"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Akrasia wrote: »

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

DanDan6592 wrote: »

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?'

xckjoo wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

In summary …. it is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., above the 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends.

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.

Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data.

xckjoo wrote: »

Point being, they're SI units so there's no "calculation" involved. The prefix is only telling you the multiple of the original unit (10 to the power of x). Did you know 10 is approximately ten 1's? Will you give me a €100 note for approximately 10 x €10 notes (give or take a few €10)?

Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land - 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) - than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.

"We're (sic) were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

xckjoo wrote: »

So you concede that mans actions have an impact on the environment???? Are you just arguing the scale of the issue?

According to the report, one Irish person emits 74 times more carbon dioxide per year than one Ethiopian or Malawian. In Honduras crop yields will fall by at least 10 percent by 2020 and rainfall in Malawi could decrease by up to 25 percent by the end of the century.

Akrasia wrote: »

MJ Kelly might know a lot about quantum engineering. But he hasn't got a clue about climate science or how to tell good data from propaganda in a politically charged arena full of misinformation

Akrasia wrote: »

He's not doing any research, he's just overseeing the organisation of this extremely complex publication.

Akrasia wrote: »

Who gives a sh1t. You brought him up as a standard dense distraction tactic when I pointed out that the paper you linked to was written by someone with absolutely no climate science training and written in a way using sources of such awful quality that they would get a university undergraduate student a failing grade.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

Akrasia wrote: »

Individual action is not the solution to a global ecological problem. It requires global political action.

This means nationalising the main industries that dominate the economy.

This will need to be done throughout the world, encompassing the 147 multinational corporations that recent research has shown dominate the globe.

The task is urgent. It must involve the political re-armament of the workers’ movement in Britain and internationally with a socialist programme.

As a first step, this will require the creation of new mass workers’ parties to replace the discredited former workers’ organisations. These parties, such as the Labour Party in Britain, have totally failed over decades to implement programmes to reverse the degradation of the planet.

dubstepper wrote: »

This paragraph is largely incoherent but the point about where to source our energy, while interesting, is nothing to do with whether climate change is man made. it is entirely consistent to agree with anthropogenic climate change, without needing to offer a solution. It is beyond most people to offer solutions. We need scientists and engineers to do that.

Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too.

Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation?

“I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”

Akrasia wrote: »

the actual figure is that Ireland produces 10% of it's total energy from renewable sources as of 2017, and 30% of our electricity from renewable sources

Renewable energy accounted for 3% of Ireland’s total final energy consumption in 2015.

Renewable energy in Ireland reached the highest level ever with a new peak in 2016 of 4,246 ktoe, up from the
previous peak in 1995 at 4,105 ktoe.

Total renewable energy increased slightly by 0.3% during 2016 to 1,158 ktoe out of their total of 13250ktoe.

Hydro and wind decreased by 15.6% and
6.5% respectively as there was lower rainfall and less wind blowing in 2016 compared to 2015

In 2016, lower hydro and wind resources and increased electricity
exports saw electricity generated from gas increase by 23%.

The investigations were carried out in a laboratory chamber furnace at five different temperatures (from 700 to 1100 °C) and at three different air flow rates providing an excess of oxygen. In many cases the determined emission indicators for biomass combustion were higher than for hard coal.

Akrasia wrote: »

The solution to transitioning from fossil fuels, is to increase investment and for the government to provide both positive and negative incentives to funnel market forces towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels.

Mature technology exists to have energy storage that can provide better continuity of supply. When we have extra generation capacity, that energy is stored in the form of compressed gas, or gravity potential energy, or battery technology with the ability to release this energy when demand is higher or production is lower.

Add to this an interconnected EU power grid and we can have a secure reliable network with plenty of redundancy