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

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You have a very detailed description of how this all happens, so I'll ask you again; give an example of a river where this has happened and it's all due to ghg. A country taking a decision to dam a river is one thing, but how is that related to ghg?



But people like you are claiming that hurricanes are already stronger, yet that is not the case.

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.

"There’s now evidence that the unnatural effects of human-caused global warming are already making hurricanes stronger and more destructive....
....Are hurricanes getting stronger?
The authors of that same 2013 study found a substantial regional and global increase in the proportion of the strongest hurricanes – category 4 and 5 storms. The authors attribute that increase to global heating of the climate: “We conclude that since 1975 there has been a substantial and observable regional and global increase in the proportion of Cat 4-5 hurricanes of 25-30 percent per °C of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.”

Interestingly, the increase in those most powerful of storms is balanced by a similar decrease in category 1 and category 2 hurricanes."
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/how-climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-more-dangerous/

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

We're supposed to be seeing clear evidence of agw in the stats but we're not. It's these claims that it's already happening that I have a problem with. It now seems that you're changing your stance to "when it will happen", which seems to be in line with the Maldives example above. I note you didn't comment on that.

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

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

I'm not against getting away from using fossil fuels. I never have been. It makes perfect sense to move to renewable energy and stop relying on a finite resource. I agree with you on that. I'm just against all the hyperbole and false claims that have become standard every time we turn on the news. It's standard that every weather event reported on gets attributed to "climate change" unchallenged. Mooney Goes Wild had something on about swallows a while back and of course climate change was blamed for something or other. I would like to see what exactly has changed between here and Africa that has caused the swallows to say "fook it, we'll staycation here in Africa this year".

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

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Reading the above just convinces me more that 'climate science' is nothing more than a pseudo-social science.

Another top notch contribution there Oneiric
Hope you got some sleep and didn’t stay up all night researching it

If someone had told you 5 years ago that parts of Canada would see June temperatures of 49 degrees C within the next 5 years, would you have called them an 'alarmist'?

Reading your comments convince me that you’ve decided that your own pre-existing beliefs are unshakable no matter how much reality needs to bend to conform with them

People deny it's happening and cling to the views of any old hacks simply because they are unwilling to be inconvenienced by any changes to their lifestyles that may be required if we ever got serious about tackling climate change and the consumption and biodiversity crises.

Akrasia wrote: »

If someone had told you 5 years ago that parts of Canada would see June temperatures of 49 degrees C within the next 5 years, would you have called them an 'alarmist'?

This issue is that no one said that that would happen in that location with any certainty. Instead what actually happens is a record will be broken on planet Earth, then any record that is broken is assigned to GHGs.
It's irresponsible on your behalf and many other climate fanatics to misrepresent natural variance. The narrative is portrayed that AGW accounts for all of the extreme, ie "it should only be ~30c and AGW caused this drastic jump" where in actual fact the hype is typically around +1-2c.

Follow up issue is the lack of reporting on records that are not broken. You throw Canada out now as it suits the cause.
How about these? Still standing after year on year compound of carbon emissions?


Your statement about Canada is dropped as evidence of warming. Using the same logic no record breaking means no warming? Or what is more likely, it's a freak weather event that happens when conditions line up perfectly.

AGW weather predictions are garbage. Hot will get hotter, expect for where it doesn't, wet will get wetter, except for where it doesn't, ect.... It's a binomial experiment and AGW Fanatics have bet on both outcomes.

Nabber wrote: »

All other long term human predictions have failed. But this one here is the winner. Not only the winner but also a prediction based on a science we don't fully understand on a planet we have yet to comprehend it's complexities and magnitudes of complexities.

I can safely say we will be living on spaceships by 2100 running from the very AI that predicted or demise 100 years earlier.

Back in the 80s they said global temperatures would rise . Is that not what has happened?
They said the Arctic sea ice would shrink. Is that not what has happened?
They said heatwaves would become more common and Intense. Is that not what has happened.?
When it comes to Ireland and Britain for example they said winter cold spells would become less frequent. Is that not what has happened?
I always remember a scientist on the radio in the mid 80s saying that irish winters would be getting milder over the coming decades with less cold spells. Can't say he was wrong.

Seems to me the scientists haven't been all that wrong. Or perhaps they were just lucky with those predictions but it would want to be one hell of a coincidence.

Nabber wrote: »

All other long term human predictions have failed.

What??

That statement is blatantly wrong.

But this one here is the winner. Not only the winner but also a prediction based on a science we don't fully understand on a planet we have yet to comprehend it's complexities and magnitudes of complexities.

Weather is chaotic, climate is complex, but when you average out the drivers of global climate there are really only 4 drivers in the long term. Insolation, albedo, aerosols (volcanoes), and greenhouse gases

The biggest complexities are about how exactly each specific location will fare following a change to any of those 4 variables. What is not complex, is the concept that increasing the number of GHGs while keeping the other 3 variables constant, will increase the global average temperature

How this increase affects each location is highly complex, but adding extra energy to a system will cause more energetic fluctuations within that system unless an equilibrium can be found

I can safely say we will be living on spaceships by 2100 running from the very AI that predicted or demise 100 years earlier.

no you can’t

Nabber wrote: »

This issue is that no one said that that would happen in that location with any certainty. Instead what actually happens is a record will be broken on planet Earth, then any record that is broken is assigned to GHGs.
It's irresponsible on your behalf and many other climate fanatics to misrepresent natural variance. The narrative is portrayed that AGW accounts for all of the extreme, ie "it should only be ~30c and AGW caused this drastic jump" where in actual fact the hype is typically around +1-2c.

Follow up issue is the lack of reporting on records that are not broken. You throw Canada out now as it suits the cause.
How about these? Still standing after year on year compound of carbon emissions?


Your statement about Canada is dropped as evidence of warming. Using the same logic no record breaking means no warming? Or what is more likely, it's a freak weather event that happens when conditions line up perfectly.

AGW weather predictions are garbage. Hot will get hotter, expect for where it doesn't, wet will get wetter, except for where it doesn't, ect.... It's a binomial experiment and AGW Fanatics have bet on both outcomes.

In a chaotic system you can make probabilistic predictions with certainty but not predict specific outcomes

In physics this is heisenburgs uncertainty principle, you cannot increase your knowledge about the position of an object without reducing your knowledge about its velocity

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

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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.

What caused the Ridge

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Climate change?

I'd like to see evidence rather then speculation.
Lol

Billcarson wrote: »

Back in the 80s they said global temperatures would rise . Is that not what has happened?
They said the Arctic sea ice would shrink. Is that not what has happened?
They said heatwaves would become more common and Intense. Is that not what has happened.?
When it comes to Ireland and Britain for example they said winter cold spells would become less frequent. Is that not what has happened?
I always remember a scientist on the radio in the mid 80s saying that irish winters would be getting milder over the coming decades with less cold spells. Can't say he was wrong.

Seems to me the scientists haven't been all that wrong. Or perhaps they were just lucky with those predictions but it would want to be one hell of a coincidence.

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:

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:

Yes the 1970s or even into the early 80s there was talk about global cooling and the possibility of another ice age etc. I remember that talk when i was young kid. Well of course they got that wrong.

But there after their predictions were somewhat more accurate as regards where we are now.
Climate models and understanding of the climate improved.

Billcarson wrote: »

Yes the 1970s or even into the early 80s there was talk about global cooling and the possibility of another ice age etc. I remember that talk when i was young kid. Well of course they got that wrong.

But there after their predictions were somewhat more accurate as regards where we are now.
Climate models and understanding of the climate improved.

Look up the UHI affect

Birdnuts wrote: »

Look up the UHI affect

What effect would that have on sea ice for example???

Why can't you just admit their predictions weren't all that far off the mark?

Desperation.

Akrasia wrote: »

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

It wasn't a prediction of just rising temperatures, it was also accompanied with a plethora of the impact the increase would have, sure some of them mirrored some actual events.
You are aware of these inaccurate predictions, so I wont rehash them again.

Valid arguments on the disruptive direct impart of topographical and ecological change and their influence on sever events are by and large ignored. As recently as arson in Western USA, downplayed and ignored in reports and broadcasts in favour of global warming. Quantify the impact on global warming that would be a great start. Using the fire example again, is it predicted that AGW increased intensity by 2% or is it the accountable for 98%. It's complete misdirection on the topic.

Billcarson wrote: »

What effect would that have on sea ice for example???

Why can't you just admit their predictions weren't all that far off the mark?

Desperation.

So what's the standard for predictions?
When you say all, you mean 1 out of 10 is ok, or is it 1 out of 1,000?

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 claims about global cooling were never backed up by the science and there was never anything even close to a scientific consensus that the world could be in a long term cooling trend

Which you would know if you weren't so lazy and bothered to read up on the topic instead of spreading misinformation around the internet

'Heat dome'. How media soundbitey can you get. :rolleyes:

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?

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.

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.

From what I can see the current heatwave in SW Canada is simply due to an Omega-block centred right along the spine of the Rockies or just west of it. Going back two weeks and watching how the pattern evolved, a cut-off upper low west of California pumped some of the SW USA heat northwards, as evidenced by warming T850s. The pattern stagnated in its current position, meaning subsidence heating and persistence took over, cumulatively building heat day by day. The hottest area is at the same latitude as central Germany/Czech Republic/Ukraine/southern Russia/Kazakhstan, so not exactly at Arctic location.

It's now up to the alarmists to prove that the pattern evolution above would not have ever happened in the past (except it did, in the 1930s, give or take a few degrees).

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

From what I can see the current heatwave in SW Canada is simply due to an Omega-block centred right along the spine of the Rockies or just west of it. Going back two weeks and watching how the pattern evolved, a cut-off upper low west of California pumped some of the SW USA heat northwards, as evidenced by warming T850s. The pattern stagnated in its current position, meaning subsidence heating and persistence took over, cumulatively building heat day by day. The hottest area is at the same latitude as central Germany/Czech Republic/Ukraine/southern Russia/Kazakhstan, so not exactly at Arctic location.

It's now up to the alarmists to prove that the pattern evolution above would not have ever happened in the past (except it did, in the 1930s, give or take a few degrees).

The ‘give or take a few degrees’ part is what separates a natural event, versus one that would not have been as extreme
44c is still extreme don’t get me wrong but adding another 6c on top of that in BC in June is not on the menu without climate change

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

It’s interesting to say the least that senator joe man chin who is resistant to Biden climate plans is effectively a exon lap dog

Does Biden's 'climate plans' included not using high power fossil fuel war planes to bomb the crap of the (very oil - i.e, a fossil fuel - rich) Middle East by any chance?

No, thought not.

I have to ask though, is Banana being funded by 'green energy' or something? Given that he has little to say on actual climate, but much to tell us about the evils of fossil fuels?

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Are you funded by philistinism inc?

I'll ask you directly, are you being funded by big green energy? I am beginning to suspect that you are.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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.

You guys all miss out on the simple fact that there is much more energy in the system

A blocking event that happened 20 years ago, will be less destructive than the same omega block in 2021

even if everything else is equal.

We have just seen a village in Canada, BC, reach just short of 50c
That village has since burnt to the ground, in a wildfire

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57678054


How hot does it have to get before you agree it's time to act?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

And why would I click onto those garbage media links you posted?

What source do you get your 'rarely wrong' beliefs from?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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.

post it again
Or link to the post