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

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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

If they were serious about Carbon ending civilisations, would the argument be for no cars. Rather than a move from cars with direct carbon out put, to those with ~5% less indirect carbon out put?

Corporations are merely cashing in on the green wave, the deeper you look into them the less sustainable the alternatives are. Going green merely means to extend the divide between rich and poor, as your reduced carbon foot print is miniscule or non existent.

Carbon tax is a disproportionate taxing system that is championed as a good thing, it's pure lazy tactics from the government and is a difficult to challenge, if you say no to green tax...well now you support Trump, are science denier and anti-vaxxer . It's indiscriminately reducing the wealth of the lower classes and distributing to upper classes.

The fact that greenwashing exists and our lack of action so far is literally the entire point of the campaign that we need to act on climate change

Action not words, sustainable development, equitable action.

In a world where the global elites can increase their wealth by trillions of dollars in the middle of global crises like pandemics, wars and environmental catastrophes, we have 'useful idiots' all over the place fighting for their 'right' to exploit, murder and destroy in the name of economic liberty

Re. California and rain, this seems to be the narrative now:

1. Hot and dry, leading to wildfires = AGW
2. Wet, leading to vegetation-growth = Also AGW

Nothing to do with the known effects of increased rainfall in northern California during a La Nina. It's a joke at this stage.

You don't seem to understand this Danno. The World is warming. The brutal heat in Canada this year was newsworthy because it is the continuation of the warming trend. If climate change wasn't established science and the planet wasn't known to be warming, then this would have been reported differently, but we don't live in your fantasy world, we live in reality.

and this kind of extreme weather will become much more 'normal' as the planet heats up. Every other latitude of the planet other than Antarctica is significantly warmer than average this year. All of this was in the article you linked to but you ignored that part because it wasn't what you want to believe

It is noteworthy that Antarctica was colder than normal this year, and I'm sure climate scientists are looking to understand the reasons why, so they can improve our understanding of global climate systems. One cold winter in the coldest place on earth is not an argument against global warming.

It was from the article that you posted

The hyperbole is ramped up a notch as the media outlets jostle for position ahead of COP 21. It'll be a feeding frenzy of clicks for the next while. It's like Christmas and Valentine's day for Hallmark all in one. Business will be booming.

Reading the Phoenix Mag the last few weeks I see Enda Kenny is now a lobbyist for more destructive and useless windfarms while ex-green party councillors and Labour TD's are now lobbiests for Data centres etc. - says it all really!!

It's a well-known fact that the price of wind has gone up due to the pandemic. It's all to do with supply and demand. The price of rain has also gone up due to shortages after the amount that fell in Germany.