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

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

1161719212244

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Which of the oil companies do you work for dense?

    None.

    Which climate alarm clubs that can't explain their policies are you a member of Doctor Jimbob?


    If you're not a member of one of those outfits why are you blindly supporting their calls to transition us off of fossil fuels with no idea about whats going to supply the 155Twh of energy they supply if you're going to point blank refuse to explain what you think any of it will achieve?

    Apparently "Ireland is 'completely' off course to achieve climate change targets" but from the trite responses I'm getting here from those who are concerned by that, it appears that even if we were to meet the targets and subsequently stop using fossil fuels it is not going to have any affect on climate change, because no effect is being discussed, and none is being claimed.

    https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/ireland-completely-off-course-to-achieve-climate-change-targets-37153678.html


    If no one wants to make a claim that it will have an affect on climate change with an explanation as to how, we can therefore wrap this nonsense up by concluding that no one here or anywhere else is claiming or has ever claimed that any of these national measures regarding Ireland's emissions will affect global warming.

    Cue something about Akrasia deserving an answer to their through the looking glass question about what caused pre human climate change as a distraction from reality.

    They don't.

    Akrasia and the activists are leading you all up the river without a paddle with their nonsense and I think you're beginning to realise that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,650 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    dense wrote: »
    None.

    Which climate alarm clubs that can't explain their policies are you a member of Doctor Jimbob?


    If you're not a member of one of those outfits why are you blindly supporting their calls to transition us off of fossil fuels with no idea about whats going to supply the 155Twh of energy they supply if you're going to point blank refuse to explain what you think any of it will achieve?

    Apparently "Ireland is 'completely' off course to achieve climate change targets" but from the trite responses I'm getting here from those who are concerned by that, it appears that even if we were to meet the targets and subsequently stop using fossil fuels it is not going to have any affect on climate change, because no effect is being discussed, and none is being claimed.

    https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/ireland-completely-off-course-to-achieve-climate-change-targets-37153678.html


    If no one wants to make a claim that it will have an affect on climate change with an explanation as to how, we can therefore wrap this nonsense up by concluding that no one here or anywhere else is claiming or has ever claimed that any of these national measures regarding Ireland's emissions will affect global warming.

    Cue something about Akrasia deserving an answer to their through the looking glass question about what caused pre human climate change as a distraction from reality.

    They don't.

    Akrasia and the activists are leading you all up the river without a paddle with their nonsense and I think you're beginning to realise that.

    who gives a bollocks if its manmade or not? its happening regardless


  • Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭dubstepper


    dense wrote: »
    If no one wants to make a claim that it will have an affect on climate change with an explanation as to how, we can therefore wrap this nonsense up by concluding that no one here or anywhere else is claiming or has ever claimed that any of these national measures regarding Ireland's emissions will affect global warming.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    dense wrote: »
    None.

    Which climate alarm clubs that can't explain their policies are you a member of Doctor Jimbob?


    If you're not a member of one of those outfits why are you blindly supporting their calls to transition us off of fossil fuels with no idea about whats going to supply the 155Twh of energy they supply if you're going to point blank refuse to explain what you think any of it will achieve?

    Apparently "Ireland is 'completely' off course to achieve climate change targets" but from the trite responses I'm getting here from those who are concerned by that, it appears that even if we were to meet the targets and subsequently stop using fossil fuels it is not going to have any affect on climate change, because no effect is being discussed, and none is being claimed.

    https://amp.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/ireland-completely-off-course-to-achieve-climate-change-targets-37153678.html


    If no one wants to make a claim that it will have an affect on climate change with an explanation as to how, we can therefore wrap this nonsense up by concluding that no one here or anywhere else is claiming or has ever claimed that any of these national measures regarding Ireland's emissions will affect global warming.

    Cue something about Akrasia deserving an answer to their through the looking glass question about what caused pre human climate change as a distraction from reality.

    They don't.

    Akrasia and the activists are leading you all up the river without a paddle with their nonsense and I think you're beginning to realise that.

    None. I've stated several times I don't go all-in on the alarmist position, I just think it would be wise to be cautious with emissions.

    The rest of your post is just waffle twisting people's words to back up your position, so I'll just do what you've done with any questions you've been asked and ignore it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,343 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    None. I've stated several times I don't go all-in on the alarmist position, I just think it would be wise to be cautious with emissions.

    The rest of your post is just waffle twisting people's words to back up your position, so I'll just do what you've done with any questions you've been asked and ignore it.


    There's no point in replying to his posts. The pattern is fairly obvious at this stage. Make claims, ignore refutes and questions he can't answer, then post unrelated claims with parts personalised to anybody that has posted anything that threatens his narrative. You then feel the need to defend the outlandish claim he's attributed to you and write a response, which sends the narrative off on one of the tangents he wants it on. Meanwhile the actual informative posts are swamped with walls of text about nonsense.

    It's fairly simplistic but effective. The key is to get the other person off-point by doing things like claiming that they said something or think a certain way so they feel compelled to defend themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    xckjoo wrote: »
    There's no point in replying to his posts. The pattern is fairly obvious at this stage. Make claims, ignore refutes and questions he can't answer, then post unrelated claims with parts personalised to anybody that has posted anything that threatens his narrative. You then feel the need to defend the outlandish claim he's attributed to you and write a response, which sends the narrative off on one of the tangents he wants it on. Meanwhile the actual informative posts are swamped with walls of text about nonsense.

    It's fairly simplistic but effective. The key is to get the other person off-point by doing things like claiming that they said something or think a certain way so they feel compelled to defend themselves.

    Ah yeah, but sure it passes the time until some work lands on my desk if nothing else :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    None.

    I've stated several times I don't go all-in on the alarmist position, I just think it would be wise to be cautious with emissions.

    The rest of your post is just waffle twisting people's words to back up your position, so I'll just do what you've done with any questions you've been asked and ignore it.

    But you haven't ignored it, you're now saying that the lefty eco activists' demands which have somehow been made public policy here will make no difference to global warming.

    It's easy to call my posts waffle, but you're the first person here to respond by saying they think Ireland transitioning off fossil fuels will have no effect on climate change.

    You could have stated that from the outset instead of dragging it out for so long.

    And you could have said you are sceptical of the full on alarmist position adopted by Akrasia and other climate justice activists.

    They won't be pleased with people saying all their emissions and eco grant policies for Ireland will have no affect on climate change...

    Are you sure you're not a sceptic yourself Doctor Jimbob?

    You certainly seem highly sceptical of the alarmists and their demands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    xckjoo wrote: »
    There's no point in replying to his posts. The pattern is fairly obvious at this stage. Make claims, ignore refutes and questions he can't answer, then post unrelated claims with parts personalised to anybody that has posted anything that threatens his narrative. You then feel the need to defend the outlandish claim he's attributed to you and write a response, which sends the narrative off on one of the tangents he wants it on. Meanwhile the actual informative posts are swamped with walls of text about nonsense.

    It's fairly simplistic but effective. The key is to get the other person off-point by doing things like claiming that they said something or think a certain way so they feel compelled to defend themselves.
    dense wrote: »
    But you haven't ignored it, you're now saying that the lefty eco activists' demands which have somehow been made public policy here will make no difference to global warming.

    It's easy to call my posts waffle, but you're the first person here to respond by saying they think Ireland transitioning off fossil fuels will have no effect on climate change.

    You could have stated that from the outset instead of dragging it out for so long.

    And you could have said you are sceptical of the full on alarmist position adopted by Akrasia and other climate justice activists.

    They won't be pleased with people saying all their emissions and eco grant policies for Ireland will have no affect on climate change...

    Are you sure you're not a sceptic yourself Doctor Jimbob?

    You certainly seem highly sceptical of the alarmists and their demands.

    Yep.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,343 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Yep.


    I must be psychic. Time to chuck in the job and join the circus :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    xckjoo wrote: »
    I must be psychic. Time to chuck in the job and join the circus :pac:

    I wouldn't bother, there's already a clown here.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Dense demanding us attribute specific consequences to specific emissions is like an alcoholic demanding that a doctor explain specifically which bottle of cheap vodka gave him sirrhosis.

    Most people can drink all their lives and never get sirrhosis. But if you drink too much your body cannot process the toxic byproducts and eventually permanent damage is done.

    If you're an alcoholic with liver failure all alcohol is toxic. Some amount of alcohol will make you sick, too much will kill you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Dense demanding us attribute specific consequences to specific emissions is like an alcoholic demanding that a doctor explain specifically which bottle of cheap vodka gave him sirrhosis.


    Please don't misrepresent what I have asked.

    People like myself and Dr. JimBob who are sceptical of alarmists are likely to become even more sceptical as a result of you doing it.

    I asked you to quantify Ireland's contribution to global warming

    The alarmists have already quantified the warming that they say is due to humans emitting CO2.


    They say that from an undefined "pre industrial" baseline, C02 emissions have caused a temperature rise of c 1°C.


    Drilling down further it is found that they also claim to be able to attribute specific responsibility for this rise in temperature to specific companies.



    Research undertaken by earth scientists suggests that "The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age".

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

    As I have said earlier, not one alarmist NGO has ever explained what affect on global warming will occur if Ireland follows their demands to stop emitting C02.


    And not one alarmist has ever explained what they believe Ireland's contribution to global warming to be.


    Instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel and talking about cheap vodka and trying to reject the fact that the earth scientists can now attribute global warming to specific companies, leading to you now seeming to reject the suggestion that global warming is being caused by national emissions, why not simply demonstrate our national contribution to global warming and our potential to stop it?

    And if you believe Ireland has contributed to global warming please show your calculations which permit you to arrive at that conclusion.



    You're not being asked if you believe in the tooth fairy, you're being asked what share of global warming, if any, is attributable to Ireland.

    You have said Ireland's per capita emissions have disproportionately affected global warming.

    You are clearly making this up, and are fantasising if you cannot demonstrate this disproportionate affect on global warning that you are imagining.



    If that doesn't interest you (and it clearly doesn't), you could always try to explain where we're going to reliably get 155Twh of renewable energy from annually to substitute the fossil fuel energy that we currently use.

    It's all very well for the alarmists continually whining about our need to nationally transition off of fossil fuels, but they're going to need to outline what they think that's going to achieve in terms of global warming and offer intelligent solutions regarding what's going to replace them.


    The leftys are great at being alarmed, not so good at providing solutions.


    Vision

    That Ireland makes a rapid and just transition to a carbon free future.


    https://www.stopclimatechaos.ie/about/


    Propaganda from the climate chaos alarmists, who also say they want to "engage" the public.


    Lots of vacuous bullshït there as there is from you too about Ireland's needing to accept
    its "fair share" of responsibility for causing climate change.

    And it's all trés cool hip and on trend as long as no one asks what share of global warming has been caused by Ireland.


    Cults and their followers don't like their policies being questioned, do they?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Please don't misrepresent what I have asked.

    People like myself and Dr. JimBob who are sceptical of alarmists are likely to become even more sceptical as a result of you doing it.

    I asked you to quantify Ireland's contribution to global warming

    The alarmists have already quantified the warming that they say is due to humans emitting CO2.


    They say that from an undefined "pre industrial" baseline, C02 emissions have caused a temperature rise of c 1°C.


    Drilling down further it is found that they also claim to be able to attribute specific responsibility for this rise in temperature to specific companies.



    Research undertaken by earth scientists suggests that "The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age".

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

    As I have said earlier, not one alarmist NGO has ever explained what affect on global warming will occur if Ireland follows their demands to stop emitting C02.


    And not one alarmist has ever explained what they believe Ireland's contribution to global warming to be.


    Instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel and talking about cheap vodka and trying to reject the fact that the earth scientists can now attribute global warming to specific companies, leading to you now seeming to reject the suggestion that global warming is being caused by national emissions, why not simply demonstrate our national contribution to global warming and our potential to stop it?

    And if you believe Ireland has contributed to global warming please show your calculations which permit you to arrive at that conclusion.



    You're not being asked if you believe in the tooth fairy, you're being asked what share of global warming, if any, is attributable to Ireland.

    You have said Ireland's per capita emissions have disproportionately affected global warming.

    You are clearly making this up, and are fantasising if you cannot demonstrate this disproportionate affect on global warning that you are imagining.



    If that doesn't interest you (and it clearly doesn't), you could always try to explain where we're going to reliably get 155Twh of renewable energy from annually to substitute the fossil fuel energy that we currently use.

    It's all very well for the alarmists continually whining about our need to nationally transition off of fossil fuels, but they're going to need to outline what they think that's going to achieve in terms of global warming and offer intelligent solutions regarding what's going to replace them.


    The leftys are great at being alarmed, not so good at providing solutions.



    https://www.stopclimatechaos.ie/about/


    Propaganda from the climate chaos alarmists, who also say they want to "engage" the public.


    Lots of vacuous bullshït there as there is from you too about Ireland's needing to accept
    its "fair share" of responsibility for causing climate change.

    And it's all trés cool hip and on trend as long as no one asks what share of global warming has been caused by Ireland.


    Cults and their followers don't like their policies being questioned, do they?

    Christ your username is apt. Scientists can attribute emissions to individual countries,Companies, economic sectors etc so what. If you have a point other than cults blah blah socialism then get to it.

    BTW. Nobody has forgotten that you refused to answer a very simple question multiple times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    But if you insist in quantifying the heat ireland been responsible for, it's the equivalent heat of 2,921,882 Hiroshima nuclear bombs since 1998 (and rising)
    http://4hiroshimas.com/#Home


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    But if you insist in quantifying the heat ireland been responsible for, it's the equivalent heat of 2,921,882 Hiroshima nuclear bombs since 1998 (and rising)
    http://4hiroshimas.com/#Home

    It would be interesting to know why you think that Ireland's CO2 emissions have caused the equivalent heat of 2,921,882 Hiroshima nuclear bombs and what you think that translates to in terms of thousandths of a degree in a hypothetical 0.4°C degree of global warming scenario for that period, a period distinctly lacking any global warming.

    to:2018



    2m of the total 2,000,000,000 Hiroshima bombs you were talking about is around 0.1% of them.

    I'll let you work out what 0.1% of any alleged temperature rise for the period equates to in degrees Celsius.

    Think along the lines of 0.0004 degrees for 0.4° warming.

    Statistical noise basically.

    Your initial figure could have been just plucked from thin air after all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭ Andrea White Hotel


    dense wrote: »
    It would be interesting to know why you think that Ireland's CO2 emissions have caused the equivalent heat of 2,921,882 Hiroshima nuclear bombs and what you think that translates to in terms of thousandths of a degree in a hypothetical 0.4°C degree of global warming scenario for that period, a period distinctly lacking any global warming.

    to:2018



    2m of the total 2,000,000,000 Hiroshima bombs you were talking about is around 0.1% of them.

    I'll let you work out what 0.1% of any alleged temperature rise for the period equates to in degrees Celsius.

    Think along the lines of 0.0004 degrees for 0.4° warming.

    Statistical noise basically.

    Your initial figure could have been just plucked from thin air after all.

    It'd be more interesting to know why you have yet to answer Akrasia's question:

    'OK then Dense. Let's try something different. What do you think caused climate change in the past before humans arrived?'


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    It'd be more interesting to know why you have yet to answer Akrasia's question:

    'OK then Dense. Let's try something different. What do you think caused climate change in the past before humans arrived?'

    If you have been reading the last few pages you will be aware that I have already explained that I have no intention of entertaining Akrasia's invitation to go down a rabbit hole indulging their through the looking glass question about what caused pre human climate change.

    If you, Akrasia or others wish to advance and discuss reasons for climate change in pre human times there is nothing stopping you from doing so if that is your desire.

    But please be aware that Akrasia reguarly questions the reliability of historic pre 19th century data, so if you start referring to proxy data dating from pre human times expect it to be rejected.

    I hope that satisfactorily answers your question, and as always I look forward with interest to reading your comments here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Sorry Dense, of course the causes of climate change should be totally off topic in a discussion about the causes of climate change. You're totally right

    Now lets get back to your questions where you're trying to say that the equivalent energy of 2 million nuclear bombs is insignificant because humans are actually responsible for adding the equivalent of 2 billion nuclear bombs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,745 ✭✭✭Deebles McBeebles


    This thread is hilarious. As if there's any doubt.

    Seriously lads, argue about something where there is an actual argument on both sides.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Sorry Dense, of course the causes of climate change should be totally off topic in a discussion about the causes of climate change. You're totally right

    I totally said you and yours are quite free to discuss the causes of pre human climate change:
    dense wrote: »
    If you, Akrasia or others wish to advance and discuss reasons for climate change in pre human times there is nothing stopping you from doing so if that is your desire.

    Why pretend I said it was off topic?
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Now lets get back to your questions where you're trying to say that the equivalent energy of 2 million nuclear bombs is insignificant because humans are actually responsible for adding the equivalent of 2 billion nuclear bombs.

    Still waiting to find out how you have calculated that Ireland has set off the equivalent of 2m nuclear bombs of energy equivalent since 1998 and what "significant" increase in global temperatures you think Ireland's "detonation" of these nuclear bomb equivalents has caused.


    Will you share your data, calculations, sources and conclusions with us?

    Then we can have a look at you and your lefty friends proposals on how you'd substitute that alleged 2m Hiroshima bombsworth of energy with an alternative, reliable renewable energy source.

    I know they're probably all busy scouring property to occupy at the moment, but they seem highly intelligent and should be able to multitask whenever they're not tweeting about the need for a rapid transition to renewable energy and demanding more free stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,343 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    dense wrote: »
    I totally said you and yours are quite free to discuss the causes of pre human climate change:



    Why pretend I said it was off topic?



    Still waiting to find out how you have calculated that Ireland has set off the equivalent of 2m nuclear bombs of energy equivalent since 1998 and what "significant" increase in global temperatures you think Ireland's "detonation" of these nuclear bomb equivalents has caused.


    Will you share your data, calculations, sources and conclusions with us?

    Then we can have a look at you and your lefty friends proposals on how you'd substitute that alleged 2m Hiroshima bombsworth of energy with an alternative, reliable renewable energy source.

    I know they're probably all busy scouring property to occupy at the moment, but they seem highly intelligent and should be able to multitask whenever they're not tweeting about the need for a rapid transition to renewable energy and demanding more free stuff.


    Like when you shared with us how you "calculated" 20twh (sic) to be approximately 20,000gwh (sic) by using a website that does the conversion for you? I wouldn't go asking for too much maths if I were you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    I totally said you and yours are quite free to discuss the causes of pre human climate change:



    Why pretend I said it was off topic?
    There's no point discussing it with other people, everyone else already accepts that CO2 has been one of the main drivers of climate change now, and before humans arrived.

    CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere have been the fundamental predictor of global average temperature for millions of years. The deniers like you, need to explain how come now it's different. How come fluctuations in CO2 concentrations caused big swings in global temperature in the past, but not now, when we have already increased CO2 concnetrations to greater than they have been in at least the last 800k years (probably much more but ice cores only go back that far)
    paleo_keelinginset_v2_610.gif?itok=XThZLRXg

    Especially when the other drivers of climate, solar output, orbital eccentricity and changes to albido are easily ruled out as the drivers of current climate change


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Like when you shared with us how you "calculated" 20twh (sic) to be approximately 20,000gwh (sic) by using a website that does the conversion for you? I wouldn't go asking for too much maths if I were you.


    Like when you fell off the wall and everyone laughed at you?


    In other words, link please, because I don't recall using any of those figures nor do I recall you piping up at the time to say my calculations were incorrect.


    If there is an error in my calculations concerning how much energy fossil fuels supply here and how much renewables do, link to it and then correct it.

    Actually I'll link to it to save you the trouble and you can check that it's ok.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107955400&postcount=490

    Heres the online conversion tool to convert 14m tons of oil equivalence to Twh


    http://www.conversion-website.com/energy/ton-of-oil-equivalent-to-terawatt-hour.html


    Akrasia's new standard unit of 1 Hiroshima bomb isn't included there however, so I'm a little sceptical of you being able to verify their claims about Ireland setting off the equivalent of 2m of them since 1998 and their impact, if any, in degrees of global warming.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    There's no point discussing it with other people, everyone else already accepts that CO2 has been one of the main drivers of climate change now, and before humans arrived.



    Especially when the other drivers of climate, solar output, orbital eccentricity and changes to albido are easily ruled out as the drivers of current climate change


    You seem to be uniquely personally burdened with experiencing "climate change" to a greater degree than is being observed.


    Nothing detrimental has come from the barely measurable "observed" (and adjusted) c 1°C of warming averaged from sparse measurements around the earth.



    You really need to stop being so alarmed and calling for urgent knee jerk reactions based on vacuous lefty environmental policy designed to push humanity back to the dark ages whilst harking for a global accord to force you to reduce your own carbon footprint.



    The UNIPCC is less convinced of this drama than you are:


    Detection and attribution



    The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the
    late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does
    not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate
    system has been identified.



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



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


    The difficulties you have in getting others to be similarly alarmed at what essentially is normal weather ia summarised well in this paper:


    But what about the data sets used in these analyses? To detect an observed change in the climate system, particularly a change suitable for an attribution study, a data set of sufficient temporal and spatial coverage is necessary.

    Depending on the climate extreme, there is often a lack of observed climate data to document these events for many parts of the world. If the observations exist they often are not in digital form. Also, although the situation is changing, many countries continue to be reluctant to share them with the research community (Easterling, 2013, Kunkel and Frankson, 2015).

    As noted above, since the analysis of climate extremes often involves examination of the tails of a statistical distribution, a threshold value may be used to determine the number of observations that exceed that value over time creating a time series of exceedance counts.

    Data quality can impact the counts if there are a number of erroneous values that are not screened out by quality assurance methods, or if the quality assurance methods, which are often more concerned with mean values, are too rigorous and exclude true values.

    Additional issues include missing data, especially if those missing data would exceed an established threshold or would affect the calculation of the threshold itself. In terms of global analyses, data may be missing for large regions of the globe resulting in a less than true global analysis (Donat et al., 2013). Finally, if longer term data are available they are often observed at weather observing stations, such as at airports, and may be impacted by issues such as urbanization or less than ideal station siting which may result in lower quality data.



    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094716300020


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    You seem to be uniquely personally burdened with experiencing "climate change" to a greater degree than is being observed.


    Nothing detrimental has come from the barely measurable "observed" (and adjusted) c 1°C of warming averaged from sparse measurements around the earth.



    You really need to stop being so alarmed and calling for urgent knee jerk reactions based on vacuous lefty environmental policy designed to push humanity back to the dark ages whilst harking for a global accord to force you to reduce your own carbon footprint.



    The UNIPCC is less convinced of this drama than you are:





    https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/045.htm
    You are so dishonest. That quoted section is not a conclusion of the IPCC, it is setting out the basis for their conclusions which are
    The SAR concluded nevertheless, on the basis of careful analyses, that �the observed change in global mean, annually averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system�.
    and referring to attribution
    In this way the SAR found that �there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record�. Since the SAR new results have become available which tend to support this conclusion. The present status of the detection of climate change and attribution of its causes is assessed in Chapter 12.

    It is incredibly dishonest to selectively quote a source and misrepresent what that source actually says
    The difficulties you have in getting others to be similarly alarmed at what essentially is normal weather ia summarised well in this paper:
    You just threw out a section of a paper that talks about the challenges in attribution. What does this specific paper actually say about whether we can or can't attribute extreme weather events to climate change?
    Hence, it is often stated in the popular press after a notable extreme weather event that nothing can be said about the role of climate change in that particular event with some caveats that such events can be expected to become more common in the future. This statement is most often patently false. For much can be said about the effect of climate change on many recent extreme weather events in a probabilistic formalism. The rapidly emerging field of Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution has quantified the effect of climate change on a wide variety of extreme weather (for instance see Peterson et al., 2012, 2013; Herring et al. 2014).

    The study starts off by talking about the limitations of relying on weather reports because they cannot be scientifically controlled, and then talks about the incredibly powerful modelling tools that we can use to assess changes to our climate and extreme events.

    The only reason scientists say they can't attribute individual events to climate change is because the sample size is too small. There aren't enough extreme events to allow us to come to firm conclusions, and the only way this can be solved is to wait for more storms to happen and therefore more data to analyse. Needless to say, this makes attribution via observations useless if the aim is to predict how our climate will behave under future atmospheric conditions caused by AGW. So Models are much more useful as they can plug in the conditions for any current or past weather event and then input counter factual conditions to test how those storms would have behaved if for example, oceans had been cooler, or the jet stream hadn't have been meandering so much due to polar warming etc.

    Climate scientists know an awful lot more about this than you do Dense, and they have the tools and understanding that you can only dream of. If you're going to quote their research you should at least have the courtesy to get their conclusions right


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Interesting study just released says that if it wasn't for global warming, Hurricane Florence would have produced only half as much rain and it would have been 80 kilometers smaller

    https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/4/945/files/2018/09/climate_change_Florence_0911201800Z_final-262u19i.pdf

    This is on the basis of physics models and not historical observations.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Interesting study just released says that if it wasn't for global warming, Hurricane Florence would have produced only half as much rain and it would have been 80 kilometers smaller

    https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/4/945/files/2018/09/climate_change_Florence_0911201800Z_final-262u19i.pdf

    This is on the basis of physics models and not historical observations.

    So alarmed alarmed earth scientists have now modelled the models to get them to forecast a human fingerprint.

    Back when CO2 levels were around the famous but undefined "pre industrial period" in 1900, what do you think caused the floods that came with Hurricane Hazel?


    hazel.jpg


    Model T Fords causing the US east cost to be sinking?


    Scientists:
    Parts of North Carolina, New Jersey and South Carolina have been sinking at rates of 8 to 10 inches per century.
    https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/scientists-rhode-island-is-sinking-and-sea-levels-continue-to-rise_20180327075737224/1082490842



    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas/

    Observations show a decrease in historic hurricane activity:
    We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.
    Once an estimate for likely missing storms is accounted for the increase in tropical storms in the Atlantic since the late-19th Century is not distinguishable from no change.
    Atlantic tropical storms lasting more than 2 days have not increased in number.

    Storms lasting less than two days have increased sharply, but this is likely due to better observations. Figure adapted from Landsea, Vecchi, Bengtsson and Knutson (2009, J. Climate)
    When one focuses only on landfalling storms (yellow lines) the nominal trend has been for a decrease.
    https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/
    We have investigated trends in CONUS hurricane activity since 1900 and found no significant trends in landfalling hurricanes, major hurricanes, or normalized damage consistent with what has been found in previous studies.
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1


    Increased financial loss is being fuelled by increasing development in historic hurricane risk paths, not AGW.


    Analyses show that, although economic losses from weather-related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.


    The observed loss increase is caused primarily by increasing exposure and value of capital at risk.
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    You are so dishonest.

    The only reason scientists say they can't attribute individual events to climate change is because the sample size is too small.


    You are now caught up in classic climate change circular reasoning by claiming that the number of extreme weather events caused by global warming is so small that the earth scientists are saying they are having trouble attributing them to global warming.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,108 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    You are now caught up in classic climate change circular reasoning by claiming that the number of extreme weather events caused by global warming is so small that the earth scientists are saying they are having trouble attributing them to global warming.

    By definition extreme events are rare, if they weren't they would be normal weather.

    Climate change is causing what used to be considered extreme, to now be normal weather. Its shifting the bell curve


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    By definition extreme events are rare, if they weren't they would be normal weather.

    Climate change is causing what used to be considered extreme, to now be normal weather.


    Reverting to subjective descriptions of normal weather is another element of circular reasoning for those trying to convince themselves and others that extreme events are becoming more frequent.




    Abstract

    It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.



    A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change.




    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.php?aid=69558


Advertisement