CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its important to realise, some of the most dangerous 'terrorists', are actual involved in governments and state bodies, in developed countries!

ive always believed nuclear and hydrogen are the way to go, regarding our power needs, since childhood in fact

Ok, well if that's your opinion then maybe the conspiracy theory forum is more of an option.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

are you saying there are no seriously dangerous people and/or thinking, in positions of power, in the western nations?

This is not quite a weather topic, but no, I don't think "some of the most dangerous 'terrorists' are in the governments. Would they be the same ones that are allegedly spraying us with chemtrails?

nacho libre wrote: »

Rather you don't believe they are in governments you support/identify with.

? You're going to have to give some examples.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its always interesting to note, the only country to ever activate an atomic bomb over a country, was of course, america! no clue where you re going with that chemtrails nonsense

That was 75 years ago. Are you really saying things are the same now?

I'm amazed at the level of chronic paranoia being shown by some here. Terrorist governments itching to nuke populations (and apparently the Irish government is no exception), the planet being knocked off its axis, countries wiped out. Great stuff for a weather forum.

The same sort of nonsense as the chemtrail conspiracy theory.

Ah here, lads, yizzer all having me on! This thread's about climate...

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Ah here, lads, yizzer all having me on! This thread's about climate...

You asked for an example. I gave you just one and could provide many, many more. Western Governments (European/N American) are not the benign force you might think they are, and I say beware of right-wing/libertarian/neoliberal propaganda that seeks to convince you to the contrary. They are lying through their teeth. What the shiny corporate/state media show is the nice glossy front: smiling suits who distract the public with the non-issues of identity politics/climate change. Breaking through already open doors in order to give themselves the impression that they are 'far left' (a detestable, meaningless, Americanesque term which, by any measurement, is something these people most certainly are not)

Anyway, I've said my piece, but I would implore you to watch that interview I posted. And if you do, I might just dare you to come back and call me a 'conspiracy theorist'.

nacho libre wrote: »

Ok. If wanderer78 had said some of the most dangerous terrorists in government were in the Middle East.
I suspect you'd have been less inclined to direct him to the Conspiracy Forum.

Never mind what he said, you said this

nacho libre wrote: »

Rather you don't believe they are in governments you support/identify with.

Governments I support. That would most likely imply the Irish government, right? This all in the (original) context of the safety of nuclear as an alternative energy source. It's all gone off on some wild paranoid tangent about nuking and knocking the earth off its axis. Totally off topic nonsense.

I'm not into politics, so that's it from me on this.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Not yet but it’ll soon change irreparably

dont think that ll happen at all, theres too much at stake, we ll figure it out, even though we may have to implement radical ideas such as debts jubilees etc, i dont think we ll allow ourselves to fall into a deep depression, we showed that from events in 08

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

From that article:

"Ireland’s climate is set to look drastically different by mid-century, according to a new super-computer generated projection".



"More heatwaves, according to the report, will have a “direct impact” on public health and mortality, but may be offset by the projected decrease in colder days".



I sometimes wonder if these people are really just taking the piss at this stage. There was talk on here about mass paranoia etc and how silly people are for following it, and that is a fair point. Yet, it is actual scientists who are pushing this mass hysteria. From 'end of the world atomic count downs' to climate change apocalypse to this, that and the friggin other.

They have been coming out with that kind of hysterical nonsense for nearly 30 years now. I remember similar "predictions" back in 2000 which said that by 2020 Ireland would have a "Med" climate with snow to be a thing of the past:rolleyes:

Banana Republic 1 wrote:

This tread is about the environment

Our economic and environmentally matters are intertwined, they can't and shouldn't be separated, it's our attempt to do so has lead us to our current environmental outcomes, if we don't accept this, we 're toast

Nabber wrote: »

No problem it's not about being right or responsible. It's about optics

And the Benjamins.

Interesting that one of the key concepts of AGW Global warming is that temperatures globally vary very little in relatively short periods usually changing over increments of 10,000yrs Any change is over gradual predictable increments. The famous hockey stick chart as an example.
There are examples of temperatures fluctuating in scales that dwarf AWG suggested changes.

Younger Dryas (wiki)
Measurements of oxygen isotopes from the GISP2 ice core suggest the ending of the Younger Dryas took place over just 40 to 50 years in three discrete steps, each lasting five years. Other proxy data, such as dust concentration and snow accumulation, suggest an even more rapid transition, which would require about 7 °C (13 °F) of warming in just a few years

7C over a geographically large area is phenomenal energy input or energy distribution, of which we are unsure how such a 'rewarming' could happen so rapidly. There are multiple scenarios on what caused the cooling, glacial melt water lake in Alaska, impact crater in Greenland or a Volcanoe in Germany. The most likely in my opinion is a disruption to the AMOC. As the cuase is unknown it's also not clear what caused such a rapid growth.

The Akkadian collapse is another similar example of steady climate displaying rapid changes.

All temperature changes today are assigned to CO2 emissions with very little if none at all assigned to natural variability. Localised events where temperatures show an upward change are noted as AWG evidence. Any downward trends are localised weather variabilities. The two examples above have no influence from human activity.

Although these don't prove or disprove AGW warming, they do showcase that our climate is not as steady and unchanging as the current populist narrative advocators would have one believe.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Attack the post, not the poster. I thought that was the mantra, no?

Do you have any comment on the actual article itself, which, btw, wasn't written by Oneiric?

The scientific debate happens in the scientific literature. Nobody should be making claims of a scientific nature unless they can back up those claims with reference to scientific papers in reputable journals

The 'do your own research' referred to in that article, is clearly a reference to people who are looking for confirmation of a pre-existing belief or world view, so rather than see what the science actually says, they go looking for sources that they can use to back up their existing belief.

This criticism applies to everyone btw, on both sides of every debate.

When new evidence emerges, a genuine skeptic will adjust their position accordingly.

Someone might, for example, think climate sensitivity is 1c, but when global average temperature increases already pass 1c without reaching the necessary doubling of atmospheric CO2, then a genuine skeptic would change their mind and revise their opinion on the likely climate sensitivity upwards in line with the evidence (most recent studies show sensitivity is very likely to be at least 2c with a likely range of between 2.3c- 4.5c
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019RG000678

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

So you don’t believe human activity is a substantial cause of climate change. If your going to use acronyms in a statement you should let the reader know what they stand for, at least once.

AGW = anthropogenic global warming or in everyday English global warming associated with human activity.

You'd have to define substantial, % terms would help. I'd agree with you statement on the reader if this was the first post, but AGW has been used several times in this Tread over the past ~6months. The onus is on the reader to read all of the material and not expect each post to have an acronyms typed out. This is common English written standard.

You should also read the contents of the post. It was a challenge to the idea that the climate is not as predictable nor gradual in their changes as the AGW narrative suggests.

I stated that:

Although these don't prove or disprove AGW warming,

To answer you question as vague as it is.
I do think humans impact the climate in a negative way. Probably just not the way you think it does.

My issue(s) as with most people if have discussed with who would be labelled 'deniers' is with the narrative that has been created around climate change. It's turned into good vs evil issue and lets not forget the abundant misinformation that is preached from Hollywood, Politicians, Media ect..
The fact that very little investigative work is done on 'green' initiatives which are typically neither carbon neutral nor good for the environment.

The moral high ground taken by household activists who never bother to confirm how green their trend du jour is but will climb onto their pedestal (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit) all of which are unnecessary pollutants to tell us all how the world is doomed. But that wasteful carbon they have generated to preach is all offset because their orange peels from South Africa & the avocado skin from Mexico are wrapped up in compostable bag from the UK, dropped into a wheelie bin from China picked up by a truck made in Korea run on Oil from Kuwait and sent somewhere they don't know, nor do they really care!!!

So regardless if you are a firm believer in AGW or not, if you live in a developed country you are the cause not the solution.
The only folks who are carbon neutral are the unfortunates in 3rd world countries struggling each day to survive.

But hey lets sacrifice the kids in the Congo for our 10% greener batteries. Go team Green

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Firstly I didn't ask a question I made a statement.

My qualifications on the topic for what they're worth come from Harvard. That said I didn't do a masters the on the subject. I did not choose to be born in the west and Im well aware that for centuries the African continent has been rapped for it resources so don't spout your "Go team Green" nonsense at me your are reading this on smart phone or PC after all.

Couldn't care less where you have been educated. When you are wrong you are wrong. Trying to call an anonymous user out on written English etiquette using the most well know climate acronym on a weather forum, on a thread with +170 pages... Well played.

Lets head over to the financial forum and make sure PRSI and PAYE are clearly defined in each post..... Harvard indeed :pac::pac::pac:


Not sure what you are talking about or that you are taking the time to read my posts. You seem to be taking offense to segments of my posts when they are clearly not directed at you. If they do describe you, by all means take offense.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Use as many acronyms as you like but it would be far simpler to just say “ I don’t believe human activity has any bearing on the climate change”.

No it wouldn't. Being of Harvard I would have thought that you would be itching to throw in as many buzz terms as you like.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Just posted the 1991-2020 CET values in a thread over on NW, basically most days (and therefore months) are now running 0.2 C warmer than the 1981-2010 period, June being the exception (no real changes there).

We'll see if the next decade continues this trend or begins to flat-line. That may help to answer the question of what proportions the AGW signal and natural variability actually have.

But we should keep in mind that we are also facing a much different climate challenge on a different time scale, that posed by the next glacial maximum. All indications are that this is not going to develop quickly, but rather in a slow decline over thousands of years accelerating about 20k years from now. To get to that conclusion, one must place one's faith in the Milankovich theories, which have been widely accepted (despite a few nagging concerns about second-order correlation issues). However, what if other unforeseen causations come along and plunge us more rapidly into a glacial climate? (for example, major volcanic activity, global war, sustained solar quiet). Then this debate will look fairly insignificant.

Huge variations in temperatures near the end of the last glacial were probably closely related to ice cover within relatively short distances, and fresh water entering the Atlantic when various ice dams in North America broke down, releasing massive and frigid bodies of water like Lake Agassiz. We have no reason to expect naturally occurring swings on that scale in the modern climate. Even after the Maunder, the mean temperature in the CET series only warmed by 1.0 to 1.5 C deg. The 20th century in North America has run about 1.5 C warmer than the 19th century. We don't see any examples of much larger variations than those.

A chart that may interest you a little MT and one that may reflect, somewhat, what may be occurring in CET zone also:



Chart shows the 365 day running average number of days with daily temp averages below -1.5c (from the 1981-00 mean) here in Ireland. We can observe that all was hunky dory until 1986 (late October 1986 if we are to be pedantic) when 70s/80s cold seem to peak, but then sharply and inexplicably fell thereafter to more 'modern' values. If anything, we are seeing a slight uptick again in the number of significantly colder than average days over the last decade or so, but not really enough in a way to say that things are looking 'up' again at this stage and may be nothing more than statistical noise.

Edit: just to add, the yellow line is the running decadal trend.

Data from Met Eireann.

Edit: I've pointed this out before, but something happened in 1986 that changed the temp profile sharply over these lands and as I have also said before, 1986 was the year of Chernobyl. Maybe this has nothing to do with anything, but I think it is too much of a coincidence to ignore. Did nuclear radiation fallout from Chernobyl have some detrimental long-term effect on the polar ice caps? I don't know, but perhaps someone else does.