"Green" policies are destroying this country

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121102788#Comment_121102788

You think tipping points are funny?

And just because you don't have a clue doesn't mean these aren't well studied phenomena. There is uncertainty but that is not the same as ignorance

FIE caught the govt out under reporting emissions

https://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/press-releases/environmental-ngo-successfully-challenges-ireland-s-greenhouse-gas-reporting

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121102927#Comment_121102927

Hahahaha, you don't have the first clue what you are saying. That's what I'm laughing at.

Saying there's uncertainty is laughable really. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has any idea if there is even a tipping point nevermind where it is or whether it's may or may not be related to CO2.

To state anything else is factually incorrect.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103049#Comment_121103049

You're way out on a limb here. The existence of Climate tipping points are not even remotely controversial

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121102904#Comment_121102904

Incorrect, like most of your statements.

“Prehistory” describes the earliest part of humanity's past, with no written record or reliable oral traditions.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103084#Comment_121103084

I know that. I didn't feel like giving a lecture about the concept of history to someone who thinks history continues on after humans.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121102962#Comment_121102962

Doesn't say that does it. It says we've used Tier I when we should use II or III.

Great news though, N sales are down YoY.

Also interesting that yet another terrible gas is mentioned, this time NO2. Thankfully the NO2 attributed to sheep has been shown to be over estimated by a factor of 10 (could be 50, I forget the number and the paper was just published in the last few weeks). I presume other animals are over estimated then too. I wonder how they are attributing NO2 emissions to N sales, and not transport. Interesting that there hasn't been a mention of NO2 in that report in relation to transport. Of course DEF has been added to diesel engines to try reduce NO2, but the base component of that is a form of N too - Urea. Nor does the press release mention agricultures massive switch to "protected" urea, or LESS. Strange.

72sheep

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121102504#Comment_121102504

Without global warming there'd be no means available to control the young (impressionable/frustrated/depressed) people in the West. The young people in Asia however don't seem to be such delicate flowers about our inevitable flaming fireball planet, but of course they get a different "science" from their academics don't they :-)

charlie14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121102917#Comment_121102917

I wasn`t linking science to religion. I was linking green ideology to religion.

Beliefs must be accepted without question, where those that do not do so are heretics. Unexplained pointless sacrifices must also be accepted (culling cattle), and where it suits to drive the ideology, indulgences can be arranged (carbon neutral biomass, Guarantee of Origin Certificates etc). There is also the belief in miracles (God will provide ?) where they are absolutely clueless when asked how much this adherng to their belief will cost financialy.

machiavellianme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103098#Comment_121103098

It does. Get yourself a better dictionary. History is much broader than a chronology of human affairs. It is the study of past events. It doesn't disclaim that it is the human study of past events or the study of past human events. On a day where K2-18 b,was announced, who is to say that a study couldn't continue beyond our brief stint here? Just because some academics adopted "proto/pre" jargon doesn't mean that the other definitions are suddenly invalid. Once again you've shown yourself up for putting all your faith in one niche area and ignored the bigger picture.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the likes of Stephen Hawking was wrong to call his book "A brief history of time" (spoiler: humans don't feature much). Whatever writes volume 2 in another 5 billion years won't stop at 2100 because the sage prophet of Akrasia said that history ends with humans.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103082#Comment_121103082

Climate tipping points are just marketing hype, see Al Gore, his film used the "tipping points" meme. Elon Musk uses the same marketing strategy, make bullsh!t claims, grabs media attention and headlines and money. World moves on, time passes, no sign of product, makes new claim, rinse and repeat.

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

Professor Peter Wadhams: "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC31Z5ckros

The greens have dropped Polar Bears from their marketing in recent years. Why? because the doom mongering blew up in the climate activists faces.

Now, in 2021, polar bear numbers are the highest they’ve been in 60 years. Recent survey results would put the global average at about 30,000 (Crockford 2021): up a little from 26,000 but not by a significant amount. However, a plausible argument can be made that this number is likely to be much higher – possibly as high as 58,000 (Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020:3). 

Red List status for polar bears in 2006 provided employment for biologists and increased donations for conservation charities but nothing for the bears that the international treaty in 1973 hadn’t already done. Protection from over-hunting was what the bears needed: most populations are still recovering from the wanton slaughter that started more than a century ago. source

Anytime you see people using RCP 8.5/SSP 8.5 as the basis for their claims you can safely ignore them. These models have no predictive skill and the output of computer models is not evidence.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103082#Comment_121103082

What's the tipping point for CO2 then and how exactly does this alone lead to a 7c increase?

Akrasia

The RCP scenarios are emissions based and are concerned with human controlled emissions

They do not take into account the likelyhood of positive feedbacks and tipping points which will add much more carbon to the atmosphere on top of Human emissions

If we get past these tipping points, it becomes much much harder to get climate change under control, if it's even possible at all

https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103223#Comment_121103223

You might be more at home in here https://www.boards.ie/categories/conspiracy-theories

deholleboom

The level of stupidity displayed on this thread goes up and up. Most of it by the Greens. That makes sense. In order to believe falsehoods you have to both put a lot of energy in coming up with 'absolutely 100%' truisms, deflect any criticism and have 100% faith ie, be a 'true believer'. Anything else will simply wreck it.

In a way i both pity and admire the way the true believers hold on to their target. At some point though some of them will break. I assume they then will simply ignore the whole thing and/or deny it much like we have w Covid. Collective shame..

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103237#Comment_121103237

So you're hiding your fear of science behind a straw man 'green ideologue bogie man'

The 'Green ideology' as you call it, is the poisoned well that you can throw all your anti science beliefs into and still pretend that you're being rational.

Everything relating to reducing emissions is fundamentally related to the science behind climate change. We know, because of the science, that global carbon emissions are heating the planet. The way to fix this, is to stop emitting GHGs as much as we can to prevent our planet from breaching dangerous levels of global warming (above 1.5c above pre-industrial levels is the level that is agreed by most scientific data to be the threshold beyond which we begin to unlock the most damaging consequences). Anyone who is looking to solve this problem is a pragmatist, not an idealogue.

Who are the real Idealogues?

If you oppose cutting emissions, then you are denying the conclusions reached by the vast majority of scientific institutions on earth, that we need to stop increasing the concentration of GHGs in our atmosphere

You are either denying that GHG emissions are the problem, in which case you're a naked climate change denier who is 100% contradicted by the best available scientific data.

Or you are denying that the consequences of global warming are a problem, in which case, you're also a climate change denier who denies all of the scientific evidence that says warming our planet by more than 1.5c will have enormous negative consequences for the world, and those consequences get more severe the higher we go above 1.5c

Or you are delusional in your belief that Ireland will somehow be immune to the consequences of climate change, in which case you're the one who's an idealogue or has some kind of religious belief that we're exceptional and don't need to follow the laws of physics and aren't part of an interconnected global network of countries, all of whom rely on each other or are at least affected by the actions of other nations

Or you've decided that Ireland can just lock the doors, go back to some kind of primitive existence where we hunt and gather on our own island and completely withdraw from the outside world, which is extremely ideological and also extremely naive.

People who are in favour of cutting GHGs in general agree that we need to stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as we can and transition to alternative sources of energy. There is zero ideology in that position. It's entirely pragmatic

Some disagreements exist over which sectors of our economy should de-carbonise first, or whether there should be derogations for certain sectors.

Pragmatists need to live in the real world, which means we can only control what we have control over. We can call for other countries to act with us, we can engage in political action to draft international treaties that bind countries to commitments towards our common goals. We know that there will be bad actors out there who will break those commitments or refuse to engage, but as pragmatists the solution is to plow ahead and find ways to deal with those bad actors through other means. As long as the problem is still worth solving, the solution is never to become a bad actor ourselves and just let the world heat up faster and hope that others do the work needed to dig us all out of our collective mess.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103512#Comment_121103512

Ok fine. whatever, I'm not happy with the 'history' being written by the planet of the apes that succeeds the fall of human civilisation, therefore I don't think we should stop talking about temperature increases at 2100

All of the talk about RCP 8.5 leading to 4.5c warming by 2100 doesn't mean RCP 8.5 just means 4.5c of warming. The people born today who should expect to still be alive in 2100 will care what the temperature is in 2150 because that will be the future for their own grandchildren, and if we don't stop global warming now, in this current generation, we could well be dooming your own great grandchildren to lives of turnoil and misery with no path to redemption.

A planet warming by about 1c has led to the kinds of catestrophic flooding, wildfires and heatwaves that we are now seeing on an almost daily basis. We have seen nothing yet

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103929#Comment_121103929

. . . . The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. source

We know that climate models:

• Cannot simulate present air temperature.
• Cannot predict future air temperature.
• Cannot resolve the effect of infrared actives gas emissions.
• Cannot detect, attribute or project the impact, if any, of human emitted hydrocarbon emissions.

In general climatologists are not trained to evaluate the reliability of their models and data. The money keeps rolling in, the model generates the headline for the NGOs, they get more funding, the error bars keep getting wider.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103566#Comment_121103566

Its not marketing, It's science. It describes a part of the transition from one equilibrium state to another

An example of a tipping point would be a temperature at which tropical rain forests dry to the point where they become net emitters of carbon rather than been carbon neutral. Once the becomes the norm the vast reserves of carbon in the biome and the tropical soils gets slowly released. It also makes the likelihood of forest fires increase leading to more rapid releases in short bursts.

One tipping point of many. Once you get to a certain global mean temperature virtually all climate tipping points amplify the man made climate change we are already experiencing.

It seems there is a hardcore rump of climate change deniers who have shown themselves immune to the wealth of evidence regarding man made climate change. At this stage they are frankly an annoyance to those getting on and doing what they can to help. Frankly they are a waste of air talking to them, but fortunately they are just a persecuted minority.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121102962#Comment_121102962

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103125#Comment_121103125

More on this. Ireland are under no obligation to report on organic soils until 2026. They are currently one of only two EU countries that do. In effect, Ireland are reporting emissions that they weren't asked to, and FIE are whinging. Ireland are more transparent in this are than all but 1 other EU state. And FIE are whinging.

The commission noted that Ireland is one of only two member states that includes all organic soils in its 2021-2025 commitments under the regulation, before it becomes mandatory in 2026.

Tier II level reporting becomes mandatory in 2026 too. Essentially this whingefest was that Ireland aren't using a higher tier for reporting something that they don't have to report, using a tier that is accepted as part of the report.

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121104784#Comment_121104784

Just like Grand theft auto, it is a computer simulation and devoid of any predictive skill. The RCP 8.5 output is used by NGOs as part of their marketing toolkit to raise funds. Next time you see headlines like this: Terrifying future flood map of Dublin as Minister warns people 'will have to leave their homes', dig a little, the media does not tell you this is RCP 8.5 output, you will find the disclaimer and how they made the sausage under details and limitations.

This map uses different selectable local sea level rise projections from the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report from the U.S. government (NOAA 2022, set as default when the map view opens inside the U.S.), the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2021, set as default when the map view opens outside the U.S.), or from earlier scientific research (legacy projections from Kopp et al. 2014 or Kopp et al. 2017). Projected values depend on global carbon pollution pathways, including Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) 1-1.9, 1-2.6, 2-4.5, 3-7.0, and 5-8.5 and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5. They also depend on sea level sensitivity, i.e. exactly how much warming will result from a given amount of emissions, and how much sea level rise will result from that amount of warming. You can explore different possible sensitivities given by the projections, and their likelihoods, using the Luck slider in the Change Other Settings toolbox. You can also select different emissions scenarios using the Pollution Pathway slider.

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121104556#Comment_121104556

You might also add that the models cannot even predict the past. Even knowing the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere in the past the (average) trajectory of the graph in the models do not trace the actual measured temperature which we DO know. So, in hindsight, knowing at least some of the variables, the models have been very wrong. But they are still being used. Not only that, instead of using common sense by seeing the models run too hot a lot of people still use the highest RCP 8.5 trajectory that even the IPCC has turned its back on. It is a clear sign that they are weaponizing biased data to suit their purpose. They are bad faith actors thinking they are doing good..

prunudo

The doom is strong on the thread these days.

deholleboom

Deleted

72sheep

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103950#Comment_121103950

I'm not going to report you for backseat modding because the way you casually positioned yourself as being pivotal to this existential debate - "I don't want 2100 to be the end of history" - made me laugh out loud yesterday :-)

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121103679#Comment_121103679

The question shows a lack of understanding of the problem

There is no 'the tipping point'

There are lots of systems that all operate inderdependently. Some systems are net carbon sinks, others are net carbon emittors

The atmosphere is becoming more saturated with CO2 as there are more emmitters than sinks. Humans are the non natural emitters who have overwhelmed a natural system that had previously been enequilibrium at about 280ppm in of CO2

As global temperatures increase, some systems that were previously neutral, or carbon sinks, can become carbon emitters, while other systems that were large carbon sinks, may become saturated and become less effective carbon sinks

Some natural carbon sinks may also become more effective as CO2 concentrations and temperature increases

We know about some very serious tipping points that can release an extremely large amount of CO2 or CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere. These include the melting of the arctic permafrost. There are billions of tonnes of organic material in the arctic tundra that are permanently frozen. As these begin to thaw, that material breaks down and converts to CO2 and methane. This is a positive feedback. The more the arctic warms and, the more the permafrost thaws, the more warming occurs, increasing thawing etc in a positive feedback loop. Similarly, if the Tropical rainforests start to die, we simulraneously lose a large carbon sink, while also creating a large new source for CO2 and Methane emissions as the forests die and begin to burn away, emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and causing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and methane to rise

As the GHGs increase in the atmosphere, this cause global average temperature to increase. We have climate sensitivity of that could be up to 4c for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if we get to 560ppm, we could expect about up to 4c of warming globally. If we get to 1120ppm, we could see up to 8c of warming.

For context, if the Amazon Rainforest were to die off, that would release 100 billion metric tons of carbon. whch would be enough to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1,615 PPM

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121104556#Comment_121104556

Whats the next line after your quote?

This is exactly what climate scientists do. They create models, they enter in data and use ensembles to make forecasts for probable outcomes based on different scenarios.

One set of the scenarios is where humans don't stop emitting CO2 fast enough to prevent climate change, and in those scenarios, the probability is that the planet will warm by about 2.5 to 4c for every doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere above pre-industrial levels. And the probable outcomes of such high levels of warming are extremely negative consequences for human civilisation and the natural world as we know it.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121105032#Comment_121105032

You might add that, and you might be completely wrong.

the models are constantly being evaluated and they have proven to have been remarkably accurate. Even the models produced using a pencil and a few equations over a century ago have been impressively accurate.

The reality is, while the planet is extremely complex and where the energy goes at any one moment is chaotic, fundamentally, it's pretty simple to work out. Earths energy balance = energy entering from the sun, versus energy leaving via radiation into space.

Svante Arrhenius calculated climate sensitivity to be about 5 or 6c almost 130 years ago. Currently the IPCC calculates climate sensitivity to likely be between 2.5 and 4c but still allows for even higher sensitivites if some of the negative feedbacks prove to be less powerful than estimated

Since computer modelling, even the earliest models have been surprisingly accurate when we go back and evaluate their predicted warming with the observations in the decades since they were run

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121105158#Comment_121105158

There is no need for doom or panic as long as sensible people drive national and global policy in line with the best available science.

The increases in talk about 'doom' in directly correlated with the number of climate change deniers who come on here trying to pretend that doing nothing to reduce our emissions is the best course of action

If we keep to the plan. Phase out fossil fuels, transition to renewable energy as quickly as we can, then we'll suffer some consequences but they will be manageable.

If we pander to the fossil fuel industry as so many people on this thread want us to do, then we're all fucked