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

Wanderer78

dense wrote:

Maintaining a set of double standards really seem to be a way of life for those pushing the virtuous pseudo science behind climate justice and a new world order.

What is the crack with all this new world order stuff?

Akrasia

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What is the crack with all this new world order stuff?

It's the root of his ideology.

Dense is a conspiracy theorist who thinks socialists are trying to take over the world and they are using climate change as a vehicle to establish a new world order.

A large section of the 'skeptic' movement online are of a similar world view.

Wanderer78

Akrasia wrote: »

It's the root of his ideology.

Dense is a conspiracy theorist who thinks socialists are trying to take over the world and they are using climate change as a vehicle to establish a new world order.

A large section of the 'skeptic' movement online are of a similar world view.

im aware of this, id like to hear their point of view on it though, thank you. id really wish some of these people done some research though, it would save them and us a headache. theres a lot of great work out there on the internets but unfortunately theres a lot of crap on it to.

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What is the crack with all this new world order stuff?

I'm not sure what you want to know?

Are you unfamiliar with the term?

Did you read the link I provided?

The exact phrase was employed by a climate expert well respected by the EU when she was launching the international renewable agency IRENA with ambitions to be the body controlling and capping independent national economic growth rates while we are collectively transformed into being monitored socialist hunanitarian societies as outlined very clearly by the UNFCCC spokesperson Ms. Christiana Figueres in her "intentional transformation" speech which I have also previously linked to.

It is what it is.

These ARE the clearly stated aims and ambitions of the climate movement and Brid Smith and her ilk.

The thread isn't that long, I'm sure you'll be able to find the links if you really want to.

You have actually heard of Brid Smith and her socialist leanings, Ruth Coppinger and the rest of the raggle taggle alphabet soup bunch who want it all for nothing?

I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this!

Lumi

Mod Note

Dense,

Your New World Order Conspiracy Theories are better suited to the Conspiracy Theories Forum
They have no place on the Weather Forum.
If you have an issue with this then PM the Mod Team - don't further derail this thread

Thanks

Akrasia

A new study published in PNAS (tee hee) shows that sea level rises are accellerating

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115

atellite altimetry has shown that global mean sea level has been rising at a rate of ∼3 ± 0.4 mm/y since 1993. Using the altimeter record coupled with careful consideration of interannual and decadal variability as well as potential instrument errors, we show that this rate is accelerating at 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2, which agrees well with climate model projections. If sea level continues to change at this rate and acceleration, sea-level rise by 2100 (∼65 cm) will be more than double the amount if the rate was constant at 3 mm/y.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

A new study published in PNAS (tee hee) shows that sea level rises are accellerating

That's cold comfort for the worried citizens of Tuvalu who, having long believed their island was in danger of being washed away by rising oceans, were just last week told by scientists that satellites confirm that their island is actually growing in size.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2219001.stm


https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/10222679

"Can I suggest that in biblical terms, it looks like we're being offered 30 pieces of silver to sell our future," Tuvalu's lead negotiator Ian Fry said during the main meeting. "Our future is not for sale."

Ho hum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8421935.stm

Fun fact for the day.... international shipping causes a net cooling effect.

the large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. (Reductions in methane lifetimes due to shipping-based NOx emissions vary between 1.5% and 5% in different calculations) The effect on concentrations of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and O3) and aerosols have differing impacts on the radiation balance of the earth-atmosphere system. Ship-derived aerosols also cause a significant indirect impact, through changes in cloud microphysics.

In summary, most studies so far indicate that ship emissions actually lead to a net global cooling. This net global cooling effect is not being experienced in other transport sectors. However, it should be stressed that the uncertainties with this conclusion are large, in particular for indirect effects, and global temperature is only a first measure of the extent of climate change in any event.

http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-transport/45095528.pdf

Another fun fact, water and diesel (or biodiesel or vegetable oil) can be emulsified and used as a fuel.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016816301958

Water mist injection directly into turbo diesel engines can provide a similar result (water methanol is more common though). LPG fumigation is also a Nox reducer for diesel engines. (This kind of thing is old tech and was used in WW2 fighter plane piston engines). It goes to show that tech needs to be forced by legislation or manufacturers go the laziest route. Its probably far too late for this kind of tech and electric vehicles will punish the manufacturers who dont keep up.

Gaoth Laidir

Well all I know is that in 2008 we crossed the point where we were generating more than 1.21 gigawatts of electrical energy from wind in Ireland! Great scot!

Jakey Rolling

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Well all I know is that in 2008 we crossed the point where we were generating more than 1.21 gigawatts of electrical energy from wind in Ireland! Great scot!

That's great.

At this moment, wind is generating approx 200MW and we are importing approx 1000MW from the UK, some of which will be nuclear generated. Wind production was down to 59MW on 5th Feb.

dense

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

That's great.

At this moment, wind is generating approx 200MW and we are importing approx 1000MW from the UK, some of which will be nuclear generated. Wind production was down to 59MW on 5th Feb.

Yes there is quite some way to go yet before wind power can make any difference to anything in a global context.

Even the combination of global renewables including solar and wind is currently estimated to account for producing less than 8% of global electricity generation.

"Despite high growth rates, renewable energy still represents only a small fraction of today’s global energy consumption. Renewable electricity generation (excluding hydro), is estimated to account for nearly 8% of global electricity generation."

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/renewable-energy.html

Akrasia

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

That's great.

At this moment, wind is generating approx 200MW and we are importing approx 1000MW from the UK, some of which will be nuclear generated. Wind production was down to 59MW on 5th Feb.

This is why inter-connectors are a good idea.

I have absolutely no issue with buying British Nuclear power if we need to.

Future energy grids will have to have a diversity of power generation sources and storage solutions to cope with the the various possible disturbances to supply which include meteorological events and geo political events
(Like oil and gas pipelines getting shut down for geo strategic reasons

Putin, for example threatened to shut off european gas supplies a few years ago.)

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Another fun fact, water and diesel (or biodiesel or vegetable oil) can be emulsified and used as a fuel.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016816301958

Water mist injection directly into turbo diesel engines can provide a similar result (water methanol is more common though). LPG fumigation is also a Nox reducer for diesel engines. (This kind of thing is old tech and was used in WW2 fighter plane piston engines). It goes to show that tech needs to be forced by legislation or manufacturers go the laziest route. Its probably far too late for this kind of tech and electric vehicles will punish the manufacturers who dont keep up.

Bosch actually has a system that injects water to improve efficiency.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/09/06/engine-spray-water-coolant-efficient/

But whenever I see something like that I cant help but think of the supposed "suppressed" fuel efficient engine technologies, so called because they were allegedly suppressed by the illuminati running "big oil". All sounds a bit OTT to me, but it seems a thing for some.

https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/11/Illuminati-Suppress-Water-Powered-Cars.html

But then they also say that big oil is paying the sceptics to be sceptical.......

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Future energy grids will have to have a diversity of power generation sources and storage solutions to cope with the the various possible disturbances to supply which include meteorological events and geo political events
(Like oil and gas pipelines getting shut down for geo strategic reasons

Putin, for example threatened to shut off european gas supplies a few years ago.)

And in Ireland we're just showboating by banning future gas exploration.

And nobody can justify why or quantify what difference it will make.

But we'll use someone else's.
And their nuclear power.

And it's all perfectly ok, because we've sent a very strong signal that it signifies something.

As the author of a letter to the IT about the "emergency measures" concluded:

"It makes as much sense as petitioning the Nigerian government to ban polar bear hunts."

Jakey Rolling

Akrasia wrote: »

This is why inter-connectors are a good idea.

I have absolutely no issue with buying British Nuclear power if we need to.

Agreed, I have no problem with nuclear myself.

It just seems to escape some who decry nuclear and fossil, that we will need to import the same from elsewhere to support a grid that is too dependent on variable output renewables.

Ideally we put enough storage in place to smooth out this variability, along with a geographically spread mix of tidal generators plus solar PV and wind.

Wonder how many more levvies people will accept on their bills to subsidise all this though?

dense

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

Wonder how many more levvies people will accept on their bills to subsidise all this though?

Fair point. But maybe there'll be no problem.

The Citizens Assembly on Climate Change which we are told is representative of society has just voted in favour lots of additional climate change taxes.

A bit more on the leccie won't break the camel's back.

Wanderer78

dense wrote:

The Citizens Assembly on Climate Change which we are told is representative of society has just voted in favour lots of additional climate change taxes.

Let me guess, more taxes on the individual, and not as many on big business? We can't keep doing this, we will keep having more and more people opting out if we keep using the stick approach.

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Let me guess, more taxes on the individual, and not as many on big business? We can't keep doing this, we will keep having more and more people opting out if we keep using the stick approach.

There's a mixture, here's a flavour:

80% of the Members of the CACC said they would be willing to pay higher taxes on carbon intensive activities **

**Qualification 2: An increase in the taxation does not have to be paid by the poorest households (the 400,000 households currently in receipt of fuel allowance).
Qualification 3: It is envisaged that these taxes build year-on-year.

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/How-the-State-can-make-Ireland-a-leader-in-tackling-climate-change/


So those getting, wait for it, a Fuel Allowance to burn fuel should not be taxed more to fight climate change, whereas someone who's not in receipt of it will be.

And no assessment has been made on the effect that any of this will have on climate change.

It all sounds utterly and completely bonkers doesn't it?


Nice to see you over on the other thread BTW!

Wanderer78

dense wrote: »

There's ultimately little difference.

Do you not think taxes on big business just trickle down as costs to their customers anyway?

For example we are using more and more energy efficient items along with more renewable energy yet our electricity prices are going up and not down.

Nice to see you over on the other thread BTW!

my point being, we cant keep beating the individual to address our environmental issues, we must start to address our overall economic processes and systems, including at the individual level, as we have been, i.e. the end user is not the whole problem, but our approach to date has been to ultimately point the finger at the individual, and to effectively tax the individual both directly and indirectly. this will not work in the long run.

i will agree with you though, taxing big business can and does indeed lead to a trickle down effect of cost onto the individual, maybe its time for different approaches to address these issues?

maybe the increase of energy costs is linked to things such as 'rent extraction' by the 'rentier class'?

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

my point being, we cant keep beating the individual to address our environmental issues, we must start to address our overall economic processes and systems, including at the individual level, as we have been, i.e. the end user is not the whole problem, but our approach to date has been to ultimately point the finger at the individual, and to effectively tax the individual both directly and indirectly. this will not work in the long run.

i will agree with you though, taxing big business can and does indeed lead to a trickle down effect of cost onto the individual, maybe its time for different approaches to address these issues?

maybe the increase of energy costs is linked to things such as 'rent extraction' by the 'rentier class'?

I'm not sure I follow, the "renty" bit?

Is there anything to be said for quantifying the effect that raising climate taxes here in Ireland will have on climate change, BEFORE raising them?

Nobody wants to acknowledge the obvious, which is that it won't have an effect.

Isn't that the real elephant in the room here?

Akrasia

The sensible thing to do would be to 'ring fence' all carbon taxes to be used only for investment in renewable/energy efficiency infrastructure.

If there is a carbon tax on coal, and that tax is used to pay for subsidies for home insulation and renewable energy installations, then the increase in the cost of a unit of energy should be more than offset by savings in the amount of energy required to heat a house.

Similarly with transport, carbon taxes on petrol and diesel used to pay for electric charging points and other infrastructure required to transition to modern more efficient transport systems will make each unit of polluting energy more expensive, but make each unit of energy go further (through efficiency gains), therefore offsetting the cost of the tax. For example, Hyundai Ioniq claims a fuel efficiency equivalent to 138mpg, while one of the the most efficient non ev midsized cars, a Prius, claims 56mpg (and this is still a hybrid vehicle) and the least efficient cars of this size do a paltry 11mpg
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best-worst.shtml

I find it difficult to understand why the same people who oppose all government interference in the markets also don't understand how the market is supposed to actually efficiently allocate resources in the first place.

The 'free market' will always have an inefficient outcome if the costs of production are paid by people other than those who stand to make the profits (externalising costs). If I can buy a cheap gizmo from china for a euro, and sell it for 2 euros, I made a profit, but if that cheap gizmo ends up getting dumped in farmer john's field down the road, and it costs him 3 euros to clean it up, then for me to make a euro in profit, I cost an innocent 3rd party 3 euros in costs, that's economically inefficient. If the state intervened and said that I have to pay/charge a tax that includes the cost of recycling or responsibly dealing with the waste generated by my economic activity, I might decide to not bother selling the gizmo, but the 1 euro profit I would have made is less than the 3 euro cost to someone else, so it's more economically efficient for me to not trade than to trade without paying the full cost of production.

This happens all the time with regulations designed to prevent unscrupulous traders from undercutting their competitors by dealing with their waste products irresponsibly. With carbon emissions, the oil coal and gas companies have been getting away with externalizing the costs of their product for decades, so that consumers are getting artificially cheap energy and energy companies artificially high profits because nobody is yet taking responsibility for the very real costs associated with the pollution from burning fossil fuels.

Wanderer78

dense wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow, the "renty" bit?

Is there anything to be said for quantifying the effect that raising climate taxes here in Ireland will have on climate change, BEFORE raising them?

Nobody wants to acknowledge the obvious, which is that it won't have an effect.

Isn't that the real elephant in the room here?

you d have to look into criticism of modern macro economic theory and political ideologies to truly understand 'rentier class', its a Marxist term, its worth looking into though, and certainly has given me a great understanding of whats going on globally regarding these issues.

we have no real idea of knowing if raising climate taxes will or will not have a positive effect on addressing our environmental issues, i personally think it ll have minor effects at best, but of course i could be wrong, it has just become our default approach.

yes, i do think there is real elephant in the room, but i suspect its very different to your elephant.

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yes, i do think there is real elephant in the room, but i suspect its very different to your elephant.

There's a herd of elephants in the room by the sound of that!

Will you bring your own one out to show it to us?

Wanderer78

dense wrote: »

There's a herd of elephants in the room by the sound of that!

Will you bring your own one out to show it to us?

ah ive been banging that drum for long enough on this site, but it ll probably derail this thread a bit if i go into them, but i do think its one of the main reasons why we re now debating these issues. theres something fundamentally wrong with our most predominate macro economic theories and their accompanying ideologies, i class them as anti-human and anti-environmental in nature.

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ah ive been banging that drum for long enough on this site, but it ll probably derail this thread a bit if i go into them, but i do think its one of the main reasons why we re now debating these issues. theres something fundamentally wrong with our most predominate macro economic theories and their accompanying ideologies, i class them as anti-human and anti-environmental in nature.

We could discuss them in the other thread if you like?

It's here:

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057843402/1

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00480-0
New research published January 2018

equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). ECS quantifies the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature that would occur if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were doubled and the climate system was allowed to reach an equilibrium state. Estimates of ECS vary depending on the evidence used (such as records of Earth’s energy budget9 and analyses4 of present climate conditions produced by models). The estimate1 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2013 is based on several lines of evidence. Cox et al.5 now report estimates based on an analysis of surface-temperature variation predicted by climate models. Their analysis rules out high estimates of ECS. Bars depict ranges for which there is a 66% likelihood of the value being correct; for the top two bars, these ranges have been inferred from the data in references 4 and 9. Best estimates of ECS for each range, if available, are indicated by a blue line.

i.e the climate is not as sensitive to a doubling of Co2 as we have been led to believe.
While I`m at it, from the IPCC themselves, higher temps & Co2 = higher agricultural production:

with medium confidence, global production potential was projected to:[38]
increase up to around 3 °C,
very likely decrease above about 3 °C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch19s19-3-1.html

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00480-0
New research published January 2018



i.e the climate is not as sensitive to a doubling of Co2 as we have been led to believe.
While I`m at it, from the IPCC themselves, higher temps & Co2 = higher agricultural production:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch19s19-3-1.html

That first study also said that the low climate sensitivity estimates are also extremely unlikely. What it does is reaffirm the consensus sensitivity of about 3 degrees. Its not a 'skeptic' friendly paper.

It does leave the door open to abrupt climate swings though, because it didnt include feedbacks that arent properly represented in the models.

The 2nd link is only a partial story. Temp and CO2 are only part of what plants need to grow. Water shortages flooding and pests can limit any gains from climate change

From your own link

Future climate change will likely negatively affect crop production in low latitude countries, while effects in northern latitudes may be positive or negative.

Akrasia

A new large scale study from Newcastle university shows that under the RCP 8.5 scenario (business as usual), irish cities will face very high increases in flood risk with Cork seeing a possible 110% increase in peak river flow

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2018/02/eucities/

Published today in the academic journal Environmental Research Letters, the study shows:

a worsening of heatwaves for all 571 cities
increasing drought conditions, particularlyin southern Europe
an increase in river flooding, especially in north-western European cities
for the worst projections, increases in all hazards for most European cities
Cork, Derry, Waterford, Wrexham, Carlisle, Glasgow, Chester and Aberdeen could be the worst hit cities in the British Isles for river flooding
Even in the lowest case scenario, 85% of UK cities with a river are predicted to face increased river flooding

We have analysed 50 climate model projections from the CMIP5 (RCP8.5) ensemble and calculated consistent and comparable metrics of climate impacts for HW, droughts and flooding for 571 European cities. More frequent and hotter HW are expected for all European cities. Southern cities see the largest increase in the number of HW days (as much as 69%). On the other hand, central European cities, where both infrastructure and populace are generally not adapted to extreme heat, see the largest HWTmax increases (up to 14 °C, far above estimates from other studies). Southern European cities will also see an increase in drought conditions in all scenarios and a fundamentally different climate in the high impact scenario with future droughts up to 14 times worse than the ones in the historical period. Although this region is to a certain extent adapted to drought, the level of change projected in the Medium and High impact scenarios is likely to be beyond breaking point in many cases, which supports recent analysis of the potential for a megadrought in major Iberian water resource regions (Guerreiro et al 2017a, Guerreiro et al 2017b). Increases in river flooding, most prevalent in NW Europe, are particularly worrying for the British Isles and several other European cities which could observe more than a 50% increase of their 10 year high river flow.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaad3/meta

This studies refers to the RCP 8.5 scenario which is otherwise known as business as usual. Even the business as usual scenario involves transitioning away from fossil fuels but on a timescale where fossil fuel reserves become depleted so that price increases make renewables more attractive over time.

In order to avoid this scenario, we need to quickly impose solutions that mean the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves are left in the ground and this requires political action.

The 'skeptics' on here are staring down the barrel droughts in Iberia potentially 14 times worse than historical experience and flooding in Irish cities more than twice as bad as we have ever experienced before. (flooding would actually be much worse as peak river flow increases can cause exponentially more damage as rivers breach and wash away natural and artificial flood defenses and destroy property that had never been flooded before)

And this damage could begin to accumulate well within our own lifetimes. And well within the lifetimes of even the mortgage on property that is purchased today. People buying a house today with a 30 year mortgage could buy in a location that had never before experienced flooding, and may be left with a property in a flood plain before the mortgage is even paid off.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

A new large scale study from Newcastle university shows that under the RCP 8.5 scenario (business as usual), irish cities will face very high increases in flood risk with Cork seeing a possible 110% increase in peak river flow

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/latest/2018/02/eucities/





This studies refers to the RCP 8.5 scenario which is otherwise known as business as usual. Even the business as usual scenario involves transitioning away from fossil fuels but on a timescale where fossil fuel reserves become depleted so that price increases make renewables more attractive over time.

In order to avoid this scenario, we need to quickly impose solutions that mean the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves are left in the ground and this requires political action.

The 'skeptics' on here are staring down the barrel droughts in Iberia potentially 14 times worse than historical experience and flooding in Irish cities more than twice as bad as we have ever experienced before. (flooding would actually be much worse as peak river flow increases can cause exponentially more damage as rivers breach and wash away natural and artificial flood defenses and destroy property that had never been flooded before)

And this damage could begin to accumulate well within our own lifetimes. And well within the lifetimes of even the mortgage on property that is purchased today. People buying a house today with a 30 year mortgage could buy in a location that had never before experienced flooding, and may be left with a property in a flood plain before the mortgage is even paid off.

But...but...just a few days ago you said to me that you...

...

don't really trust long term projections for Irish climate, in fact, all of the expert reports I have seen emphasise the uncertainty for future irish climate in a warmer world.

So for that reason it's move along, nothing to see here, yes?

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But...but...just a few days ago you said to me that you...

...

So for that reason it's move along, nothing to see here, yes?

Ties in quite nicely with their groundbreaking Flood Risk Management course.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/postgraduate/courses/degrees/flood-risk-management-msc/#profile