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

You're still dodging the question. If you and others state that physical reason why heatwaves are becoming so intense now as is due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere then how is it that similar or higher temperatures still occurred when CO2 was much lower? That's the elephant in the room. Yes, records are there to be broken and always have been, but it amazes me that if what you say is true then why has nowhere in Europe, never mind just Greece, already beaten that record? We're not just talking about one station here.

The recent Turkish record of 49.1 °C was only 0.1 degrees above the previous record set in 1966, back when the climate was "ideal". Again, how was that level of heat possible in 1966 when CO2 was only 320 ppm?

I assuming you didn't listen to the podcast posted yesterday which stated that CO2 played only a very minor role in the NW American heatwave.

Speaking of which, you were one of the main voices claiming agw during the Texas cold spell this year, warning that severe blasts like these will become more frequent. Now you're saying the opposite just because the IPCC said so. Which is it?

Cliff was discussed over at realclimate and accused of not showing his work, ignoring trends and ‘Synoptic Myopia’ He joined in the comments below the main article

Didnt cover himself in glory

anyway, people can say anything in blogs and podcasts, in order to do science they should write a paper and submit it for peer review

papers like this one https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01092-9 that predicted the kind of heatwave that was seen in June in the Pacific North West

I am not without uncertainty when it comes to climate change, but the overwhelming balance of probability is that we face a crisis and have difficult choices to make

bertrand Russel was talking about uninformed people thinking they know everything while experts know enough to know the limits of their knowledge. The IPCC review the totality of evidence and they know what is unequivocal and what needs more research

So why don't the IPCC use the term 5-sigma if you're saying that's the level of their confidence, or is that what you're saying? It's a significant claim to make.

I’m not saying the IPCC are at 5 sigma. This is a pointless offshoot of a stupid argument claiming the scientists are using get out of jail free ‘weasel words’ like ‘could’. I was making the point that this is the language of science.

categorical assertion is a big no no in science which is why the word unequivocal was used instead of certain

The 1980s? I mentioned the '70s and '60s. Why say the '80s?

You're again basing all your points on probabilities and not on the physical processes at play in each event. You have admitted that you're now gone beyond even waiting for attributions studies on individual events, it's all agw-related. Then you state that the extremes that are widely being reported as only possible due to the extra CO2 are actually still possible without it, which is my point exactly. There are still many longstanding records, allegedly impossible virtually certain to be only possible with today's CO2, still out there today. The European one is one of them. That's a sizeable area of the globe and since 2003 we've been told to expect the record to tumble/shatter any year now. Even that summer didn't top the record, nor has this summer nor any in between. You're still unable to say what mechanism caused the record to be set back in the '70s but yet claim that if that happens today it will not be due to those same conditions but will instead be only due to CO2.

Interesting article from all the way back in 2008:

"What made the acid rain myth finally evaporate?

Thu, Mar 6, 2008, 00:00

DR WILLIAM REVILLE UNDER THE MICROSCOPEWhatever happened to acid rain? Back in the 1970s and 1980s it was killing our forests, acidifying lakes so they could no longer support life, and leaching metals out of soil into waterways where they could attack human health. Feelings ran high.

In 1993, John Gummer, UK secretary for the environment was called a drittsekk ("sack of ****") by Thorbjorn Bernsten, Gummer's Norwegian counterpart, for failing to take air pollution seriously.

Nowadays we don't hear of acid rain. Have we solved the problem, and how big was it anyway? The answer to the first question seems to be a qualified yes, and to the second - not very big.

Acid rain was mainly caused by emissions of sulphur dioxide to the atmosphere from coal-fired power stations, and by emissions of oxides of nitrogen from various sources. These gases, combined with water in the atmosphere to form sulphuric and nitric acids. The acids fell to earth as acid rain and studies purported to show acid rain damaged trees, polluted streams, lakes and rivers and damaged wildlife and buildings. It was estimated that 4,000 lakes in Sweden were acidified to the extent that no fish could survive and thousands of lakes in America were likewise "killed". In the UK, acid rain was blamed for destroying toads and for eroding the structure of important buildings.

Acid rain was dealt with in the 1980s and 1990s. By switching from coal to gas and installing "scrubbers" to clean up power station and factory emissions, huge reductions were made in acid rain pollution in Europe. Catalytic convertors on car exhausts reduced nitrogen oxide emissions. The US Clean Air Act Amendments, designed in part to control sulphur dioxide emissions, were passed in 1990.

Emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are now under control in Europe and America generally, but emissions from shipping still cause acid rain in coastal areas. Some experts warn that increasing acidity of the oceans could destroy all coral by 2065. Also, acid rain persists in China, which now burns half of all coal burned in the world annually.

How dangerous was acid rain? The most comprehensive study was commissioned in 1980 by US president Jimmy Carter. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Programme (NAPAP) examined the damage caused by acid rain and recommended solutions. In 1982 president Ronald Regan raised the annual budget for NAPAP to $100 million. The final cost of NAPAP, the most costly environmental study in US history, was $537 million.

The situation turned out to be much more complex than had been predicted. The acidity of a lake is determined as much by the acidity of the local soil and vegetation as it is by acid rain. Many lakes in north-eastern America, dead in the 1980s, had plenty of fish in 1900. It was surmised by environmentalists that 20th-century sulphur dioxide emissions had choked these lakes to death with acid rain. But the NAPAP showed many of these lakes were acidic and fishless even before European settlement in America. Fish survived better in these lakes around 1900 because of extensive slash and burn logging in the area. The soil became more alkaline as the acid vegetation was removed, reducing the acid flowing into the lakes and making the water hospitable to fish. Logging stopped in 1915, acid soils and vegetation returned and the lakes became acidic again. The study also found that in many cases forests were suffering debilitation due to insects or drought and not acid rain.

The NAPAP reported in 1990. The findings were explosive: first, acid rain had not injured forests or crops in US or Canada; second, acid rain had no observable effect on human health; third, only a small number of lakes had been acidified by acid rain and these could be rehabilitated by adding lime to the water. In summary, acid rain was a nuisance, not a catastrophe.

The findings of NAPAP were not welcomed by the powers-that-be, many of whom had staked their reputations on the impending Clean Air Act which would call for drastic reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions. The NAPAP was ignored.

Acid rain was succeeded by the "hole in the ozone layer" as the next environmental worry, which in turn was pushed off the stage by global warming. Oops, I forgot! Just before global warming we briefly worried about global cooling, causing drought, famine, frozen oceans etc, fears triggered by a small dip in average northern hemisphere temperatures from 1940 to mid-1970s. As the fella said - "You'd have to wonder".

What made the acid rain myth finally evaporate? (irishtimes.com)

Will be a new European record as well if its verified.

The main one was literally just doing his usual cherrypicking spiel asking about European records being set on the previous page, not even 24 hours later:

Easy now. Wait till it’s confirmed.

There is also levels of scepticism, as with anything. Some who believe there is no warming at all, some who question the cause and level of rising, others who don’t agree with planned measures ect…

Much the same way AGW has its own levels of of beliefs.

Everyone in this thread produces more carbon per person than the vast majority of S.America, Asia and Africa. But hey, believing offsets your carbon I guess. 20,000 more Facebook likes to save the planet 😂😂😂

Where’s my 500 euros

(Edit: not asking you Tyrone btw, but i was sneered at for suggesting these records are tumbling and are on borrowed ground a few days ago)

He absolutely wasn't. There is a universe of difference between 'expertise' and actual wisdom... which Russel clearly is making reference too.

If it’s such a universe of a difference then please explain to me what ‘actual wisdom’ is

please don’t refer to fruit salad in your answer

how does one become ‘actually wise’ rather than an expert?

you didn’t define your terms when asked to do so. That is a failure in philosophy 101, I know what Russell meant. Russell is on my side of this argument. Russell was a true skeptic. You never examine the evidence. If Russell was shown concrete evidence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter he would accept it.

Stick to science, that is where your talent lies.

And I examine all evidence.. I look at data, I can read data and I can manipulate data... same as you.