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

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

1356784

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,601 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    Where is the electricity to come from to power these 'electric veh-he-cals'. Where are the materials going to come from to produce these cars in the first place? And are the factories that produce these cars powered by environmentally sound power sources? Questions we should be asking, but are not, because everything today is presented to us on a surface level. It's all about being seen doing the 'right thing', while not actually doing it.

    Yep - empty virtue signalling. Its the same with all these Eamon Ryan/GP types


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,565 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Yes, what we really need to do is get rid of the idea of everyone owning a car, electric or not. Hopefully we'll head in that direction eventually, where possible.
    It takes planning for the future and designing our cities and countryside better, which we're not exactly good at in Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    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.

    Did big plastic spin that fast ball at you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Did big plastic spin that fast ball at you.

    It was more that someone in our company ran the numbers and said "hang on a minute...!" It is enough to make our large multinational rethink its longterm strategy on a blanket removal of plastic.

    Cue the normal accusations that it's these big multinationals who are the littering culprits. Yep, they're the ones who throw plastic bottles and Heineken six-pack rings in the rivers that lead to the ocean. Personal responsibility counts for nothing, it seems.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭Tyrone212


    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.

    At least some? 5 10 15%?


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


    Tyrone212 wrote: »
    At least some? 5 10 15%?

    I didn't get details, only that it was enough to revise our strategy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    It was more that someone in our company ran the numbers and said "hang on a minute...!" It is enough to make our large multinational rethink its longterm strategy on a blanket removal of plastic.

    Cue the normal accusations that it's these big multinationals who are the littering culprits. Yep, they're the ones who throw plastic bottles and Heineken six-pack rings in the rivers that lead to the ocean. Personal responsibility counts for nothing, it seems.

    So big plastic then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,122 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Danno wrote: »
    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?
    What are you going on about? Pre industrial CO2 concentration in the Atmosphere was stable t about 280ppm
    It’s now at about 413ppm and increasing each year. This is very basic stuff Danno

    Human CO2 emissions are above the planets ability to sequester it, and until we change that, global warming is going to get worse and worse


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    So big plastic then.

    If you want to think that that's what we do then go ahead and humour yourself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    If you want to think that that's what we do then go ahead and humour yourself.

    I already have,


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,122 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    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.

    You plotted the graph wrong

    Here are the actual numbers from NASA relating to global average temperature

    Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C)

    Year No_Smoothing Lowess(5)
    1880 -0.16 -0.08
    1881 -0.07 -0.12
    1882 -0.10 -0.16
    1883 -0.16 -0.19
    1884 -0.28 -0.23
    1885 -0.32 -0.25
    1886 -0.31 -0.26
    1887 -0.35 -0.27
    1888 -0.17 -0.26
    1889 -0.10 -0.25
    1890 -0.35 -0.25
    1891 -0.22 -0.25
    1892 -0.27 -0.26
    1893 -0.31 -0.26
    1894 -0.30 -0.23
    1895 -0.22 -0.22
    1896 -0.11 -0.20
    1897 -0.11 -0.18
    1898 -0.26 -0.16
    1899 -0.17 -0.17
    1900 -0.07 -0.19
    1901 -0.15 -0.23
    1902 -0.27 -0.25
    1903 -0.36 -0.28
    1904 -0.46 -0.30
    1905 -0.26 -0.33
    1906 -0.22 -0.35
    1907 -0.38 -0.37
    1908 -0.42 -0.39
    1909 -0.48 -0.40
    1910 -0.43 -0.41
    1911 -0.43 -0.38
    1912 -0.35 -0.34
    1913 -0.34 -0.32
    1914 -0.15 -0.30
    1915 -0.13 -0.30
    1916 -0.35 -0.29
    1917 -0.45 -0.29
    1918 -0.29 -0.29
    1919 -0.27 -0.29
    1920 -0.27 -0.27
    1921 -0.18 -0.26
    1922 -0.28 -0.25
    1923 -0.26 -0.24
    1924 -0.27 -0.23
    1925 -0.22 -0.22
    1926 -0.10 -0.22
    1927 -0.21 -0.21
    1928 -0.20 -0.19
    1929 -0.36 -0.19
    1930 -0.16 -0.19
    1931 -0.09 -0.19
    1932 -0.16 -0.18
    1933 -0.29 -0.17
    1934 -0.12 -0.16
    1935 -0.20 -0.14
    1936 -0.15 -0.11
    1937 -0.03 -0.06
    1938 0.00 -0.01
    1939 -0.02 0.03
    1940 0.13 0.06
    1941 0.18 0.09
    1942 0.07 0.11
    1943 0.09 0.10
    1944 0.20 0.07
    1945 0.09 0.04
    1946 -0.07 0.00
    1947 -0.03 -0.04
    1948 -0.11 -0.07
    1949 -0.11 -0.08
    1950 -0.17 -0.08
    1951 -0.07 -0.07
    1952 0.01 -0.07
    1953 0.08 -0.07
    1954 -0.13 -0.07
    1955 -0.14 -0.06
    1956 -0.19 -0.05
    1957 0.05 -0.04
    1958 0.06 -0.01
    1959 0.03 0.01
    1960 -0.03 0.03
    1961 0.06 0.01
    1962 0.03 -0.01
    1963 0.05 -0.03
    1964 -0.20 -0.04
    1965 -0.11 -0.05
    1966 -0.06 -0.06
    1967 -0.02 -0.05
    1968 -0.08 -0.03
    1969 0.05 -0.02
    1970 0.03 -0.00
    1971 -0.08 0.00
    1972 0.01 0.00
    1973 0.16 -0.00
    1974 -0.07 0.01
    1975 -0.01 0.02
    1976 -0.10 0.04
    1977 0.18 0.07
    1978 0.07 0.12
    1979 0.16 0.16
    1980 0.26 0.20
    1981 0.32 0.21
    1982 0.14 0.22
    1983 0.31 0.21
    1984 0.16 0.21
    1985 0.12 0.22
    1986 0.18 0.24
    1987 0.32 0.27
    1988 0.39 0.31
    1989 0.27 0.33
    1990 0.45 0.33
    1991 0.41 0.33
    1992 0.22 0.33
    1993 0.23 0.33
    1994 0.32 0.34
    1995 0.45 0.37
    1996 0.33 0.40
    1997 0.46 0.42
    1998 0.61 0.44
    1999 0.38 0.47
    2000 0.39 0.50
    2001 0.54 0.52
    2002 0.63 0.55
    2003 0.62 0.59
    2004 0.54 0.61
    2005 0.68 0.62
    2006 0.64 0.63
    2007 0.67 0.64
    2008 0.55 0.64
    2009 0.66 0.65
    2010 0.72 0.65
    2011 0.61 0.67
    2012 0.65 0.70
    2013 0.68 0.74
    2014 0.75 0.79
    2015 0.90 0.83
    2016 1.02 0.88
    2017 0.93 0.92
    2018 0.85 0.95
    2019 0.99 0.98
    2020 1.02 1.01
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

    The graph you used takes the mean of temperatures between 1986 and 2005
    In the NASA data, that converts to 0.421, so this is the 0c anomaly on your graph
    According to Nasa's data the anomaly from 2012 onwards is
    year anomaly 1986-2005
    2012 0.229
    2013 0.259
    2014 0.329
    2015 0.479
    2016 0.599
    2017 0.509
    2018 0.429
    2019 0.569
    2020 0.599
    so you have plotted the wrong data on the graph from 2016 onwards

    I've corrected your graph and it shows a completely different picture now. The red dots on this are what you should have inputted
    541328.png
    It's very easy to 'prove' that climate change models and projections are wrong if you use the wrong figures in home made graphs

    This DIY 'science' where reputable papers in peer reviewed journals are 'debunked' with a back of the envelope calculation from someone who thinks they know more than the PHD climate scientists who wrote and reviewed the papers is a major cause of misinformation on this important topic. I see it all the time where people on blogs falsely manipulate data either through malice or incompetence, and then use this this to 'debunk' actual scientific findings


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    You plotted the graph wrong

    Here are the actual numbers from NASA relating to global average temperature

    Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C)

    Year No_Smoothing Lowess(5)
    1880 -0.16 -0.08
    1881 -0.07 -0.12
    1882 -0.10 -0.16
    1883 -0.16 -0.19
    1884 -0.28 -0.23
    1885 -0.32 -0.25
    1886 -0.31 -0.26
    1887 -0.35 -0.27
    1888 -0.17 -0.26
    1889 -0.10 -0.25
    1890 -0.35 -0.25
    1891 -0.22 -0.25
    1892 -0.27 -0.26
    1893 -0.31 -0.26
    1894 -0.30 -0.23
    1895 -0.22 -0.22
    1896 -0.11 -0.20
    1897 -0.11 -0.18
    1898 -0.26 -0.16
    1899 -0.17 -0.17
    1900 -0.07 -0.19
    1901 -0.15 -0.23
    1902 -0.27 -0.25
    1903 -0.36 -0.28
    1904 -0.46 -0.30
    1905 -0.26 -0.33
    1906 -0.22 -0.35
    1907 -0.38 -0.37
    1908 -0.42 -0.39
    1909 -0.48 -0.40
    1910 -0.43 -0.41
    1911 -0.43 -0.38
    1912 -0.35 -0.34
    1913 -0.34 -0.32
    1914 -0.15 -0.30
    1915 -0.13 -0.30
    1916 -0.35 -0.29
    1917 -0.45 -0.29
    1918 -0.29 -0.29
    1919 -0.27 -0.29
    1920 -0.27 -0.27
    1921 -0.18 -0.26
    1922 -0.28 -0.25
    1923 -0.26 -0.24
    1924 -0.27 -0.23
    1925 -0.22 -0.22
    1926 -0.10 -0.22
    1927 -0.21 -0.21
    1928 -0.20 -0.19
    1929 -0.36 -0.19
    1930 -0.16 -0.19
    1931 -0.09 -0.19
    1932 -0.16 -0.18
    1933 -0.29 -0.17
    1934 -0.12 -0.16
    1935 -0.20 -0.14
    1936 -0.15 -0.11
    1937 -0.03 -0.06
    1938 0.00 -0.01
    1939 -0.02 0.03
    1940 0.13 0.06
    1941 0.18 0.09
    1942 0.07 0.11
    1943 0.09 0.10
    1944 0.20 0.07
    1945 0.09 0.04
    1946 -0.07 0.00
    1947 -0.03 -0.04
    1948 -0.11 -0.07
    1949 -0.11 -0.08
    1950 -0.17 -0.08
    1951 -0.07 -0.07
    1952 0.01 -0.07
    1953 0.08 -0.07
    1954 -0.13 -0.07
    1955 -0.14 -0.06
    1956 -0.19 -0.05
    1957 0.05 -0.04
    1958 0.06 -0.01
    1959 0.03 0.01
    1960 -0.03 0.03
    1961 0.06 0.01
    1962 0.03 -0.01
    1963 0.05 -0.03
    1964 -0.20 -0.04
    1965 -0.11 -0.05
    1966 -0.06 -0.06
    1967 -0.02 -0.05
    1968 -0.08 -0.03
    1969 0.05 -0.02
    1970 0.03 -0.00
    1971 -0.08 0.00
    1972 0.01 0.00
    1973 0.16 -0.00
    1974 -0.07 0.01
    1975 -0.01 0.02
    1976 -0.10 0.04
    1977 0.18 0.07
    1978 0.07 0.12
    1979 0.16 0.16
    1980 0.26 0.20
    1981 0.32 0.21
    1982 0.14 0.22
    1983 0.31 0.21
    1984 0.16 0.21
    1985 0.12 0.22
    1986 0.18 0.24
    1987 0.32 0.27
    1988 0.39 0.31
    1989 0.27 0.33
    1990 0.45 0.33
    1991 0.41 0.33
    1992 0.22 0.33
    1993 0.23 0.33
    1994 0.32 0.34
    1995 0.45 0.37
    1996 0.33 0.40
    1997 0.46 0.42
    1998 0.61 0.44
    1999 0.38 0.47
    2000 0.39 0.50
    2001 0.54 0.52
    2002 0.63 0.55
    2003 0.62 0.59
    2004 0.54 0.61
    2005 0.68 0.62
    2006 0.64 0.63
    2007 0.67 0.64
    2008 0.55 0.64
    2009 0.66 0.65
    2010 0.72 0.65
    2011 0.61 0.67
    2012 0.65 0.70
    2013 0.68 0.74
    2014 0.75 0.79
    2015 0.90 0.83
    2016 1.02 0.88
    2017 0.93 0.92
    2018 0.85 0.95
    2019 0.99 0.98
    2020 1.02 1.01
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt

    The graph you used takes the mean of temperatures between 1986 and 2005
    In the NASA data, that converts to 0.421, so this is the 0c anomaly on your graph
    According to Nasa's data the anomaly from 2012 onwards is
    year anomaly 1986-2005
    2012 0.229
    2013 0.259
    2014 0.329
    2015 0.479
    2016 0.599
    2017 0.509
    2018 0.429
    2019 0.569
    2020 0.599
    so you have plotted the wrong data on the graph from 2016 onwards

    I've corrected your graph and it shows a completely different picture now. The red dots on this are what you should have inputted
    541328.png
    It's very easy to 'prove' that climate change models and projections are wrong if you use the wrong figures in home made graphs

    This DIY 'science' where reputable papers in peer reviewed journals are 'debunked' with a back of the envelope calculation from someone who thinks they know more than the PHD climate scientists who wrote and reviewed the papers is a major cause of misinformation on this important topic. I see it all the time where people on blogs falsely manipulate data either through malice or incompetence, and then use this this to 'debunk' actual scientific findings

    Firstly, I said I plotted the HadCRUT, not GISS.

    Secondly, if you plot the unsmoothed figure in the GISS link you gave you get the same as what I plotted. You plotted the LOWESS figure.

    Two different representations of the same data.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,122 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


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

    No it doesn't Your quote doesn't say that at all, the next sentence says this "Rather the focus must be upon the prediction
    of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible
    states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
    Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is
    computationally intensive and requires the application of new
    methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information
    is essential. "

    The climate models are not weather forecasting machines, they do not accurately predict the exact state of the climate at any specified point in the future, and they do not try or pretend to do this
    What they do, is narrow down probabilities, they make projections of what the future is likely to be like given different scenarios
    None of the scenarios are predictions, they are scenarios that are aimed at measuring the impacts of different potential variables all of which are subject to change.

    If you do not understand what the models are, or what their purpose is, or how they are intended to be used, then you should refrain from making judgements on how effective they are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,122 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    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.
    do you have a source for this?

    How did they measure this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    do you have a source for this?

    How did they measure this?

    I don't have a source yet. I was just told by head of marketing that they had received this information. I intend on finding out more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,122 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Firstly, I said I plotted the HadCRUT, not GISS.

    Secondly, if you plot the unsmoothed figure in the GISS link you gave you get the same as what I plotted. You plotted the LOWESS figure.

    Two different representations of the same data.

    Nope, I plotted the unsmoothed figures not the Lowess figure

    Doesn't really matter if you use Giss or HadCrut figures, you still plotted them wrong and they show pretty much the same temperature anomaly (no difference on my not very accurate MS paint graph)

    https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis_gl.txt
    The HADCRUT5 1986-2005 average is 0.34915

    The temperature anomaly based on their baseline is
    2012 0.578
    2013 0.624
    2014 0.673
    2015 0.825
    2016 0.933
    2017 0.845
    2018 0.763
    2019 0.891
    2020 0.922

    And the anomaly based on their 1986-2005 baseline for these years is
    2012 0.22885
    2013 0.27485
    2014 0.32385
    2015 0.47585
    2016 0.58385
    2017 0.49585
    2018 0.41385
    2019 0.54185
    2020 0.57285


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    I don't have a source yet. I was just told by head of marketing that they had received this information. I intend on finding out more.

    I work for a large American Corporation.
    Pre Covid they removed stainless steel cutlery in favour of biodegradable cutlery.
    They also removed Irish bottled water for aluminum water cans from Italy.
    No more plastic lids on salad containers.

    They rolled back on all three, turns out stainless steel cutlery is better, uses less water and has 1 time only transport.
    Water cans were removed as people buy bottles mostly for the convience of being able to close.
    Folks buying salads on the go wanted to be able to seal them.

    In fairness their report on the changes and mistakes they made was quite open. Mistakes were made and they rolled back, I can respect that. There was also a hit on the canteens bottom line.

    I would like to see an alternative to plastic bottles tho, they brought in half price beverages for any one using reusable bottles/containers. that worked a treat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Lowess figure

    Doesn't really matter if you use Giss or HadCrut figures

    Is there text data available for all of those ensemble lines? Wouldn't take too long to rustle up a graph as opposed to just drawing on an already created one.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,122 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I don't have a source yet. I was just told by head of marketing that they had received this information. I intend on finding out more.

    This is the kind of thing that can be interpreted in many different ways. How do you measure the full cost of extracting the oil, purifying it, converting it plastic, converting it to plastic film, shipping it to packaging centres, then the end of life cost, the cost of disposing of the waste responsibly, and the costs of the percentage of packaging that gets irresponsibly disposed of and ends up in the environment where it can break down and enter the food chain, or persist for a long period of time

    Compared with the costs end to end from reprocessing paper into recycled packaging
    And then there are the costs associated with the role packaging plays in reducing wastage, if the packaging is inadequate, it could cause damage to the product in transit or storage, and with food, loose fruit and veg tends to get bruised and broken so is it better to protect them better with to reduce spoilage, or accept more spoilage to reduce package waste.

    Its certainly an interesting question and a useful exercise but i would be a bit skeptical of claims without seeing the basis underneath them


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,122 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »

    Is there text data available for all of those ensemble lines? Wouldn't take too long to rustle up a graph as opposed to just drawing on an already created one.

    https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/t...nalysis_gl.txt

    I've attached a graph I made with this data
    541349.png


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Akrasia wrote: »
    This DIY 'science' where reputable papers in peer reviewed journals are 'debunked' with a back of the envelope calculation from someone who thinks they know more than the PHD climate scientists who wrote and reviewed the papers is a major cause of misinformation on this important topic. I see it all the time where people on blogs falsely manipulate data either through malice or incompetence, and then use this this to 'debunk' actual scientific findings
    Its nauseating, and a constant feature of this forum, just look at the embarrassing contributions from the people who are supposed to be moderating this "science" forum in the last couple of pages and on previous threads and you'll see how it was allowed to get so bad.

    You'll have to wonder if this error (although its suspicious that the "error" just happened to support what they wanted the data to say rather than what it actually said) will make this person reevaluate their position or will they just quickly forget and go looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support their confirmation bias.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Akrasia wrote: »
    do you have a source for this?

    How did they measure this?

    Big plastic


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »

    Thanks, but 'page not found'.
    Also, a tip for creating charts based around anomalies (zero line). It is considered bad practice not to give equal weighting to the positive and negative values in the Y-Axis because it doesn't give a true sense of scale.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Thargor wrote: »
    Its nauseating, and a constant feature of this forum, just look at the embarrassing contributions from the people who are supposed to be moderating this "science" forum in the last couple of pages and on previous threads and you'll see how it was allowed to get so bad.

    You'll have to wonder if this error (although its suspicious that the "error" just happened to support what they wanted the data to say rather than what it actually said) will make this person reevaluate their position or will they just quickly forget and go looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support their confirmation bias.

    Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder here. I'll say one thing, I have learned more about all things weather and climate from these people you call 'embarrassing' than I ever have from the likes of you, or those you place up on a pedestal because they have a PhD.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Nope, I plotted the unsmoothed figures not the Lowess figure

    Doesn't really matter if you use Giss or HadCrut figures, you still plotted them wrong and they show pretty much the same temperature anomaly (no difference on my not very accurate MS paint graph)

    https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis_gl.txt
    The HADCRUT5 1986-2005 average is 0.34915

    The temperature anomaly based on their baseline is
    2012 0.578
    2013 0.624
    2014 0.673
    2015 0.825
    2016 0.933
    2017 0.845
    2018 0.763
    2019 0.891
    2020 0.922

    And the anomaly based on their 1986-2005 baseline for these years is
    2012 0.22885
    2013 0.27485
    2014 0.32385
    2015 0.47585
    2016 0.58385
    2017 0.49585
    2018 0.41385
    2019 0.54185
    2020 0.57285
    Thargor wrote: »
    Its nauseating, and a constant feature of this forum, just look at the embarrassing contributions from the people who are supposed to be moderating this "science" forum in the last couple of pages and on previous threads and you'll see how it was allowed to get so bad.

    You'll have to wonder if this error (although its suspicious that the "error" just happened to support what they wanted the data to say rather than what it actually said) will make this person reevaluate their position or will they just quickly forget and go looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support their confirmation bias.

    Ok, hands up, I made a mistake. I'm not sure what happened between updating the file. It was not all done in one go. If I remember correctly I plotted up to 2015 in one go and then updated yearly from 2016. I've lost my data file as I have a new computer so I can't go back and see how the error arose but having looked at it in more detail now I see that Akrasia is right and my post-2015 years were indeed incorrect. Mea culpa.

    Yes, it changes things slightly in that the observations have now recovered and are in the middle of the members instead of along the lowest ones, as was the case up to 2012. I'll wait for them to start going towards the upper members before I change my opinion. As with the 2005-2012 period, they could go either way again.

    So there you go. I made a mistake and owned up to it. Despite what you say it was not deliberate, so you should maybe retract that comment. I don't go "looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support my confirmation bias", so you can also retract that comment while you're at it. The chart and data were taken from reputable sources (I assume you classify the IPCC and Hadley Centre so?).


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Did big plastic spin that fast ball at you.
    So big plastic then.
    Big plastic

    Have you some fetish for large plastic items or something? Is there anything of actual value you can add to the forum instead of hiding in the grass and peashooting out snide remarks?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Have you some fetish for large plastic items or something? Is there anything of actual value you can add to the forum instead of hiding in the grass and peashooting out snide remarks?

    Come on if you can’t take a joke!

    I’d be very sceptical of any information from some lad in marketing I mean it’s a spin department generally.

    Also look up the word fetish.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Come on if you can’t take a joke!

    I’d be very sceptical of any information from some lad in marketing I mean it’s a spin department generally.

    Also look up the word fetish.

    You don't know what you're talking about, again. You know nothing of the circumstances or business involved, not least the fact that Marketing were all for the removal of plastic, as they too get sucked into the green vortex.

    PS. The head of marketing is a woman.


  • Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    MeHappy wrote: »
    OAA has had a chance to look back on all the weather and climate disasters of 2020. And like many other aspects of 2020, the numbers we're seeing aren't positive.

    2020 officially broke the record for most $1 billion disasters. The 22 costliest events shattered numbers previously set by 16 separate billion-dollar disasters in 2011 and 2017.

    Dollars is a ridiculous way to measure anything. Gone with the wind sold most seats but because tickets are x15 more expensive, Avengers is most successful


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,122 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Ok, hands up, I made a mistake. I'm not sure what happened between updating the file. It was not all done in one go. If I remember correctly I plotted up to 2015 in one go and then updated yearly from 2016. I've lost my data file as I have a new computer so I can't go back and see how the error arose but having looked at it in more detail now I see that Akrasia is right and my post-2015 years were indeed incorrect. Mea culpa.

    Yes, it changes things slightly in that the observations have now recovered and are in the middle of the members instead of along the lowest ones, as was the case up to 2012. I'll wait for them to start going towards the upper members before I change my opinion. As with the 2005-2012 period, they could go either way again.

    So there you go. I made a mistake and owned up to it. Despite what you say it was not deliberate, so you should maybe retract that comment. I don't go "looking for more inaccurate articles and graphs that support my confirmation bias", so you can also retract that comment while you're at it. The chart and data were taken from reputable sources (I assume you classify the IPCC and Hadley Centre so?).

    Thank you for admitting that your graph was wrong. I have made plenty of mistakes myself in the past so won’t hold it against you

    What I am concerned about is that you still didn’t change your mind. You posted a graph showing that climate projections were overstating warming as evidence for your belief, you were shown that the graph was wrong and the projections in the models were actually very accurate, but you still don’t want to accept the evidence.

    The problem with climate change is that by the time we have enough observable evidence that the models were right, it’s too late to fix the problem. At some point we need to trust that climate scientists know what they are doing, and that point was years ago, not years from now

    This is why I keep saying that ‘the science is settled’
    It’s not that every single question has been answered, it’s that we have enough scientific evidence to know we need to act to avoid dangerous climate change. The question then becomes what actions are realistic on the scale required to make a difference.

    Gaoth Laidir. You’re no fool. You must be starting to doubt things you used to argue for, like climate sensitivity being less than half a degree C by now?

    It’s ok to change your mind when you’re convinced by the best available evidence.

    As I have said on here many times,I think individual action is no longer anywhere close to enough to prevent disaster. I have been consistently advocating global multilateral strategies to deliberately transition to carbon neutral economies.

    You can’t vote with your wallet to stop dangerous climate change, you need to vote with your vote, and act with your voice, and your conscience, and be prepared to take a little bit of pain to facilitate a transition to a sustainable global economy, which is the only chance we have of prospering beyond the next few generations


Advertisement