Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
23-01-2021, 06:48   #46
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
I am still interested in the difference between Gaoth Laidirs graph and NASAs one. When he gets a chance I hope he responds
Missed this post. That's a graph I posted over the past several years, adding the dots after each year. It was from some IPCC report that I can't remember now but I'll try and dig it out later.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
Advertisement
23-01-2021, 18:39   #47
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
1. It's nice to quote your sources. If it's not a peer reviewed journal or at least some professional body , then how can anyone be sure that there weren't errors or omissions in the analysis of the data? Especially given that the data in your graph looks very different to the data on the NASA graph. Your 'observed' temperatures show an increase of .4c between 1990 and 2019 and the NASA version shows observed warming of .9c for the exact same range
That's a massive difference

2.
The RCPs relate to the emissions scenarios. In the RCP scenarios, the emissions are all projected to be about the same until the mid 2010s when they start to diverge as carbon reduction strategies were expected to begin reducing CO2 emissions. The RCP 8.5 scenario most closely matches our current CO2 emissions of on balance about 11.7GtC per year (the net increase in the atmosphere after carbon sinks are accounted for)

Therefore, we cannot really use the RCP scenarios to distinguish early warming before the paths diverge because they're all more or less the same

What we have observed in the past 5 years is a significant increase in the rate of warming. Despite La Nina conditions, our global average temperature has not gone below 1c above pre-industrial since about 2015 despite natural variability such as La Nina that would, absent climate change, have driven global average temperatures below average
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-u...ature-forecast

and to call the statement 'some urban areas to be entirely under water by 2030" a worst case scenario is ridiculous given that I posted a link to a study a few posts ago showing that 'Some Urban areas' are already getting flooded at high tide

I suppose you can call the foreshore of a beach 'above sea level' if it only floods twice a day
I originally took that chart from the IPCC AR5, Fig 11.25. and overlaid the annual HadCRUT4 temperatures in black dots.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
23-01-2021, 19:18   #48
SeaBreezes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
Entirely, mind. Maybe that film Waterworld was not far off the mark afterall.
I tbought we were all meant to be.under water already
SeaBreezes is offline  
Thanks from:
23-01-2021, 23:10   #49
Pa ElGrande
Registered User
 
Pa ElGrande's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaBreezes View Post
I tbought we were all meant to be.under water already

Without contrived, frightening forecasts, they would soon be out of business.


Quote:
. . . there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

source - IPCC

Kevin Trenberth
said in journal Nature (“Predictions of Climate”) about climate models in 2007

Quote:
. . . None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

source

In fact the IPCC openly acknowledges that its models should not be trusted.


Quote:
. . .The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

source - IPCC
Pa ElGrande is offline  
(2) thanks from:
27-01-2021, 19:21   #50
Nabber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pa ElGrande View Post

In fact the IPCC openly acknowledges that its models should not be trusted.
Predicting unknown unknowns is a difficult task. Hyperbole from scientists and media alike does not help.

Computer modelling is fascinating, but hind casts with modified data inputs does not validate the accuracy of forecasts, at least we should see replication, if there is an embedded natural warming it’s lost in CO2 forcing.

With the topic of worsening extreme weather events. If your models and theory are pinned on additional energy being absorbed.. weather is feed by energy then you must hold to the idea of ‘worse’ weather events.

Yet a deeper inspection of flooding will find that areas for development are typically on flood plains, beach front and river sides.
Nabber is offline  
Advertisement
28-01-2021, 08:42   #51
Banana Republic 1
Registered User
 
Banana Republic 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nabber View Post
Predicting unknown unknowns is a difficult task. Hyperbole from scientists and media alike does not help.

Computer modelling is fascinating, but hind casts with modified data inputs does not validate the accuracy of forecasts, at least we should see replication, if there is an embedded natural warming it’s lost in CO2 forcing.

With the topic of worsening extreme weather events. If your models and theory are pinned on additional energy being absorbed.. weather is feed by energy then you must hold to the idea of ‘worse’ weather events.

Yet a deeper inspection of flooding will find that areas for development are typically on flood plains, beach front and river sides.
Nobody is saying that places didn’t flood just that these events happen more often. There’s also the fact that the vast vast vast majority of scientists and world governments believe that the climate is overwhelming caused by humanity’s actions since the industrial revolution with significant contributions made over the last 60 odd years.
Banana Republic 1 is offline  
28-01-2021, 09:34   #52
Danno
Moderator
 
Danno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1 View Post
Nobody is saying that places didn’t flood just that these events happen more often. There’s also the fact that the vast vast vast majority of scientists and world governments believe that the climate is overwhelming caused by humanity’s actions since the industrial revolution with significant contributions made over the last 60 odd years.
Why over the last 60 odd years in particular?

The engines of cars, vans, trucks, etc... have become alot more efficient over the last twenty five years in particular, but manufacturers have always been looking for ways of getting more return on the fuel used.

Same for power generation, much more efficient and with strict laws surrounding emissions they're way more cleaner now.

Agriculture has seen strict laws and regulations enacted also. Same for aviation. Thats before we even consider the contribution of renewables to our power grid.

It seems to me that all efforts made by the green lobby have failed spectacularly if you concede what has been highlighted in your statement.

So, then begs the question - if you are saying the green lobby's laws and regulations have failed, why would "even more regulation" work?
Danno is offline  
28-01-2021, 10:22   #53
Thelonious Monk
Registered User
 
Thelonious Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 8,089
Because there's more power, more agriculture, more consumption of everything now than there was 60 years ago, it's not rocket science. Not only have populations expanded greatly, but we all buy way more stuff now. Engines might be more efficient, but there were few cars 60 years ago, now every housing estate in Ireland has barely enough room for all the cars. Humans consume consume consume, that's what we do.

60% of wildlife gone since the 1970s - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54091048

Apparently the earth is at its hottest for 12,000 years

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arctic-...t-12000-years/

I don't think it's a green agenda in particular, the outlook is bleak from any angle.
Thelonious Monk is online now  
28-01-2021, 13:24   #54
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,173
'Saving' the environment for big profits:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2G7jBEUGiQ

As an aside, I wonder is there a reason why Greta Thunberg uses a top of the range gold plated Apple phone to read her speeches from? Like being sponsored by them maybe? Is this what the so-called 'left' have become? Middle class, gated community, high consuming walking billboards for big, for profit corps?
Oneiric 3 is online now  
Advertisement
28-01-2021, 14:30   #55
Thelonious Monk
Registered User
 
Thelonious Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 8,089
Even if Greta has a gold plated Ferrari, that doesn't mean the environment doesn't need saving.
Thelonious Monk is online now  
28-01-2021, 14:53   #56
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiric 3 View Post
'Saving' the environment for big profits:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2G7jBEUGiQ

As an aside, I wonder is there a reason why Greta Thunberg uses a top of the range gold plated Apple phone to read her speeches from? Like being sponsored by them maybe? Is this what the so-called 'left' have become? Middle class, gated community, high consuming walking billboards for big, for profit corps?
Ah, Jimmy Somerville now has an American accent...

Gaoth Laidir is offline  
Thanks from:
28-01-2021, 17:02   #57
Nabber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1 View Post
Nobody is saying that places didn’t flood just that these events happen more often. There’s also the fact that the vast vast vast majority of scientists and world governments believe that the climate is overwhelming caused by humanity’s actions since the industrial revolution with significant contributions made over the last 60 odd years.
Separating more often and more impact is the issue we are facing. Weather disasters expenses are going to increase based on development growth and the expenses invested in construction.

Ireland has a poor history with planning and considerations to enforce developers to provision for flooding.
Ireland flooded in the past and will continue to flood with or without human inference whether local or through AGW.

We are now in a situation where every flood is attributed to global warming and what once were subtle hints towards responsibility has turned to full on blame. "Mary's house on the banks of the Shannon wouldn't have been flooded if it wasn't for global warming".

Whether you support AGW theory or not, it's completely illogical to ignore the direct impact of zoning, planning and development, which with or without Climate change is a serious problem.


If you'd like to stress test your governments commitment to protection and safeguarding for the existential threat of AGW.

How many have regulated/forbid developments that are 2m ASL?
Where are the 10m wall developments coastal cities need to survive?
Why do public AGW activists continue to purchase beach front properties?#
Why is there no Carbon foot print labelled on products?


I'm on board with a cleaner planet, cleaner energy, less carbon sure why not?
I'm wholly against what the AGW message is now. A horrendous abomination, with millions of Twitter Slacktivists, and a crusade of the rich and able. To be green costs €€€, which most of the planet can't afford.

When Hollywood support it, that's usually a clear indication that it's gone rotten.
Nabber is offline  
(2) thanks from:
28-01-2021, 17:40   #58
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,955
I learned an interesting fact at work today. The push to remove plastic packaging from consumer products in favour of e.g. recycled paper/card can have a negative environmental impact, i.e. the water consumption involved in producing (at least some) recycled paper outweighs the impact of producting the plastic it replaces. This was an eye-opener for me.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
28-01-2021, 18:00   #59
Birdnuts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
I learned an interesting fact at work today. The push to remove plastic packaging from consumer products in favour of e.g. recycled paper/card can have a negative environmental impact, i.e. the water consumption involved in producing (at least some) recycled paper outweighs the impact of producting the plastic it replaces. This was an eye-opener for me.
I would rate the increasing concentration of plastics in food, soil and water via micro plastics as a reason enough to ban the stuff outright.
Birdnuts is offline  
Thanks from:
28-01-2021, 18:05   #60
Birdnuts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno View Post
Why over the last 60 odd years in particular?

The engines of cars, vans, trucks, etc... have become alot more efficient over the last twenty five years in particular, but manufacturers have always been looking for ways of getting more return on the fuel used.

Same for power generation, much more efficient and with strict laws surrounding emissions they're way more cleaner now.

Agriculture has seen strict laws and regulations enacted also. Same for aviation. Thats before we even consider the contribution of renewables to our power grid.

It seems to me that all efforts made by the green lobby have failed spectacularly if you concede what has been highlighted in your statement.

So, then begs the question - if you are saying the green lobby's laws and regulations have failed, why would "even more regulation" work?
According to that "Green" media darling Carla Augustberg on Newstalk this lunchtime - by driving electric cars and building windmills here, they will get fewer hurricanes in the US These media clowns continue to drag climate science threw the mud
Birdnuts is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet