Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
28-01-2021, 18:37   #61
Oneiric 3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdnuts View Post
According to that "Green" media darling Carla Augustberg on Newstalk this lunchtime - by driving electric cars and building windmills here, they will get fewer hurricanes in the US These media clowns continue to drag climate science threw the mud
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.
Oneiric 3 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
28-01-2021, 18:41   #62
Birdnuts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiric 3 View Post
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
Birdnuts is offline  
Thanks from:
28-01-2021, 19:31   #63
Thelonious Monk
Registered User
 
Thelonious Monk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 7,033
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.
Thelonious Monk is offline  
28-01-2021, 21:10   #64
Banana Republic 1
Registered User
 
Banana Republic 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
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.
Banana Republic 1 is offline  
28-01-2021, 23:00   #65
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1 View Post
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.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
28-01-2021, 23:22   #66
Tyrone212
Registered User
 
Tyrone212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
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%?
Tyrone212 is offline  
28-01-2021, 23:29   #67
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone212 View Post
At least some? 5 10 15%?
I didn't get details, only that it was enough to revise our strategy.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
29-01-2021, 08:44   #68
Banana Republic 1
Registered User
 
Banana Republic 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
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.
Banana Republic 1 is offline  
29-01-2021, 08:51   #69
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno View Post
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
Akrasia is offline  
Advertisement
29-01-2021, 09:29   #70
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1 View Post
So big plastic then.
If you want to think that that's what we do then go ahead and humour yourself.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
29-01-2021, 11:09   #71
Banana Republic 1
Registered User
 
Banana Republic 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
If you want to think that that's what we do then go ahead and humour yourself.
I already have,
Banana Republic 1 is offline  
29-01-2021, 11:20   #72
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
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/g...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

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
Attached Images
File Type: png temperature graph.png (262.6 KB, 54 views)
Akrasia is offline  
(3) thanks from:
29-01-2021, 11:41   #73
Gaoth Laidir
Registered User
 
Gaoth Laidir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
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/g...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

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.
Gaoth Laidir is offline  
29-01-2021, 12:19   #74
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pa ElGrande View Post
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.
Akrasia is offline  
29-01-2021, 12:32   #75
Akrasia
Registered User
 
Akrasia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir View Post
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?
Akrasia is offline  
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