Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…457910…51

Comments

  • #302
    Danno
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    If pylon damage was the issue then again wind/solar is far more vulnerable as it requires a vastly larger network of such infrastructure to connect to the grid
    Danno wrote: »
    Alternatively you could tell us how Texas would have fared during it's recent winter storm had the state been a 100% renewable energy state. You even have the benefit of hindsight now to "show them up".

    I brought up this very point earlier, but the answer was one of conspiracy:
    Thargor wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Alternatively you could just stop making up lies that even Fox News wouldn't touch.

    Advocates of green energy don't like their pet projects scrutinised in any way.


  • #303
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    If pylon damage was the issue then again wind/solar is far more vulnerable as it requires a vastly larger network of such infrastructure to connect to the grid

    A it wasn't just a pylon issue in fact the power plants just shut down because corners had been cut for decades.


  • #304
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    A it wasn't just a pylon issue in fact the power plants just shut down because corners had been cut for decades.

    Consult my earlier post with the link to this matter again - the likes of gas plants were the only ones supplying significant power during the peak of the cold spell


  • #305
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Consult my earlier post with the link to this matter again - the likes of gas plants were the only ones supplying significant power during the peak of the cold spell

    Consult my links
    "ERCOT has acknowledged that the blackouts have largely stemmed from failures to winterize natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy systems”


  • #306
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Danno wrote: »
    I brought up this very point earlier, but the answer was one of conspiracy:



    Advocates of green energy don't like their pet projects scrutinised in any way.
    Sorry what? How often do you need it explained to you? It had nothing to do with green energy, you claimed 'eco loons' had caused deaths in order to reduce emissions, this is rambling nonsense and nothing whatsoever to do with the events in Texas. Keep lying about it all you want but it won't make it true.

    Im going to submit a complaint in Feedback about the moderation on this 'Science' forum.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Consult my links
    "ERCOT has acknowledged that the blackouts have largely stemmed from failures to winterize natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy systems”
    Whats the point? Another liar will just jump in and take a turn next, they're not interested in any kind of truth or logic, this place is like reading the Trump reddit before it got shut down.


  • #308
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Thargor wrote: »

    Im going submitting a complaint in Feedback about the moderation on this 'Science' forum.

    It’ll be swept under the rug at the highest level.


  • #309
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Thargor wrote: »
    Sorry what? How often do you need it explained to you? It had nothing to do with green energy, you claimed 'eco loons' had caused deaths in order to reduce emissions, this is rambling nonsense and nothing whatsoever to do with the events in Texas. Keep lying about it all you want but it won't make it true.

    Im going submitting a complaint in Feedback about the moderation on this 'Science' forum.

    Clearly the big lie is exposed in my link showing the failure of "Green energy" to produce any significant power during the cold spell. The fact that pylons in parts of the country connecting other power plants got damaged by freezing rain does not make such facts any less factual.


  • #310
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Clearly the big lie is exposed in my link showing the failure of "Green energy" to produce any significant power during the cold spell. The fact that pylons in parts of the country connecting other power plants got damaged by freezing rain does not make such facts any less factual.
    ERCOT have given you the reason all power generation failed during the event, what do you think you've exposed exactly? Renewable power generation dips in Winter? Congratulations. Pity ERCOT also said that wind generation was ahead of their forecasts for the period and absolutely nothing to do with the disaster.

    Why are you quoting my posts calling his claim that the EPA killed people in order to save on emissions a lie? Do you have a rebuttal to that besides irrelevant Politics.ie links? Do you agree with this claim?


  • #311
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Thargor wrote: »
    ERCOT have given you the reason all power generation failed during the event, what do you think you've exposed exactly? Renewable power generation dips in Winter? Congratulations. Pity ERCOT also said that wind generation was ahead of their forecasts for the period and absolutely nothing to do with the disaster.

    Why are you quoting my posts calling his claim that the EPA killed people in order to save on emissions a lie? Do you have a rebuttal to that besides irrelevant Politics.ie links? Do you agree with this claim?

    The link I posted clearly showed very little power generation coming from wind/solar - any power genertion there was was coming from conventional sources. The reason there was some disruption on the coventional grid was due to pylon damage from freezing rain. Solar/wind also performed poorly during the cold spells in the UK and Europe. You seem to have a problem with folk who point out these facts - throwing your toys out of the pram over it impresses nobody btw:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    The link I posted clearly showed very little power generation coming from wind/solar - any power genertion there was was coming from conventional sources. The reason there was some disruption on the coventional grid was due to pylon damage from freezing rain. Solar/wind also performed poorly during the cold spells in the UK and Europe. You seem to have a problem with folk who point out these facts - throwing your toys out of the pram over it impresses nobody btw:rolleyes:
    So? What is your point? Why are you quoting my posts calling out the repeated lies about the causes of this incident and replying to them as if I claimed renewable energy saved the day or something? Stop making stupid strawman arguments about things I never said.


  • #313
    Nabber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    Plenty of effort in here to associate scepticism of AGW influence as a cause to perceived increase in extreme weather events to political affiliation (Trump, Fox News doing the rounds)

    Assuming that CNN and Biden are opposites of Fox and Trump, would it be possible to support CNN/Biden and also be skeptical of the FF carbon influence to the climate?


    For those interested, studies on AGW impact on extreme weather. Mapped out for the Nerds too
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world

    A lot is hedged, but that would be expected with any study of it's nature. A lot of extrapolation of data from various sources with pre 1980s being some what of a guessing game.
    In the MSM for the most part $ (dollar) damage is typically the display severity. Of the papers I read in the link above I didn't find any of that, which is good.


  • #314
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Here's a summary of February's Arctic sea ice extent. Despite what some tried to imply during the Texas outbreak, the Arctic wasn't "almost ice-free", being only the 7th lowest in the satellite record. Stilll wondering if Akrasia had any joy finding out what the reason for the 1895 storm was that was different to the reason for this one.

    Also note that 925-hPa temperature over Siberia was up to 8 degrees below average, as were northern Alaska and the Beaufort Sea.

    Figure2b.png
    Arctic sea ice extent averaged for the month of February 2021 was 14.39 million square kilometers (5.56 million square miles), placing it seventh lowest in the satellite record for the month. This was 910,000 million square kilometers (351,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 February average and 420,000 square kilometers (162,000 square miles) above the record low mark for February set in 2018. For the month of February, ice extent was near average in most regions of the Arctic except most notably in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and to a lesser extent in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk. The ice edge was also further north than average on the northern and western side of Svalbard.

    Throughout the month, sea ice grew by an average of 9,900 square kilometers (3,800 square miles) per day, roughly half the average rate over the period 1981 to 2010 of 20,300 square kilometers (7,800 square miles per day).

    Air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (about 2,500 feet above the surface) were from 1 to 6 degrees Celsius (2 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) above average across much of the central Arctic Ocean, East Siberian Sea, Atlantic Sector, and Canadian Arctic Archipelago. By contrast, northern Alaska, Siberia, and the Beaufort Seas saw temperatures up to 8 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average (Figure 2b).

    The first part of the month was characterized by extremely high sea level pressure over the central Arctic Ocean, driving an exceptionally strong clockwise Beaufort Gyre sea ice circulation. This is consistent with the strongly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation observed over this time period, which is sometimes associated with a wavy jet stream pattern and cold air outbreaks in lower latitudes, such as was experienced in Texas during the middle of the month. While this pattern broke down later in the month, the average sea level pressure pattern for February still featured a strong Beaufort High, with peak surface pressures exceeding 1,030 (Figure 2c). This atmospheric circulation pattern, driving a pronounced clockwise Beaufort Gyre circulation, led to the transport of thick multiyear ice along the Canadian Arctic Archipelago towards the Alaskan coastline.


  • #315
    Pa ElGrande
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,633 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Nabber wrote: »
    . . .

    For those interested, studies on AGW impact on extreme weather. Mapped out for the Nerds too
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world

    Following the link leads you to this.

    HhMRkUr.png

    Which leads you to Heatwave in northern Europe, summer 2018
    In Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark there are clear trends towards more heat waves in the observations. In Ireland and Denmark climate models give a very similar increase in probabilities to the observations — roughly a factor two more likely in Dublin and a factor four in Denmark. In the Netherlands the observed increase in hot extremes is much larger than the modelled increase. This is a well-known problem (Min et al, 2013, Sippel et al, 2016) but the cause has not yet been elucidated.

    source

    That leads to Friederike Otto another product of the Potsdam climate scientist nursery now based in Oxford.

    Friederike E.L. Otto (PhD in philosophy, 2011)

    » Philosophical aspects of climate modeling
    » Co-advisor: H. Tetens, Free University, Berlin, Germany:
    » Scholarship of Friedrich-Ebert Foundation
    » For publications see website.
    » Now deputy director of eci @ University of Oxford, UK.


    source


    You can read her book "Angry weather – In search of the culprits for heatwaves, floods and storms"with reviews by the usual cheerleaders.

    “Angry Weather introduces us to the forensic scientists of climate change; if you like to watch CSI, you’ll be equally enthralled with the skill and speed these folks exhibit. But the stakes are infinitely higher!”
    —Bill McKibben, author of Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?

    <snip>

    “This fascinating book takes us on a voyage across the cutting edge of climate science that irrevocably alters our perspective of the world in which we live and the future it holds. I wish I could make this book required reading for the world.”
    —Katharine Hayhoe, UN Champion of the Earth



    The usual garbage in garbage out climate modelling interspersed with cherry picked data points to generate media headlines.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • #316
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Nabber wrote: »
    Plenty of effort in here to associate scepticism of AGW influence as a cause to perceived increase in extreme weather events to political affiliation (Trump, Fox News doing the rounds)

    Many of the "skeptics" seem post up links lifted from political forums and generally seem take a line identical to aforementioned affiliation categories. You only have to read through the posts associated to the Texas freeze to see that.

    Its difficult to separate the two things when someone here spins out the propaganda saying the EPA preferred to let people die then allow power plants to operate.

    Nabber wrote: »
    would it be possible to support CNN/Biden and also be skeptical of the FF carbon influence to the climate?

    Not if you believe whatever the opposition say for example things like the EPA preferred to let people die then allow power plants to operate at extra capacity. Or that wind turbines were the total cause of the power cuts despite ERCOT acknowledging that the blackouts have largely stemmed from failures to winterise natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy systems.

    I googled that phrase "FF carbon influence to the climate" and I got this:
    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
    I would a good share of Biden supports believe that, generally.
    Nabber wrote: »
    A lot of extrapolation of data from various sources with pre 1980s being some what of a guessing game.

    I have difficulty with that statement when on so many occasions the skeptics turn around and look back hundreds of years to establish there point an example of such is right here on this page,
    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Stilll wondering if Akrasia had any joy finding out what the reason for the 1895 storm was that was different to the reason for this one.

    In any event I read the linked page from Nabber it was interesting its a sort of pole of poles exercise. It gives the flat earthiests something to cling onto but shows that the vast majority of research so far has concluded that AGW is a significant reason for climate change as I've always maintained.


  • #317
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

    In any event I read the linked page it was interesting its a sort of pole of poles exercise. It gives the flat earthiests something to cling onto but shows that the vast majority of research so far has concluded that AGW is a significant reason for climate change as I've always maintained.

    Which linked page would that be?


  • #318
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Pa ElGrande wrote: »
    Following the link leads you to this.

    HhMRkUr.png

    Which leads you to Heatwave in northern Europe, summer 2018



    That leads to Friederike Otto another product of the Potsdam climate scientist nursery now based in Oxford.





    You can read her book "Angry weather – In search of the culprits for heatwaves, floods and storms"with reviews by the usual cheerleaders.






    The usual garbage in garbage out climate modelling interspersed with cherry picked data points to generate media headlines.

    Lol, Jesus H and Joseph Stalin !


  • #319
    Pa ElGrande
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,633 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Lol, . , ,!

    The science of attribution, testing one hypothesis against another hypothesis using computer simulations based on assumptions that time and again fail reality and have a predictive value of zero.


    climpanic.png

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • #320
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Worth keeping in mind...

    CpaG01F.png

    New Moon



  • #321
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Attachment not found.It's interesting the lack of global interest in the rodent problem in southeastern Australia due to the bumper harvest this year. Rainfall has been abundant and is set to continue so over the next few months. This time last year there was plenty of talk about the fires and the fact that the drought was something we should be getting used to, but this year there seems to be very little commentary on it because the opposite has been happening.

    547527.jpg

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/archive/20210318-outlook.shtml
    End of March and April likely to be wetter than average for parts of northern and eastern Australia
    Issued: 18 March 2021

    April to June is likely to be wetter than average (chance of exceeding median is more than 60%) across the Kimberley in WA, the northern half of the NT, northern and eastern Queensland, and eastern parts of NSW and Victoria. Remaining areas show no significant shift towards a wetter or drier three months (chances of exceeding median is close to 50%).

    The 3-month wet signal is dominated by the April outlook, with April likely to be wetter than average across a similar area, including northern WA, the northern and central NT, most of Queensland except the far south-west, and patchy areas of NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, and south-east SA. May, on the other hand, is likely to be a drier month for parts of northern and south-west Australia with the remainder of the country having roughly equal chances of a wetter or drier than average month.

    The fortnight of 22 March to 4 April is likely to be wetter than average (chance of exceeding median is greater than 60%) over the eastern half of Australia extending into the far north of WA. Parts of the far north, and down the east coast are very likely to be wetter than average (greater than 80% chance). For the remainder of WA, south-west NT and eastern SA there are roughly equal chances of a wetter or drier than usual fortnight.
    Climate outlook overview
    11 March 2021

    April to June rainfall is likely to be above average for large parts of northern and eastern Australia.

    Maximum temperatures for April to June are likely to be warmer than average for most of northern Australia, the west coast of WA, the east coast of Queensland, and Tasmania.

    Minimum temperatures for April to June are likely to be warmer than average for most of Australia, except for parts of SA, WA and north-western NSW.

    The current La Niña is forecast to end during autumn. La Niña typically increases the likelihood of above average rainfall across eastern Australia during early autumn, and this influence is expected to continue as the event decays.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Tyrone212
    Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭Tyrone212


    To be fair I think Wildfires killing up to 3 billion animals is going to make the news more than a bumper year for rats riding down under.


  • #323
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Tyrone212 wrote: »
    To be fair I think Wildfires killing up to 3 billion animals is going to make the news more than a bumper year for rats riding down under.

    I would hazard a guess that there are more than 3 billion extra rats and mice this year...


  • #324
    Tyrone212
    Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭Tyrone212


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    I would hazard a guess that there are more than 3 billion extra rats and mice this year...

    Filthy hurs


  • #325
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Attachment not found.. This time last year there was plenty of talk about the fires and the fact that the drought was something we should be getting used to, but this year there seems to be very little commentary on it because the opposite has been happening.

    Same with the number of snow and cold records approached or exceeded over much of the Northern Hemisphere this winter - it just doesn't fit in with the climate alarmists narrative so is just ignored


  • #326
    Pa ElGrande
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,633 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Same with the number of snow and cold records approached or exceeded over much of the Northern Hemisphere this winter - it just doesn't fit in with the climate alarmists narrative so is just ignored

    Not at all, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) has been quoted in mainstream German media (Der Spiegel, Bild, Deutche Welle etc that warming causes cold. Stefan Rahmstorf and Anders Levermann are German medias go to people when they need a quote to shove under sensationalist weather headlines. Often attibuted to Max Planck science progresses one funeral at a time, eventually this craze will pass. and Rahmsdorf is not without his critics in Germany.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • #327
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    Same with the number of snow and cold records approached or exceeded over much of the Northern Hemisphere this winter - it just doesn't fit in with the climate alarmists narrative so is just ignored

    It actually fits in perfectly fine with the science behind climate change

    The boundaries between Arctic and tropical air are breaking down
    It’s destabilizing climate and weather is getting disrupted as a result

    Additional energy in the biosphere causes more extreme weather events

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/10/fires-and-floods-australia-already-seesaws-between-climate-extremes-and-theres-more-to-come

    Australia has more to worry about today than mice, a hundred year flooding event is underway in Sidney with mass evacuations required to minimize loss of life

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw-weather-live-updates-floods-across-sydney-and-nsw-as-more-rain-lashes-the-state-warragamba-dam-spills-20210320-p57ck5.html


  • #328
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It actually fits in perfectly fine with the science behind climate change

    The boundaries between Arctic and tropical air are breaking down
    It’s destabilizing climate and weather is getting disrupted as a result

    Additional energy in the biosphere causes more extreme weather events

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/10/fires-and-floods-australia-already-seesaws-between-climate-extremes-and-theres-more-to-come

    Australia has more to worry about today than mice, a hundred year flooding event is underway in Sidney with mass evacuations required to minimize loss of life

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw-weather-live-updates-floods-across-sydney-and-nsw-as-more-rain-lashes-the-state-warragamba-dam-spills-20210320-p57ck5.html

    Ah, you're back. It's been a while. Now have you any news on that mystery factor that you claimed probably caused the 1895 Houston ice storm but which couldn't have caused this year's? Also, did you find any actual observational data to show how this year's event was caused by Arctic amplification, because that's what you said?

    Sure while you're at it, any data to show that the Sidney [sic] flood is also due to agw, as implied?


  • #329
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Stilll wondering if Akrasia had any joy finding out what the reason for the 1895 storm was that was different to the reason for this one.

    Also note that 925-hPa temperature over Siberia was up to 8 degrees below average, as were northern Alaska and the Beaufort Sea.

    Figure2b.png[IMG][/img]
    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    I'm still waiting on Akrasia to come up with his proof that the recent cold outbreak in the US was "caused by an almost ice-free Arctic (as stated categorically by a TV meteorologist on the ground there during it)" in that thread. Or indeed also that "something" that he said was probably responsible for the similar 1895 outbreak but not this time. Maybe he's just busy.
    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Ah, you're back. It's been a while. Now have you any news on that mystery factor that you claimed probably caused the 1895 Houston ice storm but which couldn't have caused this year's? Also, did you find any actual observational data to show how this year's event was caused by Arctic amplification, because that's what you said?

    Sure while you're at it, any data to show that the Sidney [sic] flood is also due to agw, as implied?
    Jesus... :rolleyes:

    Relax, he caught you fabricating the data in a graph like Donald Trump altering a hurricanes track with a sharpie marker and you were humiliated, we get it, but you brought it on yourself when you made up lies to support your climate change denial, what did you think was going to happen?


  • #330
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Thargor wrote: »
    Jesus... :rolleyes:

    Relax, he caught you fabricating the data in a graph like Donald Trump altering a hurricanes track with a sharpie marker and you were humiliated, we get it, but you brought it on yourself when you made up lies to support your climate change denial, what did you think was going to happen?

    Lol, burn! Long time coming mind.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Ah, you're back. It's been a while. Now have you any news on that mystery factor that you claimed probably caused the 1895 Houston ice storm but which couldn't have caused this year's? Also, did you find any actual observational data to show how this year's event was caused by Arctic amplification, because that's what you said?

    Sure while you're at it, any data to show that the Sidney [sic] flood is also due to agw, as implied?

    Sydney is spelt with a y not an i.


  • #332
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Thargor wrote: »
    Jesus... :rolleyes:

    Relax, he caught you fabricating the data in a graph like Donald Trump altering a hurricanes track with a sharpie marker and you were humiliated, we get it, but you brought it on yourself when you made up lies to support your climate change denial, what did you think was going to happen?

    Fabricating? made up lies? That would imply that it was deliberate. I made a mistake and owned up to it. What more do you want?

    Someone making claims that X was due to Y and not due to Z needs to have data to back that up too. Akrasia made the usual claims about that ice event but when challenged on it he went underground for a month.


  • #333
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Sydney is spelt with a y not an i.

    I know that, hence my use of [sic] when replying to Akrasia, who it was who spelled it with an "i". Still, you would never pull him up on anything, would you?

    And btw, when it comes to spelling and grammar, you are the last person who should be slinging mud.


  • #334
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    And btw, when it comes to spelling and grammar, you are the last person who should be slinging mud.

    Can you graph those incidents out there!


  • #335
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Can you graph those incidents out there!

    I don't have the bandwidth for them all...


  • #336
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Ah, you're back. It's been a while. Now have you any news on that mystery factor that you claimed probably caused the 1895 Houston ice storm but which couldn't have caused this year's? Also, did you find any actual observational data to show how this year's event was caused by Arctic amplification, because that's what you said?
    No news on 1895 I'm afraid. My posts from weeks ago explain my position on this.
    And given that it's only been 4 weeks since the Texan winter storm ended, I think it's a little bit soon to expect peer reviewed published data that analyses it properly yet.
    All i am saying is that what happened is consistent with Jennifer Francis' theories on arctic amplification, It explains what happened, but it will take time to demonstrate that this is the actual cause
    [qute]
    Sure while you're at it, any data to show that the Sidney [sic] flood is also due to agw, as implied?[/QUOTE]


    The most recent 'State of the climate report' in Australia reported that Climate change has caused increases in the intensity of heavy rainfall events in Australia.
    The rainfall intensity is 10% higher now than before. That 10% could well have been the difference between overtopping that Dam, and not overtopping it.
    Again, it will take time for research to be completed into this specific event, but we already know that climate change is causing more intense rainfall events in Australia. The most damaging impacts of climate change are at the extremes. And climate change makes the extremes more likely by adding enough to a 'severe rainfall event' to turn it into a life threatening event that destroys everything in its path
    Heavy rainfall
    • Heavy rainfall events are becoming more intense.
    Observations show that there has been
    an increase in the intensity of heavy
    rainfall events in Australia. The intensity
    of short-duration (hourly) extreme
    rainfall events has increased by around
    10 per cent or more in some regions
    and in recent decades, with larger
    increases typically observed in the north
    of the country. Short-duration extreme
    rainfall events are often associated
    with flash flooding, and so these
    changes in intensity bring increased
    risk to communities. This is particularly
    so in urban environments where the
    large amount of impervious ground
    cover (e.g. concrete) leads to increased
    flooding during heavy downpours.
    Heavy rainfall events are typically
    caused by weather systems such as
    thunderstorms, cyclones and east coast
    lows. Daily rainfall totals associated
    with thunderstorms have increased
    since 1979, particularly in northern
    Australia. This is due to an increase in
    the intensity of rainfall per storm, rather
    than an increase in the number of storms
    in general.
    At the same time, the number of
    low-pressure systems that can
    bring heavy rainfall to heavily
    populated parts of southern Australia
    have declined in recent decades.
    This could have implications for
    recharging water storages and water
    resource management.
    As the climate warms, heavy rainfall
    events are expected to continue to
    become more intense. A warmer
    atmosphere can hold more water vapour
    than a cooler atmosphere, and this
    relationship alone can increase moisture
    in the atmosphere by 7 per cent per
    degree of global warming. This can
    cause an increased likelihood of heavy
    rainfall events. Increased atmospheric
    moisture can also provide more energy
    for some processes that generate
    extreme rainfall events, which further
    increases the likelihood of heavy rainfall
    due to global warming
    http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/documents/State-of-the-Climate-2020.pdf


    Can you quote the actual posts from me so I can respond to what was actually said instead of your version of what you claim I said

    I tried to go back through this thread to find it myself but all I gave up after I kept seeing you putting Quotation marks around things that you claimed I said but actually never did

    I suppose it is much easier to make up your own graphs and quotes...


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Can you quote the actual posts from me so I can respond to what was actually said instead of your version of what you claim I said

    I tried to go back through this thread to find it myself but all I gave up after I kept seeing you putting Quotation marks around things that you claimed I said but actually never did

    I suppose it is much easier to make up your own graphs and quotes...

    Burnt and round house kicked.


  • #338
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    ^ great examples above at just how neolibs operate. Ignore their own many flaws and just hound in on the trivial mistakes of others to give the impression that they, and they alone, are the ever righteous ones.

    @Banana, I posted some data there about a week ago in response to your disinformation piece from RTE, and you disappeared afterwards. Care to comment now about it, or are you just going to predictable feign the impression that you have no idea what I'm talking about?

    New Moon



  • #339
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »
    No news on 1895 I'm afraid. My posts from weeks ago explain my position on this.
    And given that it's only been 4 weeks since the Texan winter storm ended, I think it's a little bit soon to expect peer reviewed published data that analyses it properly yet.
    All i am saying is that what happened is consistent with Jennifer Francis' theories on arctic amplification, It explains what happened, but it will take time to demonstrate that this is the actual cause


    The most recent 'State of the climate report' in Australia reported that Climate change has caused increases in the intensity of heavy rainfall events in Australia.
    The rainfall intensity is 10% higher now than before. That 10% could well have been the difference between overtopping that Dam, and not overtopping it.
    Again, it will take time for research to be completed into this specific event, but we already know that climate change is causing more intense rainfall events in Australia. The most damaging impacts of climate change are at the extremes. And climate change makes the extremes more likely by adding enough to a 'severe rainfall event' to turn it into a life threatening event that destroys everything in its path




    Can you quote the actual posts from me so I can respond to what was actually said instead of your version of what you claim I said

    I tried to go back through this thread to find it myself but all I gave up after I kept seeing you putting Quotation marks around things that you claimed I said but actually never did

    I suppose it is much easier to make up your own graphs and quotes...

    It was in the Texas cold event thread itself. If you want examples, here they are. We can go around in circles all night.

    Here you directly linked that event to climate change:
    When you say immediately, you really mean a week after it started?
    Then you go on to put some random weatherman’s words into my mouth?

    I’m not talking about climate change for the lols, I’m linking this event to climate change because there is a plausible mechanism that links them. What do you think about the mechanism I referred to? The Jennifer Francis theory that the polar vortex and jet stream weaken when the difference between arctic temps and tropical temps are reduced

    When I asked how come a similar event happened back in 1895 you replied:
    I don’t know, there were the right atmospheric conditions that were caused by something else. Events always have at least one cause.

    Followed by
    Polar amplification weakens the jet stream and polar vortex making these events that bit more likely. Doesn’t mean they were impossible or never happened before AGW, but the dice is getting loaded

    I asked if you had any data that illustrated how this particular event was caused, and it is then that you went awol for a month.
    What I'm getting at is can you provide some charts or something to show that this particular event was caused by something other than that "something" that you think was probably responsible for the 1895 snowstorm but were unable to identify. If you're able to attribute this event to agw then I'm sure you have some evidence to back it up, showing how the now frozen Arctic somehow caused that northerly outbreak. The link you posted, by the way, does not prove a thing and in fact seems to say the opposite, i.e. there is no evidence or consensus to say that it could have anything to do with it. For example,
    If Arctic amplification is influencing the jet stream in this way, there could be widespread impacts on weather across vast swaths of North America and Eurasia. In particular, a flurry of recent studies have explored whether a weaker, wavier jet stream could lead to more Arctic air intrusions at low latitudes like the extreme cold spell gripping vast swaths of the country this week.

    However, these connections are contentious. While scientists generally agree that Arctic warming can influence the jet stream, there is little consensus on whether the jet stream has already experienced significant changes due to climate change, how extreme any future changes will be, or how much of an effect that will have on mid-latitude weather.

    Complicating matters further, the direction of influence might go both ways: A study published last year suggested that random fluctuations in the jet stream might be enhancing Arctic warming by transporting heat and moisture from mid-latitudes north.

    The findings have some important caveats. While the authors found a link between a warming Arctic and slower summer weather, their results—like much of the research on Arctic amplification and cold air outbreaks in winter—don’t prove that the former causes the latter. Future research will be needed to demonstrate any causal links to Arctic warming and the jet stream.

    Even if rapid Arctic warming does lead to more stalled summer weather patterns further south, it’s unlikely that it will be the sole factor at play. “There are many factors that influence [weather] persistence, and the temperature gradient might not be the dominant one,” Screen says.

    As Kornhuber and Tamarin-Brodsky note in their paper, not all climate models agree that the Arctic amplification effect will continue to grow more intense in the summer. But even in scenarios where the equator-to-pole temperature difference begins growing again—implying a reduced Arctic amplification effect—the authors’ models still project summer weather patterns slowing down in North America.


  • #340
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Burnt and round house kicked.
    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Sydney is spelt with a y not an i.
    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Lol, Jesus H and Joseph Stalin !
    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Lol, burn! Long time coming mind.

    Do you have anything to add other than this trolling nonsense?


  • #341
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia wrote: »

    The most recent 'State of the climate report' in Australia reported that Climate change has caused increases in the intensity of heavy rainfall events in Australia.
    The rainfall intensity is 10% higher now than before. That 10% could well have been the difference between overtopping that Dam, and not overtopping it.
    Again, it will take time for research to be completed into this specific event, but we already know that climate change is causing more intense rainfall events in Australia. The most damaging impacts of climate change are at the extremes. And climate change makes the extremes more likely by adding enough to a 'severe rainfall event' to turn it into a life threatening event that destroys everything in its path

    It is widely known that La Niña causes large positive rainfall anomalies in northern and eastern Australia, and this had been signaled well in advance (months ago).

    The "heavy rainfall" events you quoted are of one hour duration and have risen by around 10% in northern Australia. You neglected to mention about southern populated Australia, which is the topic of this discussion, where heavy rainy lows have decreased.
    At the same time, the number of low-pressure systems that can bring heavy rainfall to heavily populated parts of southern Australia have declined in recent decades. This could have implications for recharging water storages and water resource management.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/australias-changing-climate.shtml


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It actually fits in perfectly fine with the science behind climate change

    The boundaries between Arctic and tropical air are breaking down
    It’s destabilizing climate and weather is getting disrupted as a result

    Additional energy in the biosphere causes more extreme weather events

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/10/fires-and-floods-australia-already-seesaws-between-climate-extremes-and-theres-more-to-come

    Australia has more to worry about today than mice, a hundred year flooding event is underway in Sidney with mass evacuations required to minimize loss of life

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw-weather-live-updates-floods-across-sydney-and-nsw-as-more-rain-lashes-the-state-warragamba-dam-spills-20210320-p57ck5.html

    What utter baloney - only the winter before the PV approached near record levels in the Northern Hemisphere. There really is no end to the spoofing of the extreme climate alarmists:rolleyes:


  • #343
    Oneiric 3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It actually fits in perfectly fine with the science behind climate change

    The boundaries between Arctic and tropical air are breaking down
    It’s destabilizing climate and weather is getting disrupted as a result

    Additional energy in the biosphere causes more extreme weather events

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/10/fires-and-floods-australia-already-seesaws-between-climate-extremes-and-theres-more-to-come

    Australia has more to worry about today than mice, a hundred year flooding event is underway in Sidney with mass evacuations required to minimize loss of life

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw-weather-live-updates-floods-across-sydney-and-nsw-as-more-rain-lashes-the-state-warragamba-dam-spills-20210320-p57ck5.html

    Jet stream not getting 'wavier' despite Arctic warming
    Date:
    February 19, 2020
    Source:
    University of Exeter
    Summary:
    Rapid Arctic warming has not led to a 'wavier' jet stream around the mid-latitudes in recent decades, pioneering new research has shown.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200219152855.htm

    I'll repeat myself again, the jet stream was far 'wavier' during the colder period of the mid to late 20th century, which is precisely why this was a colder period in the first place. (more frequent Arctic outbreaks across the N. Hemisphere during the winter months, which impacted on longer term averages) Look at any sequence of reanalysis charts from this period, and you'll note that synoptic patterns from week to week and even day to day were far more volatile across the Atlantic, Europe and the US than they are today.

    New Moon



  • #344
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    ^ great examples above at just how neolibs operate. Ignore their own many flaws and just hound in on the trivial mistakes of others to give the impression that they, and they alone, are the ever righteous ones.

    @Banana, I posted some data there about a week ago in response to your disinformation piece from RTE, and you disappeared afterwards. Care to comment now about it, or are you just going to predictable feign the impression that you have no idea what I'm talking about?

    Your'e confused
    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    You know things are bad when even RTE are reporting this!

    https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1365020069026226177


  • #345
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Gaoth Laidir wrote: »
    Do you have anything to add other than this trolling nonsense?

    Says you! :rolleyes:


  • #346
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Tesla saves Texas after epic fossil fuel failure.

    https://reneweconomy.com.au/teslas-secret-big-battery-revealed-in-texas/


  • #347
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Oneiric 3 wrote: »
    ^ great examples above at just how neolibs operate. Ignore their own many flaws and just hound in on the trivial mistakes of others to give the impression that they, and they alone, are the ever righteous ones.

    @Banana, I posted some data there about a week ago in response to your disinformation piece from RTE, and you disappeared afterwards. Care to comment now about it, or are you just going to predictable feign the impression that you have no idea what I'm talking about?

    How exactly am I a ‘neolib’ can you define that please?


  • #348
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Tesla saves Texas after epic fossil fuel failure.

    https://reneweconomy.com.au/teslas-secret-big-battery-revealed-in-texas/

    ?? - Its not even been built or tested yet:confused:


  • #349
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Yes, Australia is a land of flooding rains. But climate change could be making it worse
    https://theconversation.com/yes-australia-is-a-land-of-flooding-rains-but-climate-change-could-be-making-it-worse-157586


  • #350
    Banana Republic 1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    ?? - Its not even been built or tested yet:confused:

    Its going to be the same as in Australia
    https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-can-teslas-giant-south-australian-battery-achieve-80738


  • #351
    Gaoth Laidir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Banana Republic 1 wrote: »
    Yes, Australia is a land of flooding rains. But climate change could be making it worse
    https://theconversation.com/yes-australia-is-a-land-of-flooding-rains-but-climate-change-could-be-making-it-worse-157586

    I find it amazing that the Hawkesbury-Napean valley has become so built up, given that the record high flood level recorded there was almost 20 metres way back in 1867.
    Improving our understanding of historical weather data may help improve future climate change risk assessment. For example, past floods in the Hawkesbury–Nepean have been a lot worse than the current disaster. In 1867, the Hawkesbury River at Windsor reached 19.7 metres above normal, and in 1961 peaked at 14.5 metres. This is worse than the 13.12 metres above normal recorded at Freemans Reach on March 23.

    It’s sobering to think the Hawkesbury River once peaked 6 metres higher than what we’re seeing right now. Imagine the potential future flooding caused by an East Coast Low during strong La Niña conditions.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement