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

Billcarson wrote: »

A drought there for the last 6 months probably has nothing to do with climate change either at all.......

Granted cant blame everything on climate change but can't dismiss everything either.

All weather is affected by climate change because the planet is now warmer, and more energy is stored up in our oceans and atmosphere, thereby affecting every weather event, from the mild spring morning to the multi year drought

The weather we are seeing now is the result of natural processes trying to find new equilibriums in a warmer world

Heatwaves in Siberia and Canada that happen every year now, and very rarely happened before, are part of this adjustment,

Billcarson wrote: »

A drought there for the last 6 months probably has nothing to do with climate change either at all.......

Granted cant blame everything on climate change but can't dismiss everything either.

It was due to a ridge that became semi-permanent off the NW coast of the US, though perhaps that is down to climate change too. Would like to see some evidence rather than just speculation.

Akrasia wrote: »

What caused the Ridge

Climate change?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Climate change?

No, what specific circumstances caused the ridge, was it a blocking air or oceanic current? Was it warmer SSTs? Was it a change to precipitation or the jet stream.. you tell me, what caused the ridge?

You can’t dismiss climate change by going 1 cause layer down. Weather is chaotic, multiple interdependent systems all trying to find energy equilibrium
You can’t dismiss the extreme heats in BC by saying it was caused by a ridge, and pretending that ridge had no cause

Akrasia wrote: »

In a real world example, if you set a bomb off in a crowded subway you know you will kill people, but you cannot decide in advance which if the thousand people using that train that day will be affected
(Although you can narrow it down by analyzing each passengers routine and other variables)

With climate change we are setting off a bomb by adding the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of atomic bombs worth of energy to the biosphere every year
Where that energy goes is uncertain but the reality is it has to go somewhere

Poor analogy.

Currently Climate science predicts a bomb will go off in a crowded subway, when that blast goes off all deaths globally within that time frame are attributed to that bomb in the subway. That is our current model. To spin it any other way is fallacy.

Climate science has removed burden of responsibility of governments to enforce corrective measures on land usage, forest maintenance, sustainable agriculture/manufacturing, instead it's our fault for driving a 1.4ltr car. It's a master stroke in class warfare.

Development on flood plains flood = Global warming
Property in forests that naturally burn, burn = Global Warming
The list goes on.

Regardless if AGW is real or not, it's been weaponised and brutally been mismanaged. With possibly the most charlatans of any mass public movement in human history has every witnessed.
Being green comes with a healthy dose of white washing.

Nabber wrote: »

Jebaited as they say :pac::pac:

So what were the predictions of the decade before the 80s?
I believe is was called The Cooling. I'm too lazy tonight to post up links and screenshots.
But needless to say we were in Akrasia levels of peril due to a global cooling :eek:

The difference is that the scientists who said temperature would rise were right, but those who were wrong about that, have been wrong about pretty much everything ever since

Birdnuts wrote: »

Look up the UHI affect

Scientists know about the UHI and it doesn’t explain the increase in temperature observations
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

The UHI theory was falsified decades ago

Akrasia wrote: »

no you can’t

Of course I can

Akrasia wrote: »

No, what specific circumstances caused the ridge, was it a blocking air or oceanic current? Was it warmer SSTs? Was it a change to precipitation or the jet stream.. you tell me, what caused the ridge?

No, you tell me. You, apparently, are the expert here. Were you even aware of the lead up drought and the actual weather patterns that caused it before I even mentioned them? I strongly suspect not, because all you need to know is that 'climate change' causes everything.

But, given that global warming is obviously an issue close to your heart, perhaps you can tell me and the rest of us right now how much the temperature of this country we are in has trended over the last few years, and by what measure?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

No, you tell me. You, apparently, are the expert here. Were you even aware of the lead up drought and the actual weather patterns that caused it before I even mentioned them? I strongly suspect not, because all you need to know is that 'climate change' causes everything.

You were able to, with the supreme confidence of someone who is rarely wrong, tell us that the Heat Dome was caused by the drought. So what caused the drought?

But, given that global warming is obviously an issue close to your heart, perhaps you can tell me and the rest of us right now how much the temperature of this country we are in has trended over the last few years, and by what measure?

The last 3 annual climate reports listed temperatures as above average in in the 3 reports I checked, 2018,2019,2020

I also checked the historical 30 year means for a bunch of stations and the most recent records are mostly between .5 and 1c above the 1961-1990
averages https://www.met.ie/climate/30-year-averages
I'm guessing this isnt the answer you were expecting

Akrasia wrote: »

Hurricanes are getting stronger. It takes time for the trends to build up to show statistically significant changes, so, as I said before, if we insist on waiting until it's already proven, it's already happened and irreversible. A prudent approach is to act before the catastrophe actually happens, especially when we have plenty of warning via all of the modelling data we have so far.


And the most intense and extreme events are what cause the most damage to both ecology, and human settlements.

A lot of conflicting evidence in that article there. On the one hand windshear is set to increase, yet another article says it will decrease. They've found no human signal in the frequency of hurricanes and yet we have this

"While many models do forecast a decrease in number, Emanuel’s 2013 study, using a higher-end warming scenario, found that the frequency of tropical cyclones increased in most locations. And that study is not alone. A more recent study Kieran Bhatia from NOAA GFDL, using the high-resolution HiFLOR model, shows a global increase in storm frequency of 9% and a 23% increase in the Atlantic basin by the end of the 21st century.

When asked about the conflicting research findings on cyclone frequency, Emanuel said by email: “My own view is that we really do not know at this point whether the overall global frequency of [tropical cyclones] will increase, decrease, or stay the same. It is an area of active research.”

Regarding intensity, it's no surprise that there may be an increase in the proportion of Cat 4&5 storms in recent decades, given that detection and sampling - both with satellite but especially aircraft - has come on leaps and bounds. How many storms have we seen upped in intensity purely due to new aircraft recon data that we would otherwise never have had?

Of course he uses the high rainfall from Michael as an example of increasing precipitation, yet any storm that sits in the one spot for days will produce devestating rainfall.

There is evidence that patterns, frequency and intensity of storms are changing you just refuse to see it. There are scientists who are dedicated to climate attribution and they are publishing studies to back this up. In contrast, you are looking at only a tiny segment of data and using it to dismiss the findings of these papers
https://www.nature.com/subjects/attribution

Those lads are kept busy. Jesus, if someone sneezes the they out there with a study to see if they can attribute it to CO2. Where would we be without agw?

I didn't mention the maldives example because a newspaper clipping from decades ago is not the scientific prediction that you claim that it is. This is another 'denial' trick, to take the any media reports from the past that suit your agenda, and then pretend that this was the scientific consensus at the time

Science reporting in the media is hopeless at the best of times, and even press releases that accompany peer reviewed papers can also be misleading, what matters is what the actual papers say, and what basis they made that claim

Funny that you should say that, but plenty of Guardian links are posted here as backup of an alarmist argument and I've never seen you have a problem with them. I can't remember if you yourself posted any but they always get past your eagle-eyed filtering process. You also posted the hurricane article above, written by a guy from CBS News, no less.

Here is the source of the subject of that Maldives article by James G. Titus. There seems to have been a fair bit of concern back then, enough to set up the Alliance of Small Island States.

We are at a stage where it's not a 'nice to have' to move off fossil fuels, it's a minimum requirement and this requires that we take the consequences very seriously and invest enough resources to solve the problem
regarding swallows
The question is, why wouldn't climate change affect the swallows?
Their migration and breeding are all affected by temperatures, the availability of food, anything that affects their life cycle, can affect their migration. Not necessarily for the worse, some species may do very well from climate change, but others, that have more particular requirements could suffer if the changes are too rapid for them to adapt to them
Migratory birds should be able to migrate to find conditions that suit them, so it is not at all strange to think that climate change could impact their migration

And my question was, what has actually physically changed between here and Africa that has affected the swallows? Show me.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'Heat dome'. How media soundbitey can you get. :rolleyes:
[\quote]
This is what NOAA calls it.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/heat-dome.html

I asked you about the trend over the last few years, not figures, but why did you use the 61-90 average, considering that this is a well known unusually cool period within the 20th century?

I don’t have the time to go looking for those specific figures you’re referring to, if you know them then link to them here instead of giving me homework to do

Yelling 'climate change' (which is something I don't 'deny') at everything without knowing what the actual weather synoptics were in the lead up and during events, doesn't do you or others (of which there are far too many) who do the same any credit. But please do keep watching the news for I am sure they will role out carefully selected 'expert' to confirm your beliefs every single time.

It doesn’t take an expert on ‘the news’ to convince me that almost breaching 50c in Canada on a June day is not part of the normal climate for that region

By the way, weren't you the one who also told us global warming caused the 'cold dome' over Texas last winter? Something to do with a heatwave in the Arctic or something, despite the fact that severe cold outbreaks in the same region have occurred when the Arctic was much colder, which was shown to you at the time.

There is a very active area of research into the consequences of Arctic amplification and the effects on the jet stream, with consequences for generating more blocking and ridging events that may meander and cause both extremely warm weather in the Arctic and extreme cold weather in the southern regions like Texas

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a very active area of research into the consequences of Arctic amplification and the effects on the jet stream, with consequences for generating more blocking and ridging events that may meander and cause both extremely warm weather in the Arctic and extreme cold weather in the southern regions like Texas

I posted one such study on here only a few weeks back that dismisses these ideas.

As I have stated more than once, 'blocking' patterns were far more frequent during the cooler periods of the 20th century. Winters here in Europe, for example were colder because of such.