Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

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

1666769717284

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Do you have a source for this? Would be interesting to compare number of stations that have broken high records with cold ones down through the years.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,561 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Having lived in Queensland for a bit there was a lot of reports that farming was having the single biggest impact on the GBR. There are massive farm areas right beside the sea there and when it rains a lot of pollutants from the farm land just runs straight into the ocean. It was quiet noticable that when we were snorkeling in north eastern Queensland the coral was pristine. However, as you go further south into the farming heartland the bleaching was very noticeable.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,052 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    its both Gaoth

    Its a different threshold for every reef, but when the temperature anomaly goes above the bleaching threshold a bleaching event is very likely to occur

    There are other causes of coral bleaching too, such as pollution and changes in PH, but the factor that concerns scientists the most, is the increasing SSTs, not least because these SSTs are only really going in one direction in the long term, these eco systems will be lost as we see more and more global warming

    Image taken from here https://gcrmn.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Executive-Summary-with-Forewords.pdf

    A new UN report released yesterday



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,052 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Ah, I'm a neoliberal again. You're hilarious

    If you're not alluding that the scientists are falsifying the data, then that means you should accept their findings and then, in the context of this discussion, it doesn't matter what plans Bill gates may or may not have for minerals under greenland, the warnings from the Science are very clear and stark and action is required.

    And my claim is not 'totally groundless' Gaslighting aside

    The stormiest winter on record in Ireland was 2013/2014

    Darwin flattened millions of trees (7.5 million), it was supposed to be a 1 in 20 year event, but was beaten 3 years later by Ophelia which was the most powerful storm ever recorded in the Eastern atlantic

    Lorenzo was the first Cat 5 hurricane ever recorded so far northwest in the atlantic

    Dennis last year was the one of most intense extratropical cyclones ever recorded and it was only a matter of luck that it didn't make a direct hit on Ireland

    Similar with Ciara the week before, both underwent explosive cyclogenesis which was a rare occurance but is likely to happen more often as climate change gets worse

    We are seeing an increase in the number of powerful storms that are affecting Ireland in the past decade. Does this mean there were never powerful storms before? Or even much more damaging storms if you go back hundreds or thousands of years? No, but climate change is changing our weather and it appears to be bringing more extra tropcial storms our way

    It takes time for the statistics to build into a trend, but to call it 'groundless' is nonsense. There are climatologists who have spoken about this and attribute these changes to climate change.

    Post edited by Akrasia on


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,052 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    NOAA track this

    So far this year, (past 365 days so it includes full winter/summer cycle) there have been 703 High max temperatures globally, compared with 138 Low Min

    The longer term average was about 2 to 1, but as climate change accelerates, this ratio is widening

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Resorting to more dishonesty and gaslighting. And you wonder why nobody takes your message seriously.

    2013-2014 was a very zonal winter with a strong straight jet stream running through the north Atlantic, spurred on by extremely cold air over the N. American continent. You made the claim only a week or so ago that climate change would result in the opposite effect... even though we proved you wrong on this as well. So, which is it?

    And I posted data only the other day that proved your theory that storms are becoming stronger and more frequent in our fair isle. Literally the opposite is true, as long term statistical data I took the trouble to look at proved: This was the table I posted from Dublin Apt (I also posted data from other stations as well that showed the same trend)

    showing number of days that recorded mean wind speeds equal to or greater than 40 knots in each decade. Where is this 'increase' you are talking about? I'm not seeing it, either in the data or from actual observation.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote:

    Similar with Ciara the week before, both underwent explosive cyclogenesis which was a rare occurance but is likely to happen more often as climate change gets worse

    Now, you see this is just not true. For RACY to become more intense, the jet needs to do likewise, which we've shown is not the case. You don't seem to think that the jet is a factor in these storms, which is at odds with the well-established science of meteorology (distinct from climatology).

    You need to provide some evidence of the mechanism by which RACY will become stronger in the future while the jet doesn't strengthen.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,052 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The study I linked to earlier said 14% of hard coral reefs globally have been lost in the past decade, they put the blame on water temperature for the mass bleaching events

    I'm sure pollution is also causing damage to the reefs too, but that doesn't get climate change off the hook I'm afraid. I wish it did because at least the remote reefs would be safe from localised runoff



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,052 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I never said the Jet wasn't a factor, I said the strength of the jet changed the type of storm that would form, but didn't necessarily dictate the intensity of the storms.

    You keep putting things into buckets 'I was only talking about baroclinic conditions' when in reality, there are lots of different ways storms can form, but there are a couple of decisive factors.

    1. Interactions between hot air and cold air (high vs low pressure systems)
    2. Convection - Heat engine condensing water vapour releases heat which fuels more convection which creates a 'heat engine' that generates a storm

    A weaker Jet stream meanders more, and changes how air is moved around the atmosphere, and can cause tropical air masses to come into contact with air dragged down from the poles

    And hotter SSTs and hotter atmospheric air temperatures, combine to provide more moisture to fuel the heat engine. Cyclogenesis influenced by the jet stream can either help or harm the cyclone from forming. Strong Jet streams can cause strong vertical wind shear, which prevents powerful cyclones from forming by dissipating the energy from the heat engine, but a strong jet stream can also push air masses together and create frontal storms

    The general rule however, is that the more energy there is at play, the stronger the storm. Energy comes from either the temperature/pressure gradient, or from heat content in the SST/atmosphere

    Storms form in the lower parts of the atmosphere, and get their energy primarily from the Ocean, land and Tropospheric heat content. Stratospheric jet streams help to move the energy in the troposphere around, but aren't generating the energy that forms the storm itself.

    Climate change increases the energy budget globally, and it also can lead to a wavier jet stream/weaker polar vortex which can cause tropical air to interact with polar air masses

    And none of what I said precludes any and all of the natural processes. It plugs into these processes and makes some events more likely and where those events occur, there is more energy available (higher SSTs and higher atmospheric water vapour to fuel those heat engines)



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    You're backtracking in circles now. We don't get hurricanes in Ireland. The conversation has been about typical frontal/baroclinic storms. You even cherrypicked 2013/14 as being the most active winter on record, yet still ignored the data posted by Oneiric and me to show that your claim is false.

    You don't seem to really know what it is you're saying. The sentence

    Cyclogenesis influenced by the jet stream can either help or harm the cyclone from forming

    for example, doesn't make sense. Cyclogenesis is the formation of a cyclone, so you're saying, so how can it affect itself?

    The general rule however, is that the more energy there is at play, the stronger the storm. Energy comes from either the temperature/pressure gradient, or from heat content in the SST/atmosphere

    Again, back to the fact that our storms have been getting weaker, not stronger. There is also little evidence to show that tropical cyclones have actually been getting stronger, outside of improved sampling and measurement methods.

    Maybe you could answer Oneiric's numerous requests for a comment on his simple little decadal table he's posted a few times.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Interesting revelation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402


    The attempt to create a picture of planetary climate using individual weather events and data sets is a particularly dismal way to approach the Earth science of climate as its procedure does what Galileo and Copernicus once objected to when dealing with conclusions of this scale and scope-


    ". . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543 Copernicus

    A hypothesis in solar system research is entirely different to one taken on by experimental theorists as the original meaning was to interpret observations to suit a narrative whereas a hypothesis is now generally considered a guess leading to a predicted conclusion.

    "I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

    The complete disregard for the warnings of genuine innovators is a feature of present day participants in Earth sciences yet this disregard is what has gotten humanity to the dismal position it now finds itself in.

    Post edited by Orion402 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,052 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    80% of the global population may already have been affected by climate change attributed weather events

    Its not a particularly controversial finding to anyone who has been paying attention

    According to a new study in Nature Climate change


    Non paywalled version of same report




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    I see Ireland is well in there as having had impacts. Just wondering what these are, Akrasia? I certainly haven't felt any, but maybe I'm in the 20%.

    You've still ignored Oneiric's table, hoping it will get forgotten about.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Eamon Dunphy on his latest podcast episode discussing climate change said “we know now from all that we can see and even the most ignorant person can see we’re in a crisis and time is running out”




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Electric vehicles: Ireland ranked fourth most expensive country for charging (irishtimes.com)

    Just not really worth the while for alot of drivers is it? Even with diesel at an all time high of €1.60+ per litre it doesn't make much economical sense to switch to an EV at the moment. Ranges still below 300 miles whereas a decent diesel will get over 500 miles.

    We were promised cheaper electricity as we would be less dependent upon foreign oil and gas when we started littering our hillsides with turbines. Another broken promise - all we have is the promise that supply cannot be guaranteed over the next five winters.

    And still, the carbon taxes rack up, and the temperatures aren't changing either (temperatures should be going down as a direct response - afterall this is the implicit aim of such measures). We're all getting the dirty end of the green stick.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,052 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    "temperatures should be going down as a direct response"

    Wow.

    Wow.

    I guess they don't make you do any science tests to become a moderator of a science forum

    Ireland's CO2 emissions have begun to come down, but nowhere near to the level we need to be at to be playing our part in stabilizing Atmospheric CO2

    As long as CO2 concentrations keep going up, global warming will continue to get worse, we will actually need to begin sequestering Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere before we can expect temperatures to start to fall




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    When was the last time you drove over 500 miles in one sitting ?

    “temperatures should be going down as a direct result”

    Your talking shite again !



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Just today! Only one fuel up before I commenced, took five minutes to fill and pay which cost €51.48. Got just under 900km from the fill which equates to two charges of a small EV to get same distance (and would cost €44.72 on my home electricity bill) taking 12+hrs charge time (2 x 6.25hr charges). So you see, it really doesn't add up to any benefit at all having an EV.

    Cause and effect - carbon taxes are being increased to stop emissions, therefore less emissions should mean temperatures should respond to same less emissions and thus fall. Otherwise, what is the point of carbon taxes. If that's shite talk to you, then you really mean that carbon taxes are shite measures.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    If it wasn't for Co2, we'd still be in an ice age:

    "Scientists have often wondered how the planet could have emerged from the periods in which ice and snow covered everything, including the oceans. According to Bekker, increases in atmospheric oxygen levels resulted in low concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide. This ushered in global glaciations by maintaining surface conditions below the water-freezing temperature. 

    Volcanoes also continued to erupt on the frozen planet, building required high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to exit from climatic catastrophe by warming the planet and melting the snow and ice."

    Rise of oxygen on Earth: Initial estimates of | EurekAlert!

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    From The Guardian...

    Earlier this year, the physicist Christoph Buchal and I published a research paper showing that, in the context of Germany’s energy mix, an EV emits a bit more CO2 than a modern diesel car, even though its battery offers drivers barely more than half the range of a tank of diesel. And shortly thereafter, data published by VW confirmed that its e-Rabbit vehicle emits slightly more CO2 than its Rabbit Diesel within the German energy mix. (When based on the overall European energy mix, which includes a huge share of nuclear energy from France, the e-Rabbit fares slightly better than the Rabbit Diesel.)

    Adding further evidence, the Austrian thinktank Joanneum Research has just published a large-scale study commissioned by the Austrian automobile association, ÖAMTC, and its German counterpart, ADAC, that also confirms those findings. According to this study, a mid-sized electric passenger car in Germany must drive 219,000 km before it starts outperforming the corresponding diesel car in terms of CO2 emissions. The problem, of course, is that passenger cars in Europe last for only 180,000km, on average. Worse, according to Joanneum, EV batteries don’t last long enough to achieve that distance in the first place. Unfortunately, drivers’ anxiety about the cars’ range prompts them to recharge their batteries too often, at every opportunity, and at a high speed, which is bad for durability.

    Are electric vehicles really so climate friendly? | Hans-Werner Sinn | The Guardian

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    €51 euro for a fill what do drive a lawnmower ?

    Where are getting the cost of charging from ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    It looks like they've also introduced a tax on personal pronouns.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Kia Rio 1.1L Diesel, gives 65~77MPG depending on road type driven. So a step up from a lawnmower.

    Cost of charging based upon what my earlier linked Irish Times article says. Remember two full charges required to get anywhere close to the range one tank of €51 diesel that a Rio 1.1L diesel can deliver.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,052 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Yes, this is a fundamental part of climate change. CO2 is powerful enough of a driver of climate, that it can end ice ages. We're technically still in an interglacial period, but the last time CO2 was as high as it is now, there were no glaciers on Greenland, and there were trees growing on Antarctica, and ocean levels were 20 metres higher than they are today.

    But nothing to be worried about, it's all being exaggerated....

    We're at the beginning of the impacts of climate change. Its already bad for lots of people around the world, but this is just the beginning



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Mine are: she/he/her/him/it.

    This list may change tomorrow depending on my mood and level of self-absorption.

    New Moon



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Unlikely you will see Alarmists show compassion to current human suffering. Saving the poor and starving is no longer trendy, that's small picture stuff.

    When I said lets tackle the arson issue with forest fires, Akrasia response was "So lets do nothing"... I was thinking too small, the guy with the jerry can of patrol isn't an issue worth our time!

    More people die from cold than heat, again not an issue!

    More people die from malnutrition/starvation than those who die from crop failure (often loosely tied to AGW), again not an issue.


    The fact that the alarmists are on here, using carbon to fight for carbon reduction says it all!



Advertisement