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

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

Options
1…1415171920…84

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Danno wrote: »
    Pre-industrial temperatures correlated with the "Little Ice Age" and before that you had the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period.

    Today's Warm Period is only *slightly* warmer than both of those events. But the real question is: What caused these two warmer periods in the past as humans were not emitting C02 in quantities enough to trigger any measurable effects.

    Would it be fair to say that we are currently in a natural warm period and the slight increases measured today above what we know about the Medieval and Roman periods are caused by the extra C02 around today?

    Would it also be fair to propose that while we know the Medieval and Roman Periods were warm, we may have underestimated how warm these periods were?

    It is not unreasonable to enter these standpoints into the debate.

    It was not unreasonable to introduce these into the debate 30 years ago, but they have been debated to death and the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the cause of the current warming is anthropogenic climate change caused by the increase in GHGs in our atmosphere

    https://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm
    https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

    Skeptics need to propose a cause for why the global climate is warming now. What is your mechanism to explain the current warming (natural variability is not a mechanism)
    In the past climate changed because of of 4 main variables

    1. Changes in solar output - (solar activity has not increased since the 1950s)
    2. Volcanic activity - (Volcanic activity does not explain the 20th and 21st century warming)
    3. Changes in Albedo - Humans have increased the albedo through changes in land use, this would have an overall cooling trend - Modern satellites have not recorded any meaningful change in albedo since they began recording it https://skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect-intermediate.htm
    4. CO2/GHG concentrations - Human have almost doubled the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere since pre-industrial levels. They were stable at 270ppm for thousands of years, and in the past 150 years, we have increased them by 54% to the current level of 418ppm
    The link between CO2 and global average temperature has been known and understood for more than a century so much that the current warming was predicted as soon as Keeling noticed that the atmospheric CO2 levels were measured to be increasing

    There are no other known mechanisms that can have had the observed effects over this timescale. 'Skeptics' have tried to find some but all attempts have failed


  • Options
    #483
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Fixed your post.

    no you didn't


  • Options
    #484
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    fvp4 wrote: »
    Of course it invalidate his arguments since he is arguing that he can in fact keep trafficking. But I am generalising this to what the elites in general believe. Which is reduced consumption for me and no reduction for them. Green parties, as they now stand, are basically in tune with this. Carbon taxes tax the poor, who as we will see don't fly airplanes that much.



    Agreed, from now on.



    Ok, but its all very well demanding the rich countries do most but what about the rich themselves? There are estimated 5 million people in China who are dollar millionaires. The average Joe in Ireland is closer to the average Joe in China than to a millionaire. There are people in Nigeria and most of the third world who are rich as well of course.

    We are either "all in this together" or we are not. I have looked around and I don't see much in in the Irish Green Party that would affect the head honcho at Google.

    I was reading a book set in the 50s by an English woman called Barbara Pym. In it life seems normal enough, and she doesn't mention rationing except obliquely where somebody says that they should come around to his place because he "had meat". Everybody in that food crisis -- with the exception of perhaps some aristocrats -- dealt with the shortage of food and meat not with a pricing mechanism but with a voucher system.

    In a guardian article a few years ago for the UK the stats on flying were.

    1% of the population took 10% of all flights
    20% of the population took 50% of all flights.
    47% of the population didn't fly that year.
    which leaves 33% percent of people taking the other 50% of flights.

    ( In carbon costs it is probably much much worse than that since the top 20% includes some private jet owners, and first class long hauls flyers, 50% of all flyers could well be 70% of all carbon emissions).

    We are close to the median population not flying in a given year. Nearly everybody has flown though, so probably a high percentage of the 33% of the total population that took the other 50% of flights in that year don't fly every year.


    A tax on the mostly flying every 2 years average Joe isn't going to do much to stop these emissions.

    A voucher system where you get to fly every two years short haul would work, and not affect the bottom 47% at all and have a slight effect on that percentage of next 30% of people who fly every year.

    So the head honcho of Google gets to fly once every two years and that's probably his own vacation. John Kerry, once every 2 years. The Pope, take the train buddy. Then with that in place we could try and build out better public transport.

    Screw carbon taxes.


    The elites have been screwing over the poor forever, they're not gonna stop now, but the important thing to remember is that the elites will not pay the costs of climate change, they'll be grand, the millionaires and billionaires will be able to relocate to get away from the worst effects of climate change. So while the ordinary people could strike or refuse to comply, in the end, it is ourselves who will always pay the price if we fail to get this under control asap.

    The ordinary people will be the ones paying for the huge mitigation costs, rebuilding infrastructure, dealing with all of the downsides to climate change in the long term, and unfortunately we're probably also going to be the ones paying the carbon taxes and national debt from the costs of the transition.

    I don't the likes of the US agreeing to measures that penalise the elites. In fact, they'll almost certainly get bailed out of their 'stranded assets' with tax payers money. Its not the way I would like it to be, but given how they've made out like bandits during the Covid crisis, they'll probably enrich themselves from climate change too.

    I would love to be proven wrong on this however and we cannot predict the future, especially after the crazy politics we've had over the past few years


  • Options
    #485
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It is ironic that Heller's video is supposed to be all about 'hidden data' while his thumbnail contains a quote with the magic elipses ... that allows one to completely remove context from any quote


    But aside from this, Heller's claims that the data is being deliberately cherrypicked are grossly exaggerated and in several cases, he is comparing totally different dataset and overlaying graphs on top of other graphs where the axis' do not line up properly

    His first claim, that heatwaves were worse in the 1930s therefore the current increase in heatwaves is not new completely ignores that the 1930s heatwaves were due to the Dustbowl, a man made event caused by excessive erosion of the topsoil due to terrible farming practises, the dustbowl amplified the naturally occuring heatwave at the time and led to the worst ecological disaster in US history

    There is a good justification for excluding the 1930s from that graph and focusing on the most recent trend

    The next graph he talks about is wildfires where again, he mixes up two datasets, one for total acres burned, and another for wildfires. They are not the same statistics so they cannot be directly compared

    Then he has the sea ice extent graphs where, once again, he compares incompatible datasets. He claims that 1979 is a cherrypicked starting point, but it's not, 1979 is widely considered the start of the satellite record for measuring sea ice. Before this date, while there were some satellite observations, they were not reliable or consistent, which is why the IPCC report showed huge error bars
    https://nsidc.org/nsidc-monthly-highlights/2018/10/modern-sea-ice-satellite-record-turns-40 Any data before 1979 cannot be overlayed with data from after 1979 for this erason.. Heller also chose to use a graph here that ended in 1990. guess what has happened since 1990 (31 years ago)

    He then talks about sea level changes, and the first thing he says is to mock the idea that sea level changes near the US would be different from anywhere else, which only goes to show how little he knows about it (sea levels vary by location, and Heller then goes and picks one location (New York) and tries to pretend that measurements from one location disproves the graph that shows the rise in sea levels across the entire US

    Heller just does what he always does, he mixes data up, misrepresents data, misunderstands basic concepts ,overlays graphs that are not compatible with each other, misquotes people and attributes intentions to deceive where there are perfectly acceptable reasons why data was selected other than the conspiracy theory that scientists are trying to falsify climate change

    Heller makes videos that he hosts on his own blog because no peer reviewed journal would accept his bullsh1t

    Rather than go through it all again, here is my previous analysis of Mallen Baker's debunk video of Heller's video.


  • Options
    #486
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The elites have been screwing over the poor forever, they're not gonna stop now, but the important thing to remember is that the elites will not pay the costs of climate change, they'll be grand, the millionaires and billionaires will be able to relocate to get away from the worst effects of climate change. So while the ordinary people could strike or refuse to comply, in the end, it is ourselves who will always pay the price if we fail to get this under control asap.

    The ordinary people will be the ones paying for the huge mitigation costs, rebuilding infrastructure, dealing with all of the downsides to climate change in the long term, and unfortunately we're probably also going to be the ones paying the carbon taxes and national debt from the costs of the transition.

    I don't the likes of the US agreeing to measures that penalise the elites. In fact, they'll almost certainly get bailed out of their 'stranded assets' with tax payers money. Its not the way I would like it to be, but given how they've made out like bandits during the Covid crisis, they'll probably enrich themselves from climate change too.

    I would love to be proven wrong on this however and we cannot predict the future, especially after the crazy politics we've had over the past few years

    What do you see as being the climate crisis for us here in l'il ole Oirland? What will people be running from 20, 50, 100 years from now if we don't all stop what we're doing? Will Dublin be gone? Cork? Salthill? Supermac's?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Yet they are the ones preaching.

    Some of them are, others are funding the misinformation campaigns to try to get the most out of their investments in polluting industry while they can

    The voices worth listening to surrounding climate change are the scientific experts who are telling us the importance of urgent action, and then we need to elect representatives who take this seriously and have manifestos that will tackle this issue in the way that best promotes the common good (or whatever ideology you happen to espouse)

    The last thing we should do is vote for people who deny the science and think we can go back to business as usual while the clock is constantly ticking towards a tipping point beyond which there is very little we can do (nobody knows where this tipping point is, or how long we have before we pass it)


  • Options
    #488
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    What do you see as being the climate crisis for us here in l'il ole Oirland? What will people be running from 20, 50, 100 years from now if we don't all stop what we're doing? Will Dublin be gone? Cork? Salthill? Supermac's?

    Ireland is not the worst place to be but we do face have significant risks from increased risk of extreme river flooding events
    http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/13850/1/CM_changing.pdf

    Our coastlines are vulnerable to coastal erosion if we see more powerful winter storms as some models predict but we are protected from sea level rises by virtue of the fact that our island is rising by about 3mm per year which will offset some of the SLR risk unless the rise in sea levels speeds up significantly

    If the AMOC shuts down, which is a risk that scientists are concerned about, this could have much more significant effects on the Irish climate

    But in general, Ireland isn't the worst place to be, but we won't be immune from the global economic and political shocks that will happen as climate change has the potential to escalate regional tensions around the world

    Water shortages, climate refugees, drought and crop failures etc, these can all spark conflicts


  • Options
    #489
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Ireland is not the worst place to be but we do face have significant risks from increased risk of extreme river flooding events
    http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/13850/1/CM_changing.pdf

    Our coastlines are vulnerable to coastal erosion if we see more powerful winter storms as some models predict but we are protected from sea level rises by virtue of the fact that our island is rising by about 3mm per year which will offset some of the SLR risk unless the rise in sea levels speeds up significantly

    If the AMOC shuts down, which is a risk that scientists are concerned about, this could have much more significant effects on the Irish climate

    But in general, Ireland isn't the worst place to be, but we won't be immune from the global economic and political shocks that will happen as climate change has the potential to escalate regional tensions around the world

    Water shortages, climate refugees, drought and crop failures etc, these can all spark conflicts

    I really think you and other alarmists are reacting as if any changes - if they actually happen - will be sudden. I can picture people running and screaming down a street as a giant wave comes inland, à la The Day After Tomorrow.

    People adapt to change. The past few decades has seen a huge net migration to cities. Why is that? People chose to do so. They adapt to more acute forcings, such as employment opportunities, therefore over the space of the few generations it's alleged that these changes could become a real "threat" the population will have found its new level.

    Florida's always had hurricanes. People still choose to live there. They rebuild their homes after they were flattened by the last hurricane. Much of the Gulf Coast is sinking, yet people still choose to live there. The same goes for other places around the world.


  • Options
    #490
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »

    If the AMOC shuts down, which is a risk that scientists are concerned about, this could have much more significant effects on the Irish climate
    s
    In that the climate would become more normal for its latitude (warmer summers, brutishly cold and stormier winters)?

    New Moon



  • Options
    #491
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    In that the climate would become more normal for its latitude (warmer summers, brutishly cold and stormier winters)?


    Abstract
    While the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is projected to slow down under anthropogenic warming, the exact role of the AMOC in future climate change has not been fully quantified. Here, we present a method to stabilize the AMOC intensity in anthropogenic warming experiments by removing fresh water from the subpolar North Atlantic. This method enables us to isolate the AMOC climatic impacts in experiments with a full-physics climate model. Our results show that a weakened AMOC can explain ocean cooling south of Greenland that resembles the North Atlantic warming hole and a reduced Arctic sea ice loss in all seasons with a delay of about 6 years in the emergence of an ice-free Arctic in boreal summer. In the troposphere, a weakened AMOC causes an anomalous cooling band stretching from the lower levels in high latitudes to the upper levels in the tropics and *displaces the Northern Hemisphere midlatitude jets poleward*

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/26/eaaz4876


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    I really think you and other alarmists are reacting as if any changes - if they actually happen - will be sudden. I can picture people running and screaming down a street as a giant wave comes inland, à la The Day After Tomorrow.

    People adapt to change. The past few decades has seen a huge net migration to cities. Why is that? People chose to do so. They adapt to more acute forcings, such as employment opportunities, therefore over the space of the few generations it's alleged that these changes could become a real "threat" the population will have found its new level.

    Florida's always had hurricanes. People still choose to live there. They rebuild their homes after they were flattened by the last hurricane. Much of the Gulf Coast is sinking, yet people still choose to live there. The same goes for other places around the world.

    Ok, so you've moved to phase 4 I see
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112146598&postcount=404


  • Options
    #493
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    In that the climate would become more normal for its latitude (warmer summers, brutishly cold and stormier winters)?

    ie: very very different from the current temperate climate that we have adapted to over the past 6 thousand years


  • Options
    #494
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Ok, so you've moved to phase 4 I see
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112146598&postcount=404

    Nope. I said IF the changes happen. I was speaking hypothetically.


  • Options
    #495
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    ie: very very different from the current temperate climate that we have adapted to over the past 6 thousand years

    Ireland's climate swings (and mostly within the 'temperate' spectrum). It's climate of the last 20 years, despite all the warming, has never been in as gentle state. As we have discussed before, Ireland's climate during recent cooler times (such as in the 61-90 period) was far more volatile and severe (when severe events did occur).

    Just look at the shape of the west coast of Ireland. It's jagged shape was not formed out of some ideal climate in the past that you appear to think existed prior to 50 or a 100 years ago.

    New Moon



  • Options
    #496
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Ireland's climate swings (and mostly within the 'temperate' spectrum). It's climate of the last 20 years, despite all the warming, has never been in as gentle state. As we have discussed before, Ireland's climate during recent cooler times (such as in the 61-90 period) was far more volatile and severe (when severe events did occur).

    Just look at the shape of the west coast of Ireland. It's jagged shape was not formed out of some ideal climate in the past that you appear to think existed prior to 50 or a 100 years ago.

    The sea did that, it’s called erosion.


  • Options
    #497
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    The sea did that, it’s called erosion.
    I know, and something to keep in mind when the seas, with the help of a winter gale, takes a shaving off a cliff edge or something, but you and I both know how that would be spun by the media. It won't be an ongoing natural process, but another sign that the world is about to end.

    New Moon



  • Options
    #498
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Nope. I said IF the changes happen. I was speaking hypothetically.

    Ok, so you're right back at phase 1 then?
    Climate change is happening Gaoth Laidir, and it's going to get hotter even if we reduce to net zero emissions today, the emissions we have already emitted will continue to warm the planet for decades

    BTW, you're argument that we can adapt is a very weak one.

    The changes caused by climate change are not sudden, they are gradual, but the extreme events that make climate change so dangerous can be very sudden. The 1000 year storm that happens once a century now, and the 100 year flood that happens every 10 years. People can adapt to rebuild a house if it gets destroyed once, the 2nd time, you don't have any insurance, and the emergency funds are depleted, and international aid is a trickle because there are more and more of these types of events that compete for the same donations...

    Ant then there are the droughts and heatwaves, that take years to go from a crisis, but we'll be fine as long as it rains soon, to an emergency, to 'oh sh1t, we've run out of water'
    Cape Town was very close to running out of water 3 years ago. Other cities will face similar crises, and they might not be as lucky as Capetown was
    You can adapt to losing a kidney, or the sight in one eye, people 'choose' to live in flood and hurricane risk areas, people also 'choose' to live in shacks next to open sewers in the shanty towns and flavelas of the world (900 million people live under these conditions)

    People have adapted to living there, therefore, there's nothing wrong with living in such conditions

    And when those shanty towns get blown away in a super typhoon or flooded in a flash flood that climate change predicts will make worse, or when the river runs dry because of persistent drought or the glacier feeding the rivers has melted, those people will either starve to death, or they will move somewhere else.

    Tackling climate change won't build these people houses, but their precarious existence will be much worse in a warmer world. these people are already surviving on one kidney, they can't adapt to losing the second one also
    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.6746

    But who cares about anyone else, it's fine because you'll probably be fine here in Ireland


  • Options
    #499
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Ok, so you're right back at phase 1 then?
    Climate change is happening Gaoth Laidir, and it's going to get hotter even if we reduce to net zero emissions today, the emissions we have already emitted will continue to warm the planet for decades

    BTW, you're argument that we can adapt is a very weak one.

    The changes caused by climate change are not sudden, they are gradual, but the extreme events that make climate change so dangerous can be very sudden. The 1000 year storm that happens once a century now, and the 100 year flood that happens every 10 years. People can adapt to rebuild a house if it gets destroyed once, the 2nd time, you don't have any insurance, and the emergency funds are depleted, and international aid is a trickle because there are more and more of these types of events that compete for the same donations...

    Ant then there are the droughts and heatwaves, that take years to go from a crisis, but we'll be fine as long as it rains soon, to an emergency, to 'oh sh1t, we've run out of water'
    Cape Town was very close to running out of water 3 years ago. Other cities will face similar crises, and they might not be as lucky as Capetown was
    You can adapt to losing a kidney, or the sight in one eye, people 'choose' to live in flood and hurricane risk areas, people also 'choose' to live in shacks next to open sewers in the shanty towns and flavelas of the world (900 million people live under these conditions)

    People have adapted to living there, therefore, there's nothing wrong with living in such conditions

    And when those shanty towns get blown away in a super typhoon or flooded in a flash flood that climate change predicts will make worse, or when the river runs dry because of persistent drought or the glacier feeding the rivers has melted, those people will either starve to death, or they will move somewhere else.

    Tackling climate change won't build these people houses, but their precarious existence will be much worse in a warmer world. these people are already surviving on one kidney, they can't adapt to losing the second one also
    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.6746

    But who cares about anyone else, it's fine because you'll probably be fine here in Ireland

    Again, your supertyphoon is already happening. People build, rebuild and rebuild again in places like Florida, where ignorance of these weather events is not an excuse. That's nothing to do with ghg. That's just ignorance and greed. Glaciers are not melting overnight. Give me one river in one of these 900-million areas that will suddenly run dry due to a melted glacier. You're grossly exaggerating yet again.

    You only need to look at the fertility of the Nile basin to see how humans can adapt to harsh environments. It's ironic that you can walk into a Lidl or Tesco here in Ireland and see Egyptian fruit on the shelf. One of the driest places on the planet is exporting fresh produce to one of the most fertile places, but at the same time still feeding its own too. We get Spanish strawberries from the Valencia region in Spain, one that is allegedly suffering increasing desertification. I could go on.

    We had that artist's impression of O'Connell bridge under water by 2050 a year or two ago, something that was broadcast on all media here and one that you stoutly defended. Now you admit that we here won't really see the worst of things to come. The Maldives are still above water, despite predictions that most of its islands would be under water by now and its drinking water would run out by 1992. Yep, that happened alright...

    Screen-Shot-2018-09-22-at-08.11.05.png


  • Options
    #500
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Again, your supertyphoon is already happening. People build, rebuild and rebuild again in places like Florida, where ignorance of these weather events is not an excuse. That's nothing to do with ghg. That's just ignorance and greed. Glaciers are not melting overnight. Give me one river in one of these 900-million areas that will suddenly run dry due to a melted glacier. You're grossly exaggerating yet again.

    You only need to look at the fertility of the Nile basin to see how humans can adapt to harsh environments. It's ironic that you can walk into a Lidl or Tesco here in Ireland and see Egyptian fruit on the shelf. One of the driest places on the planet is exporting fresh produce to one of the most fertile places, but at the same time still feeding its own too. We get Spanish strawberries from the Valencia region in Spain, one that is allegedly suffering increasing desertification. I could go on.

    We had that artist's impression of O'Connell bridge under water by 2050 a year or two ago, something that was broadcast on all media here and one that you stoutly defended. Now you admit that we here won't really see the worst of things to come. The Maldives are still above water, despite predictions that most of its islands would be under water by now and its drinking water would run out by 1992. Yep, that happened alright...

    Screen-Shot-2018-09-22-at-08.11.05.png


    Your definition of 'suddenly' is so wooly
    Glaciers exist, until, suddenly, they're fully melted. Is this the last ice crystal on the mountain to melt? Or is it something that happens over the course of a few decades
    the reaction to glaciers melting means that flow reduces and rivers will get dammed, the river was flowing normally until 'suddenly' the neighbouring country dams the river and your water source is gone
    Rivers feed aquifers, those aquifers get depleted over months or years, 'suddenly' the taps run dry. People get warning, months or years of warning, but nowhere near enough time to do anything, and people only take notice when the crisis becomes an emergency because thats how the world reacts

    People like you will happily ignore warning after warning after warning,talking about how people can adapt or how it's not certain that x will happen, until it becomes way too late to do anything, and even then, you'll still go with the 'i never denied it would happen' argument

    By the time we see the evidence that climate change has already started causing irreversible damage, it's already too late to stop that irreversible damage.

    By the time we see the proof that hurricanes are stronger and droughts are longer, and heatwaves are displacing people, it's too late to stop those things from happening, they're already an existing consequence of climate change

    We have the evidence we need to know what is in our future, but people like you think they know better and will wait until it's past the point of no return before declaring, 'oops, my mistake, no point in turning back now though...'

    Rather than blather on about how alarmist I am. Can you please tell me, what concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere do you think is safe for us to tolerate?


  • Options
    #501
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Your definition of 'suddenly' is so wooly
    Glaciers exist, until, suddenly, they're fully melted. Is this the last ice crystal on the mountain to melt? Or is it something that happens over the course of a few decades
    the reaction to glaciers melting means that flow reduces and rivers will get dammed, the river was flowing normally until 'suddenly' the neighbouring country dams the river and your water source is gone
    Rivers feed aquifers, those aquifers get depleted over months or years, 'suddenly' the taps run dry. People get warning, months or years of warning, but nowhere near enough time to do anything, and people only take notice when the crisis becomes an emergency because thats how the world reacts

    You have a very detailed description of how this all happens, so I'll ask you again; give an example of a river where this has happened and it's all due to ghg. A country taking a decision to dam a river is one thing, but how is that related to ghg?
    People like you will happily ignore warning after warning after warning,talking about how people can adapt or how it's not certain that x will happen, until it becomes way too late to do anything, and even then, you'll still go with the 'i never denied it would happen' argument

    By the time we see the evidence that climate change has already started causing irreversible damage, it's already too late to stop that irreversible damage.

    By the time we see the proof that hurricanes are stronger and droughts are longer, and heatwaves are displacing people, it's too late to stop those things from happening, they're already an existing consequence of climate change

    We have the evidence we need to know what is in our future, but people like you think they know better and will wait until it's past the point of no return before declaring, 'oops, my mistake, no point in turning back now though...'

    Rather than blather on about how alarmist I am. Can you please tell me, what concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere do you think is safe for us to tolerate?

    But people like you are claiming that hurricanes are already stronger, yet that is not the case. We're supposed to be seeing clear evidence of agw in the stats but we're not. It's these claims that it's already happening that I have a problem with. It now seems that you're changing your stance to "when it will happen", which seems to be in line with the Maldives example above. I note you didn't comment on that.

    I'm not against getting away from using fossil fuels. I never have been. It makes perfect sense to move to renewable energy and stop relying on a finite resource. I agree with you on that. I'm just against all the hyperbole and false claims that have become standard every time we turn on the news. It's standard that every weather event reported on gets attributed to "climate change" unchallenged. Mooney Goes Wild had something on about swallows a while back and of course climate change was blamed for something or other. I would like to see what exactly has changed between here and Africa that has caused the swallows to say "fook it, we'll staycation here in Africa this year".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    You have a very detailed description of how this all happens, so I'll ask you again; give an example of a river where this has happened and it's all due to ghg. A country taking a decision to dam a river is one thing, but how is that related to ghg?



    But people like you are claiming that hurricanes are already stronger, yet that is not the case.
    Hurricanes are getting stronger. It takes time for the trends to build up to show statistically significant changes, so, as I said before, if we insist on waiting until it's already proven, it's already happened and irreversible. A prudent approach is to act before the catastrophe actually happens, especially when we have plenty of warning via all of the modelling data we have so far.
    "There’s now evidence that the unnatural effects of human-caused global warming are already making hurricanes stronger and more destructive....
    ....Are hurricanes getting stronger?
    The authors of that same 2013 study found a substantial regional and global increase in the proportion of the strongest hurricanes – category 4 and 5 storms. The authors attribute that increase to global heating of the climate: “We conclude that since 1975 there has been a substantial and observable regional and global increase in the proportion of Cat 4-5 hurricanes of 25-30 percent per °C of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.”

    Interestingly, the increase in those most powerful of storms is balanced by a similar decrease in category 1 and category 2 hurricanes."
    https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/how-climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-more-dangerous/

    And the most intense and extreme events are what cause the most damage to both ecology, and human settlements.
    We're supposed to be seeing clear evidence of agw in the stats but we're not. It's these claims that it's already happening that I have a problem with. It now seems that you're changing your stance to "when it will happen", which seems to be in line with the Maldives example above. I note you didn't comment on that.
    There is evidence that patterns, frequency and intensity of storms are changing you just refuse to see it. There are scientists who are dedicated to climate attribution and they are publishing studies to back this up. In contrast, you are looking at only a tiny segment of data and using it to dismiss the findings of these papers
    https://www.nature.com/subjects/attribution

    I didn't mention the maldives example because a newspaper clipping from decades ago is not the scientific prediction that you claim that it is. This is another 'denial' trick, to take the any media reports from the past that suit your agenda, and then pretend that this was the scientific consensus at the time

    Science reporting in the media is hopeless at the best of times, and even press releases that accompany peer reviewed papers can also be misleading, what matters is what the actual papers say, and what basis they made that claim
    I'm not against getting away from using fossil fuels. I never have been. It makes perfect sense to move to renewable energy and stop relying on a finite resource. I agree with you on that. I'm just against all the hyperbole and false claims that have become standard every time we turn on the news. It's standard that every weather event reported on gets attributed to "climate change" unchallenged. Mooney Goes Wild had something on about swallows a while back and of course climate change was blamed for something or other. I would like to see what exactly has changed between here and Africa that has caused the swallows to say "fook it, we'll staycation here in Africa this year".
    We are at a stage where it's not a 'nice to have' to move off fossil fuels, it's a minimum requirement and this requires that we take the consequences very seriously and invest enough resources to solve the problem
    regarding swallows
    The question is, why wouldn't climate change affect the swallows?
    Their migration and breeding are all affected by temperatures, the availability of food, anything that affects their life cycle, can affect their migration. Not necessarily for the worse, some species may do very well from climate change, but others, that have more particular requirements could suffer if the changes are too rapid for them to adapt to them
    Migratory birds should be able to migrate to find conditions that suit them, so it is not at all strange to think that climate change could impact their migration


  • Options
    #503
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Reading the above just convinces me more that 'climate science' is nothing more than a pseudo-social science.

    New Moon



  • Options
    #504
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »

    Reading the above just convinces me more that 'climate science' is nothing more than a pseudo-social science.

    Another top notch contribution there Oneiric
    Hope you got some sleep and didn’t stay up all night researching it

    If someone had told you 5 years ago that parts of Canada would see June temperatures of 49 degrees C within the next 5 years, would you have called them an 'alarmist'?

    Reading your comments convince me that you’ve decided that your own pre-existing beliefs are unshakable no matter how much reality needs to bend to conform with them


  • Options
    #505
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Reading your comments convince me that you’ve decided that your own pre-existing beliefs are unshakable no matter how much reality needs to bend to conform with them

    My 'beliefs' are rarely proved wrong, because, unlike you it seems, I don't gobble up everything so-called 'established' media outlets tell me.

    Regarding the build up of heat in the Pacific NW, that probably isn't to do with that greater region not seeing much rain over the last 6 months or so at all...

    Weather happens, it always has. Stop worrying yourself sick about it.

    New Moon



  • Options
    #506
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,795 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    People deny it's happening and cling to the views of any old hacks simply because they are unwilling to be inconvenienced by any changes to their lifestyles that may be required if we ever got serious about tackling climate change and the consumption and biodiversity crises.


  • Options
    #507
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,242 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    My 'beliefs' are rarely proved wrong, because, unlike you it seems, I don't gobble up everything so-called 'established' media outlets tell me.

    Regarding the build up of heat in the Pacific NW, that probably isn't to do with that greater region not seeing much rain over the last 6 months or so at all...

    Weather happens, it always has. Stop worrying yourself sick about it.

    We're at about 1c of warming, or about half way to the minimum 2c we're gonna get even if we do everything right. At half the warming, we've already seen a taste of what is to come and we're only getting started

    If we do what you seem to be advocating, which is to carry on as if we can keep burning carbon until it either runs out, or something else organically replaces it, (RCP 8.5) then we'll be looking at between 5 and 6c worth of warming by 2100
    https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/climate-model-temperature-change-rcp-85-2006-2100/.
    At 6c of warming there would be unimaginable disruption by 2100, but it's not like we would be fine until then, the severe events which are already starting now, will become more and more common and more and more severe as the global average temperature continues to rise.


  • Options
    #508
    Nabber
    Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Akrasia wrote: »
    If someone had told you 5 years ago that parts of Canada would see June temperatures of 49 degrees C within the next 5 years, would you have called them an 'alarmist'?

    This issue is that no one said that that would happen in that location with any certainty. Instead what actually happens is a record will be broken on planet Earth, then any record that is broken is assigned to GHGs.
    It's irresponsible on your behalf and many other climate fanatics to misrepresent natural variance. The narrative is portrayed that AGW accounts for all of the extreme, ie "it should only be ~30c and AGW caused this drastic jump" where in actual fact the hype is typically around +1-2c.

    Follow up issue is the lack of reporting on records that are not broken. You throw Canada out now as it suits the cause.
    How about these? Still standing after year on year compound of carbon emissions?
    557222.PNG

    Your statement about Canada is dropped as evidence of warming. Using the same logic no record breaking means no warming? Or what is more likely, it's a freak weather event that happens when conditions line up perfectly.

    AGW weather predictions are garbage. Hot will get hotter, expect for where it doesn't, wet will get wetter, except for where it doesn't, ect.... It's a binomial experiment and AGW Fanatics have bet on both outcomes.


  • Options
    #509
    Nabber
    Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Akrasia wrote: »
    If we do what you seem to be advocating, which is to carry on as if we can keep burning carbon until it either runs out, or something else organically replaces it, (RCP 8.5) then we'll be looking at between 5 and 6c worth of warming by 2100

    All other long term human predictions have failed. But this one here is the winner. Not only the winner but also a prediction based on a science we don't fully understand on a planet we have yet to comprehend it's complexities and magnitudes of complexities.

    I can safely say we will be living on spaceships by 2100 running from the very AI that predicted or demise 100 years earlier.


  • Options
    #510
    Billcarson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭Billcarson


    Nabber wrote: »
    All other long term human predictions have failed. But this one here is the winner. Not only the winner but also a prediction based on a science we don't fully understand on a planet we have yet to comprehend it's complexities and magnitudes of complexities.

    I can safely say we will be living on spaceships by 2100 running from the very AI that predicted or demise 100 years earlier.

    Back in the 80s they said global temperatures would rise . Is that not what has happened?
    They said the Arctic sea ice would shrink. Is that not what has happened?
    They said heatwaves would become more common and Intense. Is that not what has happened.?
    When it comes to Ireland and Britain for example they said winter cold spells would become less frequent. Is that not what has happened?
    I always remember a scientist on the radio in the mid 80s saying that irish winters would be getting milder over the coming decades with less cold spells. Can't say he was wrong.

    Seems to me the scientists haven't been all that wrong. Or perhaps they were just lucky with those predictions but it would want to be one hell of a coincidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    Billcarson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭Billcarson


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »

    Regarding the build up of heat in the Pacific NW, that probably isn't to do with that greater region not seeing much rain over the last 6 months or so at all...

    A drought there for the last 6 months probably has nothing to do with climate change either at all.......

    Granted cant blame everything on climate change but can't dismiss everything either.


Advertisement