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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

GERALD FLEMING ON RTE LAST NIGHT

2456

Comments

  • #52
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    Any mention in the show about RTE's generous use of taxis on expenses and the carbon generated by such single-passenger journeys?

    From the RTE Secret Producer:
    8:20 PM - 17 Sep 2017
    People are asking me good things to FOI - start with looking at taxis - especially ones booked 8AM to 11AM in the morning going to RTÉ and 5PM to 10PM in the evening going from RTÉ. They are mainly staff using them and claiming them back even though it is private travel.

    'Claiming them back' = ripping off the Irish people and taking them for complete mugs. Isn't that right, D.4orbes?

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

    New Moon



  • #53
    Neddyusa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭Neddyusa


    riffmongous wrote: »
    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

    "Eh" - as you say yourself - firstly, he was not relying on any "5 year time block" as evidence.
    Secondly, he provided the September Ice data on two charts - one for the last 40 years and one for the last decade.
    He gave a total of 8 referenced charts - and you choose to sneer the post because you don't like one of them.
    Sorry - there is nothing ironic in that.


  • #54
    Dakota Dan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan


    Liffey4A wrote: »
    I always trust your opinion on this forum, always the voice of reason but have you any links to explain the artic/Greenland ice melt or lack there off?
    I'm not doubting you but all mainstream media is saying the opposite.
    I'd be interested in seeing the data for myself.

    Do you not think that they all have to sing of the same hymn sheet when pushing a worldwide agenda?


  • #55
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    Do you not think that they all have to sing of the same hymn sheet when pushing a worldwide agenda?
    I'm not sure it is as much a worldwide agenda as it is the bourgeoisie and their useful green tea supping suburban idiots needing *something' to believe in. They are as bad as those fundamentalist cultists who quote the Book of Revelations at every given opportunity, and like those fundamentalist cultists, their prophesies of the end of days always seem to get pushed further and further into the future when previous ones curiously fail.

    Charles Manson springs to mind, and it is more than a little interesting how his 'followers' were all from particularly comfortable backgrounds also.

    New Moon



  • #56
    Faustino
    Registered Users Posts: 170 ✭✭Faustino


    I’m certain man made pollution is having some sort of effect (which we should be amending) but I always have a chuckle when I read headlines like yesterday “Venice experiencing highest tide in 50 years”

    So what was the reason 50 years ago? 🙂


  • #57
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Faustino wrote: »
    I’m certain man made pollution is having some sort of effect
    ‚
    You could have a point.

    "The fact that our planet is getting warmer even though aerosols are cooling it down at higher rates than previously thought brings us to a Catch-22 situation: Global efforts to improve air quality by developing cleaner fuels and burning less coal could end up harming our planet by reducing the number of aerosols in the atmosphere, and by doing so, diminishing aerosols' cooling ability to offset global warming."

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190122104611.htm

    I also recall reading a few years back that the mass reduction of industrial scale coal burning in eastern Europe, Germany & the UK etc over the last 20-30 years coincided with a sharp warming in the Arctic. Whether there is some truth to that or not, I guess it doesn't really matter in the end.

    New Moon



  • #58
    MacDanger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,802 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Here's the full annual minimum Arctic sea ice volume dataset for the satellite era, with the trend for the past decade. In any case, sea ice has practically zero contribution to sea level.






    Extent is similar. All data here.






    Greenland melt area has reduced over the past decade. From here and here.










    Regarding Greenland fisheries, was that piece actually shot now in November? I didn't see it. In any case, the subpolar gyre is anomalously cold over the past several years and may be signalling the decline in the positive AMO we've had since the mid-'90s.


    Taken from the same website:
    NSIDC scientist Julienne Stroeve was one of the contributors to the chapters on sea ice and Arctic amplification—the outsized rise in Arctic air temperatures compared to the globe as a whole. One of the drivers of the special report is recognition that the oceans play a key role in the changing climate system, absorbing 90 percent of the excess heat within Earth’s system and up to a third of the carbon dioxide. Sea ice also reflects much of the sun’s energy back out to space, helping to keep the planet cooler than it otherwise would be. There is high confidence that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink (Figure 6).
    As you say though, the melting arctic itself will not really affect sea levels but the reduction in its reflective effect is expected to lead to increased temperatures.
    The effects of anthropogenic warming are not as clear in the Antarctic, in particular for sea ice trends. This results in low confidence in any forecast of how Antarctic sea ice will evolve. The report also highlights how permafrost and snow cover are expected to change, as well as sea level rise from glacier and ice sheet mass losses. Given that the Antarctic ice sheet is starting to contribute more each year to global mean sea level rise, the potential for a meter (3.28 feet) of sea level rise by the end of the century remains possible. A key message of the report is that limiting global warming to a total of less than 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century will help to mitigate the negative effects of climate change.
    So while the the figure of 0.3-0.4m by 2050 might be on the high side, surely it's better to overestimate than underestimate?

    It's a fairly simple concept - global temperatures are rising (I don't think anyone is disputing this?), increased temperatures mean ice melts, increased melting ice means higher sea levels and also increased global heating (due to less heat being reflected by the white snow/ice)

    It could be that climate change is a massive conspiracy by the vast majority of the scientists in the world but it seems unlikely to me


  • #59
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭spookwoman


    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.


  • #60
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Neddyusa wrote: »
    "Eh" - as you say yourself - firstly, he was not relying on any "5 year time block" as evidence.
    Secondly, he provided the September Ice data on two charts - one for the last 40 years and one for the last decade.
    He gave a total of 8 referenced charts - and you choose to sneer the post because you don't like one of them.
    Sorry - there is nothing ironic in that.

    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


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    easypazz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    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.


  • #62
    easypazz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    spookwoman wrote: »
    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.


  • #63
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    JanuarySnowstor wrote: »
    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.


  • #64
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    easypazz wrote: »
    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.


  • #65
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    riffmongous wrote: »
    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.

    New Moon



  • #66
    easypazz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Storm 10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,970 ✭✭✭Storm 10


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    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


  • #68
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Storm 10 wrote: »
    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:

    screen-shot-2018-12-03-at-08-48-03-e1543823739248.png

    Truly vile people.

    New Moon



  • #69
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    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 :rolleyes:

    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


  • #70
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    riffmongous wrote: »
    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

    riffmongous wrote: »
    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.


  • #71
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Yeah following and contributing to the science makes you a cultist :rolleyes:

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    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.


  • #73
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    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/attachment.php?attachmentid=495338&stc=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


  • #74
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    riffmongous wrote: »
    This is what I see when I click on your first link
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=495338&stc=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.


  • #75
    Hooter23
    Registered Users Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    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:pac:


  • #76
    easypazz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    Hooter23 wrote: »
    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:pac:

    David Attenborough is a scientist and regularly appears in the news and speaks at these events.


  • #77
    Hooter23
    Registered Users Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    easypazz wrote: »
    David Attenborough is a scientist and regularly appears in the news and speaks at these events.

    Practically a celebrity and why wouldn't he i'm sure they pay him well...;)


  • #78
    Dakota Dan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    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.
    Did you see their take a pledge? I made a pledge to turn off RTE for the week, not that I ever watch anyway.


  • #79
    Dakota Dan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan


    Hooter23 wrote: »
    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:pac:

    Just like the 11k scientists last week, turned out most were students not even student scientists, Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore even made the list.


  • #80
    Dakota Dan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan


    easypazz wrote: »
    David Attenborough is a scientist and regularly appears in the news and speaks at these events.

    He did a two year science degree and it wasn't studying climate either.


  • #81
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    JanuarySnowstor wrote: »
    Fell asleep watching tonight's programme. I think since George took over the environment at Rte they've all gone into hyper mode. 10 years ago the economy had us doomed now it's global warming!! Lol

    But 10 years ago we did have the Global Financial Crisis. It wasn't hype.

    Maybe we should be listening now to the warnings about climate change.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    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.
    Which file did you get the volumes from? Anyway it's not important it's seem right and I will take your word for it. Well the error estimates should still have been included, but looking at the data they weren't so essential previously as the trend was quite clear, it would take very large errors to make a difference. For the last decade though when it's not so clear it would be interesting to see.
    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.
    It's lucky in the sense that it's an arbitrary time period that gives a nice result, but shift it a few years either direction and you'll get a different, downward trend. Do I need to make the graphs, it should be pretty clear?

    Ok, you've spent much longer than me looking through the data, what do you think about the idea that the 2010 - 2015 period is actually just a small cycle superimposed on the trend? That there is a very sharp decrease from 2010 - 2012, and 2013 - 2015 is just a rebound. You see similar behaviour from 1990 to 1998, a large decrease is followed by a large increase, but the overall trend is still decreasing


  • #83
    spookwoman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,971 ✭✭✭spookwoman


    easypazz wrote: »
    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.

    GMS crops have still got a lot of questions hanging over them including how they affect native crops etc.
    There is a major problem ref climate change that no one really wants to talk about, they talk about increasing food productions which in itself is adding to climate change but the major factor is the increasing population. We live in a consumer based economy which wants more people to buy its products which leads to more food required, hense EU wanting more farming of animals. More people also means more C02 released and the reality is there is not enough food to feed everyone.


  • #84
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Which file did you get the volumes from? Anyway it's not important it's seem right and I will take your word for it. Well the error estimates should still have been included, but looking at the data they weren't so essential previously as the trend was quite clear, it would take very large errors to make a difference. For the last decade though when it's not so clear it would be interesting to see.

    It's lucky in the sense that it's an arbitrary time period that gives a nice result, but shift it a few years either direction and you'll get a different, downward trend. Do I need to make the graphs, it should be pretty clear?

    Ok, you've spent much longer than me looking through the data, what do you think about the idea that the 2010 - 2015 period is actually just a small cycle superimposed on the trend? That there is a very sharp decrease from 2010 - 2012, and 2013 - 2015 is just a rebound. You see similar behaviour from 1990 to 1998, a large decrease is followed by a large increase, but the overall trend is still decreasing

    Jesus you're completely nitpicking now. Shifting it one way or another/looking 3 years ahead, etc., just to try to get back your downward trend. I took the data to date. That's it.

    I think the reason you're doing all of this is that you're actuall shocked at the data, after being conditioned towards the opposite message all this time. Understandable, I suppose. Without actually looking at the data yourself you would be forgiven for thinking the death spiral is continuing as normal. Official reports now no longer speak of trends anymore but mostly refer to this year's rank in the records. "This year's value was the 2nd lowest on record...", etc. If you've had a flat trend for the past 10+ years then every year within that time span will be close to the minimum record. Using such terms keeps the alarmist message going, but God forbid anyone actually looks at the data in detail.


  • #85
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Jesus you're completely nitpicking now. Shifting it one way or another/looking 3 years ahead, etc., just to try to get back your downward trend. I took the data to date. That's it.

    I think the reason you're doing all of this is that you're actuall shocked at the data, after being conditioned towards the opposite message all this time. Understandable, I suppose. Without actually looking at the data yourself you would be forgiven for thinking the death spiral is continuing as normal. Official reports now no longer speak of trends anymore but mostly refer to this year's rank in the records. "This year's value was the 2nd lowest on record...", etc. If you've had a flat trend for the past 10+ years then every year within that time span will be close to the minimum record. Using such terms keeps the alarmist message going, but God forbid anyone actually looks at the data in detail.

    Nitpicking? God forbid I would like to see the original data and errors :rolleyes:

    Do you actually get the trend issue? You've got one graph at an arbitrary interval that supports you and you're refusing to look at it any other way

    And then you go on to say your little rant instead of even arguing any other interpretation, particularly the last line. Seems like you don't like being challenged on your own cushy little consensus here. Like I said before, if you're so sure of it write it up and publish, but good luck to you with it


  • #86
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Nitpicking? God forbid I would like to see the original data and errors :rolleyes:

    Do you actually get the trend issue? You've got one graph at an arbitrary interval that supports you and you're refusing to look at it any other way

    And then you go on to say your little rant instead of even arguing any other interpretation, particularly the last line. Seems like you don't like being challenged on your own cushy little consensus here. Like I said before, if you're so sure of it write it up and publish, but good luck to you with it

    If you've a problem with the data challenge the NSIDC or NOAA or whoever else generates data. I just posted them for all to see. No need to write a paper on it.

    Are you saying there hasn't been a levelling off? I think you're the one whose cushy consensus is being ruffled and you don't like it. Who knows what way it will go in the future. Maybe the trend will start to go down again, maybe it won't. Either way, plot the data and have a look (not a hissy fit).


  • #87
    Pa ElGrande
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,633 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    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.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le2_l2J6GUE

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • #88
    M.T. Cranium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,583 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    I look forward to my trip to visit the lovely city of Athone-by-the-sea, capital of Ireland and gateway to the Costa del Longford.


  • #89
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    M.T. Cranium wrote: »
    I look forward to my trip to visit the lovely city of Athone-by-the-sea, capital of Ireland and gateway to the Costa del Longford.

    I hope you live that long :).
    The travellers have moved already, they're more in tune than the rest of you, me I'm just lucky.


  • #90
    M.T. Cranium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,583 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    We can only have a vague set of probability outcomes for something as complicated and basically unknowable as the interplay between human modification and natural variability. This is self-evident since our "science" is so weakly advanced that we can barely go a week or two before running out of reliable forecasts, even though there is no shortage of effort to overcome that. So if we can't really say with much confidence what the climate will do in 2-4 weeks, then 2-4 years or 2-4 decades would obviously be a larger unknown. I do recognize that within that paradigm you could justify saying "well it has to turn warmer within a certain range" but that's not my personal belief, I think it could stay anywhere from slightly colder to much warmer depending on how those factors interact.

    Natural cycles are still larger than the presumed human signal and not only that, they are more dynamic (meaning that they shape and reshape the atmosphere) in comparison to our rather broad warming of the profiles presented. And since we aren't too sure what causes natural variability but leading candidates are external drivers (most notably the Sun itself) then our internal fiddling with the system is on a different scale. Whatever we are doing to the atmosphere will continue at the pleasure of those largely unpredictable long-term natural variations.

    The current conventional wisdom about how to tackle this problem (if it is in fact a problem) is very likely about as useful as trying to duct tape the hole in the Titanic as a means of keeping the ship afloat. Our response (certainly now if not from the very start of this period) needs to be ready to mitigate and adjust to changing circumstances that we cannot realistically hope to control. With any luck there won't be much to mitigate or respond to, and there could even be positive outcomes. The climate might actually get more bland which is going to kill off interest in the weather (a bad thing for us) but might make for a less stressful climate that favours economic growth. Cold times are usually hard times. Of course it can also get too warm. If we go into a slightly warmer and less variable sort of pattern then things become more predictable for agriculture and commerce. Not everything about human modification is necessarily going to be bad for our futures.

    In any case I think far too much attention is being given to a problem that might turn out to be relatively minor, when what we should probably be doing is concentrating our efforts on mass desalination projects, irrigation, expansion of arable land especially in the subtropics, and working out better co-operation that can end the useless diversion of resources into mutual assured destruction approaches to security. Instead of waiting for the seas to rise, why not divert them into desalination and irrigation on a large scale. We can engineer this so that an early stage won't lower sea levels appreciably, but later stages could do so if we perceive the need to keep sea levels constant.

    This might take 40 to 80 years to plan, engineer and accomplish, about the time scale we are told the catastrophe could unfold. It seems unlikely to happen without a massive international agreement to co-operate. Two key areas would be west Africa and the Persian Gulf, areas that are beset by a lot of sectarian divisions not really of our making (by us I mean the developed countries) so it becomes tricky to work out any strategy that might induce co-operation there. It would not hurt the world of the future if that came about, and maybe that's one hidden benefit of the problems many think we are facing.

    As to what will really happen, I have to confess an almost total ignorance, it could range anywhere from a climate a bit colder than we have nowadays with some return to the peak ice and cold conditions of the LIA, to steady-state or slight warming, to runaway warming. And to be frank, any of those could happen even if we weren't here. The idea that the weather of the past century (let's say 1880 to 1980 as a period before AGW) is somehow "normal" and should be maintained is rather bizarre when you consider how dramatically the climate has shifted in the past.

    One other point that sometimes comes up in these discussions, what about the natural cycles that produce glacial periods (ice ages although technically we are still in one)? The best research on that seems to indicate that by luck we have hit a sort of flat zone in all the orbital cycles that are heading to weak variations for many thousands of years, meaning that unlike the brief pause between glacial periods in the past two major events, we will get a longer pause perhaps 20,000 years or longer, with variations between warm and cold but essentially non-glacial climates. So if we're warming that up slightly, it may not be too bad an outcome but we can't assume that we are staving off an inevitable ice age around the corner.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Yeah following and contributing to the science makes you a cultist :rolleyes:

    'Following' not just any science, but the science.
    riffmongous wrote: »
    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

    What 'cheap tricks' have I pulled? Nothing I have said is untrue. Climate alarmism has become a cult for the idle and impractical bourgeoisie, with their constant appeals an 'authority' that they know really nothing of.

    New Moon



  • #92
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    Just like the 11k scientists last week, turned out most were students not even student scientists, Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore even made the list.

    Heard this too. Apparently a lot of aromatherapists, doctors, psychologists, teachers etc made up a large part of these 11k 'scientists' too. This whole thing is becoming a total, utter farce.

    New Moon



  • #93
    MacDanger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,802 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    M.T. Cranium wrote: »
    We can only have a vague set of probability outcomes for something as complicated and basically unknowable as the interplay between human modification and natural variability. This is self-evident since our "science" is so weakly advanced that we can barely go a week or two before running out of reliable forecasts, even though there is no shortage of effort to overcome that. So if we can't really say with much confidence what the climate will do in 2-4 weeks, then 2-4 years or 2-4 decades would obviously be a larger unknown. I do recognize that within that paradigm you could justify saying "well it has to turn warmer within a certain range" but that's not my personal belief, I think it could stay anywhere from slightly colder to much warmer depending on how those factors interact.

    2-4 weeks is weather, not climate. That's a pretty important distinction. Here's chart showing how global temperature has increased over the past century
    M.T. Cranium wrote: »
    The current conventional wisdom about how to tackle this problem (if it is in fact a problem) is very likely about as useful as trying to duct tape the hole in the Titanic as a means of keeping the ship afloat. Our response (certainly now if not from the very start of this period) needs to be ready to mitigate and adjust to changing circumstances that we cannot realistically hope to control. With any luck there won't be much to mitigate or respond to, and there could even be positive outcomes. The climate might actually get more bland which is going to kill off interest in the weather (a bad thing for us) but might make for a less stressful climate that favours economic growth. Cold times are usually hard times. Of course it can also get too warm. If we go into a slightly warmer and less variable sort of pattern then things become more predictable for agriculture and commerce. Not everything about human modification is necessarily going to be bad for our futures.

    Are you talking about globally or for Ireland alone? While it could be true for Ireland, that won't be much use if large parts of the world are in turmoil.

    M.T. Cranium wrote: »
    In any case I think far too much attention is being given to a problem that might turn out to be relatively minor, when what we should probably be doing is concentrating our efforts on mass desalination projects, irrigation, expansion of arable land especially in the subtropics, and working out better co-operation that can end the useless diversion of resources into mutual assured destruction approaches to security. Instead of waiting for the seas to rise, why not divert them into desalination and irrigation on a large scale. We can engineer this so that an early stage won't lower sea levels appreciably, but later stages could do so if we perceive the need to keep sea levels constant.

    Earlier you mentioned that current efforts are like "trying to duct tape the hole in the Titanic as a means of keeping the ship afloat" but a proposal for mass desalination projects to maintain constant sea levels is an option? From a purely engineering standpoint, that's a non-runner imo. I do agree though about the waste of resources on other (mainly military) expenditure - if half of that budget was spent on non-destructive projects, the world would be a better place.
    M.T. Cranium wrote: »
    This might take 40 to 80 years to plan, engineer and accomplish, about the time scale we are told the catastrophe could unfold. It seems unlikely to happen without a massive international agreement to co-operate. Two key areas would be west Africa and the Persian Gulf, areas that are beset by a lot of sectarian divisions not really of our making (by us I mean the developed countries) so it becomes tricky to work out any strategy that might induce co-operation there. It would not hurt the world of the future if that came about, and maybe that's one hidden benefit of the problems many think we are facing.

    TBF, I think the colonial past of many of our neighbours might bear a certain responsibility for some of the divisions.

    M.T. Cranium wrote: »
    As to what will really happen, I have to confess an almost total ignorance, it could range anywhere from a climate a bit colder than we have nowadays with some return to the peak ice and cold conditions of the LIA, to steady-state or slight warming, to runaway warming. And to be frank, any of those could happen even if we weren't here. The idea that the weather of the past century (let's say 1880 to 1980 as a period before AGW) is somehow "normal" and should be maintained is rather bizarre when you consider how dramatically the climate has shifted in the past.

    It certainly could be that climate scientists are incorrect and that the whole thing is a massive over-reaction but as I see it, there are two options and four possible outcomes:

    1a. Assume it's all lies and do nothing: we turn out to be correct and everything is fine
    1b. Assume it's all lies and do nothing: we turn out to be incorrect and our grandchildren bear the brunt of it
    2a. Assume it's true and change the way we live: we turn out to be correct and our grandchildren have a reasonable way of life
    2b. Assume it's true and change the way we live: we turn out to be incorrect and have made needless changes which have inconvenienced us but our grandchildren still have a good way of life

    For me, option 2 is a no-brainer; especially when most scientists seem to agree that the climate is changing and that that change is being caused by our lifestyles.


  • #94
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    MacDanger wrote: »
    2-4 weeks is weather, not climate. That's a pretty important distinction. Here's chart showing how global temperature has increased over the past century



    Are you talking about globally or for Ireland alone? While it could be true for Ireland, that won't be much use if large parts of the world are in turmoil.




    Earlier you mentioned that current efforts are like "trying to duct tape the hole in the Titanic as a means of keeping the ship afloat" but a proposal for mass desalination projects to maintain constant sea levels is an option? From a purely engineering standpoint, that's a non-runner imo. I do agree though about the waste of resources on other (mainly military) expenditure - if half of that budget was spent on non-destructive projects, the world would be a better place.



    TBF, I think the colonial past of many of our neighbours might bear a certain responsibility for some of the divisions.




    It certainly could be that climate scientists are incorrect and that the whole thing is a massive over-reaction but as I see it, there are two options and four possible outcomes:

    1a. Assume it's all lies and do nothing: we turn out to be correct and everything is fine
    1b. Assume it's all lies and do nothing: we turn out to be incorrect and our grandchildren bear the brunt of it
    2a. Assume it's true and change the way we live: we turn out to be correct and our grandchildren have a reasonable way of life
    2b. Assume it's true and change the way we live: we turn out to be incorrect and have made needless changes which have inconvenienced us but our grandchildren still have a good way of life

    For me, option 2 is a no-brainer; especially when most scientists seem to agree that the climate is changing and that that change is being caused by our lifestyles.

    What caused it every other time it changed?


  • #95
    MacDanger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,802 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    What caused it every other time it changed?

    Can you be a bit more specific? Every other time what changed?


  • #96
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    MacDanger wrote: »
    Can you be a bit more specific? Every other time what changed?

    Climate.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    MacDanger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,802 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    Climate.

    Again, can you be more specific? Is there a particular historical climate change event that you want to compare it to?


  • #98
    easypazz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭easypazz


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Heard this too. Apparently a lot of aromatherapists, doctors, psychologists, teachers etc made up a large part of these 11k 'scientists' too. This whole thing is becoming a total, utter farce.

    Its no farce. The science is not that complicated.

    Humans are pumping co2 into the atmosphere, it traps the suns heat, the planet warms and the oceans rise.

    We keep pumping co2 into atmosphere at a faster rate every year and temperature rises, and sea level rises are happening at an accelerating pace.

    Is any if the above untrue?


  • #99
    Hooter23
    Registered Users Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    Meanwhile hundreds of cold records have been broken in the eastern US this week...Must be all that CO2 warming them up;)


  • #100
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    This is the Greenland melt discharge graph I posted previously, this time with the smoothed long AMO data superimposed (in blue, from here). It would be resonable to theorise that the AMO has an effect on the melt, with the postitive phase (warmer North Atlantic mode) since the late '90s inducing increased melt, and vice versa, with a lag response of a few years.

    The AMO is also a known driver of warmer European temperatures, more US droughts (1930s US Dustbowl) and increased hurricane activity. I've posted charts elsewhere that illustrate this. Add to that the teleconnection with the PDO and you start to see that things are not as clear-cut as many would believe. Our understanding of ocean dynamics is still relatively basic, with these two modes really only becoming understood in the past few decades.

    The AMO should flip back to negative sometime in the next decade or so (based on previous patterns), so it will be interesting to see how the Greenland (and Arctic) melts respond thereafter.

    495400.PNG


  • #101
    Storm 10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,970 ✭✭✭Storm 10


    Here ya go from the youth in the Dail today

    https://www.rte.ie/news/youth-assembly/2019/1113/1090623-show-support-for-the-youth-assembly-recommendations/

    RECOMMENDATIONS
    1. From your corner store to your super market, we call on the house to incentivise and obligate the installation of glass doors on open refrigerators
    2. For Ireland to ban the importation of fracked gas and invest solely in renewables.
    3. Implementing measures that will allow that Irish goods be both eco- sustainable and affordable in todays' Irish Market.
    4. Implement a tiered Tax on Emissions from large companies including those under capital ETS. This tax must be increased every year while threshold decreases, shifting the burden from individuals to corporations.
    5. Investment in industrial hemp facilities to provide a viable, sustainable and alternative land use for farmers as well as employment in rural Ireland.
    6. A labelling and pricing system showing the climate impact of food products based on criteria such as impact of packaging and distance travelled.
    7. Ireland to outlaw acts of ecocide – being the widespread and systematic loss of ecosystems, including climate and cultural damage.
    8. Protect existing forests and make compulsory that at least 10% of all land owned for agricultural uses is dedicated to forestry.
    9. A targeted nationwide Information campaign to educate the population about the climate crisis regarding the causes, the effects and the solutions.
    10. Mandatory "Sustainability" education from primary level to the workplace including a new compulsory Junior Cycle & optional Leaving Certificate subject.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement