Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

riffmongous

There is a talk on tomorrow from the Irish Meteorological Society, it might be interesting for people here.

March Lecture: Ireland’s Changing Climate in a Warming World
Invited speaker Seamus Walsh, Met Éireann will discuss the warming of the world since the 19th century; the global mean temperature is projected to continue to increase by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century, depending on future levels of emission of greenhouse gases. Changes in the Earth’s climate system such as increases in air and sea temperature, sea level rise and decreasing extent of Arctic sea ice and glaciers, which have already been observed, will continue to occur, with changes also likely in precipitation patterns and extremes.His presentation will place these global changes in the Irish context, a future warmer climate in Ireland will bring more frequent wet winters, drier and hotter summers and an increased likelihood of extreme weather events, with implications for many sectors of society.

https://www.facebook.com/events/344537732701219/

Oneiric 3

Interesting documentary (from 1992) on the tyrannies of the World Bank/IMF:

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/war-by-other-means/

Documentary focuses on the utter decimation of the Philippines during the 80s & early 90s under the 'caring' hands of the World Bank, and its role in destroying colossal areas of the country's rain forests, which in turn was directly responsible for thousands of deaths. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

dense

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Interesting documentary (from 1992) on the tyrannies of the World Bank/IMF:

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/war-by-other-means/

Documentary focuses on the utter decimation of the Philippines during the 80s & early 90s under the 'caring' hands of the World Bank, and its role in destroying colossal areas of the country's rain forests, which in turn was directly responsible for thousands of deaths. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

It's taking new steps to make itself appear even more caring apparently.....

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/world-bank-and-corruption

Wanderer78

Oneiric 3 wrote:

Documentary focuses on the utter decimation of the Philippines during the 80s & early 90s under the 'caring' hands of the World Bank, and its role in destroying colossal areas of the country's rain forests, which in turn was directly responsible for thousands of deaths. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

So much so, that the Philippines now uses up to 70 - 80% of its tax revenue to service it's debts, go Washington consensus!

Akrasia

Here's Michael Mann giving a talk in October 2017 in the wake of Harvey, the single largest rainfall event ever recorded in the USA, at a time when SSTs in the gulf of mexico were at an all time record.

It's a short talk by a man who has been a first hand victim of the global warming denial aparatus

dense

Eh, no thanks.

I'm not sure what his agenda is, but his methods are highly regarded by the settled scientists.

Not so much by anyone else.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1906768358/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521739918&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=hockey+stick+illusion&dpPl=1&dpID=51uETda8P9L&ref=plSrch

https://www.amazon.com/%2522A-Disgrace-Profession%2522-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&qid=1439321074&sr=1-2&keywords=%22A+Disgrace+to+the+Profession%22

Oneiric 3

dense wrote: »

It's taking new steps to make itself appear even more caring apparently.....

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/world-bank-and-corruption

Some answers to questions about the questionable role of the World Bank/IMF in 'developing countries' here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/Global_Rulemakers.html

Amongst many other highlights:

"These institutions have a terrible record of environmental destruction. From a hydroelectric dam in India that displaced thousands of people to road-building and agricultural colonization in the Brazilian Amazon, the Bank's history has been characterized by misguided and massive development debacles-debacles that continue today despite the objections of environmental groups around the world

"The Bank's proposal to support a 600-mile pipe line that will carry oil from Chad to the coast of Cameroon is a perfect example of the Bank's disregard for environmental concerns. The massive oil development project will pass through or close to important ecological areas that are home to indigenous tribes and endangered species. Even if the best available technology were adopted, 2,000 gallons a day could leak without being detected. Equally disturbing, the oil companies planning the project-Shell and Exxon-each have terrible environmental records. In 1997, the Wall Street Journal reported Exxon's chairman as advising developing countries to avoid environmental controls if they wanted to secure foreign investment".

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Eh, no thanks.

I'm not sure what his agenda is, but his methods are highly regarded by the settled scientists.

Not so much by anyone else.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1906768358/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521739918&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=hockey+stick+illusion&dpPl=1&dpID=51uETda8P9L&ref=plSrch

https://www.amazon.com/%2522A-Disgrace-Profession%2522-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&qid=1439321074&sr=1-2&keywords=%22A+Disgrace+to+the+Profession%22

Ah, the allegations against Michael Mann were investigated multiple times and he was cleared of any wrongdoing. The fact that a couple of bloggers wrote a couple of books is as convincing as the 'origin of specious nonsense' is at refuting Darwin
in a game of top trumps, papers published in the scientific literature trump books published by bloggers with zero training track record or expertise on the subject every time.

Akrasia

An updated analysis by the EASAC shows that the frequency of extreme events has drastically increased in since 1980

Man-made climate change has been proven to have increased recent extreme rainfall and associated floods; coastal flooding due to sea-level rise; heatwaves in Australia, China, and Europe; and increased risks of wildfires with implications for humans and animals, the environment, and the economy. Climate proofing can help to limit these impacts.

Globally, according to the new data, the number of floods and other hydrological events have quadrupled since 1980 and have doubled since 2004, highlighting the urgency of adaptation to climate change. Climatological events, such as extreme temperatures, droughts, and forest fires, have more than doubled since 1980. Meteorological events, such as storms, have doubled since 1980 (Figure 2.1 in 2013 report); (Figure 1 in 2018 updated publication).

https://easac.eu/press-releases/details/new-data-confirm-increased-frequency-of-extreme-weather-events-european-national-science-academies

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

An updated analysis by the EASAC shows that the frequency of extreme events has drastically increased in since 1980





https://easac.eu/press-releases/details/new-data-confirm-increased-frequency-of-extreme-weather-events-european-national-science-academies

Tell me, are you not a bit concerned that the data have not been peer-reviewed and that the reports are conceeded to be affected by improved reporting due to the Internet? Strange to see you quoting a useless paper like this.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Tell me, are you not a bit concerned that the data have not been peer-reviewed and that the reports are conceeded to be affected by improved reporting due to the Internet? Strange to see you quoting a useless paper like this.

Are you 'not a bit concerned' that there is a massive spike in flooding events over the past 5 years?

Yeah, those useless scientists at the European National Academies of Science. What would they know.

A four fold increase in hydrological natural disasters in 38 years. Sure that's all part of natural variability, nothing to see here, Ray Bates says everything's grand.

Turtwig

"Spikes" may follow a regression to the mean scenario. Even peer review has its limitations - an individual published study isn't indicative of anything until a flurry of other studies start pointing similar - but peer review at least is a higher standard than no peer review.
Depends on the journal too of course.

Akrasia

Turtwig wrote: »

"Spikes" may follow a regression to the mean scenario. Even peer review has its limitations - an individual published study isn't indicative of anything until a flurry of other studies start pointing similar - but peer review at least is a higher standard than no peer review.
Depends on the journal too of course.

But there is also a heirarchy of non peer reviewed sources. Government reports aren't published in peer reviewed journals, neither are statements from bodies like NOAA or NASA but they're still reputable sources.

I would argue that an update statement by the EASAC is worthy of our attention and should not be dismissed as 'useless' in the way that Gaoth Ladir did.

Turtwig

I get your point but New scientist (iirc they were the ones who first brought it to attention) put it to the IPPC that some of the references and data listed in their report was grey literature and non peer reviewed.

Granted these were miniscule but it shows that even large scale organisations aren't immune from using less reliable sources. I prefer all data to be peer reviewed.

Though I agree the sources you used are more reliable than most others.:)

Akrasia

Turtwig wrote: »

I get your point but New scientist (iirc they were the ones who first brought it to attention) put it to the IPPC that some of the references and data listed in their report was grey literature and non peer reviewed.

Granted these were miniscule but it shows that even large scale organisations aren't immune from using less reliable sources. I prefer all data to be peer reviewed.

Though I agree the sources you used are more reliable than most others.:)

Yeah, all sources need to be scrutinised and if it was just the EASAC making this one statement, I would be skeptical too, but this is just one more voice in a chorus of agreement that what is happening now is very serious and the evidence is overwhelming on one side of the argument with 'skeptics' left grasping at crumbs of uncertainty

Turtwig

Right, but while consensus is science it should not be confused with populism. A chorus of opinion is only as good as the sources and reasoning they were derived from. Scientists above all others need to ensure their opinions are well founded, robust, reliable and supported by the findings of others following a similar sense of spirit.

That's how AGW was arrived at, it does not mean however that because people aren't accepting it that we should resort to increased rhetoric and noise. Ultimately we must stick to being reliable and objective.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you 'not a bit concerned' that there is a massive spike in flooding events over the past 5 years?

Yeah, those useless scientists at the European National Academies of Science. What would they know.

A four fold increase in hydrological natural disasters in 38 years. Sure that's all part of natural variability, nothing to see here, Ray Bates says everything's grand.

As I said, that fourfold increase is not a true increase due to the advent of first digital cameras, then internet, cameraphones, and of course social media. These have shown an exponential growth in all countries over the past decade or so, and by the authors' own admission plays a part in the trend. Add to this the increasing population baseline and I would have been very surprised NOT to see an increase in reports. Do you really believe that there are four times more now than 38 years ago? Why aren't we seeing a fourfold increase in precipitation trends?

The updated figures show a continuation in the trends previously observed whereby climate-related extreme events are rising, with particularly sharp rises in hydrological events. However, such trends need to take into account socio-economic developments that influence exposure to and reporting of natural hazards that result from climate variability. As far as reporting is concerned, this has improved through the use of the Internet, and smaller events in particular are better recorded today than they were 30 years ago. This effect accounts for part of the trend in increasing numbers of loss events. However, trends in reporting are unlikely to have any significant impact on the loss amount trend, since annual losses are dominated by the major loss events, which have always been recorded.

From the economic perspective, assessing past loss events according to
today’s economic standards requires two adjustments: firstly, adjusting the costs of the events to today’s money; and secondly, assessing what damage that event would

have caused today (taking into account changes in infrastructure vulnerability, etc.).

The first adjustment merely involves applying inflation to the historically determined loss data. This can use an established price index, which should represent the actual development of prices in the region in question and be based on the currency of the country concerned.

The second adjustment needs to take into account changes in the exposed assets and their vulnerability, which involves assessing the effects of development on the values in the area affected. Such an adjustment is known as normalisation (Eichner
[FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light]et al.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][/FONT][/FONT], 2015). Such data are not available for all losses worldwide, but two examples of trends that have been normalised are shown in Figure 2: for losses due to thunderstorms in North America and for flood losses in Europe. Whereas there are meteorological reasons for the increase in the normalised losses from severe thunderstorms, protection measures that have been implemented must also be taken into account in explaining the near-static trend in flood losses (Eichner [FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light]et al.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][FONT=Frutiger LT Std 45 Light,Frutiger LT Std 45 Light][/FONT][/FONT], 2015).

On the economic side, more people taking out insurance policies now than ever before means increased exposure for the providers, so it's not surprising to see these cost figures on the rise too.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

As I said, that fourfold increase is not a true increase due to the advent of first digital cameras, then internet, cameraphones, and of course social media. These have shown an exponential growth in all countries over the past decade or so, and by the authors' own admission plays a part in the trend. Add to this the increasing population baseline and I would have been very surprised NOT to see an increase in reports. Do you really believe that there are four times more now than 38 years ago? Why aren't we seeing a fourfold increase in precipitation trends?

It's not about what I believe, it's about the statistics
Look at figure 4 in the report. In 1985 there was an average of about 1 severe flood in Europe per year. In 2017, the average number is 7. In 1985 there were an average of 4 high magnitude flood events a year in Europe, in 2016, that average is 9.

These are the large scale events that would have been reported widely regardless of the availability of smartphones and the internet.

On the economic side, more people taking out insurance policies now than ever before means increased exposure for the providers, so it's not surprising to see these cost figures on the rise too.

The figures for uninsured losses are increasing too so that argument is wrong. Also, you are only counting one side of the balance sheet. Better meteorological services mean that people are able to take precautions to limit losses from floods and storms that they wouldn't have been able to do 40 years ago, also, there are better flood and storm defenses, so weather events need to be more extreme to cause the same amount of damage. If the storms aren't getting worse, but the defenses are getting better, then we should be seeing reduced damages from storms, especially in developed countries like in Europe where development is usually planned to take into account flood risk.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

It's not about what I believe, it's about the statistics
Look at figure 4 in the report. In 1985 there was an average of about 1 severe flood in Europe per year. In 2017, the average number is 7. In 1985 there were an average of 4 high magnitude flood events a year in Europe, in 2016, that average is 9.

These are the large scale events that would have been reported widely regardless of the availability of smartphones and the internet.

But it is about what you believe, as you're the one who posted the article. Are you saying you don't believe it? But anyway, again, where are the statistics to show that rainfall is up to four times more now that it was then? How are these extra floods taking place if there's not a proportionate increase in rainfall stats?

To take an imby look, here's Met Éireann's Phoenix Park rainfall series since 1880 (from here).

The figures for uninsured losses are increasing too so that argument is wrong. Also, you are only counting one side of the balance sheet. Better meteorological services mean that people are able to take precautions to limit losses from floods and storms that they wouldn't have been able to do 40 years ago, also, there are better flood and storm defenses, so weather events need to be more extreme to cause the same amount of damage. If the storms aren't getting worse, but the defenses are getting better, then we should be seeing reduced damages from storms, especially in developed countries like in Europe where development is usually planned to take into account flood risk.

The population is growing. More people have more material goods, whether insured or not. A flood now is bound to cost more than the same flood 20 years ago.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But it is about what you believe, as you're the one who posted the article. Are you saying you don't believe it? But anyway, again, where are the statistics to show that rainfall is up to four times more now that it was then? How are these extra floods taking place if there's not a proportionate increase in rainfall stats?

You don't need 4 times as much rain to have 4 times as many floods. You just need a few individual rainfall events to dump more precipitation over a short space of time.

If global warming changes rainfall patterns so your summer is drier but winter is wetter, the exact same annual rainfall numbers could be concentrated in a smaller window and cause more flooding.

To take an imby look, here's Met reann's Phoenix Park rainfall series since 1880 (from here).

Firstly, the phoenix park is not the world, its one location and by itself proves nothing. Not all locations are affected by climate change in the same way. Secondly, those graphs say nothing about the temporal distribution of the rainfall.

In the UK, the majority of the wettest years on record have been since 1998,
Recent years in Ireland have been amongst the wettest in over 300 years with wetter winters and drier summers according to a new historical reconstruction

As mentioned before, the most recent decade is the wettest in our record. Moreover, the winter of 2015/16 saw extensive flooding across Ireland and the winter of 2013/14 was the stormiest winter on record in the region. These seasons were also the first and second wettest winters in the 305 year series, respectively. However, the wettest winter decade occurred in the 1730s, a period of remarkably persistent westerly winds that carried moisture from the Atlantic.

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2018/0326/950093-wet-wet-wet-last-decade-saw-most-rainfall-in-300-years/

https://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-142/

The population is growing. More people have more material goods, whether insured or not. A flood now is bound to cost more than the same flood 20 years ago.

that's one side of the argument, but it ignores the fact that we build flood defenses.
The same flood that happened 20 years ago would cause less damage now because we build flood defenses to protect our valuable cities and towns. Bigger floods overwhelm flood defenses and flood new areas that weren't thought to even be at risk of flooding.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You don't need 4 times as much rain to have 4 times as many floods. You just need a few individual rainfall events to dump more precipitation over a short space of time.

If global warming changes rainfall patterns so your summer is drier but winter is wetter, the exact same annual rainfall numbers could be concentrated in a smaller window and cause more flooding.

Firstly, the phoenix park is not the world, its one location and by itself proves nothing. Not all locations are affected by climate change in the same way. Secondly, those graphs say nothing about the temporal distribution of the rainfall.

In the UK, the majority of the wettest years on record have been since 1998,
Recent years in Ireland have been amongst the wettest in over 300 years with wetter winters and drier summers according to a new historical reconstruction


https://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-142/

Wait, on the one hand you're saying we need data on short-term rain events to prove the point, yet on the other hand you speak about annual totals and quote a 305-yr record of monthly totals. Which is it? The Phoenix Park graph shows the incidence of high (>10 mm) daily totals, which is some metric for what you're looking for, albeit just for one location. But again, for the 4th time, if you can show hard rainfall data proving a fourfold increase in such short-term events for anywhere on the globe then please show it.

that's one side of the argument, but it ignores the fact that we build flood defenses.
The same flood that happened 20 years ago would cause less damage now because we build flood defenses to protect our valuable cities and towns.

Really? Has everywhere now been flood-proofed against typical floods of 20 years ago? Some defenses have been built in some locations, but then so have towns been expanded, flood plains built on, coastal resorts been developed, etc., much of which has been done pretty recklessly, in hindsight. So I would guess that the number of flood-prone locations has most likely increased, despite the defenses introduced in other, more traditional flood hotspots.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Firstly, the phoenix park is not the world, its one location and by itself proves nothing. Not all locations are affected by climate change in the same way. Secondly, those graphs say nothing about the temporal distribution of the rainfall.

This is an argument I don't understand. Pick any dot on the globe, and you can claim this is 'not the world', yet curiously, this line of argument only seems to be dished out to to us in NW Europe.

However, I would agree with you about Phoenix Park data, which is traditionally one of the driest spots in the country, so not all that representative of the country as a whole. I posted a graph a while back showing that rainfall trends in the west of the country are on the up, particularly in Winter, and if I recall correctly, (which is open to correction) also on the up in the east during the Summer months, which may, in part, be due to the largely increasing SSTs of the north Atlantic leading to more moisture being absorbed into the atmosphere before it is dumped on our wee Isle.

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

This is an argument I don't understand. Pick any dot on the globe, and you can claim this is 'not the world', yet curiously, this line of argument only seems to be dished out to to us in NW Europe.

However, I would agree with you about Phoenix Park data, which is traditionally one of the driest spots in the country, so not all that representative of the country as a whole. I posted a graph a while back showing that rainfall trends in the west of the country are on the up, particularly in Winter, and if I recall correctly, (which is open to correction) also on the up in the east during the Summer months, which may, in part, be due to the largely increasing SSTs of the north Atlantic leading to more moisture being absorbed into the atmosphere before it is dumped on our wee Isle.

I think that was the data for Claremorris you posted? Nationally, there is little trend in seasonal totals since 1940.



On your theory on increased moisture levels, we should be seeing that in the form of increasing water vapour pressure, but we're not. The trend is flat.

Kermit.de.frog

I don't believe I have ever expressed my opinion on this subject here.

I'd be in the camp that human contribution to man made global warming is overblown and always has been. It's an industry now.

That being said I would point out two things:

Venus (the Planet)
The thumb blocking out the earth from the moon

Venus represents the most stark warning in the solar system of what happens to a planet that ends up in a runaway greenhouse effect no matter how it occurs.

The astronauts on the moon that could block the earth out with their thumbs - no matter what you think of mmcc we all inhabit a tiny bubble of a planet with it's thin atmosphere and it is not good to be pumping sh!t relentlessly in to the air.

Cleaner the better. Having said that I agree with those criticising the hyperbole and endless propaganda you see regarding "man made" climate change.

That is not to say there is not an element of truth to it though which I believe there is.

Anyway i'll take my leave.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

This is an argument I don't understand. Pick any dot on the globe, and you can claim this is 'not the world', yet curiously, this line of argument only seems to be dished out to to us in NW Europe.

However, I would agree with you about Phoenix Park data, which is traditionally one of the driest spots in the country, so not all that representative of the country as a whole. I posted a graph a while back showing that rainfall trends in the west of the country are on the up, particularly in Winter, and if I recall correctly, (which is open to correction) also on the up in the east during the Summer months, which may, in part, be due to the largely increasing SSTs of the north Atlantic leading to more moisture being absorbed into the atmosphere before it is dumped on our wee Isle.

Basic physics says for every 1 degree Celsius increase the air holds 7% more water. Warmer air leads to heavier precipitation when it happens. But that 7% translates into much bigger increases in precipitation due to complexities like how storms gather in water from miles away and latent heat releases during condensation to rain which goes to fuel weather systems further

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Basic physics says for every 1 degree Celsius increase the air holds 7% more water. Warmer air leads to heavier precipitation when it happens. But that 7% translates into much bigger increases in precipitation due to complexities like how storms gather in water from miles away and latent heat releases during condensation to rain which goes to fuel weather systems further

So with the 0.85-degree increase being about a 5% increase in water, is this 5% increase really able to account for this alleged 400% increase in flood events that you speak of? Basic physics also says we should be seeing increased vapour pressure, but we're not.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So with the 0.85-degree increase being about a 5% increase in water, is this 5% increase really able to account for this alleged 400% increase in flood events that you speak of? Basic physics also says we should be seeing increased vapour pressure, but we're not.

Look, Just because you can't understand something doesn't make it wrong. That's called the 'argument from ignorance'. You should know perfectly well that rainfall is not evenly distributed within a storm. Some places will get much more rain than others, so a x% increase in overall precipitation within a storm could be much higher local event while other places will be unscathed. Storm dynamics are complex, you of all people know this so it is disappointing that you are bringing up such facile points to counter a scientific finding.

There are many scientific studies that discuss how relatively small increases in atmospheric water content have led to disproportionately high rainfall. The moisture in any given rainfall event is drawn in from a much larger footprint than the actual area of rainfall itself. A 5% increase of atmospheric water content can translate into an increased intensity that is much greater than 5%.

You of all people know that increases in one factor can result in exponentially greater effects. You know that hurricane force wind speeds increase the power of the storm by the square of the velocity of the winds, so that a category 5 storm with min winds of 157mph is 5 times more powerful than a cat 1 storm with winds of min 74mph. So a doubling of the wind speed results in a 5 fold increase in power. Similarly, as atmospheric water content goes up, the effects can be much greater than the nominal increase in water content.

Instead of dismissing these flooding events that are clearly increasing, you could critically apply the knowledge you clearly have on weather and precipitation events and if you do so honestly, I have no doubt that you will figure out how it is perfectly plausible that a global average temperature increase of 1 degree C could lead to a large increase in flood events

Regarding vapour pressure, you haven't shown that specific humidity is not increasing as expected in line with temperature increases. There has been increased evaporation and we have measured increased atmospheric water vapour content globally

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Wait, on the one hand you're saying we need data on short-term rain events to prove the point, yet on the other hand you speak about annual totals and quote a 305-yr record of monthly totals. Which is it?

It is both.

The Phoenix Park graph shows the incidence of high (>10 mm) daily totals, which is some metric for what you're looking for, albeit just for one location. But again, for the 4th time, if you can show hard rainfall data proving a fourfold increase in such short-term events for anywhere on the globe then please show it.

and for the millionth time, there doesn't have to be a 4 fold increase in rainfall to cause 4 times as many floods

If there are 12 heavy rainfall days spread evenly around the year, that's one day of heavy rain a month which could be well within the capacity of the rivers to drain. If the summers are drier and the winters are wetter, that could be 12 heavy rainfall days spread over 3 or 4 months, and if several of those heavy rainfall days happen within the same week, then you have a big flood caused by exactly the same amount of annual rainfall that would have posed no issues at all under the previous rainfall pattern.

And you don't need to have 4 times as much rain to cause 4 times as many floods. If a river rises to just below the top of the river bank, there is no flood. If that river rises a few percent so that it comes over the riverbank/flood wall, then suddenly there is a flood. A small bit of extra water above the capacity of the river system.

Really? Has everywhere now been flood-proofed against typical floods of 20 years ago? Some defenses have been built in some locations, but then so have towns been expanded, flood plains built on, coastal resorts been developed, etc., much of which has been done pretty recklessly, in hindsight. So I would guess that the number of flood-prone locations has most likely increased, despite the defenses introduced in other, more traditional flood hotspots.

of course everywhere hasn't. but a lot of places have been. Ennis for example used to flood regularly but they raised the walls on the Fergus and put in bilge pumps and and it hasn't flooded in years. if you think the massive increases in flood damage is because of reckless development then it is up to you to prove that claim. In Europe, generally developments have to go through planning processes that include flood risk assessments. If there have been new developments that have flooded, you have to ask why the flood risk assessments didn't pick this up during planning? Is it because these areas weren't a flood risk until climate change increased the intensity of storms and rainfall events?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think that was the data for Claremorris you posted? Nationally, there is little trend in seasonal totals since 1940.



On your theory on increased moisture levels, we should be seeing that in the form of increasing water vapour pressure, but we're not. The trend is flat.

Firstly, we had this exact conversation before using these exact graphs. Do you not remember insisting that the graphs didn't show an increasing rainfall trend until you finally admitted that you were reading them wrong?

And please stop calling it 'my theory'. It is not 'my theory' that climate change leads to more intense rainfall, it is established scientific fact, established in both models and observations

dense

Very interesting article here from a couple of years ago claiming that based on observations (and not models) instead of the sea inundating coasts, coasts are increasing worldwide.

It tallies with current recent research showing that the poster child victim of sea level rise and climate injustice, Tuvalu, is growing and not sinking.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100