Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
18-01-2021, 22:38   #31
Banana Republic 1
Registered User
 
Banana Republic 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdnuts View Post
Maybe - but I would rate the likes of plastic contamination of the worlds oceans, degradation of soil via intensive farming, loss of biodiversitry via habitat destruction etc. as far graver threats in that space than the hysteria generated by climate alarmists.
All those things you mentioned are part and a result of the current economic structure.
Banana Republic 1 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
19-01-2021, 02:49   #32
Nabber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1 View Post
All those things you mentioned are part and a result of the current economic structure.
Some of it is by ignorance, most of it by greed.

I’d prefer a model where investment in raising education and lowering poverty is the number one goal. If we raise our collective brain power we’d solve the issues, if we can’t solve the issue well then at least we are providing a better life before the ‘end’.

On the topic of warmer seas, what was the temperature raise? .75c since 1880.
It’s also incredible that ‘reliable’ sea measurements start in 1880, but it still requires adjusting.
Even looking at the data 1934 -.22c jumps to .35c in 1941. That’s a .57c jump.... imagine if that happened from 2013 to 2020, the media wouldn’t be able to contain themselves... Al Gore and Attenborough would be telling us that it’s so warm Mars will be ice free in 5 years
Nabber is offline  
19-01-2021, 07:23   #33
Thelonious Monk
Registered User
 
Thelonious Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 8,251
What do you all think of Biden's stance on climate change? Looks like he's taking it very seriously. How has the president elect being duped into thinking it's real, or is it a conspiracy to make some people richer or what?
Thelonious Monk is offline  
19-01-2021, 11:20   #34
Pa ElGrande
Registered User
 
Pa ElGrande's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk View Post
What do you all think of Biden's stance on climate change? Looks like he's taking it very seriously. How has the president elect being duped into thinking it's real, or is it a conspiracy to make some people richer or what?
That's a topic for Current Affairs/IMHO
Pa ElGrande is offline  
(2) thanks from:
19-01-2021, 15:23   #35
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno View Post
Yes. Hence why I posted the link. Highlighted above is the complete hyperbole of a prediction made. Let's check back here in little under 9 years to see if its hyperbole or truth.

Oh I can guarantee that if we come back in 9 years and those areas on the map that are coloured red under the 'sea level rise' setting are actually under sea level (ie, they flood with just a normal tide unless artificial flood defenses have been installed) someone on here will be saying it's because all the heavy buildings forced the ground to sink or other such nonsense, And someone else will say 'Sure this place used to always flood' when previously, it used to flood during storms, but now it floods during high tide.

https://coastal.climatecentral.org/m...odel=kopp_2014

The article you linked to shows sea level rises with annual flood events. any of the urban places affected by flooding have had flood defenses installed, but we are likely to see these defenses fall short in many areas

Of course, each flood event will follow some series of concurrances, allowing people to say that the reason for the flood was not sea level rises, it was bad luck because there was an onshore wind after a heavy shower on a spring tide and the real cause of the flood was that storm drains were blocked and the new tennis court was built on a flood plain, etc etc etc.

This has been the pattern for hand waving away natural disasters for decades. But now we're seeing the beginning of the 'Blue sky floods'
Where properties are getting damaged by flooding at high tide when there has been no rain or storm surge to blame it on
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaau2736
Quote:
Using these nuisance flood thresholds, Sweet and Park (12) show that the number of hours at nuisance flood stage has increased substantially over time. Across 27 locations in the United States, the number of nuisance flood days has risen from an average of 2.1 days per year during 1956–1960 to 11.8 during 2006–2010. By 2035, nearly 170 coastal communities in the United States are projected to experience flooding more than 26 times per year (13).

Last edited by Akrasia; 19-01-2021 at 15:26.
Akrasia is offline  
Advertisement
19-01-2021, 15:30   #36
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiric 3 View Post
They actually are. Consider, for example, when the hurricane season gets going and anything passed Cat 3 develops, or a heatwave in Europe occurs, or we get a few windy and wet days here in Ireland. These weather events become further proof that climate change is happening and not about weaving up a lucrative narrative at all.
Lucrative narrative?

So people only talk about flooding and hurricanes because they've invested in Sea Wall construction firms and Storm Shutter manufacturers is it?

Your 'follow the money' logic needs to be cast a bit wider to see who is funding all of these 'think tanks' that exist almost purely to cast doubt on climate change and campaign against regulations on polluting industries
Akrasia is offline  
19-01-2021, 15:48   #37
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium View Post
My views were laid out in another thread, climate change 3 -- an alternative to both orthodox climate change and skeptical positions commonly taken.

It has been locked recently after about the fourth off-topic bun fight between the two groups I am trying to join with my third option. That third option basically says considerable warming seems inevitable, whether it's the fault of human beings or not, and the best response is mitigation, not economic disruptions on a huge scale. .
And my views have been laid out in multiple threads across this site where I outline the natural progression of the 'Nothing to see here' climate change 'skeptics'

Phase 1.) Global Warming is not happening, in fact, we're probably heading into a mini ice age (this is abandoned now by all but the nuttiest 'skeptics')

Phase 2.) Ok, so the world seems to be warming, but it's all within natural variability, It'll be cooling again soon (something to do with maunder minimum/solar cycles)

Phase 3.) Ok, so maybe humans are contributing something to climate change, but it's very very small because humans cannot possibly affect the mighty planet earth. Anything we see now is just part of a bigger natural cycle that hasn't been fully accounted for (people like Gaoth laidir are still in this phase)

Phase 4a) Ok, so Humans are warming the planet, but it won't cause any real harm, it might even be good. (Anyone who scoffs at the predictions in scientific papers relating to more harmful, heatwaves, floods, consequences related to lost glaciers and changing rainfall patterns, more powerful storms, loss of biodiversity etc)

Phase 4b) Ok, so humans are warming the planet (along with caveats like 'contributing to' and 'along with natural causes (never defined') but it would cost more to reduce GHG emissions (politically, culturally and economically) so we're better off just building our cities on stilts and living underground anywhere near the tropics (go capitalism!) (MT is here verging on phase 5)

Phase 5) Oops. Sorry everyone, we were wrong, climate change is real, actually, I believed in it fully this whole time and always advocated that we take action to prevent it, but it's too late now, the genie is out of the bottle. We're stuck with it so no point now in even trying to prevent climate change, we should focus entirely on Mitigation. Lets all buy land in Siberia and Canada and Norway and screw everyone who cannot afford to relocate to a less inhospitable climate. (We should probably buy lots of guns to keep them nasty climate refugees out)
Akrasia is offline  
19-01-2021, 16:01   #38
Pa ElGrande
Registered User
 
Pa ElGrande's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
Oh I can guarantee that if we come back in 9 years and those areas on the map that are coloured red under the 'sea level rise' setting are actually under sea level (ie, they flood with just a normal tide unless artificial flood defenses have been installed). . .
It has been noted for some time that the the climate models used to supposedly "prove" humans are controlling the global climate have not successfully predicted anything. That lack of predictive skill invalidates them and relegates them to the science of climate doomology.


Quote:
Claims about the predictive performance of climate models are built on quicksand. Climate modellers claiming predictive skill decades into the future operate in a fantasy world...
<snip>
Climate models cannot be verified or falsified (if at all, because they are so complex) until after the fact. Strictly speaking, they cannot be considered to be legitimate scientific products.

source
Pa ElGrande is offline  
19-01-2021, 16:16   #39
gozunda
Registered User
 
gozunda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 17,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
And my views have been laid out in multiple threads across this site where I outline the natural progression of the 'Nothing to see here' climate change 'skeptics'

Phase 1.) Global Warming is not happening, in fact, we're probably heading into a mini ice age (this is abandoned now by all but the nuttiest 'skeptics')

Phase 2.) Ok, so the world seems to be warming, but it's all within natural variability, It'll be cooling again soon (something to do with maunder minimum/solar cycles)

Phase 3.) Ok, so maybe humans are contributing something to climate change, but it's very very small because humans cannot possibly affect the mighty planet earth. Anything we see now is just part of a bigger natural cycle that hasn't been fully accounted for (people like Gaoth laidir are still in this phase)

Phase 4a) Ok, so Humans are warming the planet, but it won't cause any real harm, it might even be good. (Anyone who scoffs at the predictions in scientific papers relating to more harmful, heatwaves, floods, consequences related to lost glaciers and changing rainfall patterns, more powerful storms, loss of biodiversity etc)

Phase 4b) Ok, so humans are warming the planet (along with caveats like 'contributing to' and 'along with natural causes (never defined') but it would cost more to reduce GHG emissions (politically, culturally and economically) so we're better off just building our cities on stilts and living underground anywhere near the tropics (go capitalism!) (MT is here verging on phase 5)

Phase 5) Oops. Sorry everyone, we were wrong, climate change is real, actually, I believed in it fully this whole time and always advocated that we take action to prevent it, but it's too late now, the genie is out of the bottle. We're stuck with it so no point now in even trying to prevent climate change, we should focus entirely on Mitigation. Lets all buy land in Siberia and Canada and Norway and screw everyone who cannot afford to relocate to a less inhospitable climate. (We should probably buy lots of guns to keep them nasty climate refugees out)
And from reading most of those threads such comments belong more certainly in the deep realms of personalisation and daft generalisations eg 'scientific papers' are not rosetta stones. They can be both criticised and disproved. Nothing there but got forbid anyone should do so ...

But I guess it's good to know that in the field of science and meteorology our knowledge can only have one hue and everything and everybody else is either a heretic or an outright gun toting racist or similar


Last edited by gozunda; 19-01-2021 at 16:24.
gozunda is online now  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
19-01-2021, 19:44   #40
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pa ElGrande View Post
It has been noted for some time that the the climate models used to supposedly "prove" humans are controlling the global climate have not successfully predicted anything. That lack of predictive skill invalidates them and relegates them to the science of climate doomology.
'Noted' only certain in dark corners of the internet where facts are distorted and scientific studies are attacked because of conspiracy theories about scientists chasing grant money
Your source by the way is a well known Climate change denial 'think tank' and the chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton. (Monckton is one of the biggest clowns out there who hasn't got the first clue about science or integrity)

They do not publish in the scientific literature, they write 'essays' where they can say absolutely anything they like without anyone challenging their facts or assumptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienc...licy_Institute


And then there's NASA (supported by a published study by Berkley scientists that appeared in journal Geophysical Research Letters)
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

Last edited by Akrasia; 19-01-2021 at 20:53.
Akrasia is offline  
Thanks from:
19-01-2021, 21:02   #41
Pa ElGrande
Registered User
 
Pa ElGrande's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post

And then there's NASA (supported by a published study by Berkley scientists that appeared in journal Geophysical Research Letters) . . .

You quote Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley. Would you mind mapping the Y axis local examples for the same period (Dublin Airport and Valentia will do) and while you at it can you explain the range of results on the X axis, it seems as we go further to the right the range diverges a lot from the centre.



The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

Quote:
Our study builds upon a growing literature — notably that led by our co-author Justin Ritchie of the University of British Columbia — indicating that commonly used climate scenarios are already well off track and will become increasingly off track. As Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters write in Nature, the highest emissions scenario commonly used in research to represent a “business as usual” trajectory into the future “becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year.


source
Pa ElGrande is offline  
19-01-2021, 21:11   #42
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
'Noted' only certain in dark corners of the internet where facts are distorted and scientific studies are attacked because of conspiracy theories about scientists chasing grant money
Your source by the way is a well known Climate change denial 'think tank' and the chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton. (Monckton is one of the biggest clowns out there who hasn't got the first clue about science or integrity)

They do not publish in the scientific literature, they write 'essays' where they can say absolutely anything they like without anyone challenging their facts or assumptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienc...licy_Institute


And then there's NASA (supported by a published study by Berkley scientists that appeared in journal Geophysical Research Letters)
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/
My oh my, those damn predictions have gotten worse with time, not better. Here are more recent RCP4.5 projections, with actual global observed temperature in black dots. Temperature scraping the bottom of the RCP4.5 members. But let's all ignore that and jump on the worst-case scenario bandwagon and wait for "some urban areas to be entirely under water by 2030".

Gaoth Laidir is offline  
20-01-2021, 18:06   #43
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
My oh my, those damn predictions have gotten worse with time, not better. Here are more recent RCP4.5 projections, with actual global observed temperature in black dots. Temperature scraping the bottom of the RCP4.5 members. But let's all ignore that and jump on the worst-case scenario bandwagon and wait for "some urban areas to be entirely under water by 2030".

1. It's nice to quote your sources. If it's not a peer reviewed journal or at least some professional body , then how can anyone be sure that there weren't errors or omissions in the analysis of the data? Especially given that the data in your graph looks very different to the data on the NASA graph. Your 'observed' temperatures show an increase of .4c between 1990 and 2019 and the NASA version shows observed warming of .9c for the exact same range
That's a massive difference

2.
The RCPs relate to the emissions scenarios. In the RCP scenarios, the emissions are all projected to be about the same until the mid 2010s when they start to diverge as carbon reduction strategies were expected to begin reducing CO2 emissions. The RCP 8.5 scenario most closely matches our current CO2 emissions of on balance about 11.7GtC per year (the net increase in the atmosphere after carbon sinks are accounted for)

Therefore, we cannot really use the RCP scenarios to distinguish early warming before the paths diverge because they're all more or less the same

What we have observed in the past 5 years is a significant increase in the rate of warming. Despite La Nina conditions, our global average temperature has not gone below 1c above pre-industrial since about 2015 despite natural variability such as La Nina that would, absent climate change, have driven global average temperatures below average

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-u...ature-forecast

and to call the statement 'some urban areas to be entirely under water by 2030" a worst case scenario is ridiculous given that I posted a link to a study a few posts ago showing that 'Some Urban areas' are already getting flooded at high tide

I suppose you can call the foreshore of a beach 'above sea level' if it only floods twice a day

Last edited by Akrasia; 20-01-2021 at 19:01.
Akrasia is offline  
Thanks from:
23-01-2021, 01:57   #44
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,694
I am still interested in the difference between Gaoth Laidirs graph and NASAs one. When he gets a chance I hope he responds
Akrasia is offline  
23-01-2021, 02:18   #45
Danno
Moderator
 
Danno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
I am still interested in the difference between Gaoth Laidirs graph and NASAs one. When he gets a chance I hope he responds
Considering it is almost 2am, I'd give him the opportunity of a Friday night's sleep to respond. I'd wager the response will be well worth the wait.
Danno is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet