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.
Again with the time travel theme, this isn’t 1804 where the population has just reached the 1 billion mark its 2021 and the population is almost 8 billion. In1804 there were no cars, planes etc that churn out CO2. There were no factories burning tons and tons of coal to make the cheap plastic crap you’d find as a toy in a happy meal. Even in 1910 this was largely the case. Human activity since then has had a serious impact on the planet and you can deny and deflect all you like but in the end your wrong.
Also the European weather agencies did see the storm coming but the other agency’s of these states that were responsible for reacting to this information paid no attention to the reports. it’s interesting that you now have flip flopped on this matter firstly saying catastrophic flooding events where totally normal and now you’re saying they weren’t.
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.
I am not sure why you are presenting this as something groundbreaking. Thunderstorms are well documented to develop from the downdrafts of others storms, particularly when wind sheer is favourable, that often lead to a singular trail of prolonged heavy showers and thunderstorms over a relatively small region than can last many hours. They are known as 'trailing echoes'.
Edit, an recent example of this in our own country, midlands specifically, just the other day as a typical heat triggered summer shower broke out, which help trigger that localised flooding over the likes of Thurles.
Edit again, both animations seem to be out of sync with each other, but they represent the same time frame.
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
The tributary river Ahr experiences severe flooding events at over 100 year intervals and German researchers have found no significant change in trend in flooding events across Germany, the data does not support the alarmists claims of increased frequency of more "extreme" weather events that support their climate change narrative. The climate alarmists used the flooding as a media event in the aftermath of the flooding, they were nowhere in the media beforehand and agencies (not alarmists) did warn of severe flooding for the region beforehand. Further the motivation behind the alarmists use of attribution events has been outlined.
Back in the good old days when C02 was wonderful and the weather was cooler, our ancestors in Europe cut down trees for shipping, lumber, home heating and clearing land for subsistence farming, there were a shrinking number of trees, 100 years later Europe is much greener and there are more trees. There was much whale hunting that bought the populations of those mammals close to extinction, if not for the coincident invention of electricity, coal oil, kerosene and other products of the industrial revolution, mankind would not on the whole have escaped subsistence living and the whale population would not be recovering, you will be delighted to know Polar bears are doing well and so are the great barrier reef corals off Australia. If however, you are in the Malthusian camp the future still looks bleak.
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.
In this list, Leitrim, Cork & Kerry hold the highest daily totals for each month of the summer in Ireland:
Weather Extreme Records for Ireland - Met Éireann - The Irish Meteorological Service
2 of which occurred in one of the coldest years on record. Also note both the highest and lowest monthly rainfall totals in that list. None of the severe drought conditions occurred post 2000, where only three of the wettest monthly and daily total totals occurred then.
The cliche response alarmists use when presented with data like this is 'sure, flooding /droughts have always happened.. but..
No one can deny that the climate is warming, - only an idiot would say that it isn't, but the biggest negative impact on getting this message across is the narrative of alarmists themselves. 99% of what they spout is total fabrication and disinformation.. and even when confronted about this they will tell you it is better to exaggerate the effects of global warming that to downplay it... in other words, they seek to justify their own disinformation as being something virtuous and good. Other more gullible minds might buy into this sort of crap, but I don't. Sanctimonious bad actors propping themselves up with 'the science' that they barely understand themselves. And that is not aimed at anyone here.. for what impact do we have on anything in this thread?. but it is pointed at those who do hold influence.
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?
Personally don't know him from Adam but he would appear to be fairly well educated in Environmental Sciences. More than Al Gore or Alexandria Ocasia Cortez, anyway.
Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), an M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado Boulder. Prior to his positions at CU-Boulder, from 1993 to 2001 he was a staff scientist in the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From 2002 to 2004 Pielke was Director of Graduate Studies for the CU-Boulder Graduate Program in Environmental Studies and in 2001 students selected him for the Outstanding Graduate Advisor Award. Pielke serves on numerous editorial boards and advisory committees, retains many professional affiliations, and sat on the Board of Directors of WeatherData, Inc. from 2001 to 2006. In 2012 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Linköping University and the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America.
Extreme heatwave 'almost certainly' linked to climate change, expert warns (irishexaminer.com)
"“Ireland will see more of this kind of hot weather for long periods in the future,” he said.
“We will see more hot weather and more extreme, heavy rainfall events.
"We will have drier summers and wetter winters.”
He said it is difficult to link any one event to climate change, but extreme weather is now more likely".
How many times have we seen that (bolded) line being pushed on us by 'experts'? No certainty, but always the implication.. thus sowing the seeds of doubt and fear that their media mouthpieces will gladly push.
This is how real disinformation is propagandised.
It's like Whack-a-Mole at this stage; all these media outlets lining up to immediately pounce on every piece of normal weather that occurs and be first in there with the article. I wonder if your man has any idea how CO2 caused that Azores high to do its normal northward shift, something it's been doing forever. Of course he doesn't, but he has the safety net of Mr. P for Probability to fall back on. It's the perfect gig; make these claims, no need for any evidence whatsoever, it's all in the probability...
'Daisy cow farting' isn't responsible for fundamentally altering the composition of the planets atmosphere by increasing the CO2 concentration from 280ppm to 412ppm
You act as though this of kind change won't have consequences
The equivalent of 5 Hiroshima nuclear bombs worth of energy every second being added to the worlds oceans as a direct result of the increased radiative forcing from AGW
You shouldn't use AOC or Al Gore as a source for anything scientific, and you shouldn't use the opinion of a political scientist as a source for anything scientific either.
You shouldn't even use the opinion of a climate scientist, unless it is backed up directly by published peer reviewed research
Interestingly I just had a chance to read the only scientific paper Pa El Grande posted in that message where he quoted the findings as
"Although the trend variability depended on the chosen exceedance threshold, a general long-term trend for the whole of Germany was consistently not evident."
If he had read the rest of the paper he would have seen this little nugged
"Although not occurring more frequently, heavy rainfall events became more intense, and the average yearly erosivity was significantly higher during the last 20 years. Our results from NE Germany supported previous findings in other regions."
Which is exactly the point I have been making on this thread
If the consequence of climate change was that there were slightly more wet days in a year, or moderate rainfall events increased in frequency, then It would be grand, nothing to really worry about. But the problem is that the consequences are increased intensity at the extremes, and these are the events that cause the most damage to infrastructure, the eco system and human lives.
But I thought agriculture, and in particular dairy and beef, is a big contributor to the climate emergency, no? Aren't she and the udder cows [/pun] all emitting that nasty methane, the dirty feckers, raising it from 0.00017% to 0.00019% in the atmosphere over the past few decades? Isn't that why the farming industry is being partly scapegoated, because of these 0.00002%? Don't forget, it's not all about CO2.
But sorry, aren't Al Gore and AOC two of the main flag-carriers for the climate alarmist brigade? Aren't they the ones facing the public and making all sorts of mad claims based on the scientific consensus? Pielke is a political scientist but he seems to be also scientifically adapt too, or did you miss that bit?
Should we just instead listen to the Guardian and Channel 4 climate experts then...or Banana Republic?
If 'the science' was anyway scientific, it would constantly slap down the likes of AOC or the Guardian continually, but as has been noted, they never do. Why? because they are the useful idiots on the ground.
I see Akarsia is dictating who and who we should not be listening to again, but since science and climate science has thrown itself into the political arena, then it must reap the consequences by being placed under the same scrutiny as any other lobby/ideological group. It can't have it both ways.
This is an interesting discussion about science in general, and how it has been used to deceive people during the ongoing pandemic. Nothing to do with climate change, which makes it all the more interesting that 'scientific consensus' in this context of Covid has been proven to be a complete dud. As Rogin observes, 'beware of anyone who comes to you armed with the 'scientific consensus'... because no such thing can ever exist in actual science.
Strawberry fields forever...
Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t make them “tripe” as you say. 90% of what you post is spoof from my perspective, let’s not forget graph gate. Also I’ve only said that, “full of shite” once you yourself then went to call me a nazi and accuse Akrasia of being “full of shite”, “ like Banana Republic” you said
That brings me on to another point, I’ve noticed I got a warning for the shite comment, no doubt because you went squealing to Danno but yet your accusations that don’t conform to the rules here just get deleted you never get publicly called out or get carded, for the nazi post for example, I wonder why that is? Well actually I already know.
Posters have been banned for less on this forum. You should consider yourself quite lucky, because if I was a mod, I'd have banned you long ago.
Excuse me I think you’ll find that the agencies of state never reacted to the warnings until after the damage had been done.
That river you spoke off may well have a history of flooding but the effects of climate change are happening now so this data collected from the past is not going to apply to the future and these days of future past arguments you keep pushing are null and void.
Nobody “invented electricity” coal or oil. CO2 was never “wonderful” in the context of the anthropogenic age. I dove on the barrier reef back in 2010, 70% of that is now gone.
You seem to think that I don’t understand the impact fossil fuels have had on humanity and that is totally wrong. We now know, in fact big energy has known all along, that we cannot keep sourcing the energy humanity needs from fossil fuels without significant consequences for the planet. If the human population was at a 1950s level we may not now be facing these consequences, if there wasn’t rampant capitalism we may not be facing these consequences. Things have to change, the Stone Age didn’t end for the lack of stone.
What are you talking about now? Calling you a Nazi? Jesus, you completely missed the point. I corrected your incorrect use of "Your" and then posted the image for a Grammar Nazi...as a joke...on myself. If you didn't get that then that's your problem. So that's why it got deleted.
You've used the shite insult - and others - on more than one occasion, with impunity, so I'd count yourself lucky, to be fair. And I didn't say full of shite "like Banana Republic", I was quoting you. At least read what someone has to say before doing what you accused me of doing and "acting like a kid who's dropped his ice cream".
we should back up our beliefs with reference to proper peer reviewed science, or at least use sources that are reputable and have a track record of honestly and accurately reporting the science.
I have never once used either AOC or Al Gore as a source for anything, I refer to the latest research published in reputable journals as much as possible
And you can't get much more latest, than this study published yesterday in Nature
Now before you accuse these scientists of trying to jump on the band wagon following the record shattering heatwave from a few weeks ago, this paper was first submitted in 2020 but just passed peer review and published yesterday
"Recent climate extremes have broken long-standing records by large margins. Such extremes unprecedented in the observational period often have substantial impacts due to a tendency to adapt to the highest intensities, and no higher, experienced during a lifetime. Here, we show models project not only more intense extremes but also events that break previous records by much larger margins. These record-shattering extremes, nearly impossible in the absence of warming, are likely to occur in the coming decades. We demonstrate that their probability of occurrence depends on warming rate, rather than global warming level, and is thus pathway-dependent. In high-emission scenarios, week-long heat extremes that break records by three or more standard deviations are two to seven times more probable in 2021–2050 and three to 21 times more probable in 2051–2080, compared to the last three decades. In 2051–2080, such events are estimated to occur about every 6–37 years somewhere in the northern midlatitudes."
You can complain about the media going on and on about climate change, but you'd better get used to it, because as the weather gets more extreme, then the reporting will get more dramatic.
Eh, it does apply insofar as what is being widely communicated as new is anything but. People won't know that the river has a history of similar flooding in the past because that fact is deliberately omitted from media reports. And where do the public get their information? Like it or lump it, from the media. You know, the Guardians and the Channel 4s, who some here class as reputable.
Ireland's max recorded temperature of 33.3 °C in 1887 has not come close to being beaten. In recent years everybody's been itching to get that record quashed for bad behaviour because the narrative now is purely to get records broken. The fact that many old records still stand to this day really vexes the hell out of some, so that's why those desperate enough now resort to the "why wait for the attribution report, everyone knows it's climate change?" scientific method.
"if there wasn’t rampant capitalism we may not be facing these consequences"
Capitalism is founded on science and science is to blame for climate change. And keep in mind.. 4 million people have died of Covid so far in the space of just one year...
In olden days, this would have been classed as genocide..
Every river has a history of flooding. Its how rivers work. On average every 2 years they burst their banks, if they flood more often than this, they tend to carve out deeper or wider channels which allows them to carry that extra water without bursting
The fact that it flooded before, like pretty much every other river in the world, doesn't change the fact that the recent flooding was on a different magnitude o what is considered routine flooding.
Its interesting that you are so quick to call the floods from a hundred years ago 'similar' to the ones from last week. Do you have a study to back this up?
We've already gone over that in a previous thread. They are demonstrating outlining the agenda and methods used by the alarmists and their sponsors in question. Now that you mention it how about this non authoritative source from a government sponsored enterprise that I stopped directly supporting long ago.
Here is a fake news screenshot from the organisation that employees him, This is intended to mislead the public depicting and event that has never happened, and abusing the RCP 8.5 computer model scenario as their "sciencey" facade.
RTE as an news organisation has partnered with Covering Climate Now an advocacy organization operating out of the Columbia Journalism Review, in association with The Nation and The Guardian. Their purpose is to spread fear and alarm about or in new speak terms to "raise public awareness of" of what they claim is a "Climate Emergency" or "Climate Crisis". Funding for this organisation is provided in part by a US non-profit organisation called The Fund for Constitutional Government and others that have not been disclosed because they don't have to i.e. it is not transparent. The upshot of this is that news organisation have become an echo chamber amplifying the narrative of climate fearology.
Now that Covid is wearing off, RTE's response should not be unexpected and should be seen in light of it's poor financial standing and forth coming political events (COP26) and future taxation plans in the quest for net zero.
Irish initiative to lead global climate effort ahead of COP26 (April 2021)
Details have been announced of Irish initiative to lead an international effort “to move beyond ambition” among the world’s largest carbon polluters – and to “enact meaningful and binding commitments” at the critical UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November.
Dublin Climate Dialogues will bring together senior representatives from the United States, China, Europe, United Kingdom and the United Nations – it is being supported by the Government. It will be chaired by former president of the European Parliament Pat Cox.
From experience, the fix is in when you see Pat Cox involved.
"Record-shattering". The language is becoming so much more dramatic, don't you think? I'm going to need a while to read that pdf on the phone as it's jumping all over the place on me when I zoom in. I did note, though, in the first page that they say there has been no trend in US heat events in the past few decades. Not sure if they meant to put that in or if all will become clear when I manage to read it all.
The maximum 72-hr rainfall totals for that region in Germany ranged from 140-182 mm (source DWD). I wouldn't call that phenomenal. As Oneiric has already illustrated umpteen times now this was not formed by the massive gorging hot and humid convective complexes that you were talking about before but a simple trailing occlusion from a stationary cold-core low over central Europe. Yes, lows and highs do stall, and always have. Rossby didn't become famous for nothing all those years ago.
If it's printed there it was intended to be there.
It's 'donated license' to read the article for free so they've put some copy protection or something on the page to prevent people from printing it
They chose the words 'Record shattering' because they were looking at events that broke the previous record temperature extreme by at least 2 standard deviations
Here's another extract
"A comprehensive gridbox-based analysis across five initial condi-tion large ensembles and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phases CMIP5 and CMIP6 multimodel ensembles (Methods) reveals that record-shattering extremes are very rare in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries but their expected probability increases rapidly in the coming three decades. In the CESM1.2 ensemble for any given year between 1991 and 2020 there is about a 4.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) of mean: 3.8%; 5.3%) probability for a 2σ-record event somewhere on land in the north-ern midlatitudes; that is, an event that breaks the previous record by >2σ, as for the 2003 and 2010 heatwaves. In RCP 8.5, the probability increases to 22.4% (21.0; 23.7%) per year in 2021–2050 and 50.5% (48.6%; 52.5%) per year between 2051–2080 (Fig. 3a). Even for 3σ-record and 4σ-record events the probability reaches 17.2% (16.0%; 18.5%; Supplementary Table 1) and 5.5% (4.8%; 6.3%) in any given year, respectively, between 2051 and 2080. These prob-abilities imply that an event nearly as intense as illustrated in Fig. 1a is expected to occur about once every two decades somewhere in the northern midlatitudes"
According to this study, these record shattering events are already about 5 times more likely to occur on land in northern midlatitudes compared to 20-30 years ago
The projections are based on RCP 8.5, which I know you object to, but the current CO2 equivalent concentration is already slightly higher than we were projected to be based on RCP 8.5, so we can accept that this scenario will likely still apply for the next decade or two unless global action is taken to rapidly decarbonise (especially given that we are seeing larger increases in natural greenhouse emissions as we begin to set off these tipping points)
@Pa ElGrande I wonder who had a go at them for not copying Channel 4's circus. Could it be Professor Sweeney, maybe, as I haven't heard him on in a while. That article really is a joke.