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

Oneiric 3 · 27-02-2021 4:43pm

Over the last decade and even before, I've been hearing nothing but how much worse Atlantic storms will become over Ireland because of 'warming' (which, curiously now being framed as the sole cause of cooling - Orwell, I'll leave that one to you to get your head around) yet, as one who has lived through the real storms of the 80s and 90s, and someone who likes to have an aul gander that the stats now and again, the complete opposite is happening (Orwell, over to you once again...)

A cooling Atlantic, whether it be from the AMO or AMOC (if they are different things entirely) would most likely increase storm ferocity & frequency in the decades ahead, but that would also mean that things would be returning to a more normal norm. And this is being sold as something abnormal and unnatural is nothing short of deceptive.

Data used is from Met Eireann.

Edit, and just to add, the high gust speeds in that chart above are not from any particular one station uses, but the combined mean max of the 3 west coast stations used on any particular day within that running 91 day period.

M.T. Cranium · 28-02-2021 8:10am

I would expect better chances for extreme wind speeds when oceans are in a colder phase, because that is more likely to create strong gradients in upper level winds which has almost a 1:1 relationship to surface wind speeds, especially if we eliminate the rather infrequent tropical origin wind gust peaks such as Debbie and Ophelia. Those are probably part of a different set of wind storms that would increase in frequency over warm oceans.

Otherwise, your run of the mill autumn, winter and early spring wind storms tend to run about as strong as the upper level gradients driving them, increase those and you would see an increase near the surface.

A colder ocean would be more likely to promote stronger gradients because there is less variability in the warmer subtropical portions than in the colder subarctic portions. Therefore overall gradient is likely to increase during times of colder ocean temperatures. It also tends to set the jet stream further south which probably favours stronger gusts for Ireland or Britain.

I think if Oneiric's graph had a longer historical data base the trends before 1956 would likely show peaks around the coldest times since the LIA, anecdotally some of the strongest wind storms in British and Irish weather records would include 1703, 1839, 1884-86, 1903, any or all of which probably peaked higher than anything since 1956.

The Atlantic must have been in a very cold state in 1703 although that year seemed (from CET records) to be a bit of a recovery year from the coldest portion of the Maunder just about ending then. Some state that the 1703 gale was of tropical origins but there is not much proof of that, about all that is known is that it arrived from the southwest. We know with more certainty that the Atlantic was in a cold phase in the 19th century, ice margins were a lot closer to Norway and Iceland than they are nowadays.

I will see if I can find any reliable data for wind gust analysis around Newfoundland or Nova Scotia over any length of time as I am not aware of any published analysis of trends on that side of the ocean. Even anecdotally nothing really jumps out, but in that region you would have more tropical remnant lows participating in the strong gust data base.

On the west coast of North America, the general impression is that the frequency of very strong wind storms is decreasing gradually too. When we think about the worst wind storms historically, the most obvious ones are well back in the data set.

We don't tend to think much about glacial onset climate conditions, but in that thousand year interval when a temperate climate begins to spiral out of control into a glacial climate, it's difficult to imagine there would not be frequent intense storms, for one thing, where else would the long-lasting and eventually permanent snow cover come from? Try to imagine what weather pattern would be most likely to create a permanent snow cover in northern parts of Britain or Ireland. Larger and more extensive arctic highs obviously required, but those alone would only be likely to increase winter-season snow cover that would be bound to melt in the higher sun angles of April and May even if they were on a larger scale. Those other snowfalls must be synoptic, from intense low pressure areas that are tracking further south than today. And all of that would probably not be associated with warmer Atlantic surface temperatures.

Oneiric 3 · 01-03-2021 9:14am

Only a few years ago: "Climate change/Global warming will bring less snow. Your kids may never get to see it".

Today: Climate change/global warming could be bringing more snow:

"Local scientists and meteorologists said it’s impossible to point to any one storm and say with certainty: “That’s climate change.” But, they said, given what we know about global warming, our extra snowy February was not all that surprising.

“People immediately think of global warming and less snow, but that’s not necessarily the case,” said Fox19 Chief Meteorologist Steve Horstmeyer".

https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/02/28/climate-change-cincinnatis-snowy-february-impact-global-warming/4558928001/

We see this narrative being played out time and time again. 'Scientists' and meteorologists unable to pin point a singular weather event as being down to 'climate change' or not, but always keeping that door open simply in order to keep the fear going. Even a snowy winter now in places that commonly see snow cannot be appreciated for what it is, but instead, is sold as being possibly the result of something more sinister, even when there is no real proof presented. "We don't know... but.."

Stay afraid people, stay afraid.

Gaoth Laidir · 01-03-2021 10:32am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Only a few years ago: "Climate change/Global warming will bring less snow. Your kids may never get to see it".

Today: Climate change/global warming could be bringing more snow:

"Local scientists and meteorologists said it’s impossible to point to any one storm and say with certainty: “That’s climate change.” But, they said, given what we know about global warming, our extra snowy February was not all that surprising.

“People immediately think of global warming and less snow, but that’s not necessarily the case,” said Fox19 Chief Meteorologist Steve Horstmeyer".

https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/02/28/climate-change-cincinnatis-snowy-february-impact-global-warming/4558928001/

We see this narrative being played out time and time again. 'Scientists' and meteorologists unable to pin point a singular weather event as being down to 'climate change' or not, but always keeping that door open simply in order to keep the fear going. Even a snowy winter now in places that commonly see snow cannot be appreciated for what it is, but instead, is sold as being possibly the result of something more sinister, even when there is no real proof presented. "We don't know... but.."

Stay afraid people, stay afraid.

I'm trying to remember if he is the same guy who claimed from Dallas that the cold spell was due to "an almost ice-free Arctic". Strange, that, give that we're approaching the annual ice maximum in the next few weeks. Clueless.

Danno · 02-03-2021 10:20pm

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-56201231

Why Greenpeace is dropping huge boulders into the sea
Why Greenpeace is dropping huge boulders into the sea
A Greenpeace ship has been dropping huge boulders into the sea off Brighton this week to stop fishing boats from trawling the sea bed.
The action is part of campaign to tighten restrictions on the most destructive forms of fishing in protected areas of UK waters.
But leaders of the fishing community describe the action as dangerous, illegal and irresponsible.
Chief environment correspondent Justin Rowlatt reports.

Wouldn't this activity lead to sea-level rise?

Banana Republic 1 · 03-03-2021 9:36am

Interesting podcast here on why Ice ages happen, the closed minded can bring their own halberds. 15 minutes in length.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/futureproof-with-jonathan-mccrea/id417001442?i=1000511263469

Gaoth Laidir · 03-03-2021 12:51pm

Danno wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-56201231

Wouldn't this activity lead to sea-level rise?

Is that an electric ship they're using or did I hear an engine on it? Surely they wouldn't be burning fossil fuel while committing their crime, would they? Bunch of hippies. Go and get a job.

Pa ElGrande · 04-03-2021 8:52am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Is that an electric ship they're using or did I hear an engine on it? Surely they wouldn't be burning fossil fuel while committing their crime, would they? Bunch of hippies. Go and get a job.

Hippies?? Greenpeace is a multi-national corporation with an income ~$350 million per annum. Losing on currency exchange a few years ago was no big deal.

Danno · 06-03-2021 12:46am

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

The Texas power failure had nothing to do with the green new deal because that hasn't been in acted yet. The blame can be laid to rest on some good old boys and there political friends who just grind out a few bucks more.

Former Texas governor Rick Perry claims Texans would rather endure blackouts than a federally regulated power grid"

"Perry also exaggerated the role of renewable energy sources in the blackouts"

Electric Reliability Council of Texas > (ERCOT)
"ERCOT has acknowledged that the blackouts have largely stemmed from failures to winterize natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy systems"
During the winter wind turbines account for around 25% of the energy produced in Texas.

"Because Texas operates its own grid, the state isn’t subject to federal oversight by FERC, which can investigate power outages but can’t mandate reforms. Many energy experts say the very nature of the state’s deregulated electric market is perhaps most to blame for power crisis."

Lawmakers and regulators, including the PUC and the industry-friendly Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the oil and gas industry, have repeatedly ignored, dismissed or watered down efforts to address weaknesses in the state’s sprawling electric grid, which is isolated from the rest of the country."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-texas-governor-rick-perry-031325077.html
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/25/texas-winter-storm-cost-budget/

Except though that most of what you've posted is bunkum.

Texas grid operator ERCOT (think Eirgrid here) had requested ahead of the storm (around a week in advance) to increase FF energy production and temporarily breach Federal EPA sulphur emissions regulations (in an effort to keep Texans warm and save lives) however, the democrat controlled EPA said no. Folk died and a few thousand tonne of emissions were saved. Bravo. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2021/02/f82/DOE%20202%28c%29%20Emergency%20Order%20-%20ERCOT%2002.14.2021.pdf

Banana Republic 1 · 06-03-2021 1:59am

Danno wrote: »

Except though that most of what you've posted is bunkum

Which parts ?

Thargor · 06-03-2021 11:54pm

Danno wrote: »

Except though that most of what you've posted is bunkum.

Texas grid operator ERCOT (think Eirgrid here) had requested ahead of the storm (around a week in advance) to increase FF energy production and temporarily breach Federal EPA sulphur emissions regulations (in an effort to keep Texans warm and save lives) however, the democrat controlled EPA said no. Folk died and a few thousand tonne of emissions were saved. Bravo. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2021/02/f82/DOE%20202%28c%29%20Emergency%20Order%20-%20ERCOT%2002.14.2021.pdf

Still lying about this for some reason? They'll have forgotten about it in Texas in time for the next cold weather event and you'll still be here gaslighting about it pun intended. The Texas grid failed because they refused to pay for basic winter-proofing of infrastructure just like it did in the 2011 event. What do you get out of spreading misinformation like this?

M.T. Cranium · 07-03-2021 7:54am

Both things can be true and probably are true. Realizing in advance that the wind turbines were going to go down, the Texas authorities tried to boost the fossil fuel components of their electricity grid to stave off what they saw was coming. The EPA turned them down. But that doesn't contradict your point about winterizing which I think is in fact the foundation of the problem, bad as that weather was by Texas standards, it was pretty standard stuff for the northern plains states or even Ontario, Canada, and would not have had the same effect there.

As to climate change theory constantly changing, I suppose we should expect this, perhaps it pains some to hear this but climate change theory is not exactly in a robust, mature state of development. It's rather like where particle physics was in the 1880s when they still believed in the ether. What we need is about three decades like particle physics had with a few heavyweight scientists of the calibre of Rutherford, Bohr and Einstein. I'm afraid that the landscape of climate science is not very similar to that but younger readers might be inspired to try.

I know where it got me (here).

Banana Republic 1 · 07-03-2021 11:55am

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Both things can be true and probably are true. Realizing in advance that the wind turbines were going to go down, the Texas authorities tried to boost the fossil fuel components of their electricity grid to stave off what they saw was coming. The EPA turned them down. But that doesn't contradict your point about winterizing which I think is in fact the foundation of the problem, bad as that weather was by Texas standards, it was pretty standard stuff for the northern plains states or even Ontario, Canada, and would not have had the same effect there.

As to climate change theory constantly changing, I suppose we should expect this, perhaps it pains some to hear this but climate change theory is not exactly in a robust, mature state of development. It's rather like where particle physics was in the 1880s when they still believed in the ether. What we need is about three decades like particle physics had with a few heavyweight scientists of the calibre of Rutherford, Bohr and Einstein. I'm afraid that the landscape of climate science is not very similar to that but younger readers might be inspired to try.

I know where it got me (here).

It may seem like the tanker is club hauling but as ever, mirrors sand smoke !

Danno · 07-03-2021 12:35pm

Thargor wrote: »

Still lying about this for some reason? They'll have forgotten about it in Texas in time for the next cold weather event and you'll still be here gaslighting about it pun intended. The Texas grid failed because they refused to pay for basic winter-proofing of infrastructure just like it did in the 2011 event. What do you get out of spreading misinformation like this?

I am not lying about the democrat EPA denying Texas permission to ramp up fossil fuel energy production to cope with the increased demand during their cold wave, the link to the document proves that.

It is widely agreed that failure to winterise the distribution system was a core failure in coping, however when Texas tried to circumvent that failure in order to save lives, the EPA thought it be better to let folk die than increase pollution.

This is what happens when eco-loons are given power. It should be widely observed and noted for the future so folk can practise their democratic right when voting that they are fully informed before cautiously marking X in the box beside any far-left party/politician who supports actions which prioritises less emissions over human life.

Pa ElGrande · 07-03-2021 12:38pm

Thargor wrote: »

Still lying about this for some reason? They'll have forgotten about it in Texas in time for the next cold weather event and you'll still be here gaslighting about it pun intended. The Texas grid failed because they refused to pay for basic winter-proofing of infrastructure just like it did in the 2011 event. What do you get out of spreading misinformation like this?

The fact that certain plants using usually reliable sources of energy (gas, coal, nuclear) went offline in Texas due to preventable problems should not distract us from the fact that random energy sources failed in several locations across the United States when energy was needed most. Wind had much the same behaviour in other parts of the Midwest, the Southwest, the Mid-Atlantic, and New England during the cold spell, Wind output fell. If it was not for natural gas to handle the dip and increase to meet the surge in demand the outcome would have been much worse.

In Ireland we can and do get 'wind drought' lasting several weeks across the British Isles during Summer and at the moment we have natural gas to make up the shortfall and at a time when the domestic demand for gas heating is low. Flip the situation to a 1947, or even 1963 type Winter event with prolonged cold lasting over a month, this is a real scenario where wind turbines and solar could be inoperable with sky-rocketing demand for electricity and heating across the British Isles and likely Western Europe at the same time. How we pay for electricity is also changing with the roll-out of SMART meters, so in future severe weather event you could find yourself with a huge electricity bill depending on your payment plan. The distribution system needs to be upgraded as 3 phase electricity will become more common in domestic homes, to accommodate home charging electric vehicles (his & hers car charging + electric shower).

The continental European grid came close to collapse this past Winter and we are expecting to use inter-connectors to make the shortfall in domestic production even under severe winter weather conditions?

Random energy sources only work under fair weather conditions, consumption of traditional sources of power generation is being heavily taxed, exploration for new natural gas sources and fracking have been halted in Ireland, There is also a public service obligation tax + VAT levied on consumers to subsidise more random energy production. (the gold rush), which seems to have a lot of upside.

In Ireland March 2018, water pipes froze, water and sewage treatment plants froze, much damage was done. Livestock died and excess Winter deaths increased to levels only reached with Covid. it showed that we are not equipped to deal with severe Winter weather, and even though it is uncommon it is not unexpected or unusual to have it for 2 to 4 weeks. The electricity generation system held up in 2018, in future demand for electricity will have increased, what happens as the suppliers exit. Never mind Texas the more important question is how are we planning around a future worst case scenario?

Thargor · 07-03-2021 10:03pm

Danno wrote: »

I am not lying about the democrat EPA denying Texas permission to ramp up fossil fuel energy production to cope with the increased demand during their cold wave, the link to the document proves that.

It is widely agreed that failure to winterise the distribution system was a core failure in coping, however when Texas tried to circumvent that failure in order to save lives, the EPA thought it be better to let folk die than increase pollution.

This is what happens when eco-loons are given power. It should be widely observed and noted for the future so folk can practise their democratic right when voting that they are fully informed before cautiously marking X in the box beside any far-left party/politician who supports actions which prioritises less emissions over human life.

This is just complete and utter lies, not even Fox News/Newsmax/The GOP governor in Texas who were spreading disinformation about wind turbines in the days after the disaster are coming out with crap like this

"the EPA thought it be better to let folk die than increase pollution." Jesus...

Thargor · 07-03-2021 10:05pm

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The fact that certain plants using usually reliable sources of energy (gas, coal, nuclear) went offline in Texas due to preventable problems should not distract us from the fact that random energy sources failed in several locations across the United States when energy was needed most. Wind had much the same behaviour in other parts of the Midwest, the Southwest, the Mid-Atlantic, and New England during the cold spell, Wind output fell. If it was not for natural gas to handle the dip and increase to meet the surge in demand the outcome would have been much worse.

In Ireland we can and do get 'wind drought' lasting several weeks across the British Isles during Summer and at the moment we have natural gas to make up the shortfall and at a time when the domestic demand for gas heating is low. Flip the situation to a 1947, or even 1963 type Winter event with prolonged cold lasting over a month, this is a real scenario where wind turbines and solar could be inoperable with sky-rocketing demand for electricity and heating across the British Isles and likely Western Europe at the same time. How we pay for electricity is also changing with the roll-out of SMART meters, so in future severe weather event you could find yourself with a huge electricity bill depending on your payment plan. The distribution system needs to be upgraded as 3 phase electricity will become more common in domestic homes, to accommodate home charging electric vehicles (his & hers car charging + electric shower).

The continental European grid came close to collapse this past Winter and we are expecting to use inter-connectors to make the shortfall in domestic production even under severe winter weather conditions?

Random energy sources only work under fair weather conditions, consumption of traditional sources of power generation is being heavily taxed, exploration for new natural gas sources and fracking have been halted in Ireland, There is also a public service obligation tax + VAT levied on consumers to subsidise more random energy production. (the gold rush), which seems to have a lot of upside.

In Ireland March 2018, water pipes froze, water and sewage treatment plants froze, much damage was done. Livestock died and excess Winter deaths increased to levels only reached with Covid. it showed that we are not equipped to deal with severe Winter weather, and even though it is uncommon it is not unexpected or unusual to have it for 2 to 4 weeks. The electricity generation system held up in 2018, in future demand for electricity will have increased, what happens as the suppliers exit. Never mind Texas the more important question is how are we planning around a future worst case scenario?

Yeah Im sure thats a great essay but Im addressing his claims that peoples lives were sacrificed by "eco-loons" in order to save on carbon emissions, do you have anything related to that?

Danno · 07-03-2021 10:16pm

Thargor wrote: »

Yeah Im sure thats a great essay but Im addressing his claims that peoples lives were sacrificed by "eco-loons" in order to save on carbon emissions, do you have anything related to that?

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".

Banana Republic 1 · 08-03-2021 1:21am

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The fact that certain plants using usually reliable sources of energy (gas, coal, nuclear) went offline in Texas due to preventable problems should not distract us from the fact that random energy sources failed in several locations across the United States when energy was needed most. Wind had much the same behaviour in other parts of the Midwest, the Southwest, the Mid-Atlantic, and New England during the cold spell, Wind output fell. If it was not for natural gas to handle the dip and increase to meet the surge in demand the outcome would have been much worse.

In Ireland we can and do get 'wind drought' lasting several weeks across the British Isles during Summer and at the moment we have natural gas to make up the shortfall and at a time when the domestic demand for gas heating is low. Flip the situation to a 1947, or even 1963 type Winter event with prolonged cold lasting over a month, this is a real scenario where wind turbines and solar could be inoperable with sky-rocketing demand for electricity and heating across the British Isles and likely Western Europe at the same time. How we pay for electricity is also changing with the roll-out of SMART meters, so in future severe weather event you could find yourself with a huge electricity bill depending on your payment plan. The distribution system needs to be upgraded as 3 phase electricity will become more common in domestic homes, to accommodate home charging electric vehicles (his & hers car charging + electric shower).

The continental European grid came close to collapse this past Winter and we are expecting to use inter-connectors to make the shortfall in domestic production even under severe winter weather conditions?

Random energy sources only work under fair weather conditions, consumption of traditional sources of power generation is being heavily taxed, exploration for new natural gas sources and fracking have been halted in Ireland, There is also a public service obligation tax + VAT levied on consumers to subsidise more random energy production. (the gold rush), which seems to have a lot of upside.

In Ireland March 2018, water pipes froze, water and sewage treatment plants froze, much damage was done. Livestock died and excess Winter deaths increased to levels only reached with Covid. it showed that we are not equipped to deal with severe Winter weather, and even though it is uncommon it is not unexpected or unusual to have it for 2 to 4 weeks. The electricity generation system held up in 2018, in future demand for electricity will have increased, what happens as the suppliers exit. Never mind Texas the more important question is how are we planning around a future worst case scenario?

This post is sponsored by, Exxon and BP.

Banana Republic 1 · 08-03-2021 1:32am

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".

An extract from a previous posting of mine, which you actually tried and failed to rubbish.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Electric Reliability Council of Texas > (ERCOT)
"ERCOT has acknowledged that the blackouts have largely stemmed from failures to winterize natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy systems”

Thargor · 08-03-2021 2:01am

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".

:rolleyes:

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

Nabber · 08-03-2021 2:58am

Imagine calling dirty energy Green, what an amazing publicity stunt. Imagine never publicly discussing the carbon cost of said ‘green’ energy. Imagine the confusion of wondering why some people are skeptic. Imagine constructing a situation where you brand your skeptic as illiterate, right wing fanatic, imagine 100% f your supporters are hypocrites, imagine closing the debate and settling the science .... Nah that would never happen, we’re too smart for that.

Leah Stokes, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, whose work has focused on battles over energy policy. “Our infrastructure cannot handle extreme weather events, which these fossil fuels are ironically causing.”

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/climate/texas-blackouts-disinformation.amp.html

Clear cut there. Fossil fuels causing extreme weather impacting Texas. 80 years of Industrial revolution likely to blame for 1899 winter. Sure the science is settled we can throw around any auld ****e now.

Once you say carbon is bad, AGW is apocalypse you’ll never get fact checked in MSM.

Why don’t we see follow ups on Al Gore and his ice free Arctic? A hypocrite too, doesn’t one of his many homes use the equivalent power of 8 average homes?

The disinformation is staggering, stats are spit out like confetti, all in an effort to confuse. Most nature programs come with a healthy dose of maths, “10% of an already 60% drop with 8% year on year decline with additional 2% compound, by 2100 (you’ll be dead before then) a ballon deduction of 1/3rd remaining deficit. Penguin population will be at -25,000. Their suffering won’t end in extinction”

Emperor Penguin 2009 estimate of 590,000. In 2012 the emperor penguin was uplisted from a species of least concern to near threatened by the IUCN.

Interesting, so using our maths from one of Attenborough’s drivel sessions, we know the number is surely going down..... so.....

How many emperor Penguins are there?

WWF 2019 September

There are approximately 595,000 adult Emperor penguins in Antarctica.

NYT April 2019

Roughly 130,000 to 250,000 breeding pairs of emperor penguins live in 54 colonies worldwide

BBC 2020 August

The discovery lifts the global Emperor population by 5-10%, to perhaps as many as 278,500 breeding pairs. It's a welcome development given that this iconic species is likely to come under severe pressure this century as the White Continent warms

There you have it folks, NYT lost half the population to a rounding error, still science is settled so that’s fine... As clear as mud. In 12 years no change to population, in fact finding an additional 10% also had no change to population. Rest assured these birds are doomed, maths doesn’t lie.

Imagine if the message was handled clearly? We might be able to make the planet better and not substitute dirty carbon with dirty ‘green’ energy.

Banana Republic 1 · 08-03-2021 9:28am

Nabber wrote: »

Imagine calling dirty energy Green, what an amazing publicity stunt. Imagine never publicly discussing the carbon cost of said ‘green’ energy. Imagine the confusion of wondering why some people are skeptic. Imagine constructing a situation where you brand your skeptic as illiterate, right wing fanatic, imagine 100% f your supporters are hypocrites, imagine closing the debate and settling the science .... Nah that would never happen, we’re too smart for that.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/climate/texas-blackouts-disinformation.amp.html

Clear cut there. Fossil fuels causing extreme weather impacting Texas. 80 years of Industrial revolution likely to blame for 1899 winter. Sure the science is settled we can throw around any auld ****e now.

Once you say carbon is bad, AGW is apocalypse you’ll never get fact checked in MSM.

Why don’t we see follow ups on Al Gore and his ice free Arctic? A hypocrite too, doesn’t one of his many homes use the equivalent power of 8 average homes?

The disinformation is staggering, stats are spit out like confetti, all in an effort to confuse. Most nature programs come with a healthy dose of maths, “10% of an already 60% drop with 8% year on year decline with additional 2% compound, by 2100 (you’ll be dead before then) a ballon deduction of 1/3rd remaining deficit. Penguin population will be at -25,000. Their suffering won’t end in extinction”

Emperor Penguin 2009 estimate of 590,000. In 2012 the emperor penguin was uplisted from a species of least concern to near threatened by the IUCN.

Interesting, so using our maths from one of Attenborough’s drivel sessions, we know the number is surely going down..... so.....

How many emperor Penguins are there?

WWF 2019 September

NYT April 2019

BBC 2020 August

There you have it folks, NYT lost half the population to a rounding error, still science is settled so that’s fine... As clear as mud. In 12 years no change to population, in fact finding an additional 10% also had no change to population. Rest assured these birds are doomed, maths doesn’t lie.

Imagine if the message was handled clearly? We might be able to make the planet better and not substitute dirty carbon with dirty ‘green’ energy.

Nabber wrote: »

Is there context to this or deleted post before it?

Or is what you’re saying better the devil we know ?

Pa ElGrande · 08-03-2021 1:01pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

This post is sponsored by, Exxon and BP.

72.8% of worlds renewable energy is made by burning wood, charcoal and dung. There are poor countries around the world are in the process still of moving away from wood and dung as primary energy sources.

Banana Republic 1 · 08-03-2021 4:09pm

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

72.8% of worlds renewable energy is made by burning wood, charcoal and dung. There are poor countries around the world are in the process still of moving away from wood and dung as primary energy sources.

Yes and that inequality has me wondering about the global strategy for the covid vaccine. I don’t know if the above is a rebuttal or what.

Birdnuts · 08-03-2021 7:09pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

An extract from a previous posting of mine, which you actually tried and failed to rubbish.

Well the facts are that during the cold spell the old reliables were the only ones producing significant power

https://politics.ie/threads/wind-turbines-the-end-is-nigh.242519/page-83#post-13209115

Oneiric 3 · 08-03-2021 7:41pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

Well the facts are that during the cold spell the old reliables were the only ones producing significant power

https://politics.ie/threads/wind-turbines-the-end-is-nigh.242519/page-83#post-13209115

The very people who constantly wag their fingers to the rest of us about the evils of fossil fuels are the very people who have their arse up against a warm radiator as they do so. They are nothing but moralising minnies who carry around with them an inflated sense of their own self worth. The more I listen to them, the less I become interested in what they have to say.

M.T. Cranium · 08-03-2021 11:44pm

I'm going to predict ...

... damaging cat-4 hurricane strike Florida panhandle 2023

... severe floods Houston 2024

... huge east coast snowstorms 2031

... Ireland hit by extreme cold and snow 2032

... UK hottest month ever 2036

... 40 C in Paris August 2039

... billion dollar ice storm damage Great Lakes region 2044

... catastrophic flooding in NC from hurricane 2046

... Miami suburbs devastated by freak cat-5 landfall 2050

... extreme wind damage South Carolina 2053

... Dublin buried in snow 2060

... a winter so cold the Ohio River freezes, natural gas supplies cut off 2065

... mega tornado outbreak 2068

... devastating cat-5 hurricane strike Mississippi coast 2073

... hurricane remnant causes widespread damage in Ireland 2081

... widespread severe heat waves 2086 to 2089

... severe drought in northeast U.S. 2093

... freakish warmth in March 2096, 2097 across most of North America

... A cat-3 hurricane does enormous damage in Long Island and parts of New England, 2104.

... heat waves set unprecedented record highs 2106, thousands die of heat prostration, 122 F recorded in North Dakota, 110 near New York City. Then almost as bad again in 2108. Dust bowl conditions in the plains states, the dust storms so large that they sometimes reach the east coast.

... Toronto has two of its three warmest Januaries on record in successive winters 2109 and 2110. In the second of them, it also snows in Los Angeles.

... super hurricanes devastate Florida 2114 and again in 2116

... worst tornado outbreak ever recorded 2117

... U.S. Canada strong heat waves every summer 2121 to 2126

... another major heat wave 2131

... 70 deg F in January near Buffalo NY 2136

... Galveston wiped out by cat-4 hurricane 2142

... frigid cold spells to Gulf of Mexico 2143 and 2147

... they still talk about the Blizzard of 2154 which buried New England and New York in three feet of snow.

Anyway, I could go on quite a while to the big windstorm in Ireland in 2203, but the point is, as most have probably figured out by now, these aren't forecasts at all, this is running the weather we already had backwards through future time.

Does it seem likely that we will have worse weather disasters than these on this sort of frequency? Maybe, but I think an interested student of past political history might find this list very interesting around the year 2150.

No doubt the list of similar events into the future will be impressive and different in its details, like maybe Mobile Alabama will get the severe flood hurricane and Tampa will be the victim of the next Andrew, or France will get the hurricane remnant wind damage. But who would seriously want to put a lot of money down on a bet that a worse list of weather events will take place in the next 130 years?

... now be honest, if the tabloids got a hold of those predictions and didn't know they were back-casts, would they not package them up as "proof of climate change."

I said be honest.

Banana Republic 1 · 08-03-2021 11:58pm

Birdnuts wrote: »

Well the facts are that during the cold spell the old reliables were the only ones producing significant power

https://politics.ie/threads/wind-turbines-the-end-is-nigh.242519/page-83#post-13209115

All that power stayed in the power plant.

Birdnuts · 09-03-2021 2:09am

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

All that power stayed in the power plant.

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

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

Comments