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

Thanks!

The data is so broken and inconsistent though that it is near impossible to work out a useful long term tend, and only going out as far as the end of 2018 is a bit annoying, but I'll have a fiddle around with it later.

Yeah, it's annoying that it's not the complete dataset, but the GHCN-D doesn't have that station data at all. It's still clear that the trend is flat, though maybe we could make up some readings the way Banana Republic did. I'd say we'd have Akrasia, Tryone and Thargor down on us like a tonne of bricks, yet it's notable how not one of them has the balls to pull him up on his fabricated nonsense.

It proves my point, which is why I used it. It’s not alarmist if it’s a genuine threat.

if I stub my toe and a doctor says it’s terminal, that’s alarmist. If I have terminal cancer and a doctor says it’s terminal….

Climate change, at 2c is a genuine threat to civilization, but low probability. At 3c it’s a higher risk, at 4c it’s much higher.

these are existential threats not just because of that level of warming, but because of the rapidly escalating risk of tipping points leading to runaway warming

Allowing 2c of warming could create the conditions where 6c+ becomes inevitable

This is all rather pointless given the highly fractured data from 'Camp Summit', but a chart showing the difference between the 2016-2018 daily average compared to the non-existent 92-15 daily mean.

Ups and downs and much noise, but overall, the 3 year 2016-2018 annual mean runs almost 1.0c above that of its very broken 92-15 counterpart.

Other points: the .25th percentile of the latter 3 year mean has risen 2.1c, indicating less severe cold spells in this period, but the .75th percentile showed a 0.4c drop, suggesting that very warm spells did not increase in number (in this period at least)

Again, take with a huge pinch. This data set is very fractured to the point of being completely useless, which makes me ask, why did they even bother collecting such data if this was the result?

Edit, data file that I used attached.

Climate science has really done a disservice to the term science.

Consensus is not science. Yet it’s often referred to as irrefutable fact. As seen here in this thread often. Science does not work on consensus.

Also not sure why anyone is continuing to engage with Banana Republic.

And here we have a genius literally denying that science is science

‘Consensus is not science’

WTF are you talking about

go back to the flat earth society where you belong

"You constantly calling me an alarmist for pointing this out, makes you a climate change denier"

Does it? or is this just another example of false dichotomy? (as regularly practiced by vampire politicians and their lackeys in the press)

So you really believe that civilisation could end due to 4 or 5 degrees of warming? Jesus, what a life of fear you must lead.

Crying wolf?

" From 2000 to 2019, there were 7,348 major natural disasters around the world, killing 1.23 million people and resulting in $2.97 trillion in global economic losses.

By comparison, the previous 20-year period, 1980-1999, had 4,212 natural disasters, claiming 1.19 million lives and causing $1.63 trillion in economic losses."

Massive increase in the frequency and severity of natural disasters, as predicted. and the rate of change is accelerating

https://www.undrr.org/media/48008/download

"We are twenty years into this new century, and disaster risk is taking on new shapes and sizes with every passing year. Disasters have never waited their turn, and increasingly risk is interconnected. Risk drivers and consequences are multiplying and cascading, colliding in unanticipated ways. We must have a commensurate systemic response with national and local strategies for disaster risk reduction fit for purpose. Political commitment, strategies and scenario planning have never been more important for disaster risk management. While this report focuses primarily on the staggering rise in climate-related disasters over the last twenty years, it is also a commentary on the need to strengthen disaster risk governance for the entire range of natural hazards and man-made hazards including related environmental, technological and biological hazards and risks. In the short-term, disaster management agencies have succeeded in saving many lives through improved preparedness and the dedication of staff and volunteers. But the odds continue to be stacked against them in particular by industrial nations that are failing miserably on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to levels commensurate with the desired goal of keeping global warming at 1.5˚C as set out in the Paris Agreement. At the same time, almost all nations failed to prepare appropriately to prevent the wave of death and illness unleashed across the globe by the COVID-19 pandemic despite many urgings to do so from a plethora of experts including WHO, UNDRR and others. It is baffling that we willingly and knowingly continue to sow the seeds of our own destruction, despite the science and evidence that we are turning our only home into an uninhabitable hell for millions of people"

From the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

What do you actually believe though? Do you think a relatively sudden large rise in temperature and associated rainfall and heatwaves will be benign?

And the rapid pace of change doesn't trouble you? Or the impact on people? Or the fact that we could probably act to improve the potential outcomes?

Weather has affected people every day since Day 0 but nobody cared about that until the CO2 bandwagon came along and it became profitable to care (just look at the keywords the Guardian put on their articles to see what their actual motive is. It's not care for people, that's for sure).

We should definitely be getting off fossil fuels and moving to renewables. We should have done so long ago but the will was not there. Fossil is a finite resource that pollutes, regardless of what it does to temperatures. Nuclear, solar, wind, waves, tidal... There is zero actual reason why we can't be using a combination for these to satisfy our energy needs. Well, one reason, reliance on the ease of fossil.

I will certainly be moving to an EV and installing solar panels in the near future, when it becomes financially feasible.

I can agree with your second paragraph but find the first one odd. I don't really care about apportioning the share of the blame for any given weather event to climate change since I think it just leads to pedantic squabbles. If we are fundamentally changing the climate of our planet that seems like something we should care about though.

you’re wrong. Consensus is not defined as ‘opinion’ it is defined as ‘agreement’

the scientific consensus is not scientists believing the same things, it is research that reaches the same conclusions because that is what the data supports. This was demonstrated in multiple studies that looked at all research in the Peer reviewed literature and whether the conclusions weee skeptical or supportive of the ‘AGW’ hypothesis

scientific findings are not the same as personal opinion.

the consensus amongst ‘flat earthers’ is agreement that their conspiracy theories are correct, and that these mouth breathers know more than everybody else. The ‘consensus’ amongst climate change ‘skeptics’ or anti alarmists is based on an opinion that these people know better than the published scientific research because of ‘reasons’

not much of a difference to flat earthers IMO

On the other hand you have Gaoth Laidir expressions his opinion that everything will be grand, without backing it up with anything.

‘just asking questions’ is the refuge of the scoundrel when no matter what the answers to those questions are, the goalposts just keep on moving

i referred to a deluge in Tennessee that shattered previous rainfall totals for the region. The response was essentially ‘ this is normal until you can prove otherwise’

It would be laughable if it was not so serious

We're down to that word shatter again. The previous record was 13", this was 17". It's not wildely different to someone on the ground, 13" is already catastrophic.

Tennessee state is less than half the size of Ireland so in the greater scheme of things breaking its record is not the national big deal it's being made out to be. Such falls will have occurred in other parts of the country so internal political borders are really irrelevant.

The onus of proof is on he who claims out of the ordinary, not the other way around.