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

Going to address some of the false accusations made by BR1 yesterday.

"you aligned yourself with the conspiracy theorist and holocaust denier David Icke . You convicted yourself there I my opinion"

I did... when exactly? I never 'aligned myself' with David Icke.

2.

"You have also flip flopped on a number of things, on page 26 you declared to everyone that you where done with this tread and stormed off, in what seemed to me as nothing but an attention seeking exercise only then to promptly returned spewing all sorts".

This is what I said:

"I like the new layout but it is near impossible to navigate and use. But it is this thread I can't take anymore. The unbearable stupidity of some on here is truly stomach churning. Climate 'experts' whom, if you asked them the name of the most basic form of cloud, would not be able to tell you without looking it up themselves.

'Storming off'? Feck check: false.

3.

"spouting off things like “science caused climate change”

Where's the lie? and why did stating this fact cause you to become hysterical? Only an idiot would deny the no small role of science on climate change...

oh, wait...

4.

"Or the other conspiracy, that covid is actually a weapon of war and the scientists who “developed” it are guilty of genocide, a claim that you have not backed up with one shred of evidence".

Where did I say that Covid was 'actually a weapon of war'? I don't recall... do remind me.

You have made a number of claims in this post of yours which are actually quite libellous, which is bad enough, but to come from such an eminent Harvard graduate like yourself...

Some cherry picked data from Met Eireann:

• Highest annual total: 3964.9mm at Ballaghbeama Gap, Co Kerry in 1960
• Highest hourly total: 52.2mm at Clonroche, Co. Wexford on 27th June 1986
• Lowest annual total: 356.6mm at Glasnevin, Co Dublin in 1887
• Longest absolute drought: 3rd April to 10th May 1938 in Limerick

Where did I say the 'UK Met Office are drooling over the though of dead people increasing there social media hits'?

Where did I say that Akrasia?

Show me...

Please provide a link to your previous claim.

your turn

Weather Extreme Records for Ireland - Met Éireann - The Irish Meteorological Service

The link you require.

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

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The CEO of that company seems to have left his job as a lawyer in 2018 to set up that company, going by his LinkedIn profile. Must be really lucrative business, carbon credits. They can afford to pay to get the company listed first in the Google search too. We're in the wrong business.

Ryanair have on their website the "climate charities" that benefit from the voluntary carbon offsets.

They've raised €3.5M to date. One charity buys cooking stoves for families in Uganda. Yes, because those damn carbon-neutral campfires that currently burn wood and recycle that carbon back into the air from whence it came just really are a global nuisance.

As is the lack of clean drinking water in Malawi, which is why Ryanair has teamed up with Shell (there they are again) to build boreholes instead of using to wood to boil water.

Why are these African countries being blamed for emissions by burning wood? Clean drinking water is great, but is this the only thing these charities are working on? They're choosing the easy fix rather than taking on the big polluters. Easy money for these charities, who I presume, like many other charities, pay CEOs. No thank you. I've done my fair share of monthly direct debits to multiple charities over the years but no more, after seeing the salaries some of these guys are on.

https://corporate.ryanair.com/environment/

Carbon credits have all the appearances of a scam, would take a brave farmer to go down that road.

Climate is being used as a cover for a massive wealth transfer from middle to upper income groups, this will eventually bring down these political schemes and there is a growing awareness across Europe among pragmatic politicians whose constituents must bear the direct costs. In Europe the main resistance has come in the form of the yellow vests in France, but that has not stopped the French government via the subterfuge of a Citizens' Climate Convention from banning domestic air travel (unless its a connecting route i.e. Air France). This concern is discussed in a recent Die Welt article (subscription) as the resistance takes hold in Poland, Italy and Germany against the costs. In the UK Nigel Farage has popped up again and ever the opportunist has seized on the costs of net zero and made it about the wealthy "Richmond Greens" who rule the country versus the middle class.

Every alternative energy scheme proposed in this country depends on the generation of electricity, grid supplied electricity is costly to maintain and the high subsidies (e.g. RESS) for random energy generation and escalating system management costs involving higher balancing costs and increased transmission expenditures combined with increased demand mean the prices to consumers can only increase for Irish consumers before demand management (Time of Use tariff) becomes an issue. In particular demand is cyclical throughout the day, and while we can make changes in consumption at the margins, the cost burden is going to fall heaviest on working families who work 9 to 5 since we only have a limited time window to prepare for the next day, i.e. get home, prepare meals, heat the house, iron clothes, look after children, get washed there is no choice on the time window we can act, i.e. the cost burden is heaviest.

Cost Recovery

Meanwhile both India and China are the only countries meeting their Paris 2015 agreement targets i.e. they promised to do nothing. Politically and economically we are in a situation where the Irish Government has been unable to stop a virus spreading, yet claim they can stop climate change if we just pay more tax? There is an economic trade-off between the use of fossil fuels and the current mania that dominates public relations press releases concerning the weather.

The alarmist creed boils down to these points:

• Our actions on climate are pronounced and controlling
• Our influence cannot be positive or benign, only catastrophic
• The only solution to this problem is global governance i.e. technocracy.

In reality the planet has never been a safer place for humans to live which has demonstrably been the case for the past century.

The idea that the future climate must be static and we must be governed by technocratic blueprints in order to return to an idealised, stable past that never existed is stupid and will kill us, the reality is constant creation, discovery, and competition will in general improve our standard of living.

"Climate is being used as a cover for a massive wealth transfer from middle to upper income groups, this will eventually bring down these political schemes and there is a growing awareness across Europe among pragmatic politicians whose constituents must bear the direct costs". - Pa ElGrande.

And not just climate:

Mega-rich recoup COVID-losses in record-time yet billions will live in poverty for at least a decade | Oxfam International

It is probably just coincidence that the more we are told to 'listen to the science', the more that economic inequality grows.