Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Options
Comments
-
Ok, to add to your ignorance on climate science, I can also see that you know nothing about economics or politics either
Ireland is part of the EU, and the UN, and as such, we have committed to reducing our CO2 emissions as part of a global effort to combat climate change
In order to solve this problem, every country needs to decarbonise. And if the EU meets our targets that we set for ourselves, than we will be in a position to enforce those standards on any country looking to trade with us.
Ah, just because I live in the real world and see how families are struggling with the price of heating their homes and travelling to work means I'm "ignorant". You remind me of that Clinton one calling voters "deplorable".
As for politics, they have generally bollixed up everything they've lay their hand to:
* Housing
* Health
* Education
* Farming
* Planning
* Broadband
* Immigration
and the list goes on.
But call me ignorant for pointing out the glaring holes in your policies. Okay then O'Wise one.0 -
It's by Peter Hadfield, a science reporter for decades who has been making videos promoting science on Youtube under the username Potholer54
Ah, the dulcet tones of a middle class Brit belongs commentating on cricket or golf as it lulls the observer into a commanding sense of calm and reasonableness. Great if you can get away with it but being Irish, some of us don't think the late 17th century Royal Society icons are founding fathers of anything other than bluffing to promote experimental sciences.
It is unfortunate that none of you show a talent for Earth sciences and astronomy, after all, researchers are like composers of music as it can't be taught or learnt, at least up to a point, however, it can be appreciated by anyone with effort and imagination -
"We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves." Galileo
Many contributors come across as trained parrots who learned something in their schooldays without testing the veracity of the historical or technical details. It is unfortunate that the wider public don't see through the intellectual pretense and discover for themselves just how exciting and intricate Earth sciences and astronomy really are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgy5JS-QhQ
That English guy goes through the torturous nature of experimental theorists and their 'scientific method, peer review and so on before they are granted a title. On the other hand, to be inspiring and inspired with the great terrestrial and celestial surroundings require nothing of the sort and is intrinsic to human nature and for those open to these things. If you are looking for a salary and a pension in engineering or medical sciences then so well and good but Earth sciences and astronomy are an entirely different issue.
Dreaming up an experiment about a greenhouse and the Earth's atmosphere for the purpose of human temperature control is an irritant with the only problem being a joyless and talentless opposition who are the other side of the same 'scientific method' coin.0 -
Ah, just because I live in the real world and see how families are struggling with the price of heating their homes and travelling to work means I'm "ignorant". You remind me of that Clinton one calling voters "deplorable".
As for politics, they have generally bollixed up everything they've lay their hand to:
* Housing
* Health
* Education
* Farming
* Planning
* Broadband
* Immigration
and the list goes on.
But call me ignorant for pointing out the glaring holes in your policies. Okay then.
Yeah, because everyone in Ireland is homeless, sick, illiterate, hungry, unplanned with bad wifi and subject to constant attacks by roving bands of immigrants
Ignorant is not the same as deplorable by the way, you have shown yourself to be uninformed in the science of climate change and the economics and politics of rolling out new technology on a national and international scale.
If it was up to you, we would all still be driving cars filled with leaded petrol.0 -
Ah, just because I live in the real world and see how families are struggling with the price of heating their homes and travelling to work means I'm "ignorant". You remind me of that Clinton one calling voters "deplorable".
As for politics, they have generally bollixed up everything they've lay their hand to:
* Housing
* Health
* Education
* Farming
* Planning
* Broadband
* Immigration
and the list goes on.
But call me ignorant for pointing out the glaring holes in your policies. Okay then O'Wise one.
Akrasia makes a good point about lead in petrol. Also catalytic converters added a cost to cars. If you are true to what you say (and we'll see if you are...) you wouldn't have added them as they would cost working families a lot of money. I remember cities before cars with catalytic converters - they stank of car exhaust fumes.
Actually, most safety measures (seat belts, brakes, light) added a cost to cars - perhaps they too imposed too high a cost on working families?
What say you, oh wise one??? I suspect you'll deflect or dodge...0 -
Guys can we stop letting Akrasia derail the thread?
Back to the science.
Why bother arguing with someone you KNOW doesnt walk the walk?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
SeaBreezes wrote: »Guys can we stop letting Akrasia derail the thread?
Back to the science.
Why bother arguing with someone you KNOW doesnt walk the walk?
Bring the science on! Got anything else other than a couple of self publishing crackpots and a youtuber?0 -
SeaBreezes wrote: »Guys can we stop letting Akrasia derail the thread?
In fairness to him, he is taking on a lot. Reminds me of the swordsman taking down his enemies one by one, and all with one hand causally at his back!New Moon
0 -
SeaBreezes wrote: »Guys can we stop letting Akrasia derail the thread?
Back to the science.
Why bother arguing with someone you KNOW doesnt walk the walk?
Back to the science. Do you accept that the radiosonde balloons show warming?
How does this affect your opinion of Ronan Connolly?0 -
Yeah, because everyone in Ireland is homeless, sick, illiterate, hungry, unplanned with bad wifi and subject to constant attacks by roving bands of immigrants
It must be nice for you in your ivory tower with private health insurance, private schooling, a kitchen full of Marks and Sparks in a planned gated community away from it all. Lucky you.If it was up to you, we would all still be driving cars filled with leaded petrol.
Jeez, that's a compliment as I'd be more backward than that though - we should be all on ass and cart. At least that might keep the green lobby happy as long as the animals were in nappies of course.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ireland is a peripheral and highly dependant state, we are in no position to enforce anything on any country. As for the EU, well, we'll see how that goes in the years to come having lost its 2nd highest net contributor.than we will be in a position to enforce those standards on any country looking to trade with us.New Moon
0 -
You, sir, should look up my username. it might take you a while to find what it refers to, use your self proclaimed intuition..
I don't set challenges for people.
Nobody touched the resolution for the direct/retrograde motions of the planets since Copernicus about 500 years ago , an observation that has existed for many thousands of years before he accounted for the direct/retrograde motions of the slower moving planets but not the direct/retrogrades of faster moving Venus and Mercury.
I have accounted for the direct/retrograde motions of Venus and Mercury by filing in a narrow corridor which sets up the stationary Sun as a central reference point for the actual orbital motions of the faster planets moving in smaller circumferences as seen from a slower moving Earth. They can be seen to run back and forth in front and behind the Sun within that narrow corridor so if you visit the astronomy forum you can see the expanded views with the usual dull opposition -
https://imgur.com/5adXFsD
https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/
That is Mercury moving in direct motion behind the central Sun from right to left as seen from a slower moving Earth -
https://www.theplanetstoday.com/
Not Galileo, not Kepler, none of them got it right but I did because satellite imaging allows it if a person has the intuitive/perceptive qualities. People lack a sense of historical or technical achievements whether in the past or present and that is why our society is being sucked into gloom and doom predictions by joyless and talentless people. Some people insist that this belongs in an astronomy forum, however, to study Earth sciences of the planet is the same as studying the body, not just in itself in isolation but within context of their surroundings, in the case of the body its relationship to terrestrial sciences and in the case of the planet within its solar system surroundings which include a stationary Sun.
Like the Titanic, the academic rudder guiding empirical sciences is too small and can't change course quick enough to adapt to new perspectives and information and my goodness, does it show.0 -
Jeez, that's a compliment as I'd be more backward than that though - we should be all on ass and cart. At least that might keep the green lobby happy as long as the animals were in nappies of course.
One minute you say the green lobby want to impose expensive technological change on poor self proclaimed (wonders how well you actually live...) victims like you, the next you say they want to send us back to horses and carts.
Or is it both? Technohorses or something :rolleyes:0 -
What’s your point?
The trend is upwards unless you cherry-pick date ranges? I completely agree with you
The trend is indeed upwards over 40 years, but the official datasets are grossly out of whack with eachother. RSS has 62% faster warming than the UAH, both supposed to be measuring the same thing and filling in the massive gaps in the data-sparse parts of the world. What is the actual figure? The science in this regard is far from settled. If you can't accurately measure temperature then you can't say how fast it's rising, but more importantly, can't get the most out of the models, ergo you can't state categorically with "very high confidence" that it's 100% anthropogenic in nature.
So yes, the world is warming in many parts (not all), but we just don't really know with any level of accuracy by how much it's warming.0 -
Well, if you think UAH is right then 1998 is still the warmest year, if RSS is right then it wasn't.
My view is 1998 wasn't the warmest year. And I think the evidence is it wasn't. But, if you think the data is a fraud and a scam (like Heller does) then you'll think UAH is right.
Both datasets show that 1998 wasn't the warmest year, so what's your point? When did I mention that it's a fraud?And how do we establish which is right? It can't be done in places like this - such debates become slanging matches. For me its established by scientists working for NOAA, GISS, Met O and the rest but, again, if you're like Heller you think they're part of a vast fraud and scam and we go back to square one...
Exactly my point (see my reply to Akrasia above). There's such a wide difference between both datasets that the science is not settled. We can't even measure the temperature of the earth accurately.How strong is the evidence its a scam and a fraud? Well, mostly it is the words of people like Heller or WUWT. I don't believe them, but if you do, then back to square one again...
These debate have gone on for more than a decade. My view is there are less sceptics bu that the hard core of them are more convinced they are right. others probably don't agree - back to square one.
What will resolve this. Time. Imo we don't have time but other will disagree - back to square one we go...
Yes, time will tell. With all the many official datasets around, each filling in gaps in different ways, we may still never be able to tell exactly how much it actually warmed by. But anyway, let's carry on regardless and ignore work on real measurements, such as MT's.0 -
When someone blames Darwin and his, theory of evolution, as the cause for Hitler's Arian race policy, I think they've lost credibility.
It's like blaming Guttenburg for porn.0 -
Al Gore - "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"
19th January 2020Record-breaking snowfall blocks doorways in Canada as state of emergency called
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-19/canadians-open-garage-door-on-record-breaking-snowfall-as-emergency-called/0 -
Al Gore - "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"
19th January 2020
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-19/canadians-open-garage-door-on-record-breaking-snowfall-as-emergency-called/
I thought it was a quote attributed to Dr David Viner? And this year he'd be right...0 -
We should look to the surface record - that is closer to 'the earth' than a layer of the atmosphere. TLT is just mostly a signal from the lower troposphere - but not all of the signal is form that level. And its an indirect measure of temperature - interpreted from microwave emissions. It IS difficult to measure temperature, of a layer of an atmosphere, via satellite.Gaoth Laidir wrote: »...
Exactly my point (see my reply to Akrasia above). There's such a wide difference between both datasets that the science is not settled. We can't even measure the temperature of the earth accurately.
...
Surface thermometers are very accurate - if you want to know the temperature look at the various surface records.0 -
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
Yes, time will tell. With all the many official datasets around, each filling in gaps in different ways, we may still never be able to tell exactly how much it actually warmed by. But anyway, let's carry on regardless and ignore work on real measurements, such as MT's.
How can looking at less than a handful of weather stations in a couple of places on the Earth tell us anything about anything except those few stations and their environs?
The surface record data comes from thousands of weather stations and ship's data - and yet people say that isn't broad enough in coverage...yet others think data from a handful (of cherry picked) stations can say something. Humm....0 -
Advertisement
-
Isn't it just a pure co-incidence this hits the papers today:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2020/ill-put-my-hands-up-i-went-to-climate-summit-in-spain-by-plane-green-party-leader-eamon-ryan-38874076.htmlWhat is addictive about it? "I guess it's vanity," he laughs, his face abashed.
If anything, his honesty is endearing. Even when we last met, and his personal habits came under scrutiny, the meat-eating, milk-drinking, gas-guzzling, leather-wearing, jet-hopping environmentalist lifted his hands and pleaded guilty as charged.
"I am a top sinner... sinner is the wrong word... but I am not as white as the driven snow," he said at the time, when informed that his own footprint rang in at 13.5 tonnes - far above the ideal two to three tonnes per person.
Four years later, and not much has changed. He hasn't given up his meat or dairy, despite the fact that scientists now know avoiding both is the single biggest way a person can reduce their impact on the planet. And he hasn't parked the 2.5-litre gas guzzler van - although he promises his next car will be electric.
"I do all the wrong things," he says of his fallibility. And it's not just on the road: "I'll put my hands up - I flew to the climate summit in Madrid in December." Asked his feelings about this, he says: "It's complex."
More from the "do as I say - not as I do" brigade. Sure, whats a 2.5L petrol car when you can just slam the taxpayers for "expenses". At least he wasn't out of place flying to a Madrid Climate Summit along with his champagne socialist cohorts.
This is from a guy who's solution for rural Ireland is a village with 1000 residents would be limited to owning 30 cars.
The Green Party's Eamon Ryan, Ladies and Gentlemen but "it's complex"0 -
Water John wrote: »When someone blames Darwin and his, theory of evolution, as the cause for Hitler's Arian race policy, I think they've lost credibility.
It's like blaming Guttenburg for porn.
People are supposed to recognise the road to plate tectonics followed a particular point of departure with Nicolas Steno (1638 - 1686) where evolutionary geology and biology began in tandem -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Steno
Superposition was adapted by William Smith (1769 - 1839) in terms of faunal succession -
https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Smith-British-geologist
The two elements of these works were then applied by Wegener in terms of continental separation and from there into plate tectonics -
https://oxfordgeology.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/wegener.jpg
This is evolutionary biology and geology at its finest and remains so.
Then there is the Darwin/Wallace mid 19th century notion which has a point of departure with superficial judgments on racial features as a narrative between baboons and white skin tone people where negroes and aborigines are something less than human as a 'law of nature', in other words it fit inside the umbrella of the 'scientific method' where analogies scale up to all biology.
” A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.” Hitler
So yes, the academic stamp of approval for invasion and extermination was in existence as a 'law of nature' and nobody disputed it. Even though the brute notion of biological aggression survives in the school system, it has been diluted or whitewashed to omit the 'scientific method' roots of that awful empire building excuse -
"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Darwin/Wallace notion built on Malthus
If people are waiting for academics to come to their senses in the matter of 'climate change' modeling then forget it, historical experience shows these academics will cover their behinds even to the point that the death of millions in the crematoria can be ignored using the idea of human and subhuman within living society -
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin, Descent of Man
Kill the 'scientific method' and 'climate change' vanishes or is exposed as an indulgence by the same experimental theorists who wrecked creative and productive evolutionary research in sciences like geology and biology. What happened to those two Earth sciences has happened to climate research.0 -
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »Both datasets show that 1998 wasn't the warmest year, so what's your point? When did I mention that it's a fraud?
"But, if you think the data is a fraud and a scam (like Heller does) then you'll think..." so I'm talking about Heller not you.0 -
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »The trend is indeed upwards over 40 years, but the official datasets are grossly out of whack with eachother. RSS has 62% faster warming than the UAH, both supposed to be measuring the same thing and filling in the massive gaps in the data-sparse parts of the world. What is the actual figure? The science in this regard is far from settled. If you can't accurately measure temperature then you can't say how fast it's rising, but more importantly, can't get the most out of the models, ergo you can't state categorically with "very high confidence" that it's 100% anthropogenic in nature.
So yes, the world is warming in many parts (not all), but we just don't really know with any level of accuracy by how much it's warming.
The UAH dataset is an outlier in that they report much lower warming than everyone else. There are known issues with their dataset but they are very slow to correct these errors0 -
We should look to the surface record - that is closer to 'the earth' than a layer of the atmosphere. TLT is just mostly a signal from the lower troposphere - but not all of the signal is form that level. And its an indirect measure of temperature - interpreted from microwave emissions. It IS difficult to measure temperature, of a layer of an atmosphere, via satellite.
Surface thermometers are very accurate - if you want to know the temperature look at the various surface records.
Except there is no station coverage over most of the surface of the Earth, so these huge gaps are filled in using other means, such as these satellite "readings" and model guesswork. The guesswork depends on who you listen to. The case of central Africa was shown a few days ago. No stations, yet a huge red warming blob. There is no substitution for a screen temperature measured at 1.5 - 2 m above the surface, yet we're severely lacking in this regard.
And isn't that what MT is starting to do, look at the various station records? You really do like to repeat yourself stating the obvious.0 -
The UAH dataset is an outlier in that they report much lower warming than everyone else. There are known issues with their dataset but they are very slow to correct these errors
Of course it is. How do you know? How does anyone know? It's fancy guesswork, if you read the Mears papers.0 -
It’s not guesswork, it’s just uncertainty and uncertainty is reflected in the error rangeGaoth Laidir wrote: »Of course it is. How do you know? How does anyone know? It's fancy guesswork, if you read the Mears papers.
Your friend Ray Bates does the opposite, he takes loads of assumptions, assumes they are true and plugs them into his model to arrive at his ridiculously low climate sensitivity figure(that we’ve already surpassed)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates0 -
Al Gore - "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"
19th January 2020
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-19/canadians-open-garage-door-on-record-breaking-snowfall-as-emergency-called/
A fine display of fake sceptic mentality.
A mis-attributed quote.
No citations.
Randomly throwing in Al Gore's name for effect.
A link to a rare extreme snow event in a part of the word that the original quote wasn't referring to.
Do the fake sceptics accuse the poster of fraud or data manipulation. Nope.
Do they question the assertions made? Nope.
Do they apply any hint of scepticism? Nope.
Do they blindly accept it and thank it because it fits their preconceived notions? Of course they do!0 -
It’s not guesswork, it’s just uncertainty and uncertainty is reflected in the error range
Your friend Ray Bates does the opposite, he takes loads of assumptions, assumes they are true and plugs them into his model to arrive at his ridiculously low climate sensitivity figure(that we’ve already surpassed)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates
How do you know it's passed it? We can't measure it, remember? You first rubbished his paper before you even heard of it never mind read it (you did, I can provide proof if you want). It's unfortunate that you seem to go to The Guardian for your science and not something a little less biased. They're being very misleading with the claim in bold below, as it's far from as simple as they make out. "Sensors ALL OVER THE PLANET..."?
To provide perspective, we know the Earth is warming because we can measure it. Most of the heat (93%) goes into the oceans and we have sensors measuring ocean temperatures that show this. We also know about warming because we have thermometers and other sensors all over the planet measuring the temperature at the surface or in the first few meters of air at the surface. Those temperatures are rising too. We are also seeing ice melting and sea level rising around the planet.
So, the evidence is clear. What Christy and Spencer focus on is the temperatures measured far above the Earth’s surface in the troposphere and the stratosphere. Generally, over the past few decades these two scientists have claimed the troposphere temperatures are not rising very rapidly. This argument has been picked up to deny the reality of human caused climate change – but it has been found to be wrong.
And then this comment that seems to imply that Spencer and Christy are the only ones with a history of changing data. Mears has done exactly the same.
Look, measuring temperatures from satellites flying high above Earth is hard. No one doubts that. But let’s not be deluded into thinking these satellites are more accurate than thermometers (as some people
suggest). Let’s also not blindly accept low-ball warming information
from research teams that have long histories of revising their data. I created the image below a few years ago to show the upward revisions made by the Christy/Spencer team over time in their global troposphere temperatures.
So for you which is the correct set? RSS, just because it agrees with NASA? How do you know NASA is correct?0 -
Advertisement
-
A fine display of fake sceptic mentality.
A mis-attributed quote.
No citations.
Randomly throwing in Al Gore's name for effect.
A link to a rare extreme snow event in a part of the word that the original quote wasn't referring to.
Do the fake sceptics accuse the poster of fraud or data manipulation. Nope.
Do they question the assertions made? Nope.
Do they apply any hint of scepticism? Nope.
Do they blindly accept it and thank it because it fits their preconceived notions? Of course they do!
Funny how its always "weather" not climate when there's record cold somewhere but Australian bushfires are definitely "climate change" not arson or weather.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement