dense Registered User
#556

Akrasia said:
But if you insist in quantifying the heat ireland been responsible for, it's the equivalent heat of 2,921,882 Hiroshima nuclear bombs since 1998 (and rising)
http://4hiroshimas.com/#Home


It would be interesting to know why you think that Ireland's CO2 emissions have caused the equivalent heat of 2,921,882 Hiroshima nuclear bombs and what you think that translates to in terms of thousandths of a degree in a hypothetical 0.4°C degree of global warming scenario for that period, a period distinctly lacking any global warming.

(Invalid img)


2m of the total 2,000,000,000 Hiroshima bombs you were talking about is around 0.1% of them.

I'll let you work out what 0.1% of any alleged temperature rise for the period equates to in degrees Celsius.

Think along the lines of 0.0004 degrees for 0.4° warming.

Statistical noise basically.

Your initial figure could have been just plucked from thin air after all.

DanDan6592 Registered User
#557

dense said:
It would be interesting to know why you think that Ireland's CO2 emissions have caused the equivalent heat of 2,921,882 Hiroshima nuclear bombs and what you think that translates to in terms of thousandths of a degree in a hypothetical 0.4°C degree of global warming scenario for that period, a period distinctly lacking any global warming.

(Invalid img)


2m of the total 2,000,000,000 Hiroshima bombs you were talking about is around 0.1% of them.

I'll let you work out what 0.1% of any alleged temperature rise for the period equates to in degrees Celsius.

Think along the lines of 0.0004 degrees for 0.4° warming.

Statistical noise basically.

Your initial figure could have been just plucked from thin air after all.


It'd be more interesting to know why you have yet to answer Akrasia's question:

'OK then Dense. Let's try something different. What do you think caused climate change in the past before humans arrived?'

4 people have thanked this post
dense Registered User
#558

DanDan6592 said:
It'd be more interesting to know why you have yet to answer Akrasia's question:

'OK then Dense. Let's try something different. What do you think caused climate change in the past before humans arrived?'


If you have been reading the last few pages you will be aware that I have already explained that I have no intention of entertaining Akrasia's invitation to go down a rabbit hole indulging their through the looking glass question about what caused pre human climate change.

If you, Akrasia or others wish to advance and discuss reasons for climate change in pre human times there is nothing stopping you from doing so if that is your desire.

But please be aware that Akrasia reguarly questions the reliability of historic pre 19th century data, so if you start referring to proxy data dating from pre human times expect it to be rejected.

I hope that satisfactorily answers your question, and as always I look forward with interest to reading your comments here.

Akrasia Registered User
#559

Sorry Dense, of course the causes of climate change should be totally off topic in a discussion about the causes of climate change. You're totally right

Now lets get back to your questions where you're trying to say that the equivalent energy of 2 million nuclear bombs is insignificant because humans are actually responsible for adding the equivalent of 2 billion nuclear bombs.

Deebles McBeebles Registered User
#560

This thread is hilarious. As if there's any doubt.

Seriously lads, argue about something where there is an actual argument on both sides.

1 person has thanked this post
dense Registered User
#561

Akrasia said:
Sorry Dense, of course the causes of climate change should be totally off topic in a discussion about the causes of climate change. You're totally right


I totally said you and yours are quite free to discuss the causes of pre human climate change:

dense said:

If you, Akrasia or others wish to advance and discuss reasons for climate change in pre human times there is nothing stopping you from doing so if that is your desire.


Why pretend I said it was off topic?

Akrasia said:
Now lets get back to your questions where you're trying to say that the equivalent energy of 2 million nuclear bombs is insignificant because humans are actually responsible for adding the equivalent of 2 billion nuclear bombs.


Still waiting to find out how you have calculated that Ireland has set off the equivalent of 2m nuclear bombs of energy equivalent since 1998 and what "significant" increase in global temperatures you think Ireland's "detonation" of these nuclear bomb equivalents has caused.


Will you share your data, calculations, sources and conclusions with us?

Then we can have a look at you and your lefty friends proposals on how you'd substitute that alleged 2m Hiroshima bombsworth of energy with an alternative, reliable renewable energy source.

I know they're probably all busy scouring property to occupy at the moment, but they seem highly intelligent and should be able to multitask whenever they're not tweeting about the need for a rapid transition to renewable energy and demanding more free stuff.

xckjoo Registered User
#562

dense said:
I totally said you and yours are quite free to discuss the causes of pre human climate change:



Why pretend I said it was off topic?



Still waiting to find out how you have calculated that Ireland has set off the equivalent of 2m nuclear bombs of energy equivalent since 1998 and what "significant" increase in global temperatures you think Ireland's "detonation" of these nuclear bomb equivalents has caused.


Will you share your data, calculations, sources and conclusions with us?

Then we can have a look at you and your lefty friends proposals on how you'd substitute that alleged 2m Hiroshima bombsworth of energy with an alternative, reliable renewable energy source.

I know they're probably all busy scouring property to occupy at the moment, but they seem highly intelligent and should be able to multitask whenever they're not tweeting about the need for a rapid transition to renewable energy and demanding more free stuff.



Like when you shared with us how you "calculated" 20twh (sic) to be approximately 20,000gwh (sic) by using a website that does the conversion for you? I wouldn't go asking for too much maths if I were you.

Akrasia Registered User
#563

dense said:
I totally said you and yours are quite free to discuss the causes of pre human climate change:



Why pretend I said it was off topic?


There's no point discussing it with other people, everyone else already accepts that CO2 has been one of the main drivers of climate change now, and before humans arrived.

CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere have been the fundamental predictor of global average temperature for millions of years. The deniers like you, need to explain how come now it's different. How come fluctuations in CO2 concentrations caused big swings in global temperature in the past, but not now, when we have already increased CO2 concnetrations to greater than they have been in at least the last 800k years (probably much more but ice cores only go back that far)


Especially when the other drivers of climate, solar output, orbital eccentricity and changes to albido are easily ruled out as the drivers of current climate change

dense Registered User
#564

xckjoo said:
Like when you shared with us how you "calculated" 20twh (sic) to be approximately 20,000gwh (sic) by using a website that does the conversion for you? I wouldn't go asking for too much maths if I were you.



Like when you fell off the wall and everyone laughed at you?


In other words, link please, because I don't recall using any of those figures nor do I recall you piping up at the time to say my calculations were incorrect.


If there is an error in my calculations concerning how much energy fossil fuels supply here and how much renewables do, link to it and then correct it.

Actually I'll link to it to save you the trouble and you can check that it's ok.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107955400&postcount=490

Heres the online conversion tool to convert 14m tons of oil equivalence to Twh


http://www.conversion-website.com/energy/ton-of-oil-equivalent-to-terawatt-hour.html


Akrasia's new standard unit of 1 Hiroshima bomb isn't included there however, so I'm a little sceptical of you being able to verify their claims about Ireland setting off the equivalent of 2m of them since 1998 and their impact, if any, in degrees of global warming.

dense Registered User
#565

Akrasia said:
There's no point discussing it with other people, everyone else already accepts that CO2 has been one of the main drivers of climate change now, and before humans arrived.


Especially when the other drivers of climate, solar output, orbital eccentricity and changes to albido are easily ruled out as the drivers of current climate change



You seem to be uniquely personally burdened with experiencing "climate change" to a greater degree than is being observed.


Nothing detrimental has come from the barely measurable "observed" (and adjusted) c 1°C of warming averaged from sparse measurements around the earth.


You really need to stop being so alarmed and calling for urgent knee jerk reactions based on vacuous lefty environmental policy designed to push humanity back to the dark ages whilst harking for a global accord to force you to reduce your own carbon footprint.


The UNIPCC is less convinced of this drama than you are:


Detection and attribution


The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the
late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does
not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate
system has been identified.


Climate has always varied on all
time-scales, so the observed change may be natural.




https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/045.htm


The difficulties you have in getting others to be similarly alarmed at what essentially is normal weather ia summarised well in this paper:


But what about the data sets used in these analyses? To detect an observed change in the climate system, particularly a change suitable for an attribution study, a data set of sufficient temporal and spatial coverage is necessary.

Depending on the climate extreme, there is often a lack of observed climate data to document these events for many parts of the world. If the observations exist they often are not in digital form. Also, although the situation is changing, many countries continue to be reluctant to share them with the research community (Easterling, 2013, Kunkel and Frankson, 2015).

As noted above, since the analysis of climate extremes often involves examination of the tails of a statistical distribution, a threshold value may be used to determine the number of observations that exceed that value over time creating a time series of exceedance counts.

Data quality can impact the counts if there are a number of erroneous values that are not screened out by quality assurance methods, or if the quality assurance methods, which are often more concerned with mean values, are too rigorous and exclude true values.

Additional issues include missing data, especially if those missing data would exceed an established threshold or would affect the calculation of the threshold itself. In terms of global analyses, data may be missing for large regions of the globe resulting in a less than true global analysis (Donat et al., 2013). Finally, if longer term data are available they are often observed at weather observing stations, such as at airports, and may be impacted by issues such as urbanization or less than ideal station siting which may result in lower quality data.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094716300020

Akrasia Registered User
#566

dense said:
You seem to be uniquely personally burdened with experiencing "climate change" to a greater degree than is being observed.


Nothing detrimental has come from the barely measurable "observed" (and adjusted) c 1°C of warming averaged from sparse measurements around the earth.


You really need to stop being so alarmed and calling for urgent knee jerk reactions based on vacuous lefty environmental policy designed to push humanity back to the dark ages whilst harking for a global accord to force you to reduce your own carbon footprint.


The UNIPCC is less convinced of this drama than you are:


https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/045.htm

You are so dishonest. That quoted section is not a conclusion of the IPCC, it is setting out the basis for their conclusions which are
The SAR concluded nevertheless, on the basis of careful analyses, that �the observed change in global mean, annually averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system�.


and referring to attribution
In this way the SAR found that �there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record�. Since the SAR new results have become available which tend to support this conclusion. The present status of the detection of climate change and attribution of its causes is assessed in Chapter 12.



It is incredibly dishonest to selectively quote a source and misrepresent what that source actually says


The difficulties you have in getting others to be similarly alarmed at what essentially is normal weather ia summarised well in this paper:

You just threw out a section of a paper that talks about the challenges in attribution. What does this specific paper actually say about whether we can or can't attribute extreme weather events to climate change?

Hence, it is often stated in the popular press after a notable extreme weather event that nothing can be said about the role of climate change in that particular event with some caveats that such events can be expected to become more common in the future. This statement is most often patently false. For much can be said about the effect of climate change on many recent extreme weather events in a probabilistic formalism. The rapidly emerging field of Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution has quantified the effect of climate change on a wide variety of extreme weather (for instance see Peterson et al., 2012, 2013; Herring et al. 2014).


The study starts off by talking about the limitations of relying on weather reports because they cannot be scientifically controlled, and then talks about the incredibly powerful modelling tools that we can use to assess changes to our climate and extreme events.

The only reason scientists say they can't attribute individual events to climate change is because the sample size is too small. There aren't enough extreme events to allow us to come to firm conclusions, and the only way this can be solved is to wait for more storms to happen and therefore more data to analyse. Needless to say, this makes attribution via observations useless if the aim is to predict how our climate will behave under future atmospheric conditions caused by AGW. So Models are much more useful as they can plug in the conditions for any current or past weather event and then input counter factual conditions to test how those storms would have behaved if for example, oceans had been cooler, or the jet stream hadn't have been meandering so much due to polar warming etc.

Climate scientists know an awful lot more about this than you do Dense, and they have the tools and understanding that you can only dream of. If you're going to quote their research you should at least have the courtesy to get their conclusions right

3 people have thanked this post
Akrasia Registered User
#567

Interesting study just released says that if it wasn't for global warming, Hurricane Florence would have produced only half as much rain and it would have been 80 kilometers smaller

https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/4/945/files/2018/09/climate_change_Florence_0911201800Z_final-262u19i.pdf

This is on the basis of physics models and not historical observations.

2 people have thanked this post
dense Registered User
#568

Akrasia said:
Interesting study just released says that if it wasn't for global warming, Hurricane Florence would have produced only half as much rain and it would have been 80 kilometers smaller

https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/you.stonybrook.edu/dist/4/945/files/2018/09/climate_change_Florence_0911201800Z_final-262u19i.pdf

This is on the basis of physics models and not historical observations.


So alarmed alarmed earth scientists have now modelled the models to get them to forecast a human fingerprint.

Back when CO2 levels were around the famous but undefined "pre industrial period" in 1900, what do you think caused the floods that came with Hurricane Hazel?





Model T Fords causing the US east cost to be sinking?


Scientists:
Parts of North Carolina, New Jersey and South Carolina have been sinking at rates of 8 to 10 inches per century.

https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/scientists-rhode-island-is-sinking-and-sea-levels-continue-to-rise_20180327075737224/1082490842


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas/

Observations show a decrease in historic hurricane activity:

We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.
Once an estimate for likely missing storms is accounted for the increase in tropical storms in the Atlantic since the late-19th Century is not distinguishable from no change.
Atlantic tropical storms lasting more than 2 days have not increased in number.

Storms lasting less than two days have increased sharply, but this is likely due to better observations. Figure adapted from Landsea, Vecchi, Bengtsson and Knutson (2009, J. Climate)
When one focuses only on landfalling storms (yellow lines) the nominal trend has been for a decrease.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

We have investigated trends in CONUS hurricane activity since 1900 and found no significant trends in landfalling hurricanes, major hurricanes, or normalized damage consistent with what has been found in previous studies.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1


Increased financial loss is being fuelled by increasing development in historic hurricane risk paths, not AGW.


Analyses show that, although economic losses from weather-related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.


The observed loss increase is caused primarily by increasing exposure and value of capital at risk.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1

dense Registered User
#569

Akrasia said:
You are so dishonest.

The only reason scientists say they can't attribute individual events to climate change is because the sample size is too small.



You are now caught up in classic climate change circular reasoning by claiming that the number of extreme weather events caused by global warming is so small that the earth scientists are saying they are having trouble attributing them to global warming.

Akrasia Registered User
#570

dense said:
You are now caught up in classic climate change circular reasoning by claiming that the number of extreme weather events caused by global warming is so small that the earth scientists are saying they are having trouble attributing them to global warming.


By definition extreme events are rare, if they weren't they would be normal weather.

Climate change is causing what used to be considered extreme, to now be normal weather. Its shifting the bell curve

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!