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

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Ya I agree with your point about consumerism. Our economies are completely based on ever increasing levels of spending/buying. It's unsustainable. Not sure how to address it though other than to move more to the purchase of services instead of crap to throw away, and move back towards repairing things instead of making everything disposable.

Compelling manufacturers to put a label on goods that contain serviceability & life expectancy information in a similar fashion to the energy ratings of today would go a long way to reducing the "built for landfill" crap that's currently on the market.

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Compelling manufacturers to put a label on goods that contain serviceability & life expectancy information in a similar fashion to the energy ratings of today would go a long way to reducing the "built for landfill" crap that's currently on the market.

I don't agree. Notices about there being "No user serviceable parts" are on virtually every electronic item anyway.

And manufacturers of larger equipment want to recoup some of their investment by precluding unauthorised agents from attempting repairs.

Plus the quaity of many goods has improved dramatically over the last few decades.

Look at how reliable a modern car is.
It will last 20 years easily with a bit of attention to manufacturer's recommendations. One car could do for a lifetime with a bit of effort.
Contrast that with the cars of the 70s. Simple to maintain OK but generally rust buckets and unsafe.

Your point still stands in relation to unnecessary junk that people stupidly feel obliged to buy.

Also witness the idiotic trends for all things retro.
Everything that goes out of fashion and favour is dug up by hipsters looking to be cool rediscovering what's been discarded, be it old style retro phones to new record players to audio cassettes to add to their existing collection of CDS and iphones.

dense

dense wrote: »

I don't agree. Notices about there being "No user serviceable parts" are on virtually every electronic item anyway.

And manufacturers of larger equipment want to recoup some of their investment by precluding unauthorised agents from attempting repairs.

Plus the quaity of many goods has improved dramatically over the last few decades.

Look at how reliable a modern car is.
It will last 20 years easily with a bit of attention to manufacturer's recommendations. One car could do for a lifetime with a bit of effort.
Contrast that with the cars of the 70s. Simple to maintain OK but generally rust buckets and unsafe.

Your point still stands in relation to unnecessary junk that people stupidly feel obliged to buy.

Also witness the idiotic trends for all things retro.
Everything that goes out of fashion and favour is dug up by hipsters looking to be cool rediscovering what's been discarded, be it old style retro phones to new record players to audio cassettes to add to their existing collection of CDS and iphones.

No, my point is about products that are "expected" to have a reasonable working life, washing machines, dishwashers and similar products are not expected to be junk in less than five years.
In the former DDR they were mandated by law to have a working life of at least 30 years, here manufacturers are making them unserviceable in under five years.


As for cars, you may not remember the consumer backlash against manufacturers who tries to reduce the working life of cars down to about six years by building rust buckets. People stopped buying them and bought Japanese instead. Which put an end to several European car makes and put manners on car makers.


But the real issue is, of course planned & perceived obsolescence that manufacturers love the most and one of the major causes of pollution on the planet.

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, my point is about products that are "expected" to have a reasonable working life, washing machines, dishwashers and similar products are not expected to be junk in less than five years.
In the former DDR they were mandated by law to have a working life of at least 30 years, here manufacturers are making them unserviceable in under five years.

It depends on the brand and how much the consumer can afford or is willing to pay.
Buy a Beko washing machine and you can be pretty sure it won't last as long as a Miele.

Similarly media players today for example with no moving parts should last substantially longer than their predecessors such as video recorders etc for a fraction of the price. I suspect that issues with built in rechargeable batteries cause most problems, lead to re purchases.

Certainly we could encourage manufacturers to build over engineered appliances to last 30 years but how can you force people to buy them?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As for cars, you may not remember the consumer backlash against manufacturers who tries to reduce the working life of cars down to about six years by building rust buckets. People stopped buying them and bought Japanese instead. Which put an end to several European car makes and put manners on car makers.

What makes were they? I was thinking more of UK rust buckets.

The problem isn't that the cheaper ones break quicker than the more expensive models, it's the fact that they deliberately "down engineer" them to fail quicker.
For example, a bearing with 5000 hours costs €1.20 where as a bearing of the same dimensions with rollers instead of sleeve may cost €1.50 so a saving of 25 cents results in a vastly reduced operational life for the equipment.
So to double the life of many appliances would only increase the factory gate price by less than 5%.
In some cases, printers for example they cost more to make them fail quicker as they install a "countdown to death" chip into them.

As for the rust buckets, All American makes & most European makes, Lancia (Beta) for example were one of the worst and went bust as a result. Makes like Volvo, Saab & Mercedes were the exception.

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

What we forget is that a tax like this is to change behaviour, not raise revenue.

No.
We don't forget anything like that, no matter how many times the environmentalists repeat it.

We remember that revenue has to be raised to fund the uncosted renewable energy infrastructure they say is rapidly required.
We also need to raise revenue to fund the 0.6 billion euro annual fines for failing to commit to their stupidly agreed CO2 emissions reductions targets which have no scientifically demonstrable affect on "climate change".

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-faces-annual-eu-energy-fines-of-600m-36857141.html

We also cannot forget that we have to raise the revenue required to keep our annual one billion plus foreign aid contributions on track to keep growing.

Don't "forget", it all goes into the one pot, these taxes that are allegedly designed for us to "remember" to change our non climate changing behaviour, build a fairy dust renewable energy infrastructure and assist developing countries to become prosperous using renewable energy.

d8491prj5boyvg

dense wrote: »

Don't "forget", it all goes into the one pot

This is the point. It doesn't have to and all new carbon taxes are taking this on board.

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

This is the point. It doesn't have to and all new carbon taxes are taking this on board.

Sorry, the new taxes are taking what exactly on board?

If it doesn't have to go into the pot and is going to be ring fenced, let's look at what carbon taxes will be required to fund this nonsense. Someone, sometime might provide some figures for what they believe is required and then explain how this investment will affect climate change and prevent global warming.

What percentage of climate change will it rectify and what portion of a degree of global warming will it prevent, and by when.

This is a thing, right?

If it's real we need to have a real debate about not only what return we're expecting from this but why we're doing it.

The whole climate thing lost a lot of support here when no one on the bandwagon could attribute any climate change or global warming to Ireland's emissions so we need to be very cautious about attributing any potential for Ireland being able to solve something that it hasn't been shown to have caused.

We don't want to mislead well meaning people here who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint because apparently there's no need for them to be bothering about that because it won't make any difference according to the climate concerned people posting here.

d8491prj5boyvg

dense wrote: »

Sorry, the new taxes are taking what exactly on board?

If it doesn't have to go into the pot and is going to be ring fenced, let's look at what carbon taxes will be required to fund this nonsense. Someone, sometime might provide some figures for what they believe is requires and then explain.how this investment will affect climate change and prevent global warming.

What percentage of climate change will it rectify and what portion of a degree of global warming will it prevent, and by when.

This is a thing, right?

If it's real we need to have a real debate about not only what return we're expecting from this but why we're doing it.

The whole climate thing lost a lot of support here when no one on the bandwagon could attribute any climate change or global warming to Ireland's emissions so we need to be very cautious about attributing any potential for Ireland being able to solve something that it hasn't been shown to have caused.

We don't want to mislead well meaning people here who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint because apparently there's no need for them to be bothering about that because it won't make any difference according to the climate concerned people posting here.

Loads of research on the social cost of carbon.

Loads of research on how best to offset negative impacts of a carbon tax.

xckjoo

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Loads of research on the social cost of carbon.

Loads of research on how best to offset negative impacts of a carbon tax.

Don't you know research is just a socialist conspiracy to trick us all into some kind of New World Order? If it wasn't for the altruistic fossil fuel companies we'd all be doomed by now.

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Loads of research on the social cost of carbon.

Loads of research on how best to offset negative impacts of a carbon tax.

You old tease Morgan Limited Jackal, you really had me there, I thought we'd hit it off and you were the one that the activists had sent to get them to be taken as grown ups, but alas, my hopes have been dashed.

Maybe someone, sometime might provide some hard figures to demonstrate what is required of the locals in terms of generating funds to meet our annual fines, finance our urgently needed local alternative energy infrastructure, and explain how any of it will affect climate change and prevent global warming.


Twas not to be.

d8491prj5boyvg

dense wrote: »

Maybe someone, sometime might provide some hard figures to demonstrate what is required of the locals in terms of generating funds to meet our annual fines, finance our urgently needed local alternative energy infrastructure, and explain how any of it will affect climate change and prevent global warming.


Twas not to be.

Watch your double counting; the fines (for non-compliance) and the infrastructure costs (for compliance) are mutually exclusive. So its either one or the other.

at least 30-50/tCO2 is needed for compliance, rising annually.

d8491prj5boyvg

I think these are the 'hard figures' you are looking for.

https://www.esri.ie/news/an-increase-in-carbon-tax-would-have-small-impacts-on-households-and-producers/

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Watch your double counting; the fines (for non-compliance) and the infrastructure costs (for compliance) are mutually exclusive. So its either one or the other.

at least 30-50/tCO2 is needed for compliance, rising annually.

So what is the total cost of the infrastructure estimated at, less the fines then?



Your second line? Means what?

d8491prj5boyvg

dense wrote: »

So what is the total cost of the infrastructure estimated at, less the fines then?



Your second line? Means what?

The cost is at least 30-50 euro per tonne of CO2 emitted. What is that per household in Ireland? Check out the ESRI report

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

The cost is at least 30-50 euro per tonne of CO2 emitted.

The cost of what is 30 - 50 euro per ton? Please be specific?
The social cost of "carbon", the fines or the cost of building the renewable energy infrastructure. Or is it all of the above, rolled into one?

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

What is that per household in Ireland? Check out the ESRI report

Why do you want to divide it per household?

Households only emit around a quarter of our emissions according to the SEAI. https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/04/energy-in-the-residential-sector-2018-final.pdf



Do you have a link to the ESRI report?

d8491prj5boyvg

dense wrote: »

The cost of what is 30 - 50 euro per ton? Please be specific?
The social cost of "carbon", the fines or the cost of building the renewable energy infrastructure. Or is it all of the above, rolled into one?

The cost abatement in line with limiting warming to 2 degrees. The IPCC reports that you link in your sig should explain the social cost of carbon.

dense wrote: »

Why do you want to divide it per household?

I don't.

dense wrote: »

Households only emit around a quarter of our emissions according to the SEAI. https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/04/energy-in-the-residential-sector-2018-final.pdf



Do you have a link to the ESRI report?

Yep. It's in the post above.

BadTurtle

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#5eabc3f33f9f

Do you see who wrote that article, you numbskull? He works for this purely profit driven hellscape: http://industrialprogress.com
They promote tracking and nuclear power, they're clearly arseholes solely focused on the dollar.

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

The cost abatement in line with limiting warming to 2 degrees. The IPCC reports that you link in your sig should explain the social cost of carbon.

I'm trying without much success to see if anyone has costed what Ireland is going to have to invest in order to limit global warming.
How much we need to invest here and how much warming our investment is expected to prevent occurring and what affect it is predicted such an investment will have on rectifying climate change.

Nobody seems to have this information. It is not in any IPCC report nor is it information that the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change has.

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

I don't.

You do. You said the cost abatement in line with limiting warming to 2 degrees should be divided by the number of households here:

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

The cost is at least 30-50 euro per tonne of CO2 emitted. What is that per household in Ireland?

dense

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

I think these are the 'hard figures' you are looking for.

https://www.esri.ie/news/an-increase-in-carbon-tax-would-have-small-impacts-on-households-and-producers/

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Watch your double counting; the fines (for non-compliance) and the infrastructure costs (for compliance) are mutually exclusive. So its either one or the other.

at least 30-50/tCO2 is needed for compliance, rising annually.

No, we will have to pay both and we will not achieve compliance and avoid fines by having charges anywhere in the region of €30/50/tco2.
We will be funding fines on top of rising carbon taxes.

Amongst the ESRI's conclusions, it states that

...it is crystal clear that Ireland is far from meeting the non-ETS emission reduction targets by 2020 and 2030 even with significant increases in the carbon tax.

The ESRI says it will need to be increased over 10 years to €300 per tonne in order to avoid fines.

A new computational model developed by the institute that factors in economic data, environmental trends and energy consumption, has found carbon tax on fossil fuels will need to increase to €300 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted over the coming decade to avoid substantial fines in the form of compliance costs.


Non-ETS emissions in Ireland must be reduced by 20 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020, but the EPA estimates the overall reduction will be 1 per cent at best, due to economic growth and agricultural expansion. The 2030 target is 30 per cent.


Carbon tax will have to increase substantially – from €100 per person a year to €1,500 a year – if Ireland is to meet legally-binding targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, according to ESRI projections.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/massive-hike-in-carbon-tax-needed-if-ireland-to-meet-targets-esri-1.3704655?mode=amp


€1500 per person or €7bn per year.

So, it looks like we're expected to pay €7bn a year to avoid paying fines for something that we are not responsible for causing and are not in a position to rectify.


The climate industry is a good game to be in.
Are you in it by any chance Morgan Limited Jackal?

batgoat

I can't wait till dense deals with vaccines as a global conspiracy....

dense

batgoat wrote: »

I can't wait till dense deals with vaccines as a global conspiracy....

Sorry, cant help you there, buy if you believe vaccines are part of a global conspiracy and are now having random thoughts to that effect, might I suggest an anti vax thread as a more appropriate place to share your complulsion?

batgoat

dense wrote: »

Sorry, cant help you there, buy if you believe vaccines are part of a global conspiracy and are now having random thoughts to that effect, might I suggest an anti vax thread as a more appropriate place to share your complulsion?

I think it just fits in pretty well with the fact that you effectively think global warming is a new world order conspiracy to establish a communist regime... Because that is basically what you've said.

dense

batgoat wrote: »

I think it just fits in pretty well with the fact that you effectively think global warming is a new world order conspiracy to establish a communist regime... Because that is basically what you've said.

Barking up the wrong tree there bud

But what's wrong with a new world order for the better, based on #climatejustice and sustainability costing the taxpayer €7bn a year to avoid paying fines of €0.6bn a year for something that we are not responsible for causing and are not in a position to rectify?

The lefties here were up in arms about that €13bn from Apple and all the homes they could have built for themselves and their mates with it.

Akrasia

Investing in future energy infrastructure and modernising old houses is hardly wasting billions for no benefit

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Investing in future energy infrastructure and modernising old houses is hardly wasting billions for no benefit

Modernising old houses can often be a false economy, all you end up with is an old unsuitable house in in the wrong location.


Usually it's better to knock and build modern property designed for the needs of the people who will live there.


For example, demolish "cottages" in urban areas and replace with modern flats that can house several families & couple or single people on the footprint of two or three old two room bungalows that could only house two or three couples in cramped accommodation with poor insulation.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Modernising old houses can often be a false economy, all you end up with is an old unsuitable house in in the wrong location.


Usually it's better to knock and build modern property designed for the needs of the people who will live there.


For example, demolish "cottages" in urban areas and replace with modern flats that can house several families & couple or single people on the footprint of two or three old two room bungalows that could only house two or three couples in cramped accommodation with poor insulation.

Ok, but we don't live in a totalitarian state and there are downsides to turfing out old people and tearing down their houses.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, but we don't live in a totalitarian state and there are downsides to turfing out old people and tearing down their houses.

You give them a new flat in exchange.
Anyway, much of that property is owned these days by landlords, you just compensate them at market rates.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Investing in future energy infrastructure and modernising old houses is hardly wasting billions for no benefit

Do you have the cost to benefit analysis to hand?

The SEAI is waving a €35billion carrot in front of "deep retrofit" service providers.

https://www.seai.ie/grants/home-energy-grants/deep-retrofit-grant/

The benefits accruing from deep retrofit are what, and to whom are they accruing exactly?

It certailnly won't be the homeowner because as we have seen, their reduced energy consumption, through attempts at investing in A rated appliances and energy saving light bulbs etc is being rewarded with constantly rising electricity prices.

dense

dense wrote: »

Do you have the cost to benefit analysis to hand?

The SEAI is waving a €35billion carrot in front of "deep retrofit" service providers.

https://www.seai.ie/grants/home-energy-grants/deep-retrofit-grant/

The benefits accruing from deep retrofit are what, and to whom are they accruing exactly?

It certailnly won't be the homeowner because as we have seen, their reduced energy consumption, through attempts at investing in A rated appliances and energy saving light bulbs etc is being rewarded with constantly rising electricity prices.

With ever increasing energy prices, the rewards are basically not having their energy bills rise as much as they would if they did not insulate and change to low energy lights & appliances.

dense

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With ever increasing energy prices, the rewards are basically not having their energy bills rise as much as they would if they did not insulate and change to low energy lights & appliances.

Looks like a bit of a gamble to be honest.
To see any saving they first have to cough up €30,000 or more for a deep retrofit, which at present is grant aided, but for a limited time only as it is a pilot scheme and the SEAI is still "learning" about any benifits.

"We are currently not accepting applications from individual homeowners. We need to learn through the pilot before developing a model to deliver high quality deep retrofit to individual homeowners."

https://www.seai.ie/grants/home-energy-grants/deep-retrofit-grant/

Insulation potential is not fantastic unless you are literally living in a barn with paper for walls and ceilings.

The majority of houses have some form of insulation by design or chance. In the period between 1700 and 1977 67% of houses were classified as being above the lowest BER rating of F-G.

https://www.thejournal.ie/home-heating-oil-gas-electricity-cso-1891733-Jan2015/

The maximum heat loss through an attic is 30%, so at least 70% is retained with absolutely no insulation whatsoever.

The maximum loss through walls is 35%. so at least 65% heat is retained with absolutely no insulation.

If your doors and windows are falling apart they'll still retain at least 90% of heat.

https://www.seai.ie/sustainable-solutions/deep-retrofit/

As the requirement is to get householders to use less and less energy which is costing more and more, the benefits seem very hard to pin down.

The next distraction will be smart meters, designed to make householders reconsider that extra cup of tea.

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/0410/953366-smart-electricity-meters-are-coming-so-what-can-we-expect/

I wonder can Akrasia shed any light on how this €7bn is being spent annually and what the alleged benefits of spending it are?

dense

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/irish-scientist-questions-warnings-on-climate-change-1.3738727?mode=amp

Professor Bates trying to bring a bit of sanity to the global warming asylum.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/irish-scientist-questions-warnings-on-climate-change-1.3738727?mode=amp

Professor Bates trying to bring a bit of sanity to the global warming asylum.

Professor Bates is full of sh1t on this topic and when he refers to 'new evidence since 2013' he should be referring to the fact that 5 of the top 10 hottest years ever recorded have been since then including the top 3 hottest years by a significant margin

He thinks climate sensitivity is less than 1c when we've already exceeded that warming.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With ever increasing energy prices, the rewards are basically not having their energy bills rise as much as they would if they did not insulate and change to low energy lights & appliances.

Not to mention reducing smog and particulate emissions from old houses with open fires that make the air in our towns and cities toxic during winter months. Open fires are extremely inefficient at converting fuel into usable heat and then poor insulation, damp and draughty housing don't retain that heat for long.

Alf Veedersane

dense wrote: »

Insulation potential is not fantastic unless you are literally living in a barn with paper for walls and ceilings.

The majority of houses have some form of insulation by design or chance. In the period between 1700 and 1977 67% of houses were classified as being above the lowest BER rating of F-G.

https://www.thejournal.ie/home-heating-oil-gas-electricity-cso-1891733-Jan2015/

Misleading. There's a fairly low percentage of those houses built up to 1977 that have a BER. 750k homes in the country built before any insulation standards came into being in 1979 and that was only for publicly funded homes.

dense wrote: »

The maximum heat loss through an attic is 30%, so at least 70% is retained with absolutely no insulation whatsoever.

The maximum loss through walls is 35%. so at least 65% heat is retained with absolutely no insulation.

If your doors and windows are falling apart they'll still retain at least 90

They are indicative figures. Heat loss doesn't work like that. If you have no insulation in your attic but highly insulated walls and triple glazed windows, the proportion of heat loss will be much higher.

If you have well insulated attic and walls but you have poor doors and windows, which will typically be areas of poor airtightness, You'll lose more heat there.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Professor Bates is full of sh1t on this topic and when he refers to 'new evidence since 2013' he should be referring to the fact that 5 of the top 10 hottest years ever recorded have been since then including the top 3 hottest years by a significant margin

He thinks climate sensitivity is less than 1c when we've already exceeded that warming.

Sure maybe he's been bought off by big oil too, eh??

Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the Meteorology and Climate Centre at UCD. He was formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen and a Senior Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre.

Earlier in his career he was Head of Research at Met Éireann. He was Chairman of the RIA’s Climate Change Sciences Committee, 2009-2013, and a member of the RIA’s Climate Change and Environmental Sciences Committee, 2014-18. Prof. Bates' current research area is climate sensitivity. He was awarded the Vilhelm Bjerknes Medal of the European Geosciences Union in 2009. He is a Member of the Royal Irish Academy and of the Academia Europaea.

https://www.ria.ie/john-raphael-ray-bates

How do you expect your claims of hottest years to be taken seriously when only last week you were saying scientists disagree about what the earth's average global temperature is and what it was that it is being compared to?

Couple that with your inability to tell us what the "hottest years" translate to in terms of respective global average temperatures for those years in order to ascertain whether you're on track to limit your warming to 1.5° above some similarly unknown global average temperature and you have serious credibility issues.

You need to know that the UNIPCC is just a UN body used to promote the implementation of the UN's stated agenda of a new world order for the better, by forcing unwanted, unknown and unprecedented changes upon all aspects of society.

OleRodrigo

Freeman Dyson on climate hysteria

Very interesting indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

Akrasia

Not enough evidence to believe in climate change, but enough evidence to believe in ESP.

There are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent and also extremely wrong about certain things.

My own uncle is a barrister and probably one of the smartest people I know who also believes in homeopathy.

Some people are just natural contrarians who love to rail against the established view. Occasionally this leads to big breakthroughs in our understanding, but you can't accept a contrarian opinion on one thing just because someone has a proven track record on a completely separate field.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Sure maybe he's been bought off by big oil too, eh??

Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the Meteorology and Climate Centre at UCD. He was formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen and a Senior Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre.

Earlier in his career he was Head of Research at Met reann. He was Chairman of the RIA’s Climate Change Sciences Committee, 2009-2013, and a member of the RIA’s Climate Change and Environmental Sciences Committee, 2014-18. Prof. Bates' current research area is climate sensitivity. He was awarded the Vilhelm Bjerknes Medal of the European Geosciences Union in 2009. He is a Member of the Royal Irish Academy and of the Academia Europaea.

https://www.ria.ie/john-raphael-ray-bates

How do you expect your claims of hottest years to be taken seriously when only last week you were saying scientists disagree about what the earth's average global temperature is and what it was that it is being compared to?

Couple that with your inability to tell us what the "hottest years" translate to in terms of respective global average temperatures for those years in order to ascertain whether you're on track to limit your warming to 1.5° above some similarly unknown global average temperature and you have serious credibility issues.

You need to know that the UNIPCC is just a UN body used to promote the implementation of the UN's stated agenda of a new world order for the better, by forcing unwanted, unknown and unprecedented changes upon all aspects of society.

Ray Bates is like one of the old style eminent geologists who opposed plate tectonics. There are always some scientists who refuse to accept the evidence because they're stuck in a wrong way of thinking. He may eventually change his mind, or he will go to his grave still thinking climate sensitivity is 1c even as the planet is warming well beyond that figure and the evidence continues to pile up that he is wrong.

rossie1977

For around 2,000 years the CO2 levels stayed constant at around 275 ppm. Since the industrial revolution that's seen a big spike almost annually and we currently sit at over 400ppm.

Amount of methane gas in Earth's atmosphere has seen a gigantic increase since the 1850s.

dense

rossie1977 wrote: »

For around 2,000 years the CO2 levels stayed constant at around 275 ppm. Since the industrial revolution that's seen a big spike almost annually and we currently sit at over 400ppm.

Do you want to lead us through what you think will happen, and when, if we manage to transition off fossil fuels and reduce CO2 to say, 300ppm?

Go through the unprecedented changes in all aspects of society that will be required to make that transition, and then what you expect that the transition will achieve in terms of forcing a new round of deliberate man made climate change to counter the current alleged man made global warming which is said to be causing climate change?

Pa ElGrande

rossie1977 wrote: »

For around 2,000 years the CO2 levels stayed constant at around 275 ppm. Since the industrial revolution that's seen a big spike almost annually and we currently sit at over 400ppm.

Amount of methane gas in Earth's atmosphere has seen a gigantic increase since the 1850s.

We are all doomed I tell ya', doomed . . .

Akrasia

You know that it's considered good manners to provide the source of your links and images so others can check them to see if they are credible?

Is this from a study that was published in a reputable peer reviewed journal?

I doubt it considering he refers to Lindzen and Choi's 2009 sensitivity figure which was thoroughly debunked such that they had to revise it themselves in 2011 and Lindzen himself called his own 2009 paper embarrassing.

Lindzen and Choi's 2011 revision paper was also a disaster and rejected by the peer reviewers at PNAS so he got it published in a crappy journal with much lower standards

Climate scientists are aware that there is a diminishing greenhouse effect as concentrations of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. It's a logarithmic scale, this is why climate sensitivity holds as the increase in temperature we should see for each doubling of CO2 concentrations.

The 'saturated gas' argument was made and given a lot of credence in the early 20th century but as we grew in our understanding of the physics of the greenhouse effect, it became clear that this argument is fundamentally flawed and no serious climate scientist would ever put forth that argument in 2018

There is a very good explanation for why on real climate. Read the full article. It's actually very interesting, but if you don't have time, here's the summary.

So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

OK a google produced this https://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

The chart is in one of the replies.

and https://twitter.com/khaustein/status/948626992508932097

neither have the source of the original image.

But they do allude to the theory that as the CO2 levels increase, their affects on "greeenhouse warming" reduce.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

OK a google produced this https://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

The chart is in one of the replies.

and https://twitter.com/khaustein/status/948626992508932097

neither have the source of the original image.

But they do allude to the theory that as the CO2 levels increase, their affects on "greeenhouse warming" reduce.

Climate sensitivity is logarithmic. For every doubling of CO2, we should see the same amount of warming, so lets say ECS is 3c, then we would see a 3c increase in warming between 150ppm and 300ppm, and an additional 3c of warming between 300ppm and 600ppm.

This is only based on the CO2 forcing element. If there are additional feedbacks these would need to be accounted for (like changes to albedo, methane released from permafrost and under the sea etc, water vapour changes etc

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Climate sensitivity is logarithmic. For every doubling of CO2, we should see the same amount of warming, so lets say ECS is 3c, then we would see a 3c increase in warming between 150ppm and 300ppm, and an additional 3c of warming between 300ppm and 600ppm.

This is only based on the CO2 forcing element. If there are additional feedbacks these would need to be accounted for (like changes to albedo, methane released from permafrost and under the sea etc, water vapour changes etc

In that case the theory is correct, a doubling in CO2 does not involve a doubling in the temperature increases, it only increases in a linear trend for each doubling.

Pa ElGrande

Follow the money, realclimate.org cannot be considered an objective source since it is a front for a PR firm that is paid to disseminate climate change propaganda.


Here is what professor Richard Lindzen had to say about realclimate.org.

“Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) created a website, realclimate.org, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce their worrying.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

source

Here is a job advertisement for the PR firm Fenton Communications from May this year for Climate vice president.

We Are: A pioneering social impact communications firm with 33 years experience working on some of the country’s most important social change movements. Fenton creates top-tier cause and issue campaigns for past and present clients like MoveOn.org, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Save the Children, The Sierra Club, Sungevity, Al Gore, the IPCC, DC Entertainment, Save the Redwoods, the Environmental Defense Fund, 350.org, NRG, Bloomberg Philanthropies and Johnson & Johnson. Fenton has 60+ staff in four offices in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.

source

Akrasia

Realclimate was started by actively publishing climate scientists Gavin Schmidt,
Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and
Caspar Ammann.
It's run as a voluntary non profit site and this is what they have to say about Fenton communications

RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain was hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, none of these organizations were in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor SCN nor EMS ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither did they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

Just another thing to add to the List Richard Lindzen is wrong about.

Oh, speaking of him, he has received lots of funding from the energy industry and lied about it
As you said follow the money
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

SEPT 23 1989

Climate is changing and it has changed in the past and a lot more violently than now

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Climate is changing and it has changed in the past and a lot more violently than now

Always has changed and always will change, the only difference is now, humans are influencing these changes (the only real debate is "how much?").
Taxing CO2 is simply a scam as it deflects from the activities that have the most affect on the environment.