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

I'm confused. One-degree warmer air can hold 7% more water vapour, in theory. You reference the China floods dropping 8 inches in a short period. Since we're at just over 1 degree of warming, surely that 8 inches would still have been 7.something inches pre-warming? That's still loads, wouldn't you say? Or are you saying that we wouldn't have had that flood at all back in the good ole days?

The first correct thing you've said

Can you show me a single post from me where I say a single positive thing about this trade deal or the clearing of rainforest for agriculture?

these deals have been heavily criticized by climate change activists and I think our representatives need to use our political and economic power to force regimes like Balsenero to stop his idiotic practices.

Trade should be contingent on agreeing to climate and environmental protection standards.

And what are these new big massive funnels that are now channeling water from a large area onto a small area? First I've heard of them. How does that work exactly?

I'm in Sardinia right now and one of the larger fires was about 50 km to my south. There was a good bit of smoke here yesterday and last night but it's been put under control now.

This is my 24th summer in a row coming here. I've witnessed fires every one of those summers, and in 2011 one such fire damaged a lot of my in-laws' land. This is part and parcel of Sardinia and always has been. Every summer the vegetation is yellow-brown as there's practically no rain from May to September. The vast majority of fires are started maliciously. This year is no different. We haven't had record temperatures. There hasn't been a record drought. Just a standard Mediterranean summer, so what point are you trying to make?

I see Channel 4 is now the new Guardian and has decided that cataclysmic climatic hyperbole is the way to go. Normal weather events are sucked up into the frenzy vortex and somehow put forward as evidence, regardless of the facts.

If it’s so easy to calculate it, then you can post it here whenever you get the chance

we can discuss your results afterwards

People living or remaining to live beside highly flammable forests where no firebrakes have been added, are they slow or thick?

"more energy causes warmer air which causes more moisture in the air which causes more energy released from convection which fuels storms so that a 7% increase in moisture per c warming can have a much bigger than 7% increase in precipitation intensity"

1986 was one of the coldest years of the of the 2nd half of the 20th century and yet, as per the table I posted above which you conveniently ignored, two of the highest 24 hr rainfall on record in this county occurred in it. Warm advection is going to take place regardless of the temperature profile of the planet; in fact, moisture from that warm air will be squeezed out all the more because cold fronts will naturally be stronger due to tighter thermal gradients.

Not the hardest concept to understand.

Climate change denial 101

Victim blaming

It's your fault your house burned down because you live near something flammable

It's your fault your house got flooded because you live near something wet

It's your fault your house got destroyed in a landslide because you live near a slope

It's your fault you got heat stroke and died because you live somewhere.... well I would have said tropical but canada doesn't fit that description

Its your fault you're thirsty because.. eg, because you live somewhere that used to rain but doesn't anymore, so you should have moved by now

and as Atlantic Dawn so eloquently put it, people are either 'slow or thick' for not migrating away from places that are too dangerous to live anymore. but whenever I say that climate refugees will become a problem, or resource shortages could cause or escalate wars, I get called 'an alarmist'

And why would they mention it anywhere? Because it allows nice alliteration and people at this stage are conditioned to accept every weather event as manmade catastrophes.

The Mercosur deal has not been ratified yet and it is not in force. And ratification is far from guaranteed in large part because of opposition from the Green movement in Europe. Ireland has also expressed opposition to the deal.

If you want to stop this deal, you should be supporting the campaigns to block this deal because of environmental and climate change impacts. The EU approached this as a trade deal, but environmental and human rights activists are putting pressure on the EU to use this as an opportunity to prove that we are committed to stopping climate change and are no longer compartmentalising things into 'trade' or 'green' issues, sustainability should be a red line issue for all aspects of economic and political decision making across the EU

The greens were not in government when the deal was signed in 2019 and they came out in opposition to it at the time, so I don't get where the 'green and liberals' 'rubberstamped' it. Can you point to a single action from the Greens where they 'rubberstamped' this deal?

"If you want to stop this deal, you should be supporting the campaigns to block this deal because of environmental and climate change impacts."

Danno has already told you why he opposes this deal.. because it impacts on Irish farmers. Just another real world consequence that 'climate activists' know or care little about, and why would they, when all their little comforts in life are provided to them by people who actually have to use their hands for a living.

Climate 'activism' is just another manifestation of class politics. An useless, unproductive and overvalued class who contribute nothing to society pontificating to those that do.

The rains which brought those floodings to western Germany was mostly stratiform in nature. No doubt some embedded convectiveness but all this occurred under cooler than average polar maritime conditions, an air mass which occluded fronts are formed in... which is what makes them occluded.

I never said that all the rain is concentrated on a single place. I said the storms suck in moisture from outside the immediate areas where they are precipitating, so when you take into account the 7% extra moisture per degree of warming, as well as the extra heat from the latent heat as the vapour condenses which fuels the system further and sucks in more moisture, it is clear how the net increase in rainfall is more than 7% per degree c. And this is what more and more research papers are saying as more and more evidence is piling in that extreme precipitation events are becoming more common

Your original question was why would 7c increased moisture content fuel rainfall intensity of greater than 7%, this is how. and it's not theoretical, it's been observed in real storm systems, and modelled in the most sophisticated weather and climate models.

The models also predict more erratic weather, where there will be unusually dry periods punctuated by extremely wet periods

Actually, you're right, most of what you post is from the other end of the animal's digestive system. I may disagree with Akrasia but at least he puts forward some thoughtful and coherent arguments. You, on the other hand...

your interpretation was wrong, I think everything I said since then is fully compatible with this statement

Well no, that's a fairly unambiguous statement. Moisture from a wide area focused in a small area, just like a funnel. What you're probably referring to is moisture from a wider area creating more rain over a wider area through the formation of daughter cells. Apples and oranges.

Of what, your posts or Akrasia's? I think you've posted "Your full of shīte" on at least 2 occasions. So one more...ah yes, the "roundhouse kick" comment. There are plenty more but I couldn't be bothered trawling through this crappy site as I've not found a way of multquoting posts yet. Suffice to say, 9 out of 10 of your posts fall into the category of trolling nonsense.

Climate Change has some positives it seems.

With the paranoid right wing, neolib media pushing the same story:

How Russia Wins the Climate Crisis - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Russia announces plan to ‘use the advantages’ of climate change | Russia | The Guardian

But you have to ask yourself, would that still have happened had Daisy the cow not farted...bla bla...

Just looked up some rainfall figures for the Henan flood last week. It was a very isolated event, with the highest total at Zhenzhou, where 750 mm fell in 4 days (624 of which in 24 hours). The average annual rainfall there is 630 mm, 1/4 of which (146 mm) falls in the month of July during the East Asian monsoon. So yes, a year's worth of rain in 1 day is remarkable, but for a location that on average gets 1/4 of its annual rainfall in one month, such spikes are to be expected.

It's like the Dublin flood of June 11, 1963, in which 184 mm of rain fell in Mount Merrion in a 24-hr period, 82.6 of which fell in 1 hour. The monthly average rainfall for June at Casement back then was 56 mm. This happened during the so-called "ideal" climate period, but I can imagine the hoo-haa there'd be here if it happened today.

Similarly, that recent record temperature of 49.1 °C in Turkey beat the previous record by 0.1 degree. When was that set? 1961.

Severe weather has always happened, but it seems that it only makes the news when it happens now.

I have to question your sources. Is energyindepth an independent source

is Roger Peilke Jr a climate scientist? Why should we take these Opinions seriously?

What makes these people's opinions authoritative enough for you to post them here?