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

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

2456794

Comments

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


    Coles wrote: »
    Climate change denier realises he was wrong

    M.T has never been a 'climate denier', but he is what I call 'old school', in that he questions everything and does not take everything told to him at face-value without first researching the facts (or lack of them) himself.

    New Moon



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


    Coles wrote: »
    She doesn't need credentials to ask people to listen to the scientists.

    She is nothing but a media created figure. Ample media coverage and privileged to speak to the world leaders on a regular basis. Also, why do 'scientists' need a young, uneducated and obviously terrified teenage girl to speak for them? Are their own pigtails not appealing enough for the cameras?

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,643 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I'm sure he can give you the details, but I know he qualified in climatology back in the early days and then worked as a professional weather forecaster in the US. He's more qualified than most commentators when it comes to this subject.

    fair enough, I don't claim any great expertise in this area. But AFAIK 99% of scientists working in this and related fields accept the hypothesis; and even MTC now seems to be backtracking on his previous dismissal of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,038 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Coles wrote: »
    It's called Stage 5 Climate Change Denial.
    "Oh dear, too late, there's nothing we can do. Let's just carry on as we were."

    It's not going to work. Biodiversity collapse. Food security. Ocean acidification. Famine. Resource conflict. Climate migration.

    The science is absolutely crystal clear. I don't really care about the personal contortions that anyone else puts themselves through as the penny drops.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

    Biodiversity collapse and food security issues are being caused by overpopulation, not the burning of fossil fuels.

    Famine has a number of causes, including climate change, overpopulation, poor agricultural practices. After all, the Great Famine in Ireland had nothing to do with climate change.

    I support higher carbon taxes in Ireland, I support the banning of diesel cars, I support the phasing out of single-use plastic, I support subsidies for solar panels, I support investment in making homes energy-efficient etc. etc. I vote Green because more needs to be done on these issues.

    To me, M.T's post isn't saying these aren't needed, it is saying that they aren't sufficient, and that other larger engineering solutions will be needed, as the sea-level will rise even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow.

    Like all zealots, you dismiss any opposing argument without even thinking about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,716 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    loyatemu wrote: »
    fair enough, I don't claim any great expertise in this area. But AFAIK 99% of scientists working in this and related fields accept the hypothesis; and even MTC now seems to be backtracking on his previous dismissal of it.

    Detailed analysis of the acceptance in the field of the IPCC anthropogenic climate change position, concludes 80%


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Zealot? Lol.

    If you feel the IPCC is wrong then write them a strongly worded letter. And well done for cutting out single use plastic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭marathon19


    More recently, I have come around to the belief that the current warming is probably about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins. That ratio is perhaps going to change over time but will remain the complex foundation for further climate change in the near to mid-range future.

    This bit interests me no end.

    How did you come to the belief that current warming is probably 33% anthropogenic in origin?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    marathon19 wrote: »
    This bit interests me no end.

    How did you come to the belief that current warming is probably 33% anthropogenic in origin?
    The actual scientific evidence shows that without anthropogenic warming the world would be cooling. Anthropogenic warming is 100%, not 33%.

    https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Contrib25-30.png


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


    Coles wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that we ignore the IPCC and wait for the credible data that will support this "serious alternative" theory?

    The IPCC has done a lot of work on this. It seems silly to try to create a middle ground between the conclusions of the best scientific minds in the world and a bunch of fossil fuel funded rightwing crazies.

    No, I'm not suggesting we ignore the IPCC. I didn't say that. Nor should we ignore any science on the subject. You seem to be doing just that and dismissinf his researchnwithout having looked at it.

    MT's original post seems to be now lost in a haze of the usual attempts at discrediting the author by the usual individuals. I was wondering who would be the first to mention oil-funded, and it was you. Congrats.

    MT has a vast body of work done on many areas of climatology, including the effect of astronomical forces on energy timelines on Earth. He's not quite novice or a charlatan. His very presence with his forecast every day is due to his interest in researching weather and climate of different regions in his model. I'd suggest you and a few others first hear the man out before going on the personal attack.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Astrological forces influencing climate? Interesting. I doubt if the IPCC has considered that possibility. I'm a Leo.


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


    Such a shame....

    Exclude the fact it's MT and add in any other poster. Their thoughts and ideas are presented well and posted on a public forum to be read and challenged. Instead of digesting and dissecting the post, some people have decided to attack the poster and not the content.


    The toxicity from some people when alternatives to AGW is more alarming than the climate.


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


    Coles wrote: »
    Astrological forces influencing climate? Interesting. I doubt if the IPCC has considered that possibility. I'm a Leo.

    I meant astronomical!


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,038 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Nabber wrote: »
    Such a shame....

    Exclude the fact it's MT and add in any other poster. Their thoughts and ideas are presented well and posted on a public forum to be read and challenged. Instead of digesting and dissecting the post, some people have decided to attack the poster and not the content.


    The toxicity from some people when alternatives to AGW is more alarming than the climate.

    What is worse is that they are missing the point completely. He is not saying that AGW isn't happening, he is saying that because AGW is augmenting natural warming, we need to do more than stop burning fossil fuels.


  • Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Tuisceanch


    More recently, I have come around to the belief that the current warming is probably about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins. That ratio is perhaps going to change over time but will remain the complex foundation for further climate change in the near to mid-range future.
    marathon19 wrote: »
    This bit interests me no end.

    How did you come to the belief that current warming is probably 33% anthropogenic in origin?

    Yes I'm also interested to know what evidence this is based on and also who else supports this view. Why is so difficult to get answers to such basic questions? Surely the OP would be able to help out.


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


    The OP is 8 timezones away so I'd wait for him to explain all, which I'm sure he will.


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


    The OP wasn't intending to create a personality cult on this forum but that's what's going to happen.


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


    Meanwhile I've taken his data and added 10-yr running means to the Toronto and C.E.T. series.

    It's notable how there is no runaway rise in temperature in recent decades in either series (and indeed in the whole Global dataset). The old hockeystick of yesteryore seems to have had a chunk broken off its tip. Whatever the reason for the warming dragging its heels, it is something that is not accounted for in the projections of doom. Globally, the dataset is not even rising in line with the RCP4.5 Business-as-usual scenario.

    Anyway, it's only fair that MT be allowed time to expand on this idea here before the smash-and-grab looting continues.

    498095.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    I saw an interesting theory presented a few years back on the reasons dinosaurs migrated such long distances across continents. The scientist (who I can't remember) claimed that the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere at the time was much higher than it is today. Because of this, forest fires were rampant so the dinosaurs had to migrate to find unburnt vegetation (+ presumably to flee the fires).

    I thought this was very interesting. But it would make you think about the demonising of CO2 in the media of late. If the CO2 levels increase then maybe the instances of natural forest fires may decrease in future and things will likely balance out in time. The earth is very good at harmonising everything, we just need to give it a chance.


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


    Tuisceanch wrote: »
    Yes I'm also interested to know what evidence this is based on and also who else supports this view. Why is so difficult to get answers to such basic questions? Surely the OP would be able to help out.

    Google Valentina zharkova. It was her science (and she was only one of 2 people world wide who predicted the last solar cycle being half the strength of previous ones, even NASA got it wrong, now they are following her lead)

    Then check if the IPCC takes solar forcing into account in their models.

    Then google the medieval and roman warming phases.

    That's what got me interested in natural warming/cooling cycles. Valentina had been spot on so far.

    Also, if we are the only culprit, and CO2 levels are at record highs. Why have global temps been dropping since 2016?
    Unless something else is influencing temps? Like the sun?

    But I'm with MT on this. Why does it have to be either/or? Why not both?

    And his reasoning is sound. What if we can't stop it? What are we doing to mitigate it?

    Valentina is warning of food shortages by 2028 due to shorter growing seasons.
    It's happening already. The hunger stones were seen in Central Europe in 2018. They are inscribed with dates as far back as the 12th century. What caused the warming/weather pattern
    Change then?

    We are grasping at the edge of it all. But I do feel zharkova has forced the IPCC to include solar forcing in their models from 2020. Incidentally, they tried to stop the publishing of her work in Nature magazine with a sly email to the publishers. She found out when she was cc'ed on the magazines reply.

    That's just nasty. What are they afraid of?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    blanch152 wrote: »
    What is worse is that they are missing the point completely. He is not saying that AGW isn't happening, he is saying that because AGW is augmenting natural warming, we need to do more than stop burning fossil fuels.
    AGW is not "augmenting natural warming". Over the last 25-30 years the World should have been naturally cooling. That's an important point, and yes, we do need to do more to reverse the process, and no, we don't really need an alternative theory about it. The IPCC has the best minds in the World working on it.

    I have the greatest respect for MT's weather forecasts, but I'm sick to the back teeth of people trying to undermine the genuine scientific consensus on Climate Change because "communists", or whatever.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,491 ✭✭✭Reckless Abandonment


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    I saw an interesting theory presented a few years back on the reasons dinosaurs migrated such long distances across continents. The scientist (who I can't remember) claimed that the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere at the time was much higher than it is today. Because of this, forest fires were rampant so the dinosaurs had to migrate to find unburnt vegetation (+ presumably to flee the fires).

    I thought this was very interesting. But it would make you think about the demonising of CO2 in the media of late. If the CO2 levels increase then maybe the instances of natural forest fires may decrease in future and things will likely balance out in time. The earth is very good at harmonising everything, we just need to give it a chance.

    Think I saw that to. But if Co2 what at a concentration to reduce forest fires I dont think we would be around to worry about the fires :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    SeaBreezes wrote: »
    Google Valentina zharkova. It was her science (and she was only one of 2 people world wide who predicted the last solar cycle being half the strength of previous ones, even NASA got it wrong, now they are following her lead)

    Then check if the IPCC takes solar forcing into account in their models.
    It's discussed in IPCC TAR-06 6.1.1 page 380.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    Think I saw that to. But if Co2 what at a concentration to reduce forest fires I dont think we would be around to worry about the fires :)
    and *cough* ocean acidification *cough*.


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


    The last 20 years has seen a slight cooling in both the data series, but especially the Toronto one. This is repeated all over the globe. It's the same with Arctic and Greenland melt, which have both shown no increase in a similar period.

    But apparently climate change is still 100% human and all due to the ever-increasing GHG emissions...

    498101.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    Global Warming or Climate Change is the biggest lie ever perpetrated upon humanity. It is the very worst of Marxist brainwashing imaginable, I have travelled the world and the climate is in a constant state of flux, the state of the Extinction Rebellion protestors in Dublin earlier this year when I tried reasoning with their unproven science I was met a tirade of personal abuse. These are dangerous disgusting people who want to censor everything to suit their own horrendous far-left agenda.

    These type of people with their lies and intolerance is why we have strong politicians like Trump, Brexit etc. People are fed up of the left and their biased media cheerleaders.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,491 ✭✭✭Reckless Abandonment


    M.T makes a very valid point (one which I do side with) but the problem with climate change talk is that so many scientists have theories. It's very difficult for the average person to know what to believe, add to the fact governments appear to be cashing in on everything that "negatively effects the climate" this can lead to the general public not wanting to believe the science.
    News media looking for headlines love to promote the end of humanity which in turn gives governments more ammunition..Social media which should help inform only adds to confuse people. We've seen this countless times with weather warnings.
    M.T. level headed theory is so easy to dismiss as rubbish when there is money to be made.

    If he's right, maybe we're better off not believing him, because that could lead to us not bother changing our ways.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Coles


    People just need to listen to the actual experts.

    Don't trust people who select one or two weather stations and then pretend they represent the whole World. They don't. The world is warming. There is no doubt about this fact.

    Don't trust people who select periods of time that skew the data to support their lies.

    Greenland is melting rapidly. So too the Arctic sea ice, and the Antarctic. So too the Himilayan glaciers.

    All facts. The rightwing conspiracy crap is poisonous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,491 ✭✭✭Reckless Abandonment


    Coles wrote: »
    People just need to listen to the actual experts.

    Don't trust people who select one or two weather stations and then pretend they represent the whole World. They don't. The world is warming. There is no doubt about this fact.

    Don't trust people who select periods of time that skew the data to support their lies.

    Greenland is melting rapidly. So too the Arctic sea ice, and the Antarctic. So too the Himilayan glaciers.

    All facts. The rightwing conspiracy crap is poisonous.

    Actual experts thought the world was flat back when they were the experts. We need to keep an open mind.

    Everything is a data set. Everyone uses them to some degree or another. To prove a point. Both the climate change believers and deniers.

    The globe is warming and the ice is melting Over the last 150 years . We're discussing how much of it is caused by our behaviour. Could be all our fault, could be feck all got to do with us.


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


    Coles wrote: »
    People just need to listen to the actual experts.

    Don't trust people who select one or two weather stations and then pretend they represent the whole World. They don't. The world is warming. There is no doubt about this fact.

    Don't trust people who select periods of time that skew the data to support their lies.

    Greenland is melting rapidly. So too the Arctic sea ice, and the Antarctic. So too the Himilayan glaciers.

    All facts. The rightwing conspiracy crap is poisonous.

    MT is a qualified expert.

    Greenland is not melting rapidly. Nor are the Arctic or Antarctic. Year on year there is no net increase in melt in these regions. They've levelled off. Want me to post those charts again for the nth time? Here they are. You yourself are the one behaving like a typical chemtrail activist.

    I took the last 20 years because we're constantly being told that warming/melting is increasing, but it's not. These two stations are not the only ones showing no warming. Global datasets include a lot more than station data, much of it best guesses filling in for data-sparse areas. As said, the data are scraping the very bottom of the RCP4.5 members.

    495449.png


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,603 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Coles wrote: »
    No. It's not population. It's consumption.

    1% of the World's population has more CO2e emmissions than half of the World's population.

    The 99% aspire to reach that level of lifestyle so population growth is indeed the key - especially as it already is the main driver of habitat destruction etc. across the planet


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement