Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
14-11-2019, 12:56   #61
easypazz
Registered User
 
easypazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 296
I see president Higgins is preaching about it as he flies around Ireland in a jet plane.

Leo flew to the UK a few weeks ago on the jet for a meeting with Boris.

Governments really need to lead by example. Civil servants fly economy, or by train etc. where possible.
easypazz is online now  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
14-11-2019, 13:12   #62
easypazz
Registered User
 
easypazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by spookwoman View Post
Not sure how accurate http://flood.firetree.net/ is but shows 1m increments of sea rise levels and flooding.

Agreed we all know sea levels are rising, more storms, more rain but I believe it's how it is being reported is the main problem. Lot of the media is hyping it up and also when that and the drama is being pushed at you day in and day out you start ignoring it, call it climate change fatigue.
The TV3 program a few months back with the professor from Maynooth was about the best one so far it was measured and he had a lot of valid points about climate change and especially about the EU farming policy. Good example was farming creates C02, EU pushing farmers to have more cattle which then produces more C02, which means more bad weather.
There is only so much fodder that can be grown for cattle and again more cattle, more fodder needed, more bad weather so less fodder. We are getting to the point that there is not enough land to produce the fodder to feed all the cattle.
For me that type of info is far more beneficial than showing a cgi of dublin streets with a meter of water.
With GM crops and advances in technology, fertilizer etc. more and more food can be produced per square metre of land.

I saw a program recently where they have discovered a certain colour of light that stimulates tomato plants growth.

So they will be growing tomatoes in a dark room hitting them with the right amounts of water, fertilizer, led light shades and heat all year round, oblivious to the world outside.

It wouldn't surprise me to see agricultural skyscapers spring up on the edge of major cities over the next 50 years. On one floor they grow tomatoes, the next floor eggs, the next floor beef, the next floor grapes, and so on.

All produced artificially, no animals needed.

Washington post:

Scientists and businesses working full steam to produce lab-created meat claim it will be healthier than conventional meat and more environmentally friendly. But how much can they improve on old-school pork or beef?
In August 2013, a team of Dutch scientists showed off their lab-grown burger (cost: $330,000) and even provided a taste test. Two months ago, the American company Memphis Meats fried the first-ever lab meatball (cost: $18,000 per pound). Those who have tasted these items say they barely differ from the real deal.
The Dutch and the Americans claim that within a few years lab-produced meats will start appearing in supermarkets and restaurants.
easypazz is online now  
14-11-2019, 13:13   #63
BarryD2
Registered User
 
BarryD2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 3,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanuarySnowstor View Post
Did anyone see the special programme last night on Rte? I thought it was very much ott by showing large parts of Cork and Dublin flooded in 30 years time. Places uninhabitable in 30 years time is going too far imo!!
RTE are like the blind leading the blind on these matters. One minute they're wailing about climate anxiety and the next predicting biblical cataclysm.

Surely there must be more intelligent people in that organisation that can sift the known knowledge and present it in a nuanced way. But of course that wouldn't suit the agenda.
BarryD2 is offline  
Thanks from:
14-11-2019, 13:14   #64
BarryD2
Registered User
 
BarryD2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 3,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by easypazz View Post
I see president Higgins is preaching about it as he flies around Ireland in a jet plane..
Heard Mary Robinson holding forth on same subject the other night........ I mean I voted for the woman but she is in no position to lecture us on our travel habits.
BarryD2 is offline  
Thanks from:
14-11-2019, 13:29   #65
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffmongous View Post
Try looking at it again. His claim is related only to the last few years of the data. Which is technically correct the way it's phrased (if you trust the unsourced data I can't access), but the oldest tactic of the denialist is to claim short periods aren't suitable, hence the irony
Yes, it is only 5 years of data, which on the scale of longer climate scales, is but a mere blip.

It's funny though how the cultists, from one side of their mouth will dismiss periods of data like this as being 'insignificant' and a 'denialist tactic' yet from the other side of their mouths, hysterically cite every single half significant weather event as being directly down to 'climate change'.

The mind baffles.
Oneiric 3 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
14-11-2019, 13:30   #66
easypazz
Registered User
 
easypazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryD2 View Post
Heard Mary Robinson holding forth on same subject the other night........ I mean I voted for the woman but she is in no position to lecture us on our travel habits.
On a global scale an awful lot would need to be done to bring all this under control, a few random drastic examples.

1/ Abolish business class flights, more people can then fit on existing service.

2/ Cap the number of planes in the sky at what its at today, no new runways.

3/ Cap the number of cattle on the planet at what its at today

4/ Ban the concept of for example, flying prawns from Argentina to a restaurant in Dublin, tax food miles.

5/ Cap the number of boats and containers that are coming from China to Europe etc.

There are loads of extreme measures that would need to be taken now to get this under control, the token effort being made now won't be enough, if the predications of sea level rises are correct.

There is no political will to seriously correct this possible crisis.

Last edited by easypazz; 14-11-2019 at 13:30. Reason: typo
easypazz is online now  
(2) thanks from:
14-11-2019, 13:33   #67
Storm 10
Registered User
 
Storm 10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryD2 View Post
Heard Mary Robinson holding forth on same subject the other night........ I mean I voted for the woman but she is in no position to lecture us on our travel habits.
Coming from a woman who is in the Air weekly flying around the World makes me sick listening to walk this room and gloom until the rest of the World sign up we are pi...ng in the wind
Storm 10 is online now  
Thanks from:
14-11-2019, 13:40   #68
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm 10 View Post
Coming from a woman who is in the Air weekly flying around the World makes me sick listening to walk this room and gloom until the rest of the World sign up we are pi...ng in the wind
Here is another famous pontificater about the climate crisis and staving little black babies 'n' stuff, hanging out with his genocidal Bush buddy:



Truly vile people.
Oneiric 3 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
14-11-2019, 16:18   #69
riffmongous
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiric 3 View Post
Yes, it is only 5 years of data, which on the scale of longer climate scales, is but a mere blip.

It's funny though how the cultists, from one side of their mouth will dismiss periods of data like this as being 'insignificant' and a 'denialist tactic' yet from the other side of their mouths, hysterically cite every single half significant weather event as being directly down to 'climate change'.

The mind baffles.
Yeah following and contributing to the science makes you a cultist

Why don't you just actually write a paper and defend it properly, in a scientific context, if it's all so obviously wrong? Go on put your money where your mouth is instead of hiding on amateur forums pulling cheap tricks on the unqualified
riffmongous is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
14-11-2019, 17:27   #70
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffmongous View Post
Your first link is blocked by my adblock.. tracker warning. Might be worth doing a scan if you aren't aware

Eh, you wouldn't be presenting a 5 year time block as evidence here would you? The irony

Quote:
Originally Posted by riffmongous View Post
Try looking at it again. His claim is related only to the last few years of the data. Which is technically correct the way it's phrased (if you trust the unsourced data I can't access), but the oldest tactic of the denialist is to claim short periods aren't suitable, hence the irony
Which link do you mean? They all work for me anyway, not sure about anyone else. You seem to be implying that my data are unsourced, which is a little disingenuous to say the least. I did six of the charts myself, using the data quoted, and the other two were taken from the 2018 PROMICE annual report, which I also referenced.

I'm not talking about a 5-year block of data. I don't know where you got that from. I'm talking about the last decade, one quarter of the total observational set. This last decade came after a continuous downward trend, a trend which has been used in all the climate alarmist propaganda. I was merely pointing out that that downward trend has stopped. For how long remains to be seen. Similarly the Greenland ice data. Again properly referenced.

It seems that you have a problem with me for highlighting data that seems to ask questions of the current hype we're being bombarded with. I was waiting for someone to try to find issue with it, but the usual two I had expected have so far not remained quiet. Maybe they're able to see the data for what they are and aren't keen on attacking the messenger.

So let's be having your debunk of the data above then.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
(3) thanks from:
14-11-2019, 17:33   #71
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffmongous View Post
Yeah following and contributing to the science makes you a cultist

Why don't you just actually write a paper and defend it properly, in a scientific context, if it's all so obviously wrong? Go on put your money where your mouth is instead of hiding on amateur forums pulling cheap tricks on the unqualified
So wait, are you contributing to the science or just following it?
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
Thanks from:
14-11-2019, 17:46   #72
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiric 3 View Post
Yes, it is only 5 years of data, which on the scale of longer climate scales, is but a mere blip.

It's funny though how the cultists, from one side of their mouth will dismiss periods of data like this as being 'insignificant' and a 'denialist tactic' yet from the other side of their mouths, hysterically cite every single half significant weather event as being directly down to 'climate change'.

The mind baffles.
RTÉ mentioned this morning that the mayor of Venice stated that the recent flooding in the city "Is due to climate change". That's it.

Two things here:

1) The mayor is talking through his hole,
2) RTE chose to quote a mayor talking through his hole because it's their Climate Week.

The mind boggles indeed.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
14-11-2019, 18:21   #73
riffmongous
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
Which link do you mean? They all work for me anyway, not sure about anyone else. You seem to be implying that my data are unsourced, which is a little disingenuous to say the least. I did six of the charts myself, using the data quoted, and the other two were taken from the 2018 PROMICE annual report, which I also referenced.

I'm not talking about a 5-year block of data. I don't know where you got that from. I'm talking about the last decade, one quarter of the total observational set. This last decade came after a continuous downward trend, a trend which has been used in all the climate alarmist propaganda. I was merely pointing out that that downward trend has stopped. For how long remains to be seen. Similarly the Greenland ice data. Again properly referenced.

It seems that you have a problem with me for highlighting data that seems to ask questions of the current hype we're being bombarded with. I was waiting for someone to try to find issue with it, but the usual two I had expected have so far not remained quiet. Maybe they're able to see the data for what they are and aren't keen on attacking the messenger.

So let's be having your debunk of the data above then.
This is what I see when I click on your first link
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/atta...1&d=1573753797

Where did you get the actual data for the plots from, from the report? Can you also show some uncertainty/error for the measurements? Then we can have a good look. It does look like to me though that you might have got lucky getting such a perfectly flat trendline in your graphs. In 3 years time, even if sea ice melt does remain level, a decade analysis will still show a decreasing trend. If you made this graph last year, you would still see a decreasing trend, not a very steep one but still, decreasing.

I collect the data and do my own research, professional ly/academically, my colleagues use it in their climate studies
Attached Images
File Type: png blocked.png (57.1 KB, 38 views)

Last edited by riffmongous; 14-11-2019 at 18:44.
riffmongous is offline  
14-11-2019, 19:52   #74
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffmongous View Post
This is what I see when I click on your first link
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/atta...1&d=1573753797

Where did you get the actual data for the plots from, from the report? Can you also show some uncertainty/error for the measurements? Then we can have a good look. It does look like to me though that you might have got lucky getting such a perfectly flat trendline in your graphs. In 3 years time, even if sea ice melt does remain level, a decade analysis will still show a decreasing trend. If you made this graph last year, you would still see a decreasing trend, not a very steep one but still, decreasing.

I collect the data and do my own research, professional ly/academically, my colleagues use it in their climate studies
My first link is to the data page of the National Sea Ice Data Center. Here it is again. I didn't just make it up.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/sea-ice-tools/

I took the data for the first 4 plots from there. They are not my data, they are theirs. The data files don't give error bars, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone who wants to show a decreasing trend in the previous decade.

I didn't "just get lucky" with the flat trend. It's as if you don't trust my charts. If you want to be really picky about it you could say that in fact the last 13 years (one third of the total period) has had no loss or even a slight gain. I posted both linear trends and 5-year running means, so there can be no denying the trend. I have also posted the four decadal extent trends in a previous post , again using the same dataset. The 2000-09 downward trend is very handy for the alarmist brigade and never brough into question by them when quoted, so why should the next decade be treated any differently?

The Greenland melt data are from the two sources I quoted. I don't know what else I can give you. Go and plot the data yourself if you're such an expert and post your charts here so we can all compare them. I've laid out the data, quoted my official sources. Do with it all what you will.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
14-11-2019, 20:06   #75
Hooter23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 989
Why does every climate change story on the news or in the papers say "Scientists say"...well where are these scientists and how come I never see them speaking at these "emergency events" instead we see stupid celebrities flying in to have their picture taken while they are dragged away by the police looking like heroes...and then getting back on their private jets and flying home to drive their 50+ cars...the whole thing is a joke
Hooter23 is online now  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet