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

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

Options
17879818384

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,044 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    The current climate change catastrophe is just better access to news. Floods and droughts and all happened in the past and will happen in the future. There is no notable increase of anything other than sensationalist hype of climate fear p0rn.



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




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Things are bad in Pakastan though:

    Over a thousand people dead with some estimates claiming that between a third and half of the entire country are under water.

    New Moon



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


    Before we pumped the additional carbon into the air, there was sparse weather events. Rain was soft and welcoming, droughts were but a gentle warm breeze, sub zero blizzards we’re refreshing. they also happened every 1000years. Life evolved to be so fragile that it self terminates if average temps raise by .1c in regions that can have 40c seasonal fluctuations.


    Now there is no more natural weather events. 32c is .5c warmer than it was in 1880. 60knot winds are faster than 60knot winds in 1880. 100mm of rain is 10% larger than 100mm of rain in 1880. More likely is more likely than more likely was in 1880.


    I’m doing my bit by keeping my fridge door open!!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,461 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    The general template seems to be "we warned you that (thing that just happened) was going to happen more often."

    Of course the fact that it just happened does not really illustrate that it will happen more frequently. This is sort of like the guy at the blackjack table who says "I just knew the dealer was going to hit 5 and make 21." So if you're at that table, do you hit your 16 against the dealer's 15?

    (I know, card counting, but casinos nowadays negate that with six-deck shuffling machines)

    I continue to think that the only way to test the "more extremes" hypothesis is to test every past event against every future event. For example, will there be a Galveston 1900 hurricane between now and 2144? Yes means more extreme, no means less extreme. Will there be another 1936 heat wave between now and 2108? Etc etc. Any other "test" (like we told you this would happen) is meaningless in this context. High impact extremes that are like past cases, sorry to say, are no proof of anything other than that we live on a planet prone to meteorological extremes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    It's ok, did he not see the current mass balance, which has been tracking well above the long-term average?

    Surface Conditions: Polar Portal




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




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    Umm, no they don't the blue line is the current year and the brown line is 2021-2022 season - the vast majority of the brown line is in mass gain and even during the normal melt period it tracked above the normal line meaning less than normal ice loss.

    How is it, the vast, vast majority of the articles brought to these forums by folks who sincerely believe what articles they are linking to - can be easily shown for the hype that these articles really are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    What Danno said. Follow the brown line in the bottom graph.



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


    the hype about ice free North Pole has really vanished. Most of the weather predictions from the extremists come after an extreme weather event, extrapolating “what’s next”.

    Predictions hold very little accountability, they can be made en masse. Couple that with closed discourse on climate science and the negative social stigma manufactured against anyone who questions said predictions.

    Any display of not supporting the climate narrative sees you labelled a flat earther, trump loving, Ukraine invading, oil gussling Jesus freak.



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




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Beware of anyone who uses these retorts to dismiss any argument thrown at them. They are not autonomous thinking people. They have no internal dialouge. These are people who are told how to think and are told what to say, and all without the slightest comprehension of what they are actually talking about.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402


    " These are people who are told how to think and are told what to say, and all without the slightest comprehension of what they are actually talking about."

    The entire basis of empirical modelling is founded on the insistence that people need time, space and motion defined for them-

    " Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common." Isaac Newton

    If you want your head in the clouds and be part of an encompassing subculture then that is how you do it. Telling people they can't comprehend time, space and motion by going on a misadventure with timekeeping and solar system research. Being put at a disadvantage by bluffing lacks integrity, yet at all points, that junk is taken as authority and integrity.

    I don't want to particularly dismantle the whole contrived framework although it leads to other symptoms such as climate change modelling, it is much better to restore timekeeping (day/year) derived from cyclical dynamics (rotation/orbital circuit) so as to begin research into the relationship between dynamics and the Earth sciences of climate, biology and geology.

    I wouldn't even bother with the silly attempt to diminish human understanding of time, space and motion unless people truly want to insult themselves and their ability to perceive these most valuable things. If others want to understand what Newton tried to do then just ask.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Why would you use the Surface mass balance? That specifically excludes calving and ice lost through contact with water.

    The actual mass lost in Greenland is here

    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Do you have an up to date version of that with the past five years?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    This is a previous graph I had showing the response of Greenland discharge per year to the change in the AMO.

    This paper also shows a strong correlation with the AMO and Greenland Blocking Index.

    The influence of North Atlantic atmospheric and oceanic forcing effects on 1900–2010 Greenland summer climate and ice melt/runoff - Hanna - 2013 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

    Correlation analysis of Greenland coastal weather station temperatures against the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) indices for the summer season (when Ice Sheet melt and runoff occur) reveals significant temporal variations over the last 100 years, with periods of strongest correlations in the early twentieth century and during recent decades. During the mid-twentieth century, temperature changes at the stations are not significantly correlated with these circulation indices. Greenland coastal summer temperatures and Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) runoff since the 1970s are more strongly correlated with the Greenland Blocking Index (GBI) than with the NAO Index (NAOI), making the GBI a potentially useful predictor of ice-sheet mass balance changes. Our results show that the changing strength of NAOI–temperature relationships found in boreal winter also extends to summer over Greenland. Greenland temperatures and GrIS runoff over the last 30–40 years are significantly correlated with AMO variations, although they are more strongly correlated with GBI changes. GrIS melt extent is less significantly correlated with atmospheric and oceanic index changes than runoff, which we attribute to the latter being a more quantitative index of Ice Sheet response to climate change. Moreover, the four recent warm summers of 2007–2010 are characterised by unprecedented high pressure (since at least 1948—the start of the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis record) in the tropospheric column. Our results suggest complex and changing atmospheric forcing conditions that are not well captured using the NAO alone, and support theories of an oceanic influence on the recent increases in Greenland temperatures and GrIS runoff.




  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I used the same source you used and this is the latest version on that site. The trend is pretty clear though

    Why did you choose the surface mass balance?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    a) because there isn't an up to date version of your graph and

    b) SMB above average offsets some calving losses.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    A), well there is, NASA have more recent GRACE data. It shows an acceleration of the ice mass loss over the past 5 years

    B) I think you chose that graph because you think it makes it look like Greenland ice loss is exaggerated. And I think the people who thanked your post were under that impression too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 408 ✭✭Orion402


    Maybe enough readers will recognise a Punch and Judy show that is climate change modelling (whether proponents or opponents) while children and older people will suffer this winter because of poor energy policies that emerged from that academic indulgence.

    The lengths that people will go to protect the late 17th century subculture which generates modelling monstrosities like climate change is beyond doubt even when visual affirmations dismantle and demolish the contrived notions based on a misadventure with timekeeping and distortions of the antecedent observations of genuine solar system researchers.

    All that jargon of absolute/relative time, space and motion was an attempt to reduce observations to an experimental level and misusing a clock to create the 'clockwork solar system' and the so-called scientific method. It has left Western intellectual society in ruins, for instance, who in their right mind could go along with the NASA explanation for the seasons?-




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    An acceleration over the past 5 years? How do you make that out? The only data source I can find on that site is a screenshot of the video graph. But here's the 2021 annual report too, and in both I fail to see any acceleration in the past five years, only a continuation of the previous trend, but maybe I'm just blind.

    Greenland ice sheet total mass change for 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021 was -85 ± 16 Gt, 179 Gt less than the 2002-21 average of -264 ± 12 Gt yr-1.






  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    More climate propaganda from RTÉ on Morning Ireland this morning (podcase below), claiming that the drought in the Horn of Africa is all attributed to climate change.

    Four failed rainy seasons have resulted in the worst drought in forty years, and that's all attributed to climate change.

    This level of blatant unchallenged misinformation has become par for the course now. Any climate scientist worth their salt would pull them up on this and highlight that La Nina with a negative Indian Ocean Dipole has always been known as the No. 1 driver of droughts in that region, with major droughts (1973-74, 1984, 2011, now 2022) all coinciding with this 100% natural phenomenon. Of course, Sweeney, Thorne, etc., wouldn't dare upset the apple cart with such factual reasoning, but are quick to get on air when we get e.g. a regular winter storm.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/27/21/jcli-d-13-00459.1.xml

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971935291X?via%3Dihub#b0335

    The main driving factors for the increased occurrence of drought in the GHA are natural climate variability and anthropogenic influences (Dinku et al., 2011, Funk et al., 2015, IPCC, 2013, Trenberth et al., 2014). The climate system over the GHA is inherently variable with complex topographies ranging from arid lowlands to wetter highlands and coastal areas (Dinku et al., 2011, Funk et al., 2015, Schreck and Semazzi, 2004). The major climatic factor influencing droughts is the seasonal dynamics of tropical circulations expressed as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (Ogallo et al., 2008). The influence of El Niño (the warm phase) and La Niña (the cold phase) of the El Niño Southern Oscillation shows an increased climate variability in the GHA.

    ...

    Beyond climate variabilities, anthropogenic factors such as deforestation, land-use changes, land degradation, and excessive use and poor management of natural resources have contributed to the occurrence and intensity of drought in the GHA (IPCC, 2013, Lyon, 2014, Trenberth et al., 2014). Therefore, the interacting impacts of climate and human activities on the environment have made drought more frequent, longer, and more intense in the GHA




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    On the Greenland Ice Sheet mass-loss and the zoomed-in graphs that show hundreds of GT loss per year, the graph below is what the actual effect is on the total mass. The GIS has a total volume of around 2.85 million km^3, which is around 2.61 million GT of ice. With an average loss of 280 GT/yr since 2002, the total loss up to 2021 is around 0.2% of the total mass, or around 0.01% per year.




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    You've just proved my point even more. To write a piece like that and not mention La Nina is pure criminal from a scientific point of view. It just shows that these idiots writing this propaganda either don't really have a clue what they're talking about or are deliberately omitting it from the discussion. Either way, it's nonsense.



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


    You must not have read the article, as per usual. sigh🙄



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Yes I did. They made no reference to any influence of La Nina. Completely ignored it. But in case I'm blind, please quote the bit where they did. I'm sure you'll ignore this, as per usual, sigh 🙄



Advertisement