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

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...

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 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?

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.

"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..

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)

From experience, the fix is in when you see Pat Cox involved.

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.

@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.

It's not a Swastika, it's the letter G.

Where's the Ignore button on this new site?

The Siberians deserve a break from the cold every now and then, may as well enjoy the fine weather while they have it, if you want to play the attribution game try South Africa.

Capitalism is founded on science and science created climate change.

4 million and counting... tick.. tock.

Skip the ads 2 minutes 30 seconds in. McWilliams and his mate John Davis echo all the climate clichés you've heard in the news in recent weeks. McWilliams as an economist should have looked at the sources of how electricity has been generated since the start of the year before he started waffling about how North-West Europe is going to be a renewable energy superpower. The interview with Steve Keen mainly consisted of trashing a fellow economist called Nordhaus and then promoting income redistribution via carbon rationing.

I noticed online excess flooding in Swords and Malahide in Dublin today, where rainfall destroys your property can you request from the local authority an audit of when they last checked the drainage shores were not blocked up with debris or would that be too much of a sensible question? A blind eye is being shown go basic maintenance that was done regularly 30 years ago or so but abandoned now.

Given that the super rich are the ones most attached to the concept of climate change (how does it feel to be on the same team with them?) then I think you may need to reconsider you last line because that is never going to happen.

And..?

Its amazing how you can lump everyone you don't like into one big category marked 'evil' justified by some bad stuff some people did or might have done in the past

It is utterly ludicrous to blame 'scientists' for Covid given that the vast majority of 'scientists' have absolutely nothing to do with viruses including almost 100% of the scientists who have anything to do with researching climate change

Do you know who is responsible for more deaths than 'scientists' who may or may not have accidentally, or on purpose, released a virus from a lab?

The Fossil fuel industry is directly responsible almost 9 million deaths every year through exposure to their products

And these deaths are caused by an industry who knew for decades that their products were killing people directly through the pollution they caused, but rather than do something to reduce the harm, they hire PR companies to lie to the public and Lobby governments to reduce regulations to allow them to pollute more

And they use the same lobbying strategies as the tobacco industry, even the same exact lobbiests

If you want to know about the risks from climate change, forget AOC or Al Gore or any celebrity, business person, or sports star. Listen to the scientsts who know the most about the science, who are publishing research and actively engaged in the science. These people know what they're talking about, the vast majority of them agree that this is getting very serious

Professor Will Steffen is the author of the HotHouse earth paper from 2018. In this talk he presents some of the causes for concern raised in that paper and presents an argument for why this is an emergency that requires us to do absolutely everything we can to stay well below 2c as per the Paris Agreement.

Isn't it a scream that the biggest agent of disinformation on this thread, the one who more than once has indulged in known conspiracy theories - even when evidence was presented to him - and who regularly labels and demonises those who disagree with him as being those very things he is himself, is now lecturing me about who and who I should not be listening too.

In the words of the great one herself: 'How Dare You'.

Yeah, well, kinda, science reporting in general is pretty terrible. Some, eg, the Daily Mail, are so consistently bad that they're worthless as a source, while more 'serious' papers with a reputation to uphold, will make some attempt to cover it accurately. I often find links to newly released research in news reports that are referring to a 'latest study'. But before sharing it, I find the study they're referring to (in the tabloids they never post the link, in better papers they usually post it towards the middle or end of the report), and then try and read at least the abstract (papers are often firewalled, but there's a great chrome addon called unblockme that looks for legit links to free sources of the paper) to that study to make sure it's consistent with what the media reported, and then If I share it, I link to the journal article rather than the media report because there is always some spin in a news report, even if it is unintentional.

If there is a properly trained 'Science reporter' on staff there is some chance that it will be reported well, but in the general news media, science reporters are few and far between, and most papers just print whatever is in the press release accompanying the paper, (at best) or if the paper says something the editors want to discredit, they'll butcher the findings and spin it to say what they want it to say.

In the social media sphere, My favourite youtube channel is Potholer54 because he is a professional science reporter and he makes a point of always chasing down the sources for and checking them to make sure they say what they're reported to say. If you consider yourself a skeptic, you should be doing this as standard.

I may have posted this video before, but here is his video about how check how science is reported in the media

Its short and well worth watching

Now, I'm obviously a bit tick, like, but I'm pretty sure that the ability of industry to pollute and kill all those millions in the first place would not have been remotely possible without the intervention of science...

Yeah there are downsides to science this is true. I wouldn’t have had to read this message if someone hadn’t invented the internet

Do you have a link to that study showing water is wetter now?

that would be interesting to read….

I am curious about your opinion on how building on flood plains changes the rainfall patterns

Do you have a source for this?