"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

dr.fuzzenstein

dense wrote: »

Your tag line, it relates something about the affection you hold for your old diesel truck????


:P

Yep, and I no longer own it.
New one is still diesel, but with DPF.
That Tesla will have to wait a bit.

dense

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yep, and I no longer own it.
New one is still diesel, but with DPF.
That Tesla will have to wait a bit.

All joking aside, do you really think a DPF is going to undo the environmental damage you've already done, not to mention the fact that scientists now say long term emissions exposure may have damaged the general public's intelligence?


How can you sleep at night????

Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study reveals

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/27/air-pollution-causes-huge-reduction-in-intelligence-study-reveals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

All joking aside, do you really think a DPF is going to undo the environmental damage you've already done, not to mention the fact that scientists now say long term emissions exposure may have damaged the general public's intelligence?


How can you sleep at night????

Long term emissions damaging intelligence related to the lead that your beloved oil industry added to petrol for 3 quarters of a century.

That same oil industry who knew about the risks but fought any attempts to remove the lead from their fuel through organised misinformation campaigns and are funding the same kinds of misinformation relating to climate change today.

https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-history/

Breathing in polluted air reduces intelligence in the short term because CO2 is toxic to humans at the levels we have currently increased the atmosphere, and on days where air quality is especially low, the co2 levels are much higher than the background levels in the atmosphere

https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Long term emissions damaging intelligence related to the lead that your beloved oil industry added to petrol for 3 quarters of a century.

That same oil industry who knew about the risks but fought any attempts to remove the lead from their fuel through organised misinformation campaigns and are funding the same kinds of misinformation relating to climate change today.

https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-history/

Breathing in polluted air reduces intelligence in the short term because CO2 is toxic to humans at the levels we have currently increased the atmosphere, and on days where air quality is especially low, the co2 levels are much higher than the background levels in the atmosphere

https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/

Tell us again how you've persuaded yourself that your own carbon footprint is something you don't care about (and presumably neither do any of the rest of the climate-alarmed club) and how it is that your own careless usage of oil industry products permits you to preach to others who use the very same oil products and care just as little as you do about their carbon footprint?

Theres a terrible smell of holier than thou from your emissions Akrasi.

Hypocrite:


1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

Long term emissions damaging intelligence related to the lead that your beloved oil industry added to petrol for 3 quarters of a century.

That same oil industry who knew about the risks but fought any attempts to remove the lead from their fuel through organised misinformation campaigns and are funding the same kinds of misinformation relating to climate change today.

https://www.wired.com/2013/01/looney-gas-and-lead-poisoning-a-short-sad-history/

The same poor oil industry that's at the mercy of the global climate change conspiracy? Poor lads cant catch a break

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Tell us again how you've persuaded yourself that your own carbon footprint is something you don't care about (and presumably neither do any of the rest of the climate-alarmed club) and how it is that your own careless usage of oil industry products permits you to preach to others who use the very same oil products and care just as little as you do about their carbon footprint?

Theres a terrible smell of holier than thou from your emissions Akrasi.

right after you finish explaining to me why an individuals carbon footprint is important, but the carbon emissions of entire countries is 'insignificant'

I've never said that i don't care about my own carbon emissions, I have consistently said that individuals are largely powerless to affect global climate on their own, and what we need is political action at every level, from local to supernational global treaties.

There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about it.

You are a hypocrite in demanding that individuals sacrifice everything to be more environmentally friendly so that they can be taken seriously, and then do nothing but scoff at those people who genuinely do take extreme measures to limit their own environmental impact.

The solution to climate change is collective action, along with huge investments in technology and infrastructure and that's not going to work if people are berated into drastic lifestyle changes and self sacrifice. Your demands that people walk everywhere in their bare feet or else they're hypocrites is just another PR strategy by the coal and gas industry to avoid the debate.

Akrasia

The predictions made by climate scientists and climate models have been scarily accurate.

How many predictions have the 'skeptics' ever made and what is their track record?

PopePalpatine

I think they were still batting for Big Tobacco at that point.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

right after you finish explaining to me why an individuals carbon footprint is important, but the carbon emissions of entire countries is 'insignificant'

Let's look at what your own go to source of knowledge says about someone who says their emissions make no difference:

Mr Jones, willing to preserve both his high consumption lifestyle and an image of a good and responsible citizen, may be tempted to forget the whole issue switching to another topics, denying the problem or saying that his emissions are only an insignificantly small part of the problem (or use a number of other well-known justifications for not-changing-anything).

I wondered about it a lot and decided that doing my best to limit the "height of the carbon footprint bar" is the right thing to do (now it’s around 5.8 tons CO2/year). There are a few reasons, why:

There are tipping points in the climate system. There may be a ton that will be "a ton too far".

Lower carbon footprint means less spending, leading to savings instead of debt, less pressure to chase the money and more time for what’s really important in life. I’m very happy with this attitude.

Pursuing happy selfish consumption now, at a price of extinction of countless species and cataclysmic future of our children is an attitude based on ethics I don't share (well, that's my opinion, some people may think otherwise).

Credibility: if you tell others that we have to reduce the emissions, meanwhile driving SUV, flying around the world and buying a lot of stuff, you will be perceived as a hypocrite. This will do more harm then good. We have to walk the talk.

Seems sensible enough if you're a fan of theirs, and you are.



https://www.skepticalscience.com/Carbon-CO2-Footprint-Emissions-Calculator.html

Akrasia wrote: »

I've never said that i don't care about my own carbon emissions, I have consistently said that individuals are largely powerless to affect global climate on their own, and what we need is political action at every level, from local to supernational global treaties.

There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about it.

See above. Your seemingly insignificant ton of carbon could be the one that sets off the tipping point you're so scared of.

Akrasia wrote: »

You are a hypocrite in demanding that individuals sacrifice everything to be more environmentally friendly so that they can be taken seriously, and then do nothing but scoff at those people who genuinely do take extreme measures to limit their own environmental impact.

The solution to climate change is collective action, along with huge investments in technology and infrastructure and that's not going to work if people are berated into drastic lifestyle changes and self sacrifice. Your demands that people walk everywhere in their bare feet or else they're hypocrites is just another PR strategy by the coal and gas industry to avoid the debate.

I don't make demands of anyone, but if people wish to have their major concerns about emissions taken seriously, they could at least pretend they're making an effort to reduce their own instead of worrying about everyone else's.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The predictions made by climate scientists and climate models have been scarily accurate.

The laters one don't look too accurate....

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

The same poor oil industry that's at the mercy of the global climate change conspiracy? Poor lads cant catch a break

Do you also believe that "the same poor oil industry" has successfully been suppressing alternative energy advances for decades?


A lot of conspiracy theorists do, and also blame government involvement too (the same government involvement that they are relying on to "fix" climate change for them, due to their claim that it is pointless trying to do it on an individual level):

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression

The suppressors are usually oil companies, but can also be the government or special interest groups.

Proponents of this conspiracy may also believe that governments and lobby groups are actively weakening renewable energy technologies like solar, biofuels and geothermal.

Yay/nay?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The laters one don't look too accurate....

The UAH dataset has consistently underestimated tropospheric warming, it was revised in 2015 but still hasn't accounted for known issues with satellite orbital decay and your data is 6 years out of date now, the global surge in temperatures since 2014 would bring even these observations closer into line with the model predictions

Akrasia

Also, ending that 'linear trend' at 2012 smacks of cherry picking given that it was the coldest year in almost 2 decades and since then we have the 4 hottest years on record (by a significant margin). While the start of the trend line was 1979 which was one of the hottest years in its decade (although not the hottest)

Drawing a straight line between 2 data points is not really a good way to accurately represent trends in fluctuating data. Most graphs of this data use rolling average trend lines

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Also, ending that 'linear trend' at 2012 smacks of cherry picking given that it was the coldest year in almost 2 decades and since then we have the 4 hottest years on record (by a significant margin).

There is no significant margin.
You have been previously advised of this and given an opportunity to publish figures here for each year you mention to demonstrate this alleged "significant margin" between them and have not done so.


Given that the recent observations estimate a decadal trend in the region of 0.06°C and the entire instrumental period shows an insignificant and barely detectable luke warming (even taking into account the endless adjustments applied to the records) one can understand the failure to demonstrate "significant" annual margins when invited to.

And given that you are also of the opinion that historic records are not as reliable as current records, the whole warming since records began thing suddenly looks as suspect as your concern about other people's emissions.

dense

Observations here by Tony Heller about how the Maldives has 4 weeks left before it's swamped, something something climate change.

On September 26, 1988 climate experts said all 1,196 Maldives Islands would drown in 30 years. That is only four weeks away.

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/08/four-weeks-left-until-the-maldives-drown/


The NGOs will wail that the Maldives is a victim of climate change caused by rich countries:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change


But reading about the Maldives, why should anyone really give a shït if it sinks?

https://m.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/travel/article/1995037/good-bad-and-ugly-sides-maldives

Political instability and Islamic fundamentalism are on the rise, particularly in the capital. There are frequent public floggings, the death penalty has been reintroduced and a number of Maldivians have joined extremist militant groups based in Syria.

Resort guests are free to drink alcohol, eat pork and wear bikinis, and unmarried couples are allowed to share rooms, all of which are illegal elsewhere in the country.

Also interesting is the Australian government sponsored archive piece on when the Maldives was previously thought to have been sinking.
It was originally published in 1837.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/4173156


And, for good measure, here's a photo of the opportunistic Maldives cabinet holding a meeting in scuba gear to try to prevent imminent disaster

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6356036/Maldives-government-holds-underwater-cabinet-meeting.html




And just like the Guardian, the Maldives government loves censorship and hates free speech:

The space for civil society and journalists has shrunk dramatically with the introduction of the draconian Defamation and Freedom of Speech Act, criminalizing people’s freedom of expression with penalties that include prison sentences of up to six months and fines of up to £100,000.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-maldives-executions-president-yameen-not-a-peaceful-holiday-destination-a7875151.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/26/climate-change-is-real-we-must-not-offer-credibility-to-those-who-deny-it

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Given that the recent observations estimate a decadal trend in the region of 0.06°C

wrong again. The decadal trend is about .17c per decade (between 1970 and 2017)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1970-2017?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1970&lasttrendyear=2018

If you want a shorter timescale, it's actually .35c between 2007 and 2017

Or just for the 21st century, it's .2c
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2000-2017?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2017

If you stop the trend at 2012 and start it carefully for example, on 2001, you can get a trend of .04c, but this is called cherry picking.

So even though the period of the past 10 years shows twice that warming, of the trend since 1970 climate scientists don't go around saying global warming has doubled since 1970, because that would be dishonest. You need more than one or two decades of information to show a decadal trend.

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

wrong again. The decadal trend is about .17c per decade (between 1970 and 2017)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1970-2017?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1970&lasttrendyear=2018

If you want a shorter timescale, it's actually .35c between 2007 and 2017

Or just for the 21st century, it's .2c
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2000-2017?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2017

If you stop the trend at 2012 and start it carefully for example, on 2001, you can get a trend of .04c, but this is called cherry picking.

So even though the period of the past 10 years shows twice that warming, of the trend since 1970 climate scientists don't go around saying global warming has doubled since 1970, because that would be dishonest. You need more than one or two decades of information to show a decadal trend.

Scary stuff. We're going to have to change what we do to survive on this planet one way or the other. Hopefully it'll be before we're forced to.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

wrong again. The decadal trend is about .17c per decade (between 1970 and 2017)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1970-2017?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1970&lasttrendyear=2018

If you want a shorter timescale, it's actually .35c between 2007 and 2017

Or just for the 21st century, it's .2c
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/2000-2017?trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=2000&lasttrendyear=2017

If you stop the trend at 2012 and start it carefully for example, on 2001, you can get a trend of .04c, but this is called cherry picking.

Cherry picking indeed.

Why not go back further.

According to NOAA, “Since 1880, surface temperature has risen at an average pace of 0.13°F (0.07°C) every 10 years, for a net warming of 1.71°F (0.95°C).

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-23/stunning-nasa-chart-shows-how-fast-the-ground-beneath-our-feet-is-heating-up/





Apart from anything else, it's fiction.

It makes up temperatures for the majority of the planet.

Look at all the gray (sic) areas for which NOAA admits it has no data for

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

Scary stuff. We're going to have to change what we do to survive on this planet one way or the other. Hopefully it'll be before we're forced to.

When will you start, what do you intend doing and what do you expect your personal actions to achieve?

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

When will you start, what do you intend doing and what do you expect your personal actions to achieve?

I started 12 years ago. I live in a cave and make all my own things from what I can scavenge. I'm posting this from a smart phone I fashioned out of old jeans, a motorcycle exhaust and the screen from iPhone that I stole from a tourist. I threw the rest of the phone away because we all know iPhones are a leftist conspiracy to put Big Oil out of business. I'm hoping for total world domination and expect to achieve my objectives within the next 1-4.24 years (+- 0.5C).

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Cherry picking indeed.

Why not go back further.

We can go back further and usually when climate change is discussed, scientists will give both figures, the figure from 1880 and the figures from 1970 to illustrate the changing pace of climate change. To get the full picture you need to analyse more than one datapoint. (and in contrast, to deny the science, you need to just focus on cherrypicked datapoints that you think muddy the water or conflict with the scientific consensus.) this is why you sound like a broken record constantly banging out the same old talking points that have been resolved countless times before.

Also, as you say, there are greater uncertainties the further back we go. From the 1970s we are in the satellite era, so we can be much more confident of the data from this period onwards (That said, scientists are continuously refining and calibrating their instruments and models so that each iteration of the data should be more accurate and trustworthy than the one that came before it)

And as for the gaps in NOAA data, they use more than just this GHCNM dataset for their analysis, and the scientists have well developed mechanisms for validating their data.

Unlike the people you chose to listen to, people like Tony Heller (aka stephen goddard) who have absolutely no qualifications, expertise or reputation for rigorous methodology or accurate reporting.

Akrasia

xckjoo wrote: »

I started 12 years ago. I live in a cave and make all my own things from what I can scavenge. I'm posting this from a smart phone I fashioned out of old jeans, a motorcycle exhaust and the screen from iPhone that I stole from a tourist. I threw the rest of the phone away because we all know iPhones are a leftist conspiracy to put Big Oil out of business. I'm hoping for total world domination and expect to achieve my objectives within the next 1-4.24 years (+- 0.5C).

I was posting this via smoke signal until someone pointed out that it was causing asthma in the village down wind, so I have updated to a version of Semiphore that uses flags made solely out of reclaimed ocean plastic.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

We can go back further and usually when climate change is discussed, scientists will give both figures, the figure from 1880 and the figures from 1970 to illustrate the changing pace of climate change. To get the full picture you need to analyse more than one datapoint. (and in contrast, to deny the science, you need to just focus on cherrypicked datapoints that you think muddy the water or conflict with the scientific consensus.) this is why you sound like a broken record constantly banging out the same old talking points that have been resolved countless times before.

If they have been resolved countless times I still wouldn't be mentioning them and you would be able to link to where you think they were resolved.



You can't because you haven't resolved anything.

Akrasia wrote: »

Also, as you say, there are greater uncertainties the further back we go. From the 1970s we are in the satellite era, so we can be much more confident of the data from this period onwards (That said, scientists are continuously refining and calibrating their instruments and models so that each iteration of the data should be more accurate and trustworthy than the one that came before it)

They are continually adjusting the measurements to fit the theory.

Akrasia wrote: »

And as for the gaps in NOAA data, they use more than just this GHCNM dataset for their analysis, and the scientists have well developed mechanisms for validating their data.

You now think they can validate data they themselves admit they don't have, which they themselves describe as being "missing"?


Seriously??

Akrasia wrote: »

Unlike the people you chose to listen to, people like Tony Heller (aka stephen goddard) who have absolutely no qualifications, expertise or reputation for rigorous methodology or accurate reporting.

I know you intensely disllike the guy but you've yet to show where anything I have linked to of his is wrong.


Arm waving doesn't cut it.


The picture of the guys under water in the scuba gear was good, eh?

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

Scary stuff. We're going to have to change what we do to survive on this planet one way or the other. Hopefully it'll be before we're forced to.

dense wrote: »

When will you start, what do you intend doing and what do you expect your personal actions to achieve?

xckjoo wrote: »

I started 12 years ago. I live in a cave and make all my own things from what I can scavenge. I'm posting this from a smart phone I fashioned out of old jeans, a motorcycle exhaust and the screen from iPhone that I stole from a tourist. I threw the rest of the phone away because we all know iPhones are a leftist conspiracy to put Big Oil out of business. I'm hoping for total world domination and expect to achieve my objectives within the next 1-4.24 years (+- 0.5C).

Akrasia wrote: »

I was posting this via smoke signal until someone pointed out that it was causing asthma in the village down wind, so I have updated to a version of Semiphore that uses flags made solely out of reclaimed ocean plastic.

I think you've both summed up the entire greeny charade in a nutshell.

dr.fuzzenstein

dense wrote: »

I think you've both summed up the entire greeny charade in a nutshell.

If you took that post seriously you obviously have no capacity for critical or analytical thought. Don't think I can take any of posts seriously now.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

If they have been resolved countless times I still wouldn't be mentioning them and you would be able to link to where you think they were resolved.



You can't because you haven't resolved anything.

You can't explain to a pigeon why he lost at chess

They are continually adjusting the measurements to fit the theory.

It's all a conspiracy, we get it dense

You now think they can validate data they themselves admit they don't have, which they themselves describe as being "missing"?

Again, this particular dataset isn't their only source of temperature data.

They validate their data in a number of ways, all of which are open, transparent and based on established methodology published in peer reviewed literature. How do you validate your data?

I know you intensely disllike the guy but you've yet to show where anything I have linked to of his is wrong.


Arm waving doesn't cut it.


The picture of the guys under water in the scuba gear was good, eh?

I dislike the guy because he's a fraudster who falsifies his data, misrepresents the conclusions of papers. He can easily be debunked if anyone has the time to do so. I don't have the time so here's some I found earlier.

Sea level rises misrepresented

Here's a short video that shows how he blatantly misrepresents simple graphs

And here's a video showing up his habit of trawling through old newspapers looking for bad newspaper report making wild statements either misrepresenting scientific opinion, or overstating the opinion of fringe scientists as if it was evidence that scientists overall don't know what they're talking about.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Again, this particular dataset isn't their only source of temperature data.

They validate their data in a number of ways, all of which are open, transparent and based on established methodology published in peer reviewed literature.

Stop please, and look at what you're saying.


Are you seriously asking people to believe that NOAA or anyone else can magically validate GHCN data that doesn't exist?


What huckster told you that and why on earth did you believe them??

You've been had Akrasia, big time.


Please Note
Gray areas represent missing data.

dense

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If you took that post seriously you obviously have no capacity for critical or analytical thought. Don't think I can take any of posts seriously now.

What way should it be taken, after reading their posts fretting about climate change and recommending what we should be doing?

What are they doing?

Nothing apparently. They were asked, but as expected, gave jokey replies.

So its clearly just a hobby horse that offers them an opportunity to indulge in a bit of overt virtue signalling.

Scratch the surface and you'll get the usual excuses, I can't afford to, I would if I could etc, I dont do carbon footprints because I know it won't be my extra ton of emissions which might set off the tipping point, which all translates to them simply not being any more arced about any of this than I am.


If thats your thing, by all means go for it and keep pressing those thanks buttons!


It does make for entertaining reading I suppose!

dr.fuzzenstein

That's some fine faux outrage.
So you're asking what are we doing?
I do what I can do. My house is connected to the gas mains, I have a super efficient gas boiler that also does hot water, double glazing, every single lightbulb is LED, every appliance is A+ and there's the aforementioned diesel with DPF.
If the weather allows I cycle to work twice a week, I shop local and I walk everywhere in my village. And I use reusable shopping bags.
I don't buy a new car every three years and I don't buy the latest shiny phone or gadget every three months, because I believe this hyper consumption of junk is the worst thing.
Nothing big, sexy or dramatic, just what I can do.
You may commence sneering now.

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

What way should it be taken, after reading their posts fretting about climate change and recommending what we should be doing?

What are they doing?

Nothing apparently. They were asked, but as expected, gave jokey replies.

So its clearly just a hobby horse that offers them an opportunity to indulge in a bit of overt virtue signalling.

Scratch the surface and you'll get the usual excuses, I can't afford to, I would if I could etc, I dont do carbon footprints because I know it won't be my extra ton of emissions which might set off the tipping point, which all translates to them simply not being any more arced about any of this than I am.


If thats your thing, by all means go for it and keep pressing those thanks buttons!


It does make for entertaining reading I suppose!

I was just trying to join in the fun of parody posts. I didn't realise you had the monopoly on nonsense


I do live in a cave and make my own stuff though, that much is true. And I eat a few pencil leads a day to offset any carbon footprint I do have. I know graphite is only an allotrope of carbon, but it's all I had to hand and diamonds hurt when I pooped them out.

dubstepper

dense wrote: »

What way should it be taken, after reading their posts fretting about climate change and recommending what we should be doing?

What are they doing?

Nothing apparently. They were asked, but as expected, gave jokey replies.

Asking what a person is doing about climate change is a different one to whether they believe it is a fact.

I'm sure many people believe that man is effecting the climate but probably feel too 'small' to do anything about it. They may see it as a governmental issue and would like policies to reflect this. However, when these policies come into conflict with their wallets they choose to have money now than to help the environment. On the other side it is an unfortunate fact, in relation to long term planning, that most politicians don't look beyond the next election.

Akrasia

dubstepper wrote: »

Asking what a person is doing about climate change is a different one to whether they believe it is a fact.

I'm sure many people believe that man is effecting the climate but probably feel too 'small' to do anything about it. They may see it as a governmental issue and would like policies to reflect this. However, when these policies come into conflict with their wallets they choose to have money now than to help the environment. On the other side it is an unfortunate fact, in relation to long term planning, that most politicians don't look beyond the next election.

This is why governments have a role to make sure the environmental option is also the economically attractive option. They can do this by subsidies and by taxation, and by using government borrowing to fund infrastructure improvements.

People will act in their own individual best interests most of the time, but governments have a responsibility to craft public policy that is in the best interests of the citizens as a whole. And when individual governments think they can game the system by not meeting their obligations to reduce emissions, that's where international agreements come in, with consequences for governments who refuse to act on their commitments.

xckjoo

dubstepper wrote: »

Asking what a person is doing about climate change is a different one to whether they believe it is a fact.

I'm sure many people believe that man is effecting the climate but probably feel too 'small' to do anything about it. They may see it as a governmental issue and would like policies to reflect this. However, when these policies come into conflict with their wallets they choose to have money now than to help the environment. On the other side it is an unfortunate fact, in relation to long term planning, that most politicians don't look beyond the next election.

It's a disingenuous question that he's trying to use to drag things off to another dead end of unrelated nit picking. Any attempt at serious discussion has been ignored or side-stepped and then submerged in walls of text about unrelated things that nobody else mentioned. It's the wall of noise approach to arguing. By the time you've responded to one point, he's made about 4 other posts that take deciphering. Disingenuous questions deserve disingenuous answers.

Akrasia deserves a medal for all his legitimate responses that he's made. I'm grateful for them though. I'm learning loads.

dense

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So you're asking what are we doing?
I do what I can do. My house is connected to the gas mains, I have a super efficient gas boiler that also does hot water, double glazing, every single lightbulb is LED, every appliance is A+ and there's the aforementioned diesel with DPF.

My own set up is not dissimilar although instead of natural gas I use natural smokeless coal.

House is such that it doesn't require heating except for winter months.

But it's still not enough for the eco activists who are now baying for natural gas to be phased out alongside other fossil fuels, so what will you do then?

The future of natural gas is limited, even as a bridging fuel.

Continued investments into the sector create the risk of breaching the Paris Agreement’s long term temperature goal and will result in stranded assets, the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) said today.

As part of its decarbonisation series, the CAT today released an examination of gas in the power sector. The report warns that natural gas will have to be phased out along with coal, if the world is to limit warming to 1.5˚C, as spelt out in the Paris Agreement long term temperature goal.

https://www.ecofys.com/en/news/climate-action-tracker-increased-reliance-on-natural-gas-risks-an-emissions/


https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/infographic-climate-change-risks-natural-gas

A new study, commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the Teesside University, shows that EU countries can afford just nine more years of burning gas and other fossil fuels at the current rate before they will have exhausted their share of the earth's remaining carbon budget for maximum temperature rises of 2°C.

Even with a managed phase-out, fossil fuels including natural gas, can have no substantial role beyond 2035 in an EU energy system compatible with 2°C.

http://www.foeeurope.org/new-study-incompatability-climate-safety-gas-071117

Maybe Tyndall Centre for Climate Change is one of those who will say whatever it is their funding partners want them to say, in this case Friends of the Earth, who want a faster phase out of fossil fuels than the Paris agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C.

As a matter of interest Akrasia would probably endorse the FOE stance as he/she has previously described the Paris Agreement as "vague" and "meaningful".

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

My own set up is not dissimilar although instead of natural gas I use natural smokeless coal.

House is such that it doesn't require heating except for winter months.

But it's still not enough for the eco activists who are now baying for natural gas to be phased out alongside other fossil fuels, so what will you do then?

https://www.ecofys.com/en/news/climate-action-tracker-increased-reliance-on-natural-gas-risks-an-emissions/


https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/infographic-climate-change-risks-natural-gas

http://www.foeeurope.org/new-study-incompatability-climate-safety-gas-071117

Maybe Tyndall Centre for Climate Change is one of those who will say whatever it is their funding partners want them to say, in this case Friends of the Earth, who want a faster phase out of fossil fuels than the Paris agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C.

As a matter of interest Akrasia would probably endorse the FOE stance as he/she has previously described the Paris Agreement as "vague" and "meaningful".

A genuine discussion? I'm back in (you'd know it was a slow Friday)!

Ya it's very doom and gloom if you start digging into this stuff. Everything has a trade-off; even wind turbines have an impact on things like wildlife. Nuclear power looks all well and good until you consider the waste disposal and security, and that's before you deal with public opinion and the technology itself.

There's one very good reason to move away from fossil fuels though and that's energy security. Even if you don't think they impact the climate, we can't fulfill our energy requirements from native fossil fuel stores.

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

Akrasia deserves a medal for all his legitimate responses that he's made. I'm grateful for them though. I'm learning loads.

Me too!!

I've particularly enjoyed learning of the earth scientists of the UNIPCC and their mission to implement transformational UN global socialist policies on the pathway to restoring a just climate for all sans fossil fuels.

WinnyThePoo

New world order

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

Me too!!

I've particularly enjoyed learning of the earth scientists of the UNIPCC and their mission to implement transformational UN global socialist policies on the pathway to restoring a just climate for all sans fossil fuels.

Damn commies have just been biding their time!

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

A genuine discussion? I'm back in (you'd know it was a slow Friday)!

Ya it's very doom and gloom if you start digging into this stuff. Everything has a trade-off; even wind turbines have an impact on things like wildlife. Nuclear power looks all well and good until you consider the waste disposal and security, and that's before you deal with public opinion and the technology itself.

There's one very good reason to move away from fossil fuels though and that's energy security. Even if you don't think they impact the climate, we can't fulfill our energy requirements from native fossil fuel stores.

We can't do it with renewables either:

According to the CSO, in 2015 Irelands total energy consumption was around 14m tons of oil equivalent (and probably rising as the economy grows).


https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii2016/energy/


That converts to 163twh.

Of that, total electricity consumed was just 29twh, and of that, just 27% came from renewables which is less than 8twh.

So to transition to a fossil fuel free economy you need to find a way for renewables to substitute the remaining 134twh of energy being used.


Electricity
• Final consumption of electricity increased by 2.9%
to 29 TWh with a 3.1% increase in the fuel inputs.
• Renewable electricity generation, consisting
of wind, hydro, landfill gas, biomass and
biogas, increased to 27.3% of gross electricity
consumption in 2015.
• In 2015, wind generation accounted for 22.8%
of the electricity generated and was the second
largest source of electricity generation after
natural gas.


• The use of renewables in electricity generation in
2015 reduced CO2
emissions by 3.2 Mt and avoided
€286 million in fossil fuel imports.


http://www.seai.ie/resources/publications/Energy-in-Ireland-1990-2015.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjp3OXU0JfdAhUKCsAKHU56De0QFggSMAE&usg=AOvVaw3xOGgPpfyN1ldrrBIgVW8t

dense

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

New world order

This??



Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity.



It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom.



We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.



All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.



We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet.



We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path.



As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.



The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda.



They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve.



They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.



They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld


Sure does look like it now that you mention it, an all new and orderly plan for the world.



Do you think it's necessarily a bad thing?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

This is why governments have a role to make sure the environmental option is also the economically attractive option. They can do this by subsidies and by taxation, and by using government borrowing to fund infrastructure improvements.

People will act in their own individual best interests most of the time, but governments have a responsibility to craft public policy that is in the best interests of the citizens as a whole. And when individual governments think they can game the system by not meeting their obligations to reduce emissions, that's where international agreements come in, with consequences for governments who refuse to act on their commitments.

Then you clearly require a form of global international governance which transcends national sovereignty with some controlling body dishing out fines to non performing countries which is cash which can then be transferred to developing countries, thereby effectively implementing the UN transfer of wealth scheme we discussed earlier.

Setting unreachable targets guarantees fines which guarantee the success of the wealth transfer plan.

The very public Paris Agreement has no penalties for countries which fail to meet targets, which is why the greens don't like it so much.

Here's a taste of the real funding mechanisms, which is keeping NGOs in jobs but is making no difference to emissions, and as we constantly keep hearing, it's not enough, and more is needed to be done.


https://bigpicture.unfccc.int/content/climate-finance/what-is-the-financial-mechanism-what-are-the-other-funds.html

dense

Coming back to NOAA's GHCN temperature graphic here:







With the consensus around here being that NOAA can magically validate GHCN data that does not exist, I decided to analyse the image and the results are very revealing.

It turns out that most of the earth has no GCHN data for NOAA or anyone else to validate.

Therefore any claims based on missing GCHN data are invalid as are any wild claims that it can validate data it doesn't have.

For those who are lost, there is more grey in that image than any other color.

And gray (sic) NOAA confides in us, represents "missing data".

https://labs.tineye.com/color/a94008a643a406506b770b168059712be6b2e2db?ignore_background=True&width=250&color_format=hex&ignore_interior_background=True&height=193

Franz Von Peppercorn

dense wrote: »

Coming back to NOAA's GHCN temperature graphic here:







With the consensus around here being that NOAA can magically validate GHCN data that does not exist, I decided to analyse the image and the results are very revealing.

It turns out that most of the earth has no GCHN data for NOAA or anyone else to validate.

Therefore any claims based on missing GCHN data are invalid as are any wild claims that it can validate data it doesn't have.

For those who are lost, there is more grey in that image than any other color.

And gray (sic) NOAA confides in us, represents "missing data".

https://labs.tineye.com/color/a94008a643a406506b770b168059712be6b2e2db?ignore_background=True&width=250&color_format=hex&ignore_interior_background=True&height=193

you continue to not understand sampling.

Akrasia

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

you continue to not understand sampling.

Dense must think that all the coldness in the world is hiding from the thermometers in those grey pixels

Dense also has dementia and forgets about the dozen + other datasets other than the GHCN that scientists can cross check and validate their data against.

Its kinda sad. Some day I'll log into boards and dense won't recognise me anymore

dense

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

you continue to not understand sampling.

Maybe you're colour blind Franz.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Dense must think that all the coldness in the world is hiding from the thermometers in those grey pixels

Dense also has dementia and forgets about the dozen + other datasets other than the GHCN that scientists can cross check and validate their data against.

Its kinda sad. Some day I'll log into boards and dense won't recognise me anymore

When the humour attempts kick in, I know Akrasia is left with nothing else to type.

Finally, although GHCN-Daily has already found applications in climate monitoring and assessments (e.g., Alexander et al. 2006; Caesar et al. 2006), its utility could always be enhanced with additional data for regions outside of North America.

Didn't happen. Most of the planet is not historically sampled and the data is classed as "missing".

This map shows the 7,280 fixed temperature stations in the GHCN catalog color coded by the length of the available record.

This image shows 3,832 records longer than 50 years, 1,656 records longer than 100 years, and 226 records longer than 150 years.

As is evident from this plot, the most densely instrumented portion of the globe is in the United States, while Antarctica is the most sparsely instrumented land area.

So much for a long term historic global temperature record from the undefined pre industrial era being available.

But let's try to keep a temperature rise above it to less than 1.5°C.....

jackboy

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

you continue to not understand sampling.

Do you understand representative sampling? It's not only the gray areas that are not being sampled, its also the white areas (over oceans). Any half decent scientist will say that a mountain of further work is required to produce sufficient data to draw reliable conclusions on.

Akrasia

jackboy wrote: »

Do you understand representative sampling? It's not only the gray areas that are not being sampled, its also the white areas (over oceans). Any half decent scientist will say that a mountain of further work is required to produce sufficient data to draw reliable conclusions on.

The GHCN doesn't cover oceans, there are other datasets that do cover oceans like the ERSST
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The GHCN doesn't cover oceans, there are other datasets that do cover oceans like the ERSST
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v4

The reconstructed SST records are as regularly reconstructed as the land records.



https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

Color me 'unconvinced'

Akrasia, did you get a chance to compile the data which would verify your claim that the 4 years since 2012 were the "hottest on record by a significant margin"?

As you have failed to demonstrate any temperature margins for those years, "significant" or otherwise, can we just dismiss it as wishful thinking or do you want to verify the claim with the relevant inter annual data for comparison?


For example, in the UK's Independent they rather helpfully stated that 2016 was hotter than 2015 by 0.01°C,


Is that what you term as a significant margin???

0.01°C of 1°C?

This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C – within the 0.1C margin of error

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-running-out-2016-hottest-year-on-record-climatologist-gabi-hegerl-a7533211.html

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The reconstructed SST records are as regularly reconstructed as the land records.



https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/



Akrasia, did you get a chance to compile the data which would verify your claim that the 4 years since 2012 were the "hottest on record by a significant margin"?

As you have failed to demonstrate any temperature margins for those years, "significant" or otherwise, can we just dismiss it as wishful thinking or do you want to verify the claim with the relevant inter annual data for comparison?


For example, in the UK's Independent they rather helpfully stated that 2016 was hotter than 2015 by 0.01°C,


Is that what you term as a significant margin???

0.01°C of 1°C?




https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-running-out-2016-hottest-year-on-record-climatologist-gabi-hegerl-a7533211.html

Hottest years on record according to NOAA



Top 10 warmest years (NOAA)
(1880–2017)
Rank Year Anomaly °C
1 2016 0.94
2 2015 0.90
3 2017 0.84
4 2014 0.74
5 2010 0.70
6 2013 0.66
7 2005 0.65
8 2009 0.64
9 1998 0.63
10 2012 0.62

The difference between 2012 and 2016 was about .3c which is huge

We're not just talking about natural variability, we're talking about breaking global temperature records consistently where we can be pretty sure that the hottest ever temperature 10 years ago, will be much lower than the expected average temperature for this year.

How are your 'skeptics' predictions working out? Where's our ice age?