses less water and has 1 time only transport.
Water cans were removed as people buy bottles mostly for the convience of being able to close.
Folks buying salads on the go wanted to be able to seal them.

In fairness their report on the changes and mistakes they made was quite open. Mistakes were made and they rolled back, I can respect that. There was also a hit on the canteens bottom line.

I would like to see an alternative to plastic bottles tho, they brought in half price beverages for any one using reusable bottles/containers. that worked a treat.

Oneiric 3 · 29-01-2021 3:02pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Lowess figure

Doesn't really matter if you use Giss or HadCrut figures

Is there text data available for all of those ensemble lines? Wouldn't take too long to rustle up a graph as opposed to just drawing on an already created one.

Akrasia · 29-01-2021 3:08pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I don't have a source yet. I was just told by head of marketing that they had received this information. I intend on finding out more.

This is the kind of thing that can be interpreted in many different ways. How do you measure the full cost of extracting the oil, purifying it, converting it plastic, converting it to plastic film, shipping it to packaging centres, then the end of life cost, the cost of disposing of the waste responsibly, and the costs of the percentage of packaging that gets irresponsibly disposed of and ends up in the environment where it can break down and enter the food chain, or persist for a long period of time

Compared with the costs end to end from reprocessing paper into recycled packaging
And then there are the costs associated with the role packaging plays in reducing wastage, if the packaging is inadequate, it could cause damage to the product in transit or storage, and with food, loose fruit and veg tends to get bruised and broken so is it better to protect them better with to reduce spoilage, or accept more spoilage to reduce package waste.

Its certainly an interesting question and a useful exercise but i would be a bit skeptical of claims without seeing the basis underneath them

Akrasia · 29-01-2021 3:28pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Is there text data available for all of those ensemble lines? Wouldn't take too long to rustle up a graph as opposed to just drawing on an already created one.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/t...nalysis_gl.txt

I've attached a graph I made with this data

Thargor · 29-01-2021 5:46pm

Akrasia wrote: »

This DIY 'science' where reputable papers in peer reviewed journals are 'debunked' with a back of the envelope calculation from someone who thinks they know more than the PHD climate scientists who wrote and reviewed the papers is a major cause of misinformation on this important topic. I see it all the time where people on blogs falsely manipulate data either through malice or incompetence, and then use this this to 'debunk' actual scientific findings

Its nauseating, and a constant feature of this forum, just look at the embarrassing contributions from the people who are supposed to be moderating this "science" forum in the last couple of pages and on previous threads and you'll see how it was allowed to get so bad.

You'll have to wonder if this error (although its suspicious that the "error" just happened to support what they wanted the data to say rather than what it actually said) will make this person reevaluate their position or will they just quickly forget and go looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support their confirmation bias.

Banana Republic 1 · 29-01-2021 6:38pm

Akrasia wrote: »

do you have a source for this?

How did they measure this?

Big plastic

Oneiric 3 · 29-01-2021 6:55pm

Akrasia wrote: »

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/t...nalysis_gl.txt
[/img]

Thanks, but 'page not found'.
Also, a tip for creating charts based around anomalies (zero line). It is considered bad practice not to give equal weighting to the positive and negative values in the Y-Axis because it doesn't give a true sense of scale.

Oneiric 3 · 29-01-2021 7:08pm

Thargor wrote: »

Its nauseating, and a constant feature of this forum, just look at the embarrassing contributions from the people who are supposed to be moderating this "science" forum in the last couple of pages and on previous threads and you'll see how it was allowed to get so bad.

You'll have to wonder if this error (although its suspicious that the "error" just happened to support what they wanted the data to say rather than what it actually said) will make this person reevaluate their position or will they just quickly forget and go looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support their confirmation bias.

Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder here. I'll say one thing, I have learned more about all things weather and climate from these people you call 'embarrassing' than I ever have from the likes of you, or those you place up on a pedestal because they have a PhD.

Gaoth Laidir · 29-01-2021 7:49pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Nope, I plotted the unsmoothed figures not the Lowess figure

Doesn't really matter if you use Giss or HadCrut figures, you still plotted them wrong and they show pretty much the same temperature anomaly (no difference on my not very accurate MS paint graph)

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis_gl.txt
The HADCRUT5 1986-2005 average is 0.34915

The temperature anomaly based on their baseline is
2012 0.578
2013 0.624
2014 0.673
2015 0.825
2016 0.933
2017 0.845
2018 0.763
2019 0.891
2020 0.922

And the anomaly based on their 1986-2005 baseline for these years is
2012 0.22885
2013 0.27485
2014 0.32385
2015 0.47585
2016 0.58385
2017 0.49585
2018 0.41385
2019 0.54185
2020 0.57285

Thargor wrote: »

Its nauseating, and a constant feature of this forum, just look at the embarrassing contributions from the people who are supposed to be moderating this "science" forum in the last couple of pages and on previous threads and you'll see how it was allowed to get so bad.

You'll have to wonder if this error (although its suspicious that the "error" just happened to support what they wanted the data to say rather than what it actually said) will make this person reevaluate their position or will they just quickly forget and go looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support their confirmation bias.

Ok, hands up, I made a mistake. I'm not sure what happened between updating the file. It was not all done in one go. If I remember correctly I plotted up to 2015 in one go and then updated yearly from 2016. I've lost my data file as I have a new computer so I can't go back and see how the error arose but having looked at it in more detail now I see that Akrasia is right and my post-2015 years were indeed incorrect. Mea culpa.

Yes, it changes things slightly in that the observations have now recovered and are in the middle of the members instead of along the lowest ones, as was the case up to 2012. I'll wait for them to start going towards the upper members before I change my opinion. As with the 2005-2012 period, they could go either way again.

So there you go. I made a mistake and owned up to it. Despite what you say it was not deliberate, so you should maybe retract that comment. I don't go "looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support my confirmation bias", so you can also retract that comment while you're at it. The chart and data were taken from reputable sources (I assume you classify the IPCC and Hadley Centre so?).

Gaoth Laidir · 29-01-2021 8:33pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Did big plastic spin that fast ball at you.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

So big plastic then.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Big plastic

Have you some fetish for large plastic items or something? Is there anything of actual value you can add to the forum instead of hiding in the grass and peashooting out snide remarks?

Banana Republic 1 · 29-01-2021 10:47pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Have you some fetish for large plastic items or something? Is there anything of actual value you can add to the forum instead of hiding in the grass and peashooting out snide remarks?

Come on if you can’t take a joke!

I’d be very sceptical of any information from some lad in marketing I mean it’s a spin department generally.

Also look up the word fetish.

Gaoth Laidir · 29-01-2021 11:02pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Come on if you can’t take a joke!

I’d be very sceptical of any information from some lad in marketing I mean it’s a spin department generally.

Also look up the word fetish.

You don't know what you're talking about, again. You know nothing of the circumstances or business involved, not least the fact that Marketing were all for the removal of plastic, as they too get sucked into the green vortex.

PS. The head of marketing is a woman.

29-01-2021 11:08pm

MeHappy wrote: »

OAA has had a chance to look back on all the weather and climate disasters of 2020. And like many other aspects of 2020, the numbers we're seeing aren't positive.

2020 officially broke the record for most $1 billion disasters. The 22 costliest events shattered numbers previously set by 16 separate billion-dollar disasters in 2011 and 2017.

Dollars is a ridiculous way to measure anything. Gone with the wind sold most seats but because tickets are x15 more expensive, Avengers is most successful

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 1:58am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Ok, hands up, I made a mistake. I'm not sure what happened between updating the file. It was not all done in one go. If I remember correctly I plotted up to 2015 in one go and then updated yearly from 2016. I've lost my data file as I have a new computer so I can't go back and see how the error arose but having looked at it in more detail now I see that Akrasia is right and my post-2015 years were indeed incorrect. Mea culpa.

Yes, it changes things slightly in that the observations have now recovered and are in the middle of the members instead of along the lowest ones, as was the case up to 2012. I'll wait for them to start going towards the upper members before I change my opinion. As with the 2005-2012 period, they could go either way again.

So there you go. I made a mistake and owned up to it. Despite what you say it was not deliberate, so you should maybe retract that comment. I don't go "looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support my confirmation bias", so you can also retract that comment while you're at it. The chart and data were taken from reputable sources (I assume you classify the IPCC and Hadley Centre so?).

Thank you for admitting that your graph was wrong. I have made plenty of mistakes myself in the past so won’t hold it against you

What I am concerned about is that you still didn’t change your mind. You posted a graph showing that climate projections were overstating warming as evidence for your belief, you were shown that the graph was wrong and the projections in the models were actually very accurate, but you still don’t want to accept the evidence.

The problem with climate change is that by the time we have enough observable evidence that the models were right, it’s too late to fix the problem. At some point we need to trust that climate scientists know what they are doing, and that point was years ago, not years from now

This is why I keep saying that ‘the science is settled’
It’s not that every single question has been answered, it’s that we have enough scientific evidence to know we need to act to avoid dangerous climate change. The question then becomes what actions are realistic on the scale required to make a difference.

Gaoth Laidir. You’re no fool. You must be starting to doubt things you used to argue for, like climate sensitivity being less than half a degree C by now?

It’s ok to change your mind when you’re convinced by the best available evidence.

As I have said on here many times,I think individual action is no longer anywhere close to enough to prevent disaster. I have been consistently advocating global multilateral strategies to deliberately transition to carbon neutral economies.

You can’t vote with your wallet to stop dangerous climate change, you need to vote with your vote, and act with your voice, and your conscience, and be prepared to take a little bit of pain to facilitate a transition to a sustainable global economy, which is the only chance we have of prospering beyond the next few generations

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 2:08am

Akrasia wrote: »

Thank you for admitting that your graph was wrong. I have made plenty of mistakes myself in the past so won’t hold it against you

What I am concerned about is that you still didn’t change your mind. You posted a graph showing that climate projections were overstating warming as evidence for your belief, you were shown that the graph was wrong and the projections in the models were actually very accurate, but you still don’t want to accept the evidence.

The problem with climate change is that by the time we have enough observable evidence that the models were right, it’s too late to fix the problem. At some point we need to trust that climate scientists know what they are doing, and that point was years ago, not years from now

This is why I keep saying that ‘the science is settled’
It’s not that every single question has been answered, it’s that we have enough scientific evidence to know we need to act to avoid dangerous climate change. The question then becomes what actions are realistic on the scale required to make a difference.

Gaoth Laidir. You’re no fool. You must be starting to doubt things you used to argue for, like climate sensitivity being less than half a degree C by now?

It’s ok to change your mind when you’re convinced by the best available evidence.

As I have said on here many times,I think individual action is no longer anywhere close to enough to prevent disaster. I have been consistently advocating global multilateral strategies to deliberately transition to carbon neutral economies.

You can’t vote with your wallet to stop dangerous climate change, you need to vote with your vote, and act with your voice, and your conscience, and be prepared to take a little bit of pain to facilitate a transition to a sustainable global economy, which is the only chance we have of prospering beyond the next few generations

I'm not going to change get my mind based on 5 years of data that are in the middle of the spread when the previous 9 were consistently below it. There is still a massive spread in the estimation of climate sensitivity, and this spread is not getting any narrower as the science allegedly becomes more "settled". If anything it's become wider.

I don't go for your hyperbole in the last paragraph, but by all means live in fear if you want. You say be prepared to take a little bit of pain, yet you also admit to not changing your own lifestyle one bit as one man can make no difference. It's all a bit melodramatic and editorial-like.

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 2:15am

Just for perspective. It’s taken a year for 2 million people to die from Covid, and this has shut down the global economy ( and rightly so)

We’re getting ever closer to unsurvivable heatwaves in heavily populated parts of the world

What happens when 5 million people die suddenly in a week when WB temps go above 37c and the power grid fails

That’s a genuine question by the way

Millions of people, women, men, children, dying suddenly in a short space of time because their bodies cannot cool down because the air is warmer than their skin. Power grids aren’t designed to take that A/C load, so there will be brownouts and failures. Not only poor people die, but people who thought they had prepared and mitigated for such events are killed too

It might start as a once off ‘extreme’ event

But what happens when it happens again and millions more die

Suddenly the cost of geoengineering seems small compared to millions of innocent people dropping dead in a horrific slow motion car crash

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 2:17am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm not going to change get my mind based on 5 years of data that are in the middle of the spread when the previous 9 were consistently below it. There is still a massive spread in the estimation of climate sensitivity, and this spread is not getting any narrower as the science allegedly becomes more "settled". If anything it's become wider.

I don't go for your hyperbole in the last paragraph, but by all means live in fear if you want. You say be prepared to take a little bit of pain, yet you also admit to not changing your own lifestyle one bit as one man can make no difference. It's all a bit melodramatic and editorial-like.

It’s not 5 years of data, it’s 200 years of data

This is almost the typical definition of cherry-picking

The spread on climate sensitivity is absolutely narrowing. No sane person thinks it’s .5c now when we’re at more than double that already without even doubling atmosphere CO2

Not even Ray Bates would defend his climate sensitivity position anymore unless you can find a recent paper from him that successfully argues this position

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 10:07am

Akrasia wrote: »

Just for perspective. It’s taken a year for 2 million people to die from Covid, and this has shut down the global economy ( and rightly so)

We’re getting ever closer to unsurvivable heatwaves in heavily populated parts of the world

What happens when 5 million people die suddenly in a week when WB temps go above 37c and the power grid fails

That’s a genuine question by the way

Millions of people, women, men, children, dying suddenly in a short space of time because their bodies cannot cool down because the air is warmer than their skin. Power grids aren’t designed to take that A/C load, so there will be brownouts and failures. Not only poor people die, but people who thought they had prepared and mitigated for such events are killed too

It might start as a once off ‘extreme’ event

But what happens when it happens again and millions more die

Suddenly the cost of geoengineering seems small compared to millions of innocent people dropping dead in a horrific slow motion car crash

Just for perspective, where are you getting your figure of 5 million sudden deaths in a week? Do you have a source for that? The COVID analogy doesn't cut it here but I see why you would want to try to use it to ramp up the hyperbole scale. Comparing an acute global pandemic for which we had no preparation or mitigation tools is a completely different beast to the extremely rare and localised cases of wbt in the mid-30s, and the even lower likelihood of complete power grids suddenly shutting down without warning. There is also a non-zero chance of an asteroid wiping out the planet, in which case none of this would matter, but I don't think we should go around worrying about something like that. But as I said, go ahead and live in that fear if you like.

There are very few locations in the world where wbt gets anywhere close to low-30s, and these are in relatively low population densities, such as the Red Sea or Persian Gulf. With increasing trends towards unshielded (non-Stevenson Screen) stations (such as in the very dense Kuwaiti network) high dry-bulb temperature biases will drag up the wbt, which is calculated from it and not directly measured.

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2021 10:16am

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s not 5 years of data, it’s 200 years of data

This is almost the typical definition of cherry-picking

The spread on climate sensitivity is absolutely narrowing. No sane person thinks it’s .5c now when we’re at more than double that already without even doubling atmosphere CO2

Not even Ray Bates would defend his climate sensitivity position anymore unless you can find a recent paper from him that successfully argues this position

It's not cherrypicking, it is only 5 years of data that I incorrectly plotted a few tenths too low. It doesn't change the previous record at all. My opinion on that doesn't change.

You now want to go back 200 years? Well why not 300 or 400? That would show that we dipped and then started rising again out of the Little Ice Age, and we've been rising since. Your choice of 200 years now seems to be at odds with the commonly used loose definition of "pre-industrial" of around 150-170 years, but 200 sounds better when accusing someone of cherrypicking 5 years.

The IPCC AR5 was less clear on the range of climate sensitivity than in previous reports. They admit that we are no closer to narrowing in on a more definite figure, despite how settled all this is supposed to be.

Oneiric 3 · 30-01-2021 10:56am

I find it interesting that I asked for a link to data shown in what was a controversial chart so as to be able to check the data myself, which wasn't a big ask, and what did I get? A blank page by way of response. That tells me all I need to know...

Oneiric 3 · 30-01-2021 11:07am

Akrasia wrote: »

Just for perspective. It’s taken a year for 2 million people to die from Covid

And It takes just one year for over 9 million people to die of starvation:
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/losing-25000-hunger-every-day#:~:text=Each%20day%2C%2025%2C000%20people%2C%20including,million%20into%20poverty%20and%20hunger.

Akrasia wrote: »

and this has shut down the global economy ( and rightly so)

Why rightly so?

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/3/30/developing-countries-face-economic-collapse-in-covid-19-fight-un

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/4/18/21212688/coronavirus-lockdowns-developing-world

Very easy to say such things when you are obviously not directly affected. The term 'ivory tower' springs to mind here.

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 11:22am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Just for perspective, where are you getting your figure of 5 million sudden deaths in a week? Do you have a source for that? The COVID analogy doesn't cut it here but I see why you would want to try to use it to ramp up the hyperbole scale. Comparing an acute global pandemic for which we had no preparation or mitigation tools is a completely different beast to the extremely rare and localised cases of wbt in the mid-30s, and the even lower likelihood of complete power grids suddenly shutting down without warning. There is also a non-zero chance of an asteroid wiping out the planet, in which case none of this would matter, but I don't think we should go around worrying about something like that. But as I said, go ahead and live in that fear if you like.

There are very few locations in the world where wbt gets anywhere close to low-30s, and these are in relatively low population densities, such as the Red Sea or Persian Gulf. With increasing trends towards unshielded (non-Stevenson Screen) stations (such as in the very dense Kuwaiti network) high dry-bulb temperature biases will drag up the wbt, which is calculated from it and not directly measured.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838
Here is a study into the prevalence of WB 35c and it warns that this is a risk that has been largely downplayed

Climate models project the first 35°C TW occurrences by the mid-21st century. However, a comprehensive evaluation of weather station data shows that some coastal subtropical locations have already reported a TW of 35°C and that extreme humid heat overall has more than doubled in frequency since 1979. Recent exceedances of 35°C in global maximum sea surface temperature provide further support for the validity of these dangerously high TW values. We find the most extreme humid heat is highly localized in both space and time and is correspondingly substantially underestimated in reanalysis products. Our findings thus underscore the serious challenge posed by humid heat that is more intense than previously reported and increasingly severe.

Without either evacuation or air conditioning this kind of heatwave would kill a substantial percentage of people caught in it, and at high temperatures power grids lose performance making failures more likely especially if everyone has their air conditioning units on all day and all night

There are a lot coastal of cities and regions with populations greater than 5 million that could be impacted by such an event as global air and sea temperatures continue to rise

Oneiric 3 · 30-01-2021 11:31am

Akrasia · 30-01-2021 11:47am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

It's not cherrypicking, it is only 5 years of data that I incorrectly plotted a few tenths too low. It doesn't change the previous record at all. My opinion on that doesn't change.

You now want to go back 200 years? Well why not 300 or 400? That would show that we dipped and then started rising again out of the Little Ice Age, and we've been rising since. Your choice of 200 years now seems to be at odds with the commonly used loose definition of "pre-industrial" of around 150-170 years, but 200 sounds better when accusing someone of cherrypicking 5 years.

The IPCC AR5 was less clear on the range of climate sensitivity than in previous reports. They admit that we are no closer to narrowing in on a more definite figure, despite how settled all this is supposed to be.

My choice of 200 years was a round number cause I didn’t want to have to go and look up specific dates
The point stands, that the global warming trend is scientifically demonstrated whether you ho back 50 years, 300 years, 12000 years or 125000 years (this is a study showing that the earth is likely warmer now than it was in the last proper interglacial period despite the fact that there is still ice at both poles all year around)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x

You are placing an emphasis on the few years where there was an apparent pause in warming and ignoring the fact that it spiked again and is continuing the trend. as predicted in the climate models. That is why you are guilty of cherry-picking

And your point that climate sensitivity estimates have widened in AR5 is totally disingenuous given that the uncertainty no longer includes your preference of .5c

there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1 °C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C and very unlikely greater than 6 °C".

The current best science does NOT support Ray Bates assertions on ECS that you have chosen to blindly support
(Unless you would like to take this opportunity to disavow Bates’ theories here?)

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Comments