GERALD FLEMING ON RTE LAST NIGHT

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.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

What caused it every other time it changed?

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

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?

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.

Flippin' chilly out there tonight. A lovely coal fire blazing in the living room though keeping everyone in the house nice and warm and full of joy.

easypazz wrote: »

Lets just ignore the facts then.

Co2 concentration doubled and rising. Temperature up 1 degree and rising. Seas have risen 8" and rise is accelerating.

I dont see the climate deniers challenge any of the above facts.

Exactly from when are you basing your figures? Since the last Ice Age?

In the last 150 years CO2 has not doubled. It has risen from around 280 ppm to 415 ppm. That's about a 50% increase, half of what you claimed. So that's wrong.

Sea level has risen by about 8-9 inches since 1880. The trend is not accelerating enough to have O'Connell Bridge under water in 30 years' time.

easypazz wrote: »

The average sea level rise since 1880 is 1.6mm a year, it now rises at about 3.5mm, so the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. I never said o'connell bridge will be under water in 30 years time, but unless trends change it will happen soon.

Ok, co2 has only increased 50%, but that number is rising too.

What is "soon"? I reckon the image below shows the water level to be about 3 metres above the current record high water mark for this location. About 3000 mm. At your current rate of 3.5 mm/yr, that would take about 850 years to achieve. Even taking a crazy faster rate of say 10 mm/yr (highly unlikely) and it would still take 300 years. Does that seem like soon to you?

See, this is the kind of nonsense we're up against. If anyone would just stop to think for a moment they would see that. You said CO2 has doubled: it hasn't. You said O'connell Bridge will soon be under water. It won't. The mayor of Venice stated categorically that this week's flooding is due to climate change: it's not.

People are now being educated by tabloid journalism and wildly-innacurate online comments such as yours. Critical thinking is becoming a thing of the past and is being labeled "denialism" by those who've lost that tool. Speak before you think is now the name of the game, it seems.

easypazz wrote: »

So now you accept it is possible sea levels can start rising at 10mm / year and in 100 years the sea could be 1 metre higher.

It is highly unlikely to reach that figure in the next few centuries. After that, if it did rise by that rate then of course it would rise by 1 metre in 100 years. What's your point? Please let us know what you meant by "soon".

easypazz wrote: »

The picture is accurate, it just depends on how soon it happens

When the sea rises 1 metre then a strong wind behind it and a spring tide and we could be looking at that sort of situation arising in as soon as 100 years.

"When the sea rises 1 metre". When do you think that will be, given that it's only risen about 250 mm in the past 140 years? Where will the extra 2 metres come from to give that level of water in the image?

Zainab Tiny Misfortune wrote: »

Growth is non linear. There are tipping points. What are your sources? (Happy to forward the research if you'd like to learn more about the evidence behind this issue)

I know it's non-linear, that's why I've given 2 different rates. Sources for what? Sea level? I quoted that yesterday.