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.
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?'
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.
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.
This thread is hilarious. As if there's any doubt.
Seriously lads, argue about something where there is an actual argument on both sides.
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.
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
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.
Heres the online conversion tool to convert 14m tons of oil equivalence to Twh
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.
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:
The difficulties you have in getting others to be similarly alarmed at what essentially is normal weather ia summarised well in this paper:
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
and referring to attribution
It is incredibly dishonest to selectively quote a source and misrepresent what that source actually says
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?
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
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
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?
Observations show a decrease in historic hurricane activity:
Increased financial loss is being fuelled by increasing development in historic hurricane risk paths, not AGW.
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