Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

1303133353670

Comments



  • Akrasia, you need to open your eyes a bit and at least check what you're quoting.

    And I admit I don't get your fruit reference. I didn"t know cherries are grown in the UK.

    Anyway, my cherrypicked rainfall data also come from the same source as Oneiric's, i.e. https://www.met.ie/climate/weather-extreme-records





  • Do you really honestly think that politicians want climate change to be real? It’s an enormous headache for them, do they want to have to raise taxes to pay for really expensive mitigation of long term flood risks?

    do they want the hassle of having this same debate over and over and over again? The idea that politics is leading the science is simply wrong. Green parties get a small percentage of the vote worldwide, while parties hostile to the idea of tackling climate change have dominated some of the most influential countries in the world

    your interpretation is literally the opposite of reality. Politics have interfered in the science to downplay the importance of tackling climate change. Interfering to water down reports, water down commitments, and eliminate consequences for breaching said commitments

    The Trump administration did everything it could to purge scientists who were experts on climate change and replace them with political cronies who were unqualified for those positions

    anyone who thinks politics is exaggerating the science on climate change needs to provide proof of this, not cartoons





  • The UK Met introduced the extreme heat weather alert, I said they did it to save lives, you said they did it to increase social media hits, and that people dying will increase those clicks





  • So in this link, 5 of the highest monthly temperatures occurred within the last 30 years in a dataset that goes back at least 130 years

    8 of the highest monthly rainfall figures were within the past 30 years, same dataset, going back 130+ years

    Only 1 of the lowest monthly rainfall months was within the past 30 years,

    6 of the highest Daily rainfall totals (grouped by month) came within the past 30 years .....


    This hardly counts as a dataset btw, it's an extremely flawed way at measuring trends which is why climate change uses gridded zonal anomaly records to calculate trends, they don't just point at individual datapoints like you guys are doing here.

    Climate science is hard, really hard. Looking at individual datapoints is easy. The scientists aren't watching the weather reports to see if the absolute maximum record is beaten in a single weather event, they are looking at the overall data to measure intensity, duration, geographic spread, affects on hydrology, the biosphere, the cryosphere, ocean temperatures etc etc etc

    When absolute temperature records are broken, it gathers attention, when these records are smashed, like what happened in Canada this month, the world pays attention, when they are smashed and continue to stay way higher than normal, like what is happening in Siberia recently, we should all pay attention

    I'm so tired of people having the 'I'll believe it when I see it' attitude to this topic. By the time you see it, and are convinced by it, it's way too late.

    The Titanic saw the iceberg, they hit it anyway.



  • Advertisement


  • No, I did not. You are literally just making this up because you haven't a leg to stand on after making such a false claim. And we are to listen to you and that fraud (which I don't .. nay, refuse to believe you are) Banana about what the 'science' says?

    If you misinterpret and misrepresent a totally innocuous post like that. It naturally follows that questions are to be asked as to what else you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting.





  • It isn't 'flawed', it is a list of recorded weather extremes on our island. No one claimed it was a climate dataset. But if extremes are getting more extreme as you put it, then why do you have give yourself a 30 year net to capture as many data points as you can to prove your point? Why not 20, or 10? or even 5?





  • Akrasia, the northern Ireland temperature record was beaten last week. It was listed as climate change.

    Valentia had two "tropical nights". It was listed as climate change.

    Yet you are willing to disregard the whole weather extreme dataset for Ireland because it only lists individual stations, while at the same time use rhat very dataset to make a point about the last 30 years? Don't make me laugh.





  • Just in case you forgot what you were spewing Oneric3, and it does seem that way. Here is a run down of what you call false accusations in your rebuttal on page 32 to me. Post title: Going to address some of the false accusations made by BR1 yesterday.

    Generally you wanted me to show you're were you made these outlandish statements, well here they are, enjoy:

    “But it is this thread I can't take anymore.”

    I read the above on page 26 and assumed you meant I’m off and I wasn’t the only one. But it I suppose in hind sight it was just another cry for attention.


    I asked you a straight question on page 14, "Does the Holocaust denier David Icke have legitimacy in your opinion" you went silent


    On page 29 you said:

    I asked you several times after this "Who exactly perpetrated this genocide you speak off ?"Course you tried to deflect with some other nonsense but eventually the heat got to much for your little head and you said:

    "And if this Covid crap has been revealed to have come from a lab.. then scientists will be have the deaths of 4 million needless deaths on their hands. Just as they already have for far more countless others by the weaponry they provide (for huge profits) for war lusting governments with."

    I was wondering what the heck you meant by "Posidonia", 🤔, so I looked it up and apparently its a genus of flowering plant specifically nine variants of seagrass,🌸. Only you know what you meant I suppose but then again on page 30 you said yourself "Now, I'm obviously a bit tick, like," so I'll give you the benefit.

    Now I know its been warm of late, not helped of course by anthropogenic global warming 🛢️, perhaps you just need to cool your jets after all the keyboard warrior-ing 🗡️🛡️

    Its a crazy world outside, you just hold on to yourself lad!

    Post edited by Banana Republic 1 on




  • Because 30 years is the standard length of time when talking about Climate



  • Advertisement



  • You called me a holocaust denier and a Nazi and accused me of saying things I didn't and this is the 'evidence' you dreg up to support your libelous claims?

    You are a fraud. A Troll and a liar. And I won't cool down until your toxic presence is off this thread. 'lad'. *

    *A very SW English term funnily enough...





  • I answered all your questions by posting up you’re exact words.

    Post up the quote in which I called you a holocaust denier and a Nazi.

    “A very SW English term” explain that one.

    Are you denying you posted those things like calling me a “humourless idiot” because your the one doing trolling here. I know replying to you is just like feeding an infection but it is interesting all the same.


    Post edited by Banana Republic 1 on




  • A quick table based off that rainfall table by Met Eireann. Counts the number of occurrences of extreme events in each climate period from 41 to 91.

    Done in a rush, so small chance I didn't calculate one or two correctly so will gladly be corrected.





  • "I can see now that replying to you is just like feeding an infection."

    You are the infection, and posting up your go to image responses (are they the only stock images you have?) won't change that.

    Tick tock...





  • One question to maybe consider regarding those tables is are there/were there more or less synoptic/climate stations now or in earlier climate period as it would stand to reason that a wider and more condensed coverage would capture more extremes regarding rainfall than a less wide and less dense coverage.





  • I think a huge part of this is human psychology and our rather thin veneer of development and sophistication.

    If you think about it, even in the most developed parts of the world, unless you're from a very wealthy family tree, most of us are only a couple of generations from having lived hand-to-mouth. The quality of life improved very dramatically in the West, and other developed parts of the world in the mid 20th century, particularly after WWII and very much so since the 1950s, on the back of major technology changes that drove societal changes.

    That occurred later in Asia, but has been similarly dramatic and it's spreading. If you look back into 19th century industrial era Europe or the US, the vast majority of the population were not wealthy, and most worked in menial jobs. If you compare most of our current elderly grandparents, e.g. those born before or during WWII, to someone born in the 1960s or someone born in the 1980s or the last 20 years, there just is no comparison really in terms of the opportunities they had and the lifestyles they can aspire to live, the educational opportunities they had access to. What was once an extreme privilege became mainstream.

    We still have a society that is still very much driven by an industrial productivity and financial sector philosophy of a need for endless growth. It's not at all incentivised by a need to be efficient with resources, or minimise ecological impact. I

    n fact, in most cases, we put plenty of incentives in place to do the exact opposite. We think very excessively in the short term. It's about quarter-to-quarter growth, or year-on-year comparisons of GDP or similar factors. We also struggle to measure quality of life, and tend to get our work-life balance very much tipped towards the work side. The most successful 'economies' are talked about rather than societies, cultures or even countries.

    Some wealthier parts of the world have the luxury of being able to think long term. The more socially democratic parts like Europe for example, can do more of it than most, but plenty of the wealthiest part of the world are by and large not doing so or are just paying lip service to it, and I think that's largely down to our inability to think like that at a societal or political level beyond one election cycle to the next or at the very most beyond our immediate circumstances.

    Solving this needs us to get our heads around the idea of thinking multigenerationally, and imagining what kind of society and planet we actually want this to be. I don't really think we do that, I mean does it even matter to most people what the place is going to be like after they die? I know we all in theory would like to care about it, but do we really?

    Personally, I think we're going to slide and crash, headfirst into a climate mess and we will only begin to attempt to mitigate it as it hits. It'll be a reactive, engineering led response, rather than one that attempts to prevent this mess happening and I can well imagine in an Irish context, that we'll be knee deep in water before we even do that, as the defences that may be necessary will be seen as unnecessary and too expensive until there's serious impact already. We do that with all big capital projects here anyway - and that's not unique to Ireland - reactive policy making is the norm in most countries.

    We're continuously dancing around the edges of this topic and I honestly don't think that's going to change until it starts to have serious tangible impact and, that seems to be the path we're on right now, not just in Ireland but around the world.

    Places like the US, where you've flat out denial of science on a whole range of topics, in my view anyway, are just lost. It's headbangers ball in terms of politics over there. I mean you've people burying their heads in the sand about COVID, never mind climate change and that's FAR more tangible and immediate a treat.

    Sorry if this is a bit philosophical for a weather post, but I just don't see this being resolved simply because as a species we're still operating very much in the immediate present and while we can see beyond the horizon, we'd rather not look.

    (Account closed by user)





  • That's what I said yesterday regarding the temperature record in Kilkenny. Surely it wasn't localised to just one location, but it seems stations were few and far between back then.





  • .......





  • Do you think all these sensationalist media headlines are a coincidence? There is a normal rhythm to background chatter about weather events in the media, seasoned observers will note the change of language used, normal weather events are now described as extreme and violent and instead of warming they use heating. You may remember the ramp up in the publicity machinery in advance of the New York, UN September 2019. It is no coincidence that this public relations activity happens in advance of the summary UN IPCC Assessment Report (AR6) on August 9th, (note it is the summary for policy makers, not the full 1000 page document) and will culminate in the UN Conference of the Parties (COP) climate ambition jolly to be held this November in Glasgow. There are more articles in the pipeline and you can see this in the most recent comments of the RTE head of news requiring staff (and more licence money) to deliver them, they need to learn the new buzzwords.


    U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming

    Ahead of each major IPCC report, the world’s climate modeling centers run a set of scenarios for the future, calculating how different global emissions paths will alter the climate. These raw results, compiled in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), then feed directly into the IPCC report. The results live on as other scientists use them to assess the impacts of climate change, insurance companies and financial institutions forecast effects on economies and infrastructure, and economists calculate the true cost of carbon emissions, says Jean-François Lamarque, a lead climate modeler at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and CMIP’s new director. “This is not an ivory tower type of exercise.”


    In the past, most models projected a “climate sensitivity”—the warming expected when atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is doubled over preindustrial times—of between 2°C and 4.5°C. Last year, a landmark paper that largely eschewed models and instead used documented factors including ongoing warming trends calculated a likely climate sensitivity of between 2.6°C and 3.9°C. But many of the new models from leading centers showed warming of more than 5°C—uncomfortably outside these bounds.


    The track record of people using climate modelling to predict the future has been woeful to date and it does not look like getting any better. The article above is the conundrum they are facing. Should they accept these new hotter results it means they were very wrong for decades, however, if they reject the results it calls the modelling into serious question in the media, so there may well be a split in the modelling community where half the models have to be scrapped otherwise it may become much too obvious that there are no models that can configure and simulate any of Earth’s natural variability over any meaningful time frame an we will continue to get always 10 years in future forecast of doom.





  • It always amazes me that after decades of research and "settled' science they are still no closer to knowing the figure for climate sensitivity. The most important factor of all, the very building block of all the forecasts, and yet they've still not nailed it. But the science is settled, the consensus is in.



  • Advertisement


  • So are you now saying you do believe that there is climate change caused by the near 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm since 1750.





  • Don't forget too, we're losing atmospheric oxygen at a rate of 4 ppm per year or 19 molecules per million. Has Channel 4 not caught onto that yet? For fex sake what's kapin them? At the rate we're currently burning fossil fuels we'll run out of oxygen in only 40,000 years! Think of our grandchildren! Oh, the humanity!

    https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/oxygen/modern_records.html





  • Assuming people are still around in 40,000 years. Something similar happened to Mars. Of course that was billions of year ago and the earth is significantly bigger, Who knows what the future will bring. 5 billion years ago Venus was like earth, if there was some of life there or not I don’t know, but it’s climate changed and now look at it.

    As for channel 4, I just watch the news and if there’s something relevant to this thread I post it nothing else.





  • There are not "thousands of 'notable' weather events every day across the world" otherwise we would not see RTE ("we must do better") scouring the globe for any interesting weather event to hitch to the global warming bandwagon. Surely the UK and Ireland and perhaps nearby northern France would suffice for their daily canon fodder feed in this regard? After all that aforementioned land-mass would more than cover the percentile of "thousands" across the globe [b]every day[/b] if your assertation were even remotely true, right?

    Secondly, my assertation that the carbon taxes levied on energy consumption are put in place in order to "change habits" and that these funds are supposed to be ringfenced to cover projects that mitigate against the effect of climate change are de-facto an insurance policy against the potential disasters - then it is only reasonable that the government who have installed themselves as underwriter in-so-far-as collecting such funds should therefore be compelled to "pay out" in the event of such disasters occurring when they promised that said taxes would reduce same disasters, right?

    Instead, what we see is colossal monies being collected by government via scams such as carbon taxes and these funds being channeled into bolstering already over inflated wage levels of CEOs and their buddy C-Suite working within various "charities" who in turn lobby said government for more funding to cover their hobby horse. It amounts to nothing more than paid opposition. Welcome to the brave new world.





  • "The scientists aren't watching the weather reports to see if the absolute maximum record is beaten in a single weather event"

    Then it is not science, at all, at all.

    Every single detail has got to be under the absolute most scrutiny, no exception - whether that is from thermometers in Kilkenny Castle checked by UKMO staff in 1887, Markree Castle in Sligo in 1881 or even an icecream van in Scotland a year or so ago. Surely you'd agree with "peer reviewed" checks and balances, right?





  • Absolute hyperbole. It's not often I call out a post for blatant mis-information but this post certainly fits the bill.





  • Allegation 1: Something similar happened to Mars!

    Allegation 2: Five million years ago Venus was like Earth

    Allegation 3: But it’s climate changed and now look at it.

    Have you peer-reviewed papers that clearly outline where Venetians or Martians driving around in diesel cars heralded the end of life on said planets?

    Seriously... I'm awaiting to read such a study - popcorn is already in the microwave, looking forward to it.





  • I was booking Ryanair flights for a couple of weeks' time and I noticed they offered me the opportunity to fully offset my carbon footprint for €3.25 or partially offset it for €2.00. I chose neither. Where does this money end up, does anyone know? What will Ryanair do with it and to what will it be put towards? I haven't seen this on Ryanair before.



  • Advertisement


  • Just did a Google search for "Ryanair carbon offset" and the first hit was this company (Norwegian too, hmmm) offering tailored plans for individuals and companies alike. I was especially amused reading that you will be able to offset your pets!!? Wtf?

    https://chooose.today/about/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6ZOIBhDdARIsAMf8YyGCAWmfsIKkcE8js6612QNs7cOPaLOWze2fK7tVmyd8nm26q_WY0ZMaAgMdEALw_wcB

    The future is in €arbon Off$$et$ - Ka-ching!

    KEY FEATURES

    Everything you need - all in one place

    ✔ Climate subscriptions

    ✔ Climate gift shop

    ✔ Offset your flights and travels

    ✔ Footprint reduction guide

    ✔ Offset your car emissions (coming soon)

    ✔ Offset your pets (coming soon)



Advertisement