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

Akrasia

20Twh per year in energy savings. Even if you don't believe in climate change, it's still a good regulation

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

20Twh per year in energy savings. Even if you don't believe in climate change, it's still a good regulation

In what context?

What is the total EU annual Twh energy consumption figure, of which vacuum cleaning energy demand and consumption is now being deemed to be so "significant" in the EU?

In 2015, household usage accounted for 25% of total energy used in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Final_energy_consumption,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png

It doesn't give a breakdown of how much of that was used for vaccum cleaning.

Therefore I find it difficult to believe that (mainly) domestic vacuum cleaners constitute any "significant part" of total energy demand and consumption" in the EU.

(Industrial, wet and dry, central systems and floor polishers are outside of the scope of these regulations.)

The energy used by vacuum cleaners accounts for a Significant Part of total energy demand in the Union.

The scope for reducing the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners is substantial.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0665

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

In what context?

What is the total EU annual Twh energy consumption figure, of which vacuum cleaning energy demand and consumption is now being deemed to be so "significant" in the EU?

In 2015, household usage accounted for 25% of total energy used in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Final_energy_consumption,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png

It doesn't give a breakdown of how much of that was used for vaccum cleaning.

Therefore I find it difficult to believe that (mainly) domestic vacuum cleaners constitute any "significant part" of total energy demand and consumption" in the EU.

(Industrial, wet and dry, central systems and floor polishers are outside of the scope of these regulations.)







http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0665

Nah, I'm not going to bother runnning through your hoops Dense. 20 twh is a significant amount of energy. The EU has a role in regulating all kinds of consumer electronics for safety and environmental standards. If companies are ripping off consumers by making their appliances needlessly power hungry so they can market them as 'more powerful' than their competitors then I'm glad they're doing it. If it wasn't for EU regulations we'd still have american style fuel consumption in our cars rather than strict efficiency targets that force manufacturers to research new technology to make their product modern and efficient.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

A new Study by the Chinese Academy of Sciences has shown that 2017 was the warmest year on record in the oceans down to at least 2km below the surface

So we have 2017 as the 2nd warmest year on record for the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures, and the warmest year on
record down to 2km below ocean surfaces.

The top 5 warmest years have all been within the past 5 years which have included both El Nino and La Nina events.

http://159.226.119.58/aas/EN/10.1007/s00376-018-8011-z#

While the trend is no doubt upward, I'd be very cautious with actual figures, given the large uncertainty in measurements due to poor instrumental coverage and XBT bias. A lot of map infilling is mentioned in the article, with various methods cited. I note 10 or more different methods for correcting for XBT bias, none of which is yet satisfactory.

Satellite altimetry gives better coverage but still says little about the vertical temperature profile of all the oceans. There's a tenfold difference between OHC-increase in the Atlantic and Pacific, which itself suggests more than just atmospheric roles at play.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Nah, I'm not going to bother runnning through your hoops Dense. 20 twh is a significant amount of energy

.

That's debatable. Which is why we're here.

Total net electricity generation in the EU-28 was 3.07 million gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2015


http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview


And the EU says that vacuum cleaner regulations saving "up to" (could be much less) 20Twh is "significant".

It's a maximum estimated 00.66% saving by my calculations.

Hardly "significant" by any measure. Pretty insignificant actually.

Unless of course they're into hyping things up.

Can happen in the climate change debate.

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU has a role in regulating all kinds of consumer electronics for safety and environmental standards.

What's next, the kettle directive?
Toasters to be used by licence only?

Akrasia wrote: »

If companies are ripping off consumers by making their appliances needlessly power hungry so they can market them as 'more powerful' than their competitors then I'm glad they're doing it.

Fair enough.

Gaoth Lag

"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense."

The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations  are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!

dense

"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense."

The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations  are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!

You know, I'm all for climate charities myself.

So much so that I'm thinking of setting up one.

An essential part of it will selling the idea to potential corporate "partners".

I'm confident they'll be delighted to be on board, and delighted to contribute in a meaningful way, and by that I mean in cold hard donations.

After all, my charity is not going to run itself, and I don't expect my assistants in the enterprise to work for nothing, nor they me.

Corporate entities, often seen as cold, uncaring machines can benefit greatly from getting their softer, more human green side into the public domain, and, you know, a refusal to play ball with a worthy climate change charity might not look great, given the gravity of the situation.

Kind of like, yeah, we are a business, but WE CARE, OK?????

Once we have the corporate thing sewn up we'll be targeting the children.

Klimate Kandy.

Has a good ring to it, yaw?

The finer details have yet to be worked out, but I can say that we'll all have a real fun time.

It's early days, but Italy and Brazil are showing interest even at this stage.

Join me in this noble venture.

Gaoth Lag

That's even more snide that Gaoth Laidir's post.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

While the trend is no doubt upward, I'd be very cautious with actual figures, given the large uncertainty in measurements due to poor instrumental coverage and XBT bias. A lot of map infilling is mentioned in the article, with various methods cited. I note 10 or more different methods for correcting for XBT bias, none of which is yet satisfactory.

Satellite altimetry gives better coverage but still says little about the vertical temperature profile of all the oceans. There's a tenfold difference between OHC-increase in the Atlantic and Pacific, which itself suggests more than just atmospheric roles at play.

The measurements are uncertain, but this means they're as likely to be underestimating global heat content in the oceans as over estimating it. We should be forming our opinion based on the best available evidence. We're never ever going to know for 100% certain, but unless you believe that these scientists are distorting the data and choosing to amplify the warming signal, then the best evidence we have at the moment is that global oceans are warmer now than we any point since detailed records began.

In terms of variation between the changes in OCH in different geographic regions, the ocean is a dynamic place that is constantly redistributing heat through a complex network of currents that oceanographic institutes dedicate their time to studying and understanding.

I like to let the experts do the talking where possible.
Here's a very interesting panel discussion featuring Oceanographers from several of the most respected oceanographic institutes in the world

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

"I've seen it all now. Marketing climate change. It was bound to happen.

"Jump forward to 2050 in Ireland and you will see..."absolutely no difference. Even by 2100 the climate in Ireland is not forecast to change by any noticeable level. I wonder exactly what changes it shows for 2050.

Nonsense."

The above is a very cynical view in regard to what I believe to be both a worthwhile topic and an important event. Climate Change simply cannot be dismissed any longer, the hard data is out there for all to see. So what if a few corporations  are behind it? It's about raising awareness and getting people educated about climate change. I happen to think, based on reliable data that Ireland could indeed be very different in terms of Climate by 2050. If you believe otherwise, it's time to take out the tinfoil hat!

What data would that be? The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it.

Strange username too, BTW. Only registered today. Hmmm.

Gaoth Lag

"The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it."

Commercially available data indicates as such. The purists amongst us dig deep for their information, so in this instance, I'm not happy to share it.
"Strange username too, BTW. Only registered today. Hmmm"
Ok Sherlock.

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

"The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it."

Commercially available data indicates as such. The purists amongst us dig deep for their information, so in this instance, I'm not happy to share it.
"Strange username too, BTW. Only registered today. Hmmm"
Ok Sherlock.

?? Where exactly did you dig? The data I quoted are freely available and non-commercial. If you're unwilling to share data that claim differently then it appears that the data don't exist...or you're just trolling.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What data would that be? The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it.

None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenland

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/24/drastic-cooling-north-atlantic-beyond-worst-fears-scientists-warn

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenland

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/24/drastic-cooling-north-atlantic-beyond-worst-fears-scientists-warn

So you're saying the forecasts that you so readily quote may be way off the mark? If that's the case then what other forecasts are also wrong?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So you're saying the forecasts that you so readily quote may be way off the mark? If that's the case then what other forecasts are also wrong?

Can you elaborate please?

Gaoth Lag

Akrasia;105994189

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What data would that be? The current predictions for Ireland show very limited changes by 2100, never mind 2050, but if you have some new data then please share it.

None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenland



Now you're talking,a lot of the forecasts are the result of a primative calculation based upon historical data, there is no regard for shift or probability outcomes of the type of event that you have described. A good forecast like the ones I've seen will incorporate or at least try to factor these unpredictible events into their prediction.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Can you elaborate please?

Projections for Ireland up to 2100 show very minor changes overall, most notably warmer winter nights and slightly drier summers. Fairly benign in the greater scheme of things when you look at some of the horror stories being quoted.

You say these forecasts don't allow for the non-neglible chance of the Gulf Stream getting cut off. Well, if that's the case then the forecasts are not worth much and highlight the uncertainty associated with future climate predictions.

In any case, the paper you quoted says the chance of the AMOC overturning is negligible, so nothing to worry about.

Furthermore, when considering only the most realistic models in simulating the present-day SPG stratification, the chance of an NA abrupt cooling in the coming century is close to 50%, while the chance of a complete AMOC collapse is negligible.

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Akrasia;105994189

None of those predictions account for the non negligable risk that the gulf stream either shuts down entirely, or is very significantly weakened by meltwater from greenland



Now you're talking,a lot of the forecasts are the result of a primative calculation based upon historical data, there is no regard for shift or probability outcomes of the type of event that you have described. A good forecast like the ones I've seen will incorporate or at least try to factor these unpredictible events into their prediction.

So show us these "good forecasts" then. Why would you not share them?

Gaoth Lag

I will not share them as I've gone to great lengths to obtain them and have conducted my own research in painstaking fashion. I can sense that you are ready to disagree with me (exemplified by the use of your snide inverted commas in your post above) So I'm in no humor to be ridiculed.

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

I will not share them as I've gone to great lengths to obtain them and have conducted my own research in painstaking fashion. I can sense that you are ready to disagree with me (exemplified by the use of your snide inverted commas in your post above) So I'm in no humor to be ridiculed.

Jesus

Gaoth Lag

Look, you can choose to keep the faith with your primitive data and predictions. I will sleep comfortably knowing that the climate in Ireland in 2050 will be quite different.

Gaoth Lag

Just a note too. Typically we have 2-3 storms from the start of the year until now. This year we've had seven in quick succession Georgina, Fionn, Brian, Eleanor, Hector, Larry and Geoffrey. Coincidence or climate change right before our eyes?

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Look, you can choose to keep the faith with your primitive data and predictions. I will sleep comfortably knowing that the climate in Ireland in 2050 will be quite different.

I assume then that if you can sleep comfortably then your forecast doesn't paint a bad picture for us by then.

Lads, panic averted, go back to what you were doing. Keep Calm and Carry On.

Gaoth Lag

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Look, you can choose to keep the faith with your primitive data and predictions. I will sleep comfortably knowing that the climate in Ireland in 2050 will be quite different.

I assume then that if you can sleep comfortably then your forecast doesn't paint a bad picture for us by then.

Lads, panic averted, go back to what you were doing. Keep Calm and Carry On.

???? When did I say there was cause for panic?

Different climate doesn't necessarily mean a catastrophe.

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

???? When did I say there was cause for panic?

Different climate doesn't necessarily mean a catastrophe.

That's the point I've been making all along but there are those who prefer only the pessimistic scenarios.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Projections for Ireland up to 2100 show very minor changes overall, most notably warmer winter nights and slightly drier summers. Fairly benign in the greater scheme of things when you look at some of the horror stories being quoted.

You say these forecasts don't allow for the non-neglible chance of the Gulf Stream getting cut off. Well, if that's the case then the forecasts are not worth much and highlight the uncertainty associated with future climate predictions.

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The long term climate forecasts/projections are guidelines that make assumptions which are justified on the basis of probable outcomes in various scenarios. I have never said that the future is certain, in fact, there are so many uncertainties, that we would be very prudent to act faster to minimize carbon emissions because there are low probability high impact risks that we cannot rule out. you, on the other hand are saying that you are highly confident that future climate change will be much less damaging and disruptive than the majority of experts, and therefore we shouldn't worry about it too much, and we can afford to be passive and just transition from fossil fuels whenever the economics and geopolitics get around to doing it

In any case, the paper you quoted says the chance of the AMOC overturning is negligible, so nothing to worry about.

I'm curious why you chose to quote this part of that paper but not the paragraph immediately preceeding it which says that the negative consequences associated with a complete shutdown of the AMOC could also happen with a collapse of SPG convection, so there clearly isn't 'nothing to worry about'

The paradigm that the potential for NA abrupt changes mainly depends on the fate of the AMOC is clearly incomplete. In addition to the potential existence of a tipping point for an AMOC shutdown, we argue that a separate one involving a collapse of SPG convection46 also exists. Both AMOC disruption and SPG convection collapse are possible responses to the ongoing global warming trend43,44 and changes in the hydrological cycle that are freshening the northern NA31,55. However, while the risk of an AMOC shutdown has been largely debated24,30, an assessment of the possibility of a local SPG convection collapse and its potential impacts was missing so far. Our results highlight that in CMIP5 models the occurrence of a NA abrupt cooling due to an SPG convection collapse is almost four times more likely than the occurrence of a NA abrupt cooling due to an AMOC disruption.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14375

Akrasia

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

I will not share them as I've gone to great lengths to obtain them and have conducted my own research in painstaking fashion. I can sense that you are ready to disagree with me (exemplified by the use of your snide inverted commas in your post above) So I'm in no humor to be ridiculed.

Utter nonsense. Nobody should take anyone seriously who claims to have secret evidence that proves their point but refuses to share it.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The long term climate forecasts/projections are guidelines that make assumptions which are justified on the basis of probable outcomes in various scenarios. I have never said that the future is certain, in fact, there are so many uncertainties, that we would be very prudent to act faster to minimize carbon emissions because there are low probability high impact risks that we cannot rule out. you, on the other hand are saying that you are highly confident that future climate change will be much less damaging and disruptive than the majority of experts, and therefore we shouldn't worry about it too much, and we can afford to be passive and just transition from fossil fuels whenever the economics and geopolitics get around to doing it

No, I was just referring to the best estimates of the future Irish Climate for the rest of the century, which show little in the way of concerning changes up to 2100. I attended the IMO lecture by the Maynooth group a couple of years back that focused on that. So on the one hand you're asking us to take heed of global predictions of doomsday forecasts, yet on the other hand you're saying these forecasts are probably nowhere near reliable enough.

I'm curious why you chose to quote this part of that paper but not the paragraph immediately preceeding it which says that the negative consequences associated with a complete shutdown of the AMOC could also happen with a collapse of SPG convection, so there clearly isn't 'nothing to worry about'

I quoted that part because it concluded that the chance of a total AMOC shutdown is negligible. Doesn't matter what was mentioned about it in the paragraph above, if the chance is negligible then we can, by definition, neglect it.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I was just referring to the best estimates of the future Irish Climate for the rest of the century, which show little in the way of concerning changes up to 2100. I attended the IMO lecture by the Maynooth group a couple of years back that focused on that. So on the one hand you're asking us to take heed of global predictions of doomsday forecasts, yet on the other hand you're saying these forecasts are probably nowhere near reliable enough.

It's a bit like looking at the weather models 5 days out, most of them show a big storm that misses Ireland by a few hundred miles, but a few show a direct hit with potential damaging rain and wind and saying 'the forecast is for the storm to miss us, so there's nothing to be worried about'
In actuality, the forecast is probabilistic, and if there is a level of plausible risk that something bad could happen, it can be best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

The precise amount of acceptable risk is debatable, but there is a principle in risk management that low probability high impact events should be planned for as much as high probability low impact events.

When an apartment building is discovered to have been built without regard to the fire dampening regulations, the people in that apartment building are told they have to leave and can not live there until remedial action takes place. This is because even though a fire in that apartment building is something that might never happen, the consequences of a fire in a large building that hasn't been built to code can be catastrophic.

This is the 'alarmist' message. Not that climate change is definitely going to be catastrophic, but that there is enough uncertainty and the fact that if we reach certain tipping points, the consequences are irreversible, that we should concentrate on mitigating the risk and take it seriously.

the chance of a total AMOC shutdown is negligible. Doesn't matter what was mentioned about it in the paragraph above, if the chance is negligible then we can, by definition, neglect it.

Of course it matters when the entire context of that part of the paper was that we don't need an AMOC shutdown in order to experience the kinds of climate shifts that we have been used to associating with a shut down of the AMOC

It's another study that highlights that natural tipping points can cause rapid changes to climate systems which are not always modeled for because for all the talk of climate scientists being alarmist, the models are actually fairly conservative about these things, and all of this is on top of the uncertainty on what the ocean currents will do when the arctic is ice free in summer, which is looking fairly inevitable at the rate of warming we're seeing at the north pole

sryanbruen

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Just a note too. Typically we have 2-3 storms from the start of the year until now. This year we've had seven in quick succession Georgina, Fionn, Brian, Eleanor, Hector, Larry and Geoffrey. Coincidence or climate change right before our eyes?

Not at all, what a load of rubbish.

For a start, when was Storm Hector, Larry and Geoffrey? Geoffrey wasn't even one of the potential names to be used in the storm naming for 2017-18: http://www.met.ie/news/display.asp?ID=446.

These are all the storms that have formed this season:

Aileen on September 12th (maximum gust of 83mph)



Brian on October 20th/21st (maximum gust of 85mph)



Caroline on December 7th (maximum gust of 93mph)



Dylan on December 31st (maximum gust of 77mph)



Eleanor on January 2nd (maximum gust of 96mph)



Fionn on January 16th (maximum gust between 73-80mph) - which is a debatable "storm"



Georgina on January 23rd/24th (maximum gust of 140mph)



Now, out of all these named storms, only one has reached a gust of 100mph or over, though of course the season is not over yet so still some way to go. 2016-17 had 2 storms as such and 2015-16 also had 2. There would be more than all of these seasons in 2013-14, with probably about 3-6. 1989-90, 1983-84, 1994-95, 1993-94 etc would have had a lot more, go check out Met Éireann's monthly weather bulletins on how stormy some of these Winters were in comparison to 2017-18.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_windstorms
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly-weather-reports.asp

The figure below shows the count of stations in the UK for winters from 1970 exceeding 60 kt, and show that Winter 2014 (1 December 2013 to 15 February 2014) was the stormiest winter since 1993. December 2013 was within the top ten stormiest months in a series from 1969 and February 2014 was also a very stormy month. The first and last weeks of January 2014 were also stormy, but overall this month was exceptional for the rainfall totals, rather than for storminess.



https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/2014-janwind