Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 7:24pm

gabeeg wrote: »

So can we try to nail down your position on climate change?

You don't believe there is a conspiracy, as your chum Dense believes. Good.
But you don't believe the science and the overwhelming majority of scientists who are warning of impending disaster.

Why not?

How do you find yourself in a position to second guess an enormous amount of highly intelligent people across an array of scientific fields?

I've stated my opinion over and over. I never said I don't "believe the science". I said I disagree with some of the numbers. That's a big difference.

Nice attempt at trying to distort the facts

gabeeg · 27-01-2018 7:40pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've stated my opinion over and over. I never said I don't "believe the science". I said I disagree with some of the numbers. That's a big difference.

Nice attempt at trying to distort the facts

I'm not trying to distort anything.

You've claimed you don't deny mmcc. But then you say it's overblown and full of hyperbole.
And then you show sympathy with dense and his wacky position.

So no, I don't know what your position is

Meteorite58 · 27-01-2018 8:03pm

Mod Note: Posters are reminded to adhere to the forum charter especially :

1. Please refrain from direct personal attacks on any person whether they are members of boards.ie or not.

2. Everyone is entitled to post and has equal rights whether they are weather experts or complete newbies.

3. If you wish you to challenge someone's views (on the topic of weather) then please question the post, do not just attack poster.

Posters are asked to show courtesy to one another.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 8:14pm

gabeeg wrote: »

I'm not trying to distort anything.

You've claimed you don't deny mmcc. But then you say it's overblown and full of hyperbole.
And then you show sympathy with dense and his wacky position.

So no, I don't know what your position is

No, I don't show sympathy for any conspiracy theories. Again, show me where I have. Second time of asking.

I said some of the commentary on possible effect is hyperbole. People speaking of the end of our civilisation, greatest threat to humanity, nuclear war, "devastation", INSERT REALLY DRAMATIC TERM HERE __________, etc. That's total nonsense and is a facet of the tabloid environment we live in. There is no threat to the human race. Warming will not cause nuclear war. The clock is not ticking. If people like Akrasia, Wanderer, etc. would stop using terms like this and be a little more rational then it would do no harm at all.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 27-01-2018 8:23pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Which quotes are you talking about? I have no time for conspiracy theories, so if you can show me where I have stated otherwise, or quoted someone who does, then fair enough.

Bringing the notion of nuclear war into a discussion on climate just shows that some people will grasp at anything to try to come up with evidence to back up their hyperbolic horrific end-of-the-world stories.

Of course religious groups are free to protest at whatever they like, but I wonder if they were protesting the other way would they get the same column inches.

I assume if they protest against abortion they will get the column inches.

If you have been reading dense then you should know he believes this is all eco fascism or eco socialism, something something the UN, something something anti capitalism, a general worldwide conspiracy to distort facts led by the UN. This is all from the far right American playbook.

There’s a disquieting number of people who still think you can dispute AGW, not just dispute the accuracy of the models. Not saying you are in that camp.

The fact there is a cost to be borne now, like the guy with the more expensive coal, makes people act selfishly and support a status quo which could be disasterous going forward.

I get why people interested in metrology don’t particularly like some of the lay discussion on climate change and weather, since there is definitely a tendency to blame all weather events on warming or climate change. However the planets definitely warming.

Danno · 27-01-2018 8:43pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The magic sauce is that the more expensive it is to heat your house using fossil fuels, the more attractive it is to spend money to put in more insulation, and/or change your heating system from coal, to a more efficient heating system.

This would be so laughable if it weren't so serious. So, by taking money off people (the vast of these folk on a fixed weekly wage) you help them "save" for that insulation and spend €1000s on a new heating system.

Some logic. It's no wonder that the Green Party only grab 3% or 4% of the vote.

The sad reality is that it's the average Joe who always gets the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to these policies:

* Average car costs €200 per month to purchase road fuel, at €1.25 per litre that means 160 litres of juice going in there. With 7c per litre of carbon tax paid, that is a nice €135 per annum carbon tax right there.

* Average household pays €60 per annum carbon tax on their gas bill (now we're up to €195 per annum and that's before the VAT is added which is 23% on the road fuel and 13.5% on the gas)

In total we have €166.05 for fuel with the VAT included plus €68.10 on gas inclusive of VAT giving €232.15 coming out of the pockets of householders.

* Average household The electricity bills also get hit - with the PSO levy increased from ~€15 to stand at €75 per annum today with the increases going directly into subsidising wind farms. So here is another €60 per annum going towards "green initiatives" bringing the household contribution up to a sweet €292.15 in these stealth taxes.

Feeling cheated?

The above carbon taxes are applied across the board into businesses too, and these businesses just pass the cost back to the consumer which results in higher charges at the till. Businesses face higher charges for transport too.

George Sunsnow · 27-01-2018 8:49pm

It’s not eco fascism,it’s primarily being used by insincere politicians as a bandwagon exploitation to raise tax
The rise in tax in theory should change behavior but the insincere politicians and civil service can’t raise them enough to do that so they pay lip service to climate warming whilst getting away with as high (but habit neutral) a tax rise as they can without uproar at election time

Law changes are a better way to go but it would be impossible as it would need to be global and have China India and the US signed up
There are no solar powered Ryanair planes etc so Action is fraught with trade off compatibility ie what the public is willing to give up
With the amount of rural litter I see through around from urban people,I’d suggest not a lot

Wanderer78 · 27-01-2018 8:56pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I don't show sympathy for any conspiracy theories. Again, show me where I have. Second time of asking.

I said some of the commentary on possible effect is hyperbole. People speaking of the end of our civilisation, greatest threat to humanity, nuclear war, "devastation", INSERT REALLY DRAMATIC TERM HERE __________, etc. That's total nonsense and is a facet of the tabloid environment we live in. There is no threat to the human race. Warming will not cause nuclear war. The clock is not ticking. If people like Akrasia, Wanderer, etc. would stop using terms like this and be a little more rational then it would do no harm at all.

again, some of my sources are actually peer reviewed, i actually have studied environmental matters at third level for a couple of years. please show me where i said 'warming causes nuclear war', and i will amend that idea! thank you

dense · 27-01-2018 9:05pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I assume if they protest against abortion they will get the column inches.

If you have been reading dense then you should know he believes this is all eco fascism or eco socialism, something something the UN, something something anti capitalism, a general worldwide conspiracy to distort facts led by the UN. This is all from the far right American playbook.

There’s a disquieting number of people who still think you can dispute AGW, not just dispute the accuracy of the models. Not saying you are in that camp.

The fact there is a cost to be borne now, like the guy with the more expensive coal, makes people act selfishly and support a status quo which could be disasterous going forward.

I get why people interested in metrology don’t particularly like some of the lay discussion on climate change and weather, since there is definitely a tendency to blame all weather events on warming or climate change. However the planets definitely warming.

A few points.

I didn't make up the quotes from the UNFCCC.
There is an agenda other than just reducing emissions at play.

If you disagree we could go through it line by line to figure what exactly it is.

There are radical environmentalists right here in this country (forget Trump country) brow-beating all and sundry about OUR contribution to climate change and our need to immediately act to avert it.

To me this is a mask slipping, a mask thinly disguising a need to control what I drive, whether I should drive at all, where I live, what bioengineered "meat" I should eat, how many children I should have, how much electricity I should use, basically everything, in order to satisfy their wishes to be in control.

When challenged it often tends to get dirty.

Claiming the globe is measurably warming, by tenths of degrees, based on data that does not exist, or has to be maasively "adjusted" due to convenient calibration errors isnt terribly convincing.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

People who depend on RTE RADIO 1, or their local terribly PC rural radio equivalent for their climate news won't be aware of much of this.

But they'll be treated to an.in depth package from the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change.

And that's the way the radicals want it.

gabeeg · 27-01-2018 9:07pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I don't show sympathy for any conspiracy theories. Again, show me where I have. Second time of asking.

I said some of the commentary on possible effect is hyperbole. People speaking of the end of our civilisation, greatest threat to humanity, nuclear war, "devastation", INSERT REALLY DRAMATIC TERM HERE __________, etc. That's total nonsense and is a facet of the tabloid environment we live in. There is no threat to the human race. Warming will not cause nuclear war. The clock is not ticking. If people like Akrasia, Wanderer, etc. would stop using terms like this and be a little more rational then it would do no harm at all.

And there again we have a complete denial of everything that we've been warned about from many walks of science.

So I repeat, I have no idea what your position is on all this. You contradict yourself constantly.

I don't think you're going to get this. So let's just forget it and let the conversation move on.

Akrasia · 27-01-2018 9:09pm

Danno wrote: »

This would be so laughable if it weren't so serious. So, by taking money off people (the vast of these folk on a fixed weekly wage) you help them "save" for that insulation and spend €1000s on a new heating system.

There are grants available for energy efficiency home improvements, and people on low incomes can get some of these improvements done for free through the warmer homes scheme.

Some logic. It's no wonder that the Green Party only grab 3% or 4% of the vote.

The sad reality is that it's the average Joe who always gets the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to these policies:

* Average car costs €200 per month to purchase road fuel, at €1.25 per litre that means 160 litres of juice going in there. With 7c per litre of carbon tax paid, that is a nice €135 per annum carbon tax right there.

And when the average Joe decides to change his car, he now has an incentive to choose one that gets better fuel economy or even get an electric car if he can afford one.

* Average household pays €60 per annum carbon tax on their gas bill (now we're up to €195 per annum and that's before the VAT is added which is 23% on the road fuel and 13.5% on the gas)

In total we have €166.05 for fuel with the VAT included plus €68.10 on gas inclusive of VAT giving €232.15 coming out of the pockets of householders.

so the householder who has been putting off upgrading their insulation now has 232 more reasons to make that upgrade sooner to help reduce their heating costs and when this average householder needs to replace his/her boiler, he/she might decide to buy one that is triple a rated rather than one that is cheaper to buy but less efficient to run. An energy efficient boiler can save hundreds of euros a year compared with an older less efficient model.

* Average household The electricity bills also get hit - with the PSO levy increased from ~€15 to stand at €75 per annum today with the increases going directly into subsidising wind farms. So here is another €60 per annum going towards "green initiatives" bringing the household contribution up to a sweet €292.15 in these stealth taxes.

The wind farms are necessary to meet our obligations to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I'm much happier to pay this, than to pay all the bank levies to pay off the debts of old failed banks or to pay the crazy fluctuations in oil and coal prices every time there is a conflict in the middle east.

The above carbon taxes are applied across the board into businesses too, and these businesses just pass the cost back to the consumer which results in higher charges at the till. Businesses face higher charges for transport too.

Or they cut their costs by choosing more energy efficient lighting, machinery and vehicles.

The costs of emitting carbon need to be reflected in the cost of using energy. Capitalism can only work if the cost of production is reflected in the price of the goods. If just passed on as 'externalities' it incentivises dirty and environmentally destructive practices.

George Sunsnow · 27-01-2018 9:30pm

So tax the living daylights out of consumers to affray an unquantifiable cost or rather a dictat that’s based on something happening in 20 years out of 1000’s most of said years having no modern era weather stats?

Oh yeah that makes sense

Fund energy efficiency and green energy properly would be a better idea
If I put up solar on my farm,the ESB should pay me for the excess for example
So much broken in the insincere bandwagoning

Wanderer78 · 27-01-2018 9:37pm

George Sunsnow wrote: »

So tax the living daylights out of consumers to affray an unquantifiable cost or rather a dictator that’s based on something happening in 20 years out of 1000’s most of said years having no modern era weather stats?

Oh yeah that makes sense

Fund energy efficiency and green energy properly would be a better idea
If I put up solar on my farm,the ESB should pay me for the excess for example
So much broken in the insincere bandwagoning

i think you re hitting a very critical nail on the head here, in my view, a very serious problem in how we ve decided how to deal with these issues. we have decided that the individual or the 'polluter', hence the idea 'the polluter pays', is the problem and ultimately the cause, and they are going to pay for it! this is not necessarily true, its only a part of the story of environmental damage and its causes.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 9:55pm

gabeeg wrote: »

And there again we have a complete denial of everything that we've been warned about from many walks of science.

So I repeat, I have no idea what your position is on all this. You contradict yourself constantly.

I don't think you're going to get this. So let's just forget it and let the conversation move on.

Wait, so many walks of science are predicting the end of humanity? I must have missed all those papers. Are you really sure they were science papers you read this in and not the NEWSpapers? :rolleyes:

Akrasia · 27-01-2018 10:02pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i think you re hitting a very critical nail on the head here, in my view, a very serious problem in how we ve decided how to deal with these issues. we have decided that the individual or the 'polluter', hence the idea 'the polluter pays', is the problem and ultimately the cause, and they are going to pay for it! this is not necessarily true, its only a part of the story of environmental damage and its causes.

You're right. Taxation of consumers isn't a great way of effecting change, regulating industry is better, but then look at the amount of whinging that happened when the EU tried to ban incandescent light bulbs, and improve efficiency of vacuum cleaners.

gabeeg · 27-01-2018 10:04pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Wait, so many walks of science are predicting the end of humanity? I must have missed all those papers. Are you really sure they were science papers you read this in and not the NEWSpapers? :rolleyes:

No, I never mentioned an extinction event.
You mentioned a threat to humanity, and I quoted you.

Stop rolling your eyes at me, it's a bit teenage

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 10:05pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, some of my sources are actually peer reviewed, i actually have studied environmental matters at third level for a couple of years. please show me where i said 'warming causes nuclear war', and i will amend that idea! thank you

You supported the idea when you introduced the idea of the doomsday clock into the discussion, highlighting the fact that climate change had something to do with its advancement...

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You d be surprised the amount of people that think climate change is complete nonsense, it was upsetting to hear the doomsday clock was advanced again yesterday, one of the reasons cited was indeed climate change.

Just to reiterate your worry about it you said...

Wanderer78 wrote: »

even though i expected this advancement of the clock, its still disturbing to see it happen.

Ipso facto you support the idea that climate change is bringing nuclear war closer.

Just some other choice hyperbole posted by you...

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I find it upsetting that some people still question the existence of climate change and our involvement in its development, we have to change our ways now, or this could exterminate our species and others. We can be a truly ignorant and selfish species at times

I don't care what third level education you have, that notion is extreme alarmist, at best.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 10:17pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I assume if they protest against abortion they will get the column inches.

If you have been reading dense then you should know he believes this is all eco fascism or eco socialism, something something the UN, something something anti capitalism, a general worldwide conspiracy to distort facts led by the UN. This is all from the far right American playbook.

I am able to filter out dense's or anyone else's talk on conspiracy eco-whateverism, just as I can filter out the other notions of impending doom so frequently posted. That's why I don't like the party politics that a lot of you seem to play. I make up my own mind based on what I see in the data. To hell with the rest.

There’s a disquieting number of people who still think you can dispute AGW, not just dispute the accuracy of the models. Not saying you are in that camp.

The fact there is a cost to be borne now, like the guy with the more expensive coal, makes people act selfishly and support a status quo which could be disasterous going forward.

I get why people interested in metrology don’t particularly like some of the lay discussion on climate change and weather, since there is definitely a tendency to blame all weather events on warming or climate change. However the planets definitely warming.

The planet is definitely warming. No surprise there. By how much? Well we don't actually have a definitive figure. Plenty of different datasets of best estimations, but we can't have an exact figure due to measurement inhomogeneities over the centuries. But there is a general upward trend in all. The question is over how much is due to anthro sources. I think it's less than the models say. Simple.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 10:22pm

gabeeg wrote: »

No, I never mentioned an extinction event.
You mentioned a threat to humanity, and I quoted you.

Stop rolling your eyes at me, it's a bit teenage

You said I posted "a complete denial of everything we've been warned about from many walks of science" when I said the following about the comments on here...

I said some of the commentary on possible effect is hyperbole. People speaking of the end of our civilisation, greatest threat to humanity, nuclear war, "devastation", INSERT REALLY DRAMATIC TERM HERE __________, etc. That's total nonsense and is a facet of the tabloid environment we live in. There is no threat to the human race. Warming will not cause nuclear war. The clock is not ticking. If people like Akrasia, Wanderer, etc. would stop using terms like this and be a little more rational then it would do no harm at all.

I didn't mention anything about the science. Be sure of what point it is you're trying to make before you make it. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

gabeeg · 27-01-2018 10:38pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You said I posted "a complete denial of everything we've been warned about from many walks of science" when I said the following about the comments on here...

I didn't mention anything about the science. Be sure of what point it is you're trying to make before you make it. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Science is predicting a major threat to humanity.

You deny that, you deny science.

Sorry

Danno · 27-01-2018 10:42pm

Akrasia wrote: »

so the householder who has been putting off upgrading their insulation now has 232 more reasons to make that upgrade sooner to help reduce their heating costs and when this average householder needs to replace his/her boiler, he/she might decide to buy one that is triple a rated rather than one that is cheaper to buy but less efficient to run. An energy efficient boiler can save hundreds of euros a year compared with an older less efficient model.

What absolute tosh, for someone on the minimum wage that €232 is well over a half week's wages and you know it but don't give two hoots. The vast, vast majority of people on minimum wages will be renting as they cannot afford to get on the property ladder and will have no incentive to pay towards insulating another man/woman's property. You really, really have no idea how all this works, do you?

Akrasia wrote: »

when the average Joe decides to change his car, he now has an incentive to choose one that gets better fuel economy or even get an electric car if he can afford one.

What did the wonderful Green Party do in 2008 when the economy was crashing down around us? Yup, cut tax on NEW cars (based it on C02) and hiked the tax on old cars, again taking money out of the pockets of who could least afford it. It turns out that this move was a disaster as it turned out that many car manufacturers were falsifying the C02 testing. Anyone caught with a pre-2008 car was siphoned for money via motor tax throughout the recession along with super high carbon taxes.

Akrasia wrote: »

people on low incomes can get some of these improvements done for free through the warmer homes scheme.

Had a look through their website, again must be a homeowner on the dole or with very low wages. Far too restrictive when you consider that everyone is paying super high carbon taxes. With just 125,000 houses serviced since 2001 (this could have been just a few LED bulbs given to notch up another "house" on that list) smacks of another quango.

Akrasia wrote: »

The wind farms are necessary to meet our obligations to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I'm much happier to pay this, than to pay all the bank levies to pay off the debts of old failed banks or to pay the crazy fluctuations in oil and coal prices every time there is a conflict in the middle east.

I'd be much happier if we build a nuclear power plant across the river from Moneypoint and save our beautiful countryside from the horrific turbines that are not reliable at all as they require €60 PSO levy from everyone to keep them turning.

***

Overall your solutions are not ones at all, just tax and control measures.

Oneiric 3 · 27-01-2018 10:42pm

Nuclear war imminent.

Tax the 'average Joe' more.

Place more taxes on fuel so as to make more insulation 'more attractive' to the 'average Joe', many who are struggling to pay the bills as it is.

Totally ignore the fact the climate scientists themselves don't practice what they preach. "Are you saying that we should fly less"? he askes with outright indignation.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 10:51pm

gabeeg wrote: »

Science is predicting a major threat to humanity.

You deny that, you deny science.

Sorry

Alright, twist it anyway you like. It's not what I said, and science doesn't predict the end of humanity, or even a threat to it. It predicts some adverse affects in some parts of the world (but on the flip side, other parts will be winners, but this doesn't ever get mentioned). People predicting "the end of humanity" are not quoting the science.

Oneiric 3 · 27-01-2018 10:55pm

Danno wrote: »

What absolute tosh, for someone on the minimum wage that €232 is well over a half week's wages and you know it but don't give two hoots. The vast, vast majority of people on minimum wages will be renting as they cannot afford to get on the property ladder and will have no incentive to pay towards insulating another man/woman's property. You really, really have no idea how all this works, do you?

I have maintained before that many who preach and pontificate about Global Warming do so from a very privileged position, yet feel the need to project a sort of guilt they feel about it onto ordinary, working class people.

gabeeg · 27-01-2018 11:02pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Alright, twist it anyway you like. It's not what I said, and science doesn't predict the end of humanity, or even a threat to it. It predicts some adverse affects in some parts of the world (but on the flip side, other parts will be winners, but this doesn't ever get mentioned). People predicting "the end of humanity" are not quoting the science.

I think I have it now. You're not a climate change denier, you just think it'll be grand.

Incidentally you're entirely wrong on what you believe is being predicted.
Completely and utterly.

I've had enough with arguing against your ignorance on the subject

Oneiric 3 · 27-01-2018 11:02pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

People predicting "the end of humanity" are not quoting the science.

They are just quoting a group of scientists who are 'troubled' because the current political realm is not to their liking. Boo hoo.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 11:03pm

gabeeg wrote: »

I think I have it now. You're not a climate change denier, you just think it'll be grand.

Incidentally you're entirely wrong on what you believe is being predicted.
Completely and utterly.

I've had enough with arguing against your ignorance on the subject

:rolleyes:

gabeeg · 27-01-2018 11:08pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That's the smartest reply you've managed in this thread

Oneiric 3 · 27-01-2018 11:13pm

gabeeg wrote: »

That's the smartest reply you've managed in this thread

Smarter than anything you have come up with.

Go back to reading climate science scripture if it gives you the illusion that you are actually contributing something important to society. Most of us have more pressing and real world issues to deal with.

Wanderer78 · 27-01-2018 11:17pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You supported the idea when you introduced the idea of the doomsday clock into the discussion, highlighting the fact that climate change had something to do with its advancement...

Just to reiterate your worry about it you said...

Ipso facto you support the idea that climate change is bringing nuclear war closer.

Just some other choice hyperbole posted by you...

I don't care what third level education you have, that notion is extreme alarmist, at best.

jasus, theres no hope here really, in my mind thats a very strange assumption! wow, where do i even begin! im lost, i truly am!

ok, i ll try, but this is probably just wasting my time, ive been deliberately avoiding these types of arguments on boards, because in my mind, there is no argument, as theres enough evidence to support the existence of these issues, i.e. ive moved on, im working on how do we actually deal with these issues, to minimise them, and try eradicate them is possible.

the doomsday clock was created after the second world war to highlight the dangers that exist from the creation of nuclear technologies, in particular nuclear weapons. (jesus, am i actually doing this, am i actually trying to explain this, im starting to question the intelligence of humanity more now than ever, this really is scary stuff!! apologies Gaoth Laidir, some of your posts are extremely well informed on this forum, but im truly lost for words here!) any how, rant over. obviously at the time after the second world war, i suspect a large proportion of humanity was doing a lot of sole searching, for obvious reasons, hence the creation of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and their doomsday clock. role on a few more decades, and the world has changed a lot in ways, and not a lot in other ways, the bulletin board, in their right wisdom in my opinion, have realised, not only is this nuclear stuff a danger to humanity but so to are our environmental issues, and have decided to add them to their decision making process. now this is where i think where you re adding two and two, and getting a rather weird answer, no, climate change is highly unlikely, but not exclusively, to create the basis of a nuclear war, do i need to explain this further, because im getting seriously weirded out here, and frankly kinna scared and worried for humanity? apologies, im very bad at text based communications.

you can see where some of the arguments are going in the thread regarding the economic matters of how to deal with these issues, as i was saying above, ive moved on, my current research has brought me into the world of political science, political economics and ultimately macro economic theory, but i ll leave that for another day, ive just finished watching a related lecture on this and im burnt from it.

please tell me if i not explaining myself very clearly, which i suspect im not? you are actually very well informed about certain stuff, your knowledge of weather related matters far exceeds mine. thank you

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 11:29pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

jasus, theres no hope here really, in my mind thats a very strange assumption! wow, where do i even begin! im lost, i truly am!

ok, i ll try, but this is probably just wasting my time, ive been deliberately avoiding these types of arguments on boards, because in my mind, there is no argument, as theres enough evidence to support the existence of these issues, i.e. ive moved on, im working on how do we actually deal with these issues, to minimise them, and try eradicate them is possible.

the doomsday clock was created after the second world war to highlight the dangers that exist from the creation of nuclear technologies, in particular nuclear weapons. (jesus, am i actually doing this, am i actually trying to explain this, im starting to question the intelligence of humanity more now than ever, this really is scary stuff!! apologies Gaoth Laidir, some of your posts are extremely well informed on this forum, but im truly lost for words here!) any how, rant over. obviously at the time after the second world war, i suspect a large proportion of humanity was doing a lot of sole searching, for obvious reasons, hence the creation of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and their doomsday clock. role on a few more decades, and the world has changed a lot in ways, and not a lot in other ways, the bulletin board, in their right wisdom in my opinion, have realised, not only is this nuclear stuff a danger to humanity but so to are our environmental issues, and have decided to add them to their decision making process. now this is where i think where you re adding two and two, and getting a rather weird answer, no, climate change is highly unlikely, but not exclusively, to create the basis of a nuclear war, do i need to explain this further, because im getting seriously weirded out here, and frankly kinna scared and worried for humanity? apologies, im very bad at text based communications.

you can see where some of the arguments are going in the thread regarding the economic matters of how to deal with these issues, as i was saying above, ive moved on, my current research has brought me into the world of political science, political economics and ultimately macro economic theory, but i ll leave that for another day, ive just finished watching a related lecture on this and im burnt from it.

please tell me if i not explaining myself very clearly, which i suspect im not? you are actually very well informed about certain stuff, your knowledge of weather related matters far exceeds mine. thank you

Right, so you're not saying climate change will cause a nuclear war. I get that. But you agree with their putting climate change in as a similar threat as nuclear war. See, this is the problem. There's just no contest there.

I don't quite get this bit

no, climate change is highly unlikely, but not exclusively, to create the basis of a nuclear war,

but I think it must mean that no, climate change will not cause a nuclear war. Good that you think that.

Still, this major threat to/end of humanity stuff really is for the birds.

Gaoth Laidir · 27-01-2018 11:33pm

gabeeg wrote: »

That's the smartest reply you've managed in this thread

I've had a look back at your posts and I'm struggling to find any that actually contribute anything other than jabs at people, pulling people up on/misrepresenting/not even bothering to read what they say, telling people to check dictionaries, etc. Do you have any scientific contribution to make or is it all going to be personal?

gabeeg · 28-01-2018 12:01am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've had a look back at your posts and I'm struggling to find any that actually contribute anything other than jabs at people, pulling people up on/misrepresenting/not even bothering to read what they say, telling people to check dictionaries, etc. Do you have any scientific contribution to make or is it all going to be personal?

I do not have a scientific contribution to make, as I'm not a scientist.
Nor do you, for exactly the same reason.

That's my point.

Gonzo · 28-01-2018 12:08am

Mod Note: This thread is really starting to fill up with an unfriendly atmosphere, sniping and aggressive posting. it doesn't make pleasant or helpful reading and is not what this forum is about. If I see one more negative post I will suspend this thread for further investigation.

A final reminder to be aware of the rules:

1. Please refrain from direct personal attacks on any person whether they are members of boards.ie or not.

2. Everyone is entitled to post and has equal rights whether they are weather experts or complete newbies.

3. If you wish to challenge someone's views (on the topic of weather) then please question the post, do not just attack poster.

Posters are asked to show courtesy to one another.

Gaoth Laidir · 28-01-2018 12:08am

gabeeg wrote: »

I do not have a scientific contribution to make, as I'm not a scientist.
Nor do you, for exactly the same reason.

That's my point.

Yes I am.

gabeeg · 28-01-2018 12:19am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes I am.

I sincerely doubt it

Meteorite58 · 28-01-2018 12:23am

Mod Note: Closing this thread until further notice.

Meteorite58 · 28-01-2018 11:45pm

Mod Note: It is with regret that the Climate Change Thread needed to be shut as it was turning to disarray due to personal attacks, aggressive and sniping posting leading to a hostile environment .

The forum is for the purpose of discussion, the exchange of ideas and sharing a common interest in all things associated with Meteorology. Opinions will differ, people will have different preferences, likes and dislikes and all have the right to post once it is in keeping with the forum charter and the Boards Charter.

It gives the Mod Team no pleasure in having to deal accordingly with posters who constantly go against the charter and the spirit of the forum and drag down the discussion into a personal slagging match. A friendly, welcoming and a free from hostility atmosphere needs to be maintained for all.

Any more of the above mentioned unacceptable behavior will result in recieving infractions or bans.

Akrasia · 29-01-2018 10:40am

A new Study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences has shown that 2017 was the warmest year on record in the oceans down to at least 2km below the surface

So we have 2017 as the 2nd warmest year on record for the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures, and the warmest year on
record down to 2km below ocean surfaces.

The top 5 warmest years have all been within the past 5 years which have included both El Nino and La Nina events.

http://159.226.119.58/aas/EN/10.1007/s00376-018-8011-z#

dense · 29-01-2018 6:50pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You're right. Taxation of consumers isn't a great way of effecting change, regulating industry is better, but then look at the amount of whinging that happened when the EU tried to ban incandescent light bulbs, and improve efficiency of vacuum cleaners.

Because, and I quote, it has been deemed that:

The energy used by vacuum cleaners accounts for a significant part of total energy demand in the Union. The scope for reducing the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners is substantial.

However,

Wet, wet and dry, robot, industrial, central and battery operated vacuum cleaners and floor polishers and outdoor vacuums have particular characteristics and should therefore be exempted from the scope of this Regulation.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0665

I've heard of nonsense like Dancing against Climate Change, now it's surely time for another "climate charity" to pop up to propose and coordinate an annual National Day of Vaccuming Less To Save the Planet*

*Only applicable to certain models of vacuum cleaners.

Akrasia · 29-01-2018 7:39pm

20Twh per year in energy savings. Even if you don't believe in climate change, it's still a good regulation

dense · 29-01-2018 10:03pm

Akrasia wrote: »

20Twh per year in energy savings. Even if you don't believe in climate change, it's still a good regulation

In what context?

What is the total EU annual Twh energy consumption figure, of which vacuum cleaning energy demand and consumption is now being deemed to be so "significant" in the EU?

In 2015, household usage accounted for 25% of total energy used in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Final_energy_consumption,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png

It doesn't give a breakdown of how much of that was used for vaccum cleaning.

Therefore I find it difficult to believe that (mainly) domestic vacuum cleaners constitute any "significant part" of total energy demand and consumption" in the EU.

(Industrial, wet and dry, central systems and floor polishers are outside of the scope of these regulations.)

The energy used by vacuum cleaners accounts for a Significant Part of total energy demand in the Union.

The scope for reducing the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners is substantial.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0665

Akrasia · 29-01-2018 10:33pm

dense wrote: »

In what context?

What is the total EU annual Twh energy consumption figure, of which vacuum cleaning energy demand and consumption is now being deemed to be so "significant" in the EU?

In 2015, household usage accounted for 25% of total energy used in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Final_energy_consumption,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png

It doesn't give a breakdown of how much of that was used for vaccum cleaning.

Therefore I find it difficult to believe that (mainly) domestic vacuum cleaners constitute any "significant part" of total energy demand and consumption" in the EU.

(Industrial, wet and dry, central systems and floor polishers are outside of the scope of these regulations.)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0665

Nah, I'm not going to bother runnning through your hoops Dense. 20 twh is a significant amount of energy. The EU has a role in regulating all kinds of consumer electronics for safety and environmental standards. If companies are ripping off consumers by making their appliances needlessly power hungry so they can market them as 'more powerful' than their competitors then I'm glad they're doing it. If it wasn't for EU regulations we'd still have american style fuel consumption in our cars rather than strict efficiency targets that force manufacturers to research new technology to make their product modern and efficient.

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2018 12:07am

Akrasia wrote: »

A new Study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences has shown that 2017 was the warmest year on record in the oceans down to at least 2km below the surface

So we have 2017 as the 2nd warmest year on record for the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures, and the warmest year on
record down to 2km below ocean surfaces.

The top 5 warmest years have all been within the past 5 years which have included both El Nino and La Nina events.

http://159.226.119.58/aas/EN/10.1007/s00376-018-8011-z#

While the trend is no doubt upward, I'd be very cautious with actual figures, given the large uncertainty in measurements due to poor instrumental coverage and XBT bias. A lot of map infilling is mentioned in the article, with various methods cited. I note 10 or more different methods for correcting for XBT bias, none of which is yet satisfactory.

Satellite altimetry gives better coverage but still says little about the vertical temperature profile of all the oceans. There's a tenfold difference between OHC-increase in the Atlantic and Pacific, which itself suggests more than just atmospheric roles at play.

dense · 30-01-2018 1:06am

Akrasia wrote: »

Nah, I'm not going to bother runnning through your hoops Dense. 20 twh is a significant amount of energy

.

That's debatable. Which is why we're here.

Total net electricity generation in the EU-28 was 3.07 million gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2015

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview

And the EU says that vacuum cleaner regulations saving "up to" (could be much less) 20Twh is "significant".

It's a maximum estimated 00.66% saving by my calculations.

Hardly "significant" by any measure. Pretty insignificant actually.

Unless of course they're into hyping things up.

Can happen in the climate change debate.

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU has a role in regulating all kinds of consumer electronics for safety and environmental standards.

What's next, the kettle directive?
Toasters to be used by licence only?

Akrasia wrote: »

If companies are ripping off consumers by making their appliances needlessly power hungry so they can market them as 'more powerful' than their competitors then I'm glad they're doing it.

Fair enough.

Gaoth Lag · 30-01-2018 10:35am

"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense."

The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!

dense · 30-01-2018 11:07am

"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense."

The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!

You know, I'm all for climate charities myself.

So much so that I'm thinking of setting up one.

An essential part of it will selling the idea to potential corporate "partners".

I'm confident they'll be delighted to be on board, and delighted to contribute in a meaningful way, and by that I mean in cold hard donations.

After all, my charity is not going to run itself, and I don't expect my assistants in the enterprise to work for nothing, nor they me.

Corporate entities, often seen as cold, uncaring machines can benefit greatly from getting their softer, more human green side into the public domain, and, you know, a refusal to play ball with a worthy climate change charity might not look great, given the gravity of the situation.

Kind of like, yeah, we are a business, but WE CARE, OK?????

Once we have the corporate thing sewn up we'll be targeting the children.

Klimate Kandy.

Has a good ring to it, yaw?

The finer details have yet to be worked out, but I can say that we'll all have a real fun time.

It's early days, but Italy and Brazil are showing interest even at this stage.

Join me in this noble venture.

Gaoth Lag · 30-01-2018 11:26am

That's even more snide that Gaoth Laidir's post.

Akrasia · 30-01-2018 11:36am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

While the trend is no doubt upward, I'd be very cautious with actual figures, given the large uncertainty in measurements due to poor instrumental coverage and XBT bias. A lot of map infilling is mentioned in the article, with various methods cited. I note 10 or more different methods for correcting for XBT bias, none of which is yet satisfactory.

Satellite altimetry gives better coverage but still says little about the vertical temperature profile of all the oceans. There's a tenfold difference between OHC-increase in the Atlantic and Pacific, which itself suggests more than just atmospheric roles at play.

The measurements are uncertain, but this means they're as likely to be underestimating global heat content in the oceans as over estimating it. We should be forming our opinion based on the best available evidence. We're never ever going to know for 100% certain, but unless you believe that these scientists are distorting the data and choosing to amplify the warming signal, then the best evidence we have at the moment is that global oceans are warmer now than we any point since detailed records began.

In terms of variation between the changes in OCH in different geographic regions, the ocean is a dynamic place that is constantly redistributing heat through a complex network of currents that oceanographic institutes dedicate their time to studying and understanding.

I like to let the experts do the talking where possible.
Here's a very interesting panel discussion featuring Oceanographers from several of the most respected oceanographic institutes in the world

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2018 11:42am

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense."

The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!

What data would that be? The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it.

Strange username too, BTW. Only registered today. Hmmm.

Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

Comments