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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1464749515256

Comments

  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Batteries decline in charging power over time and you are also forgetting the energy used in their manufacturing
    The energy used in their manufacture is included and you only manufacture them once and use several thousand times as opposed to fossil fuel which is burnt only once.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Lithium batteries will be used thousands of times in vehicles, then spend their retirement as powerwalls aiding renewable energy adoption, then they'll be recycled into new batteries. Laughable to compare them negatively to burning fossil fuels in an internal combustion engine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The US pays 20bn a year in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry a year Do you have 40 other failed .5bn projects a year to balance out your post?

    What a very misleading statement in terms of the language used. The USA does not "subsidise" the fossil fuel industry.

    A casual Irish person reading that would through no fault of their own conjure up an image of Trump sending out cheques to the CEOs of these fossil fuel companies totalling US$20 Billion. (when taking the agricultural EU CAP scheme here into account).

    What Trump and pretty much every previous administration, including the beloved Obama have done is given special tax rates to these companies.

    In other words they pay less tax on their turnover - this action provides energy security and supply (where renewables cannot) and has recently turned the USA into a net exporter of fossil fuel energy. These actions have created thousands of jobs for American workers.

    I have read: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs and one of the most alarming points made in it was:
    another source of federal aid to the fossil fuel industry is the discounted cost of leasing federal lands for fossil fuel extraction. Some fossil fuel subsidies provide public assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which assists low-income households with heating costs.

    This "subsidy" which is similar to the "Fuel Allowance Scheme" in Ireland and provides winter time top-up payments to the elderly and the unemployed to purchase heating is also attracting the ire of the Green Lobby.

    It's amazing how the Green Lobby don't have any issue with "subsidies" (as they call them) for brand new EVs (which directly benefit the rich), a ~tripling/quadrupling~ of the PSO levy to actually subsidise the wind turbines in Ireland. Crickets on that one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    No they don't - and expansion of NG tech has reduced emmissions there far more quickly then the likes of Germany and their colossal spend on Wind subs for which they still use coal as their biggest source of energy

    Yes they do and the 20bn figure is a very conservative figure
    https://www.iea.org/commentaries/fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies-bounced-back-strongly-in-2018


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Danno wrote: »
    What a very misleading statement in terms of the language used. The USA does not "subsidise" the fossil fuel industry.

    A casual Irish person reading that would through no fault of their own conjure up an image of Trump sending out cheques to the CEOs of these fossil fuel companies totalling US$20 Billion. (when taking the agricultural EU CAP scheme here into account).

    What Trump and pretty much every previous administration, including the beloved Obama have done is given special tax rates to these companies.

    In other words they pay less tax on their turnover - this action provides energy security and supply (where renewables cannot) and has recently turned the USA into a net exporter of fossil fuel energy. These actions have created thousands of jobs for American workers.

    I have read: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs and one of the most alarming points made in it was:



    This "subsidy" which is similar to the "Fuel Allowance Scheme" in Ireland and provides winter time top-up payments to the elderly and the unemployed to purchase heating is also attracting the ire of the Green Lobby.

    It's amazing how the Green Lobby don't have any issue with "subsidies" (as they call them) for brand new EVs (which directly benefit the rich), a ~tripling/quadrupling~ of the PSO levy to actually subsidise the wind turbines in Ireland. Crickets on that one.

    Subsidizing polluting industries is a bad idea when there is a cleaner alternative that is struggling to compete with the dirty industry on price

    The subsidies to help low income households pay for energy should be targeted at sustainable energy solutions, better insulation, only allow them to use the subsidy to pay for renewable energy


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Subsidizing polluting industries is a bad idea when there is a cleaner alternative that is struggling to compete with the dirty industry on price...

    As I clearly outlined they're not. They receive tax breaks, no government department is sending them cheques.

    The alternatives are getting subsidies in the traditional sense, I earlier outlined how US$537 million was lost on a vanity solar energy project - the second such instance that the public are aware of.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    The subsidies to help low income households pay for energy should be targeted at sustainable energy solutions, better insulation, only allow them to use the subsidy to pay for renewable energy

    Poorer people who cannot afford to change can freeze to death? Meanwhile you have no issues with grants for new EVs - these grants only help the already rich. This attitude from the green movement is alarming. Class warfare.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Thargor wrote: »
    Lithium batteries will be used thousands of times in vehicles, then spend their retirement as powerwalls aiding renewable energy adoption, then they'll be recycled into new batteries. Laughable to compare them negatively to burning fossil fuels in an internal combustion engine.

    Its laughable that you would come out with nonsense like that when the reality of the industry is so different -as we speak vast amounts of wind farm related junk like blades etc. is simply dumped in landfills - and then there is the devastating affect of mining for rare-earth metals and their medium term supply issues. You sound like those melons who 10 years ago told us diesel engines were the answer to everything:rolleyes:

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    The energy used in their manufacture is included and you only manufacture them once and use several thousand times as opposed to fossil fuel which is burnt only once.

    Included where?? Also most of the time the grid will be running on fossil sources eg. Germany despite a vast investment in wind still depends on coal to large extent. The supply issue is another little nugget that the greenwashers ignore

    https://www.mining.com/tesla-warns-upcoming-battery-minerals-shortage/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Its laughable that you would come out with nonsense like that when the reality of the industry is so different -as we speak vast amounts of wind farm related junk like blades etc. is simply dumped in landfills - and then there is the devastating affect of mining for rare-earth metals and their medium term supply issues. You sound like those melons who 10 years ago told us diesel engines were the answer to everything:rolleyes:

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact


    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills.
    Well this bit of whataboutery about something completely unrelated to lithium batteries has certainly convinced me I was wrong, thanks.

    Nothings going to be perfect at the very beginning of a transition to a new way of doing things, wind turbine blades arent being recycled right up until someone starts recycling them or the EU and the rest mandates they be made recyclable. Renewable energy is completely superior to burning fossil fuels in every way no matter whatever failed projects the climate denier blogs are crowing about this week.

    Amazing the concern for the environment from the Boards global warming denial crew every time lithium ion batteries are mentioned, I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on the harmful effects of fossil fuel extraction and combustion?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Danno wrote: »
    As I clearly outlined they're not. They receive tax breaks, no government department is sending them cheques.

    The alternatives are getting subsidies in the traditional sense, I earlier outlined how US$537 million was lost on a vanity solar energy project - the second such instance that the public are aware of.



    Poorer people who cannot afford to change can freeze to death? Meanwhile you have no issues with grants for new EVs - these grants only help the already rich. This attitude from the green movement is alarming. Class warfare.

    It is about time that people began to call into serious question the constant mismanagement of their hard-earned tax money by hyper rewarded and hyper entitled top public servants, Government officials and so called 'experts', not just in the US, but across the entire Occident, and certainly no less in this country. As you rightly say, this is class warfare and these cretins have proved themselves to be the true enemy of the people time and time again. The modern-day aristocracy who are no longer placed under scrutiny by the so called 'guardians of the public interest', but instead, revered by them, as they increasingly turn their ire towards the very people who are providing them with every comfort imaginable without any inkling of gratitude given in return.

    July 1789, we haven't forgotten.

    New Moon



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Danno wrote: »
    As I clearly outlined they're not. They receive tax breaks, no government department is sending them cheques.

    The alternatives are getting subsidies in the traditional sense, I earlier outlined how US$537 million was lost on a vanity solar energy project - the second such instance that the public are aware of.



    Poorer people who cannot afford to change can freeze to death? Meanwhile you have no issues with grants for new EVs - these grants only help the already rich. This attitude from the green movement is alarming. Class warfare.

    Tax breaks are subsidies. And I never said poor people should freeze. The terms of their allowance should should just say that they have to use suppliers that get their energy from renewable sources
    It would boost the marketplace for energy companies supplying renewable energy rather than propping up the fossil fuel industry


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Thargor wrote: »
    Well this bit of whataboutery about something completely unrelated to lithium batteries has certainly convinced me I was wrong, thanks.

    Nothings going to be perfect at the very beginning of a transition to a new way of doing things, wind turbine blades arent being recycled right up until someone starts recycling them or the EU and the rest mandates they be made recyclable. Renewable energy is completely superior to burning fossil fuels in every way no matter whatever failed projects the climate denier blogs are crowing about this week.

    Amazing the concern for the environment from the Boards global warming denial crew every time lithium ion batteries are mentioned, I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on the harmful effects of fossil fuel extraction and combustion?

    That statement is laughable and shows a high degree of ignorance concerning the main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss here and elsewhere, not to mention the realities of running a national grid etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Tax breaks are subsidies. And I never said poor people should freeze. The terms of their allowance should should just say that they have to use suppliers that get their energy from renewable sources
    It would boost the marketplace for energy companies supplying renewable energy rather than propping up the fossil fuel industry

    Every business gets "tax breaks" eg. Vat refunds on stationary etc. Comparing such things to the vast subsidies that the wind/solar industry gets is nonsense


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    That statement is laughable and shows a high degree of ignorance concerning the main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss here and elsewhere, not to mention the realities of running a national grid etc.

    I didn't realise lithium ion batteries and wind turbines were the 'main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss', do you have any sources for that?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Every business gets "tax breaks" eg. Vat refunds on stationary etc. Comparing such things to the vast subsidies that the wind/solar industry gets is nonsense
    You think fossil fuels get less subsidies than renewables? And yes tax breaks are subsidies, it being free money and all:

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp
    A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction.


  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    That statement is laughable and shows a high degree of ignorance concerning the main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss here and elsewhere, not to mention the realities of running a national grid etc.
    Thargor wrote: »
    I didn't realise lithium ion batteries and wind turbines were the 'main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss', do you have any sources for that?
    I am going to assume that he is actually referring to biofuels, but has lumped in energy harvesting systems as well.


    I would agree with that statement in relation to biofuels but not with wind & solar.
    As for the habitat loss, lithium mining uses far less land than any biofuel crop production.


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


    As for the habitat loss, lithium mining uses far less land than any biofuel crop production.

    Not sure I agree with the downplay of mining here. The current mining is large in of itself, but assuming we were to replace fossil fuels with renewable tech, then the mining would increase by many magnitudes of today mining.

    I know another poster mentioned we could recover the rare earths and metals, but there is a trade off and it's not 100% in 100% out, and currently requires an additional energy input to extract. Further increasing or energy dependency.

    Green energy is not without it's flaws, I agree it's a better source than fossil fuels, but still inferior to nuclear. Fossil fuel is still the best form of stored energy we have.
    “In Norway, the government tell us we have to sacrifice our fjords to mine copper for clean energy,” said Silje Karine Muotka, a member of the indigenous Sámi Parliament, which is fighting a mine proposal in their traditional reindeer herding grounds. “I recognize that we need materials for new technologies, but we should look for ways to get them that do not harm the environment or threaten native culture.”

    https://earthworks.org/media-releases/report-clean-energy-must-not-rely-on-dirty-mining/

    Sacrifice the few for the many, a dangerous path to take.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Thargor wrote: »
    I didn't realise lithium ion batteries and wind turbines were the 'main drivers behind extinction and habitat loss', do you have any sources for that?

    Wind farms have already damaged many peatland and upland habitats in this country - Ireland is currently paying daily fines to the EU over its failure to implement the Birds and Habitat Directives in respect of same.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-fined-eu-court-of-justice-wind-farm-4887792-Nov2019/

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=201271&doclang=EN

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30971658.html

    Similar issue in other parts of the world

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/wind-farms-deliver-a-blow-to-birds-of-prey-says-study/articleshow/66626564.cms


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Yes thats environmental damage, like all human activity really, and fairly minimal at that compared to other industries, hardly the main driver of extinction and habitat loss like you claimed I was ignorant about, also this is a thread about climate change, and raising the temperature and acidity of the oceans as well as all the land based ecosystems plus the sea level rise caused by releasing the stored carbon of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in a short period and the associated greenhouse effect is going to be orders of magnitude worse if we continue with business as usual with our heavily subsidised fossil fuel based economy so Im not even sure what you're arguing with me about tbh. If you're concerned about habitat loss and extinction theres better uses for your time than arguing against moving to cleaner energy systems.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,901 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Thargor wrote:
    Yes thats environmental damage, like all human activity really, and fairly minimal at that compared to other industries, hardly the main driver of extinction and habitat loss like you claimed I was ignorant about, also this is a thread about climate change, and raising the temperature and acidity of the oceans as well as all the land based ecosystems plus the sea level rise caused by releasing the stored carbon of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in a short period and the associated greenhouse effect is going to be orders of magnitude worse if we continue with business as usual with our heavily subsidised fossil fuel based economy so Im not even sure what you're arguing with me about tbh. If you're concerned about habitat loss and extinction theres better uses for your time than arguing against moving to cleaner energy systems.


    Would probably help though, moving to cleaner energy systems


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Thargor wrote: »
    Yes thats environmental damage, like all human activity really, and fairly minimal at that compared to other industries, hardly the main driver of extinction and habitat loss like you claimed I was ignorant about, also this is a thread about climate change, and raising the temperature and acidity of the oceans as well as all the land based ecosystems plus the sea level rise caused by releasing the stored carbon of millions of years worth of fossil fuels in a short period and the associated greenhouse effect is going to be orders of magnitude worse if we continue with business as usual with our heavily subsidised fossil fuel based economy so Im not even sure what you're arguing with me about tbh. If you're concerned about habitat loss and extinction theres better uses for your time than arguing against moving to cleaner energy systems.

    Yeah - but that "activity" is not masquerading as "green" is it?? If you add in the likes of biofuels from Palm oil, large Hydro dams etc, it adds up to a very significant amount of habitat and biodiversity loss which certain elements of the "Green" movement are either wholly ignorant of or don't care

    PS: Your claims about sea-level rise etc. are based on nothing more then extreme scaremongering which distracts from current and real threats to biodiversity.


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


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Would probably help though, moving to cleaner energy systems

    I don't know that anyone is arguing that.

    I think most of the debate around green energy is that it's not the fairy dust solution that the majority think it is, least not how politicians and the media have portrayed.
    Green energy has been painted as squeaky clean, which it is clearly not. The reality of current green energy is it's dirty and completely dependent on fossil fuel for raw materials, manufacture, distribution and installation.

    'Evil' oil companies will be replaced by 'evil' renewable energy companies. In all likelihood both industries at some stage are going to be dependent on one another.

    The level of habitat loss required to sustain current energy demands and future production will be the new problem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,901 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Nabber wrote:
    I think most of the debate around green energy is that it's not the fairy dust solution that the majority think it is, least not how politicians and the media have portrayed. Green energy has been painted as squeaky clean, which it is clearly not. The reality of current green energy is it's dirty and completely dependent on fossil fuel for raw materials, manufacture, distribution and installation.

    I do agree, I'm not completely convinced renewables can fill the gap of fossil fuels, and I also think a combination of nuclear will be required, but that ll be a difficult one to implement, we may have to wait until it's urgently needed, before society accepts this need. Naturally, since we re currently fossil fuel junkies, it's gonna take time to purge the system of them, until we completely end their usage, we will remain to have this 'dirty' element, but it should reduce over time, as renewables come online, it will take time though.
    Nabber wrote:
    'Evil' oil companies will be replaced by 'evil' renewable energy companies. In all likelihood both industries at some stage are going to be dependent on one another.

    They already rely on each other, as explained above, maybe nuclear will actually become the new 'evil', or even 'more evil' than it currently already is

    Nabber wrote:
    The level of habitat loss required to sustain current energy demands and future production will be the new problem.


    Unfortunately I also agree here to a degree, our power needs are astonishing, we need to keep working on making everything more power efficient, we need to dramatically change our production systems, and the whole way we think about economics. this will be a monumental task, possibly the single most complex problem ever to face humanity, this wont be easy. We ve approached economics in an extremely dangerous way, and not just environmentally, the fundamentals of which are deeply flawed, we largely haven't accepted this yet, if we truly want to save ourselves and this planet, this to will have to be addressed also, and it's becoming a matter of urgency now, again, not just environmentally.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Yeah - but that "activity" is not masquerading as "green" is it?? If you add in the likes of biofuels from Palm oil, large Hydro dams etc, it adds up to a very significant amount of habitat and biodiversity loss which certain elements of the "Green" movement are either wholly ignorant of or don't care

    PS: Your claims about sea-level rise etc. are based on nothing more then extreme scaremongering which distracts from current and real threats to biodiversity.
    You do realise theres a massive ecological cost to fossil based industry aswell dont you? Coal in particular? Its a question of efficiency, and moving to a broad mix of closed loop renewable systems and nuclear is the way forward. And no its not scaremongering its well proven scientific fact.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    To get the topic back on track, A recent study has narrowed down the range of climate sensitivity from the previous 1.5c - 4.5c to basically remove the lower estimates and put the lower end of the range to 2.6c while keeping the upper range at 4.1c with the likely ECS being about 3c


    The lowest range of 2.6c would be a calamaty while 4.1c would result extreme consequences that would transform many parts of the world unrecognisably from how they have been for the entire history of human civilisation

    There should be absolutely zero argument about our need to reduce GHG emissions asap to avoid doubling our atmospheric CO2 concentrations, instead we should be focusing on which renewable or carbon neutral technologies we should be focusing on (The answer is likely to be a complex mix of Solar, Wind, Hydrogen, Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal)

    We need to be leaving the vast majority of our proven oil and gas reserves underground if we are to avoid changing the atmosphere from 280ppm (pre industrial) to 700-900 ppm and a level not seen since 50 million years ago (when there were no ice caps)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Thargor wrote: »
    You do realise theres a massive ecological cost to fossil based industry aswell dont you? Coal in particular? Its a question of efficiency, and moving to a broad mix of closed loop renewable systems and nuclear is the way forward. And no its not scaremongering its well proven scientific fact.

    It's a double whammy, Strip mining of Coal, peat, Driling for oil etc all have their immediate local environmental consequences, but on top of this there is the long term cumulative impact of the emissions released through burning these fuels as well as the impact on human health from reduced air quality and smog

    Mining materials to make batteries for electric cars is a once off cost with a much cleaner life cycle in the aftermath.

    I know there currently are not enough regulations in place regarding the future recycing of spent batteries to recover the valuable metals and elements but this is just another engineering problem that we will need to address through regulations and new industrial processes to ensure that the elements are recycled in a environmentally sustainably way

    And on top of this, new battery technologies are in development that use far less problematic elements (things like carbon, and sodium)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    To get the topic back on track, A recent study has narrowed down the range of climate sensitivity from the previous 1.5c - 4.5c to basically remove the lower estimates and put the lower end of the range to 2.6c while keeping the upper range at 4.1c with the likely ECS being about 3c


    The lowest range of 2.6c would be a calamaty while 4.1c would result extreme consequences that would transform many parts of the world unrecognisably from how they have been for the entire history of human civilisation

    There should be absolutely zero argument about our need to reduce GHG emissions asap to avoid doubling our atmospheric CO2 concentrations, instead we should be focusing on which renewable or carbon neutral technologies we should be focusing on (The answer is likely to be a complex mix of Solar, Wind, Hydrogen, Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal)

    We need to be leaving the vast majority of our proven oil and gas reserves underground if we are to avoid changing the atmosphere from 280ppm (pre industrial) to 700-900 ppm and a level not seen since 50 million years ago (when there were no ice caps)

    Link?


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


    Link?

    Perhaps this one https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/inpress/inpress_Sherwood_sh02800e.pdf

    Akrasia can correct if it is wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Nabber wrote: »
    Perhaps this one https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/inpress/inpress_Sherwood_sh02800e.pdf

    Akrasia can correct if it is wrong.

    Yeah that’s the paper. Sorry I thought I included the link in my post but obviously forgot to paste it in


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


    A carbon fee is crucial, but not enough. Countries such as India and China need massive amounts of energy to raise living standards. The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries. Worse, tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.
    James Hansen ,June 26, 2018

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/26/thirty-years-later-what-needs-change-our-approach-climate-change/dUhizA5ubUSzJLJVZqv6GP/story.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Nabber wrote: »

    He goes on to argue that we should include Next Generation Nuclear technology in the energy mix


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,901 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Akrasia wrote:
    He goes on to argue that we should include Next Generation Nuclear technology in the energy mix


    I think he's right


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


    Akrasia wrote: »
    He goes on to argue that we should include Next Generation Nuclear technology in the energy mix

    What's your own opinion on nuclear energy?

    Seems like a taboo subject when it comes to Climate change and more notably with our own green party.
    Who if memory servers were against Nuclear energy because of the mining involved. Totally ignoring the mining required with wind and solar alternatives.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,901 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Nabber wrote:
    Seems like a taboo subject when it comes to Climate change and more notably with our own green party. Who if memory servers were against Nuclear energy because of the mining involved. Totally ignoring the mining required with wind and solar alternatives.


    Our green party can be very incoherent at times, their ideas come across as being a bit daft at times, we ll all know about it, if we start running outta power in the future, via renewables, I think nuclear needs to be seriously looked at. I think the greens have a serious pr problem, I suspect most citizens are concerned about the environment, but the greens are one of least liked parties, there's something wrong there!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0227/1117988-storms-ireland/

    I'm actually surprised this got published given the current mantra about "bad" weather of recent years being "unprecedented"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Hooter23


    Well at least Rte name there climate change documentary correctly "Hot Air" because thats all it is....


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


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2020/0227/1117988-storms-ireland/

    I'm actually surprised this got published given the current mantra about "bad" weather of recent years being "unprecedented"

    There is no consensus that AGW causes or will cause more serve weather.
    Rather what we see a move towards - it's warmer so now something will happen.
    No matter what part of the global, no matter the weather type, no matter the frequency in the past or the past records, that weather disaster will be tied to AGW.

    There are number of scientist to blame, but it's predominately the media, who pre 1960s would have us believe that there was never a flood, storm, drought, heat wave, snow storm, tornado or hurricane. Coupled with news on demand from 1000s of sources across the globe with instance access.
    If folks take a walk down memory lane, there was a time where news was local/national, only major international events were covered. We didn't have a constant bombardment of global events or 24 news channels, looking for anything and everything to fill up their news segments.

    What is not mentioned and often ignored is deaths from weather related disasters has dropped. Considering property development on sea/water fronts, across floodplains and in areas prone to Forrest fires, you'd expect the opposite is likely. The media have considerable amount of people in a frenzy over the dangers that have yet to materialise.

    523522.png
    https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters


    IMO I feel that AGW Theorist are trying to have their cake and eat it.
    • Temps below average in a particular area = weather not climate
    • Temps above average in a particular area = climate change not weather

    number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,584 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    In fairness, the deaths from natural disasters are dropping off in large part due to better warning systems and the good luck involved in not having had mass-casualty earthquakes which have nothing to do with the subject matter here anyway. Back in the decade 1900-09, there were big death tolls in Reggio Italy from an earthquake and from the Galveston hurricane (no effective warning), as well as the volcanic eruption on some island in the Caribbean. Those three alone killed more than 100k people. The 1970 tropical cyclone disaster in Bangladesh killed 250,000 and the 1976 earthquake in China killed half a million or more.

    Meanwhile let's say Michael had hit Panama City full force instead of Mexico Beach and it was 1900 not 2018, then you could have easily seen a 10k to 30k death toll. That was a difference of about five miles in landfall (and 118 years in communications technology).

    So deaths from disasters cannot really be used very effectively by any side in this complicated debate.


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


    In fairness, the deaths from natural disasters are dropping off in large part due to better warning systems.

    Agreed. It's also better building materials, building standards/regulations, emergency responses ect....

    When the above fail then it's usually catastrophic and attributed to AGW.
    I removed Volcanoes and earthquakes from the data above as they are not weather phenomenon.

    As the impact of death tolls has reduced, extreme events are in the media at least measured in dollar destruction value. Which has increased.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    In fairness, the deaths from natural disasters are dropping off in large part due to better warning systems and the good luck involved in not having had mass-casualty earthquakes which have nothing to do with the subject matter here anyway. Back in the decade 1900-09, there were big death tolls in Reggio Italy from an earthquake and from the Galveston hurricane (no effective warning), as well as the volcanic eruption on some island in the Caribbean. Those three alone killed more than 100k people. The 1970 tropical cyclone disaster in Bangladesh killed 250,000 and the 1976 earthquake in China killed half a million or more.

    Meanwhile let's say Michael had hit Panama City full force instead of Mexico Beach and it was 1900 not 2018, then you could have easily seen a 10k to 30k death toll. That was a difference of about five miles in landfall (and 118 years in communications technology).

    So deaths from disasters cannot really be used very effectively by any side in this complicated debate.
    Nabber wrote: »
    Agreed. It's also better building materials, building standards/regulations, emergency responses ect....

    When the above fail then it's usually catastrophic and attributed to AGW.
    I removed Volcanoes and earthquakes from the data above as they are not weather phenomenon.

    As the impact of death tolls has reduced, extreme events are in the media at least measured in dollar destruction value. Which has increased.

    But...but...we are being told that the AGW-related weather events are already having increasingly devastating effects all around the world. A mass extinction is being spoken about. Whole nations wiped out by rising seas. Huge numbers being killed by floods/droughts/heatwaves/snowstorms/fires/... How come the chart doesn't show that? Ah, it must be the y-axis scale and growing global population. I see...


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


    And it begins
    Clifden flooding a stark warning of extremes to come in Ireland - climate expert
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/clifden-flooding-a-stark-warning-of-extremes-to-come-in-ireland-climate-expert-1.4346073


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Nabber wrote: »

    Yeah - apparently "bad" weather only arrived since we started naming storms:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Am I the only one who is getting just a little bit sick and tired of listening to these randomly chosen 'experts' by the press? And I really doubt the Atlantic was 'silky smooth' as an ex tropical storm was passing over it.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Well yesterday in the Clifden thread I predicted that Professor Sweeney from Maynooth would be on spouting this ****e. Seems I was wrong, it was his colleague. :cool:

    I suppose the Merrion Square flood of 1963 didn't happen. Or the stormy month of August 1986. No, they couldn't have, they only happen nowadays.

    These ICARUS guys have a job to do and it serves their interest to make these claims, but it does indeed get tiresome hearing it time after time. The Clifden rain wasn't in fact linked to ex-Laura. That moisture headed north out to our west and it more tied up in the trough that will come down tonight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Well yesterday in the Clifden thread I predicted that Professor Sweeney from Maynooth would be on spouting this ****e. Seems I was wrong, it was his colleague. :cool:

    Sloppy. Do better next time.

    tenor.gif

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,584 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    That recent flood really seemed to me like one part weather, two parts land management.

    As you know I've taken an exhaustive look at Toronto's weather records, and there's a new record situation waiting to happen for sure, somehow in 181 years of data, the downtown station has never had more than 100 mm of rain in a calendar day or 150 mm in two consecutive days, while around the region (of south central Ontario) lots of stations with shorter periods have managed to record 150 mm in one calendar day and 200 in two consecutive. It's only a matter of time until the right situation delivers at the downtown location and then of course it will be open season for "experts" to proclaim a major shift in climate.

    My overall impression is that extreme rainfall events are either steady state or in a slight decline over time since the 19th century. This seems to be the case in most climate regions. There's no particular reason why a slight warming trend would increase rainfalls in any given location, given the complexity of precipitation forcing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    That recent flood really seemed to me like one part weather, two parts land management.

    As you know I've taken an exhaustive look at Toronto's weather records, and there's a new record situation waiting to happen for sure, somehow in 181 years of data, the downtown station has never had more than 100 mm of rain in a calendar day or 150 mm in two consecutive days, while around the region (of south central Ontario) lots of stations with shorter periods have managed to record 150 mm in one calendar day and 200 in two consecutive. It's only a matter of time until the right situation delivers at the downtown location and then of course it will be open season for "experts" to proclaim a major shift in climate.

    My overall impression is that extreme rainfall events are either steady state or in a slight decline over time since the 19th century. This seems to be the case in most climate regions. There's no particular reason why a slight warming trend would increase rainfalls in any given location, given the complexity of precipitation forcing.

    In the past 100 years with the rapid increase in the world population, more and more people are forced to live in vulnereable zones like Deltas and steep hillsides - worse this tends to destroy the buffering of natural vegetation that help mitigate storm surges, heavy rainfall and the likes in such areas eg Hurricane Katrina was so destructive due to the mass drainage/destruction of the Mississipee Delta over the last 150 years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    'Vote, as early as you can, for a habitable planet'.

    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1304058432656494594

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    That recent flood really seemed to me like one part weather, two parts land management.

    ...

    The RTE report from Clifden detailed the locations of the flooding from the sudden rise of the Owenglen River.

    Low road
    Riverside
    Clifden Glen Estate

    All located beside the river. The report also detailed that water levels in the river were subject to tidal fluctuations. Given known 50 / 100 flood cycles chances it was likley to happen sooner or later.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    'Vote, as early as you can, for a habitable planet'.

    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1304058432656494594

    Yep, because carbon dioxide caused the fireworks that started that fire.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement