World's hottest day since records began

magicbastarder · 23-07-2023 6:27pm

We kill a million cattle a year in Ireland anyway as it is.

Count Dracula · 23-07-2023 6:41pm

I can't help but think it is a real shame that a handful of overpaid scientists are responsible for this shambles.

Anyone who has spent the weekend in Ireland with that weather has to realise that heat wave propaganda is and was always a load of hype.

Climate change is upon us, but there is zero logic in decimating our beef industry at the whims of Scandinavian scientists. They have been blaming their coniferous tree dutch elm disease on acid rain since the eighties. It is garbage.

How come India are not being ask to cull their bovine population?

How come the US are still exporting coal to China?

Why does a war 1000 miles away affect the price of everything?

The environment is a bubble.

magicbastarder · 23-07-2023 7:20pm

Anyone who has spent the weekend in Ireland with that weather has to realise that heat wave propaganda is and was always a load of hype.

um, climate vs weather?

buzzerxx · 23-07-2023 7:32pm

How about we start banning private jets first before we kill the cows ?

magicbastarder · 23-07-2023 10:26pm

the gas thing is the government in the states offers massively subsidised insurance to people who build their houses on the seafront. so they're taxpayer funded.

https://issues.org/national-flood-insurance-has-ruined-americas-beaches/

Akrasia · 24-07-2023 8:49am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884305#Comment_120884305

Ireland has reduced it's emissions since 2000 by moving to less carbon intensive energy sources, and by making buildings much more energy efficient

Coal use has plummeted replaced by gas and renewables, while cars and transport are much more efficient now than they were in the 90s and 80s

The cause of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is not the existence of humans, it's how we generate our energy.

And a lot of it is industrial activity which has enormous potential for big efficiency improvements. Changing how we smelt ores and make concrete would cut emissions drastically, as well as cultural changes such as better urban planning to remove cars from cities and replace them with better public transport and more green spaces. Next time you drive in a city or town, look at how much space is devoted to parking cars. Imagine if 90% of that was used for something better.

Akrasia · 24-07-2023 8:57am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120887820#Comment_120887820

We already kill all the cows. Where do you think your burgers come from

cdeb · 24-07-2023 9:14am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120889239#Comment_120889239

I think there's two caveats to that -

First is that there is a correlation between population and carbon emissions. You've shown it's not a linear, 1:1 correlation and that's fine, but nobody's arguing there is. But it is still a factor. Had all those changes you describe happened AND Ireland's population remained at its 2000 level, our carbon emissions today would be lower.

Second then is I'm not sure I agree with your claim Ireland has reduced its emissions. The table shows it, sure. But we've seen that excludes aviation. Some back of the envelope calculations -

Aviation contributes about 2.5% of global carbon emissions (and about 3.5% of climate change impact because those emissions are usually released at high altitude). But something like 80-90% of people have never flown. So the remaining 10-20% of people account for all emissions.

This doesn't factor in commercial aviation, so let's go with the lower bound and say we "only" generate five times more emissions than average, not ten. That'd mean 12.5% of our emissions - and 17.5% of climate change impact - is missing from our figures. (But probably closer to 25%)

We know our passenger numbers are up 150% in the timeline you looked at, and we're presumably importing a lot more in the meantime too - that's going to wipe out a huge amount of our savings in that time. We have to stop kidding ourselves about that.

(This isn't perfect maths obviously - someone else can work that out - but the point is still there)

buzzerxx · 24-07-2023 11:23am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120889260#Comment_120889260

I dont think you understand the NWO plan, would you eat lab grown meat or imported meat instead of rich green grass fed irish meat? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtCfkmK8O2c forward to 2.07 minutes.

Akrasia · 24-07-2023 11:38am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120889316#Comment_120889316

Correlation isn't the right thing to be looking for if we want to reduce CO2 emissions. It's causation. You can draw a correlation between the number of teapots in the world with greenhouse emissions, but reducing the number of teapots down to zero will have almost no impact on greenhouse gases

On the other hand, there is a very strong correlation, and a proven causative link between the burning of fossil fuels and the amount of GHGs we emit, and the amount of climate change we are observing.

I have shown that population can rise, while emissions can fall, I have also shown that higher populations do not always mean higher GHGs. It's entirely down to how those populations generate and use energy. (with agriculture playing a part due to ruminating herds, but even then, it's the delta values we care about there because we've always had herds of cattle and goats, so it's not a matter of eliminating those emissions, but reducing them so they're more in equilibrium with old methane emissions precipitating out of the atmosphere)

Aviation emissions are almost all caused by a small percentage of the population. https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/1-super-emitters-responsible-over-50-aviation-emissions/#:~:text=The%20most%20eye%2Dcatching%20finding,Guardian%20as%20'super%20emitters'.

It's not a matter of increasing population causes aviation emissions, it's an economic inequality issue. 1% have so much disposable income that they can take all of this luxury long haul travel. (or their businesses are so inefficient that they facilitate such needless travel for in person conferences)

The solution to climate change is not to stop people who want a family from having children. 1 billionaire is personally responsible the carbon emissions of thousands of individuals. One factory smelting Aluminium is responsible for the emissions of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Oil producers emit millions of tonnes of CO2 equivalent by flaring methane needlessly just to cut costs and increase their profits. Millions of tonnes of CO2 equivalent are released because mining companies do nothing to prevent or capture gases released from their coal mines https://www.epa.gov/cmop/about-coal-mine-methane#:~:text=Underground%20coal%20mines%20account%20for,such%20as%20storage%20and%20transportation.

A single haul flight can emit 3 tonnes of CO2 per passenger, which is as much carbon dioxide per passenger as the annual CO2 emissions per capita of 3,990,257,718 people in 111 countries

It's not the number of people that is causing climate change. It's industry and the wastefulness of the richest people on earth.

Instead of calling for population controls, you should be calling on higher taxes on the rich, to both reduce their capacity to waste resources on their own whims, and to cover the cost of repairing the damage their industrial activity is causing and migrating to carbon neutral energy.

When we've solved that problem, and emissions are still going up, then you can indulge in the right wing fantasies of mass sterilisations and taking babies out of the arms of mothers in the name of population control.

Akrasia · 24-07-2023 12:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120889821#Comment_120889821

NWO? New World Order?

No thanks

cdeb · 24-07-2023 12:34pm

I have shown that population can rise, while emissions can fall, I have also shown that higher populations do not always mean higher GHGs. (Akrasia)

Yes, but again, what you've shown there is the correlation between the two isn't linear. But what you're trying to claim is that there's no correlation at all - that's not true.

I've pointed out that were Ireland's population at its 2000 level still, our carbon emissions would be even lower than at present - that shows some correlation. We know this is an issue because while our emissions are reducing (let's ignore the aviation part for now), they're not reducing fast enough. Ergo our population increase is part of the problem.

Population control is absolutely part of the solution here - partly because carbon emissions aren't the only issue the world is facing. Basic sustainability - for example, of animals to eat, or farmland to grow things on, or minerals to extract - is also a concern. Comments like "When we've solved that problem, and emissions are still going up, then you can indulge in the right wing fantasies of mass sterilisations and taking babies out of the arms of mothers in the name of population control" are unhelpfully, even idiotically, emotive in that regard.

I agree with you in terms of the issues caused by a tiny portion of individuals/companies. But I disagree with you when you say "Instead of calling for population controls, you should be calling on higher taxes on the rich". We should be doing both.

Shoog · 24-07-2023 1:54pm

The whole population question is a bit of a distraction because the billions of people emitting less than 2tonnes per year are not the problem, it's the billions of people emitting 8 tonnes plus who are the problem. It would be far more effective to eliminate the rich if that is the way your mind works. So since that is not really a palatable option for your average white supremacist we can safely dismiss all talk of eliminating people to solve the crisis and work on achievable solution.

However all the IPCC models leading to 1.5c rise are predicated on a steady decline in world population from around 2030 onwards. The best way to achieve that is surprisingly to make birth control freely available and educate the poor.

cdeb · 24-07-2023 4:50pm

Well again, that ignores that carbon emissions isn't the only issue we're facing at a species.

Increasing population in the Congo, say, won't add a huge amount to carbon emissions, but it will push species to the brink of extinction as more and more bushmeat is hunted (to pick one example). And when those populations then collapse, you have trouble feeding people. You also have increased deforestation, which does have an impact on carbon of course.

Shoog · 24-07-2023 4:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120890719#Comment_120890719

Again a distraction, we already destroyed our own biodiversity millennia ago.

My question to you is are you prepared to follow through and remove yourself from the problem. Otherwise it's all distasteful hot air.

Also, if we fail to address climate change ecosystem collapse is guaranteed.

cdeb · 24-07-2023 5:22pm

None of that means population control isn't part of the solution though. (And strangely you seem to agree when you say the 1.5 degree increase is based on world population declining from 2030 onwards)

I've already posted about the need to remove perpetual growth from our economy and make our society sustainable. If that means increasing pension age to 70+, paying a bit more for fruit/meat because we're not flying poor people in from thousands of miles away to cut it up/pick it, and ultimately making our society poorer overall (though probably more equal - more scope for cuts at the top-level salaries), then I'm ok with that. I've no problems with taxes on jet fuel or other suggestions noted. Not a huge amount I can do about that on my own though; I've already noted that's a decision that needs to take place at supra-national level. I suspect the reality of it would be socially quite ugly and I've no idea how to get around that.

Shoog · 24-07-2023 6:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120890863#Comment_120890863

So I made a proven practical suggestion of how we reduce population through education and birth control - whats your proposal ?

cdeb · 24-07-2023 7:31pm

My proposal for what?

You seem to have gone from "population control is a distraction" to "It's an embedded assumption in the 1.5 scenario", via a detour to ask if I'm "prepared to follow through and remove yourself from the problem" and now you're suddenly demanding what my proposal for population control is? Not sure why the attitude tbh.

Yes, education and contraception is a good option. You've cultural norms to overcome of course, so it won't be as easy as all that. And it's happening in parts of India, where vasectomies are subsidised (if not free altogether; I can't remember)

And I think it's absolutely vital to build an economy that doesn't fundamentally depend on continuous population growth - we're failing quite badly on that one here.

And of course that's not a panacea of itself.

Kind of hard to answer your question though when you jump about topics like you've ADHD or something

Shoog · 24-07-2023 7:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120891402#Comment_120891402

You suggest that some form of population control is needed, I want to know what you mean by that.

I have stated that I understand that population reduction is an essential part to meet the NetZero targets - and have proposed the only humane ways to achieve it. The good thing is that population is actually falling in most parts of the world for the very reasons I suggested as the solution.

What I don't accept is that population control is in any way a substitute for Ireland taking active and aggressive steps to address its own emissions.

cdeb · 24-07-2023 10:43pm

What I don't accept is that population control is in any way a substitute for Ireland taking active and aggressive steps to address its own emissions

I never said it was. I'm not sure where you think I said that.

.Donegal. · 25-07-2023 12:03am

….

cnocbui · 25-07-2023 1:11pm

There is no point in a country responsible for 0.1% of world CO2 emissions, busting a gut at considerable cost, to get to 0.075%, when China isn't and never will.

China approved the construction of another 106 gigawatts of coal-fired power capacity last year, four times higher than a year earlier and the highest since 2015, research shows.

Over the year, 50GW of coal power capacity went into construction across the country – up by more than half compared with the previous year – driven by energy security considerations, the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and Global Energy Monitor (GEM) said on Monday.

You can put as many solar panels on your roof as you can fit and buy two EV's and vote for Eamon all you like, but it's utterly and completely pointless.

It's the same banana logic Norway employs. They have one of the worlds largest sovereign wealth funds and it's been tasked with making green investments. They have electrified more of their private vehicle car fleet than any other country, and it's all a pointless, conceited and hypocritical sham.

Their sovereign wealth fund is the result of revenue from massive oil and gas exports. The expensive transition to EVs was funded by these revenues. Clearly the Norwegians think that they live on a different planet than everyone else and that if their own country has low CO2 emissions all's good.

Norway awards 47 oil and gas exploration permits

Reuters

January 10, 2023

India, the world's most populous country, is another country that won't make any effort whatsoever to reduce CO2 emissions.

India's power output grows at fastest pace in 33 years, fuelled by coal

By Matthew Chye and Carman Chew

April 6, 2023

Ireland trying hard to reduce CO2 emissions is like it's former rigid adherence to the Catholic Church's edicts on reproduction, leading to the quip that 'The Italians make the rules and the Irish follow them.' While the Irish were breeding like rabbits, Italian women had the lowest fertility rate in the world.

Ireland is at it again, only it's CO2 this time.

Shoog · 25-07-2023 5:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120894121#Comment_120894121

So its defeatist hedonism for us then, no point in getting off your arse to do anything about it cos its all someone else's fault.

I pity the children with that attitude prevailing.

Str8outtaWuhan · 25-07-2023 5:28pm

In another effort to decrease future carbon emissions our government is now funding the manufacture of more carbon producers.

https://www.thejournal.ie/how-will-the-new-publicly-funded-ivf-scheme-work-6128081-Jul2023/

Supercell · 25-07-2023 5:35pm

Nothing to see here, move along. All totally normal right?

https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/status/1683556231481286656?t=XS53bLHykiwcP7AZCw9Cog&s=19

Elmer Blooker · 25-07-2023 6:02pm

I don’t quite understand, the Antarctic ice surely isn’t melting in the middle of a Southern Hemisphere winter?

cdeb · 25-07-2023 6:15pm

I think it's saying it's not freezing remotely as much as it usually does.

So it'll enter summer with much less ice cover, melt more, freeze less, etc

jackboy · 25-07-2023 6:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120895623#Comment_120895623

It’s important to understand the graph before making such big claims. It’s hard to understand that graph, would definitely need clarification on what exactly it’s displaying.

randomname2005 · 25-07-2023 7:20pm

If we assume that the data follows Gaussian or bell shaped distribution you would expect 3 out of 1,000 measurements to be outside of the +/- 3 sigma lines (0.3 percent). To me that means that when the extent, either surface area or volume, is measured it will be within 3 standard deviations from the mean or average extent 997 times out of 1,000. Being outside of that is rare enough. For the +/- 6 sigma boundaries you expect 99.9999998 percent of the measurements to be within these boundaries. A measurement this far from the mean is to be expected very very rarely, 2 in one billion measurements from my calculations. Presumably they take many measurements each year which reduces it to millions of years. That is my understanding, basically this little ice in Antarctica is not to be expected.

cdeb · 25-07-2023 7:22pm

I mean, it's important to understand anything, so that comment doesn't really add much.

But the chart seems fairly straightforward. The straight line represents the average ice cover throughout the year - 365 data points, we can presume. It's straight because it's not indicating 10ft or 50ft or whatever, but just the average, x.

The wavy lines are the actual points over the past 30 years. They're mostly within one standard deviation of the average because that's what one standard deviation means. It doesn't say it's two feet thicker or less thick than normal - you could probably add that, but you don't need to - but 68% of data will be within one standard deviation (plus or minus) and that's fine. Any average is going to be made up of points above and below the average

And some items are within two standard deviations - which again will happen. 95% of points should be there.

Three standard deviations covers 99.7% of all data points typically (sounds very precise, but large data will tend to match this bell curve fairly well)

To be six standard deviations away from average is huge. 99.9999998% of the data is within six deviations. It's quite improbable. In chess, if a player is found matching computer moves with that level of improbability, for example, there's pretty much no defence against the suggestion you were cheating.

So in the normal course of events, these events don't occur. But it is occurring. Why? Three options spring to mind. 1) The data is wrong. Always got to keep it in mind. Is the source reliable? 2) It's a complete unlikely outlier. 3) A tipping point has been reached and we're heading for a new normal.

Others more versed in statistics (it's been a while since I studied it in college) will likely give a better explanation, but that's basically what it's saying as I see it.