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
1505153555684

Comments

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


    Perhaps in this thread what needs to be done and what should have been done is to start with areas of agreement.

    Some instances where I have seen common agreement.

    • Current human activities are not sustainable
    • Pollutants are negatively impacting ecosystems
    • Ecosystems are being directly destroyed through farming , mining, developments etc.
    • A move away from fossil fuels is welcomed by all

    All of these lean in favour of AGW. What of other areas to agree

    • Hyperbolic publications and conversations are left unchecked.
    • We still lack fundamental understanding of our atmosphere, oceans, climate and their cycles
    • Not enough of the globe is measured at a ground level
    • 1 in X years is not an ideal scientific measure
    • Discerning between level of naturalness and non natural is still ambiguous.


    Are we agreed that no credible scientific journal or community is saying Climate Change is civilisation ending or threatening the human species.


    We can also agree that satellites are not as accurate as manned or automated stations?


    From a pro AGW standpoint, where if any can there be a conscious assessment of the failings within the predictions?



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


    I agree with all your points that you agree we agree on

    (yes I know)

    I think we need to focus on solutions and number 1 on the agenda is to strip away all tax incentives and subsidies that in any way encourage fossil fuels as a form of energy

    if we can do this one thing it will go a long way towards an organic transition to sustainable energy (which should remain subsidized in the short term until it reaches economies of scale

    The second thing I would do is invest heavily in Bev charging infrastructure. Should be cheap as chips on the greater scheme of things byr needs to be done

    the third thing I would do is provide grants to households to move to heat pumps. This is expensive upfront but way more efficient long term, exactly what the state should invest in

    the 4th thing I would do is to require all new buildings are passive standard. We have the technology to do this

    the 5th thing I would do is massively incentivize rewilding. Literally paying landowners to do nothing with their land but let it grow wild. This will improve biodiversity and soak up carbon in the process

    All the other stuff I said in my previous post still apply. Force manufacturing to be sustainable and recyclable and end the likes of the single use rubbish that has been ubiquitous and Is destroying our planet

    I’m more than happy to hear your (and others) suggestions and would happily revise my list if your suggestions were better than mine



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


    I don't think a "first world" lifestyle is possible without carbon or reaching carbon neutrality. Hydro carbons are more ingrained in out lifestyle than many folks realise. it's not just energy and transport. Which most in here know. I do feel the average Joe is not aware of that.


    Your 5th suggestion is the easiest of the lot, and very attractive when done correctly. I would expand on this and remove VAT on all indigenous plants sold in the country.

    There is no historic event to suggest that our government could manage any change well, let alone have a it completed globally. I'd like to see a move to nuclear and have the country self sufficient in energy production.


    I will say that folks who say there is no problem at all and folks who say civilization will end are both extremists.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,709 ✭✭✭Birdnuts




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


    Hydrocarbons used for making plastics and fertiliser and other things is not a major cause of climate change, but in general, there are alternative technologies for most of the things we use Oil for, the problem is that Oil is so cheap (and subsidised) that it is not economically viable to use the eco friendly versions


    Yes we will all need to make some sacrifices, but nothing that we cannot adapt to and be perfectly content with in a sustainable economy.

    People who say civilisation will end are extremists

    People who say civilisation 'could' end if we don't address the problem are in line with the science



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


    I'm glad for the people who live near the Sahel. I sincerely hope that things work out for them

    I would worry that the greenierness might not be providing enough evapo-transpiration to cool the region down and protect the people from the increased frequency of deadly heatwaves

    Unfortunately water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so if the changes cause increased humidity it could increase the intensity of future heatwaves in the region and furthermore, increased humidity makes heatwaves deadlier.

    All of the above is just to highlight how focusing on a single factor doesn't give you a full picture. Studies are required to assess the likely impact of climate change on these regions.



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


    So wait, the other day you were going on about southern Europe and how desertification is bad because less vegetation means hotter and drier ground and hence hotter heatwaves. But now greener conditions also mean hotter heatwaves because of increased water vapour (heat index)? Make up your mind.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,667 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    A "climate-change-enhanced hurricane" no less.



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


    Because without climate-change, New Orleans would never get hurricanes.



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


    Disappointed that Ida didn't offer any record-breaking opportunity for hyperbole they resort to some stock general articles from the archives. Never let a clickbait opportunity go to waste.



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


    Why did you pose your declaration as a question? Please don't tell me you are one of those low IQ 'uptalkers'


    New Moon



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


    I had a quick skim down through his timeline and like most Neolibs (psuedo-liberals) he views those who don't conform fully to his idea of the world as 'bad people'.


    New Moon



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


    Ida left 1million without power. That’s the biggest news. We’ll ~950million live without access to electricity everyday.

    Negative effects of global warming, if any at all pale in comparison to current issues.



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


    I said it is complex and needs to be studied. Places like southern Europe are already hot and dry, and getting hotter and drier. Places like the Sahel, may get 'greener' in some parts, but different kinds of heat bring different problems. The problem is the global average temperature is going up leading to extremes of heat. All it takes is a WB temperature of 35c to be fatal to humans and most mammals that live above ground.

    I don't know much about the Sahel region, but the Moroccan Max daily temperature is 49c, if the region is greening, this suggests a change in their rainfall and or humidity, which could lead to a scenario where the WB temperatures to exceed safe levels for humans

    The Persian gulf for example, often have RH of between 70% and 90% and high daily temperatures,

    At 90% RH, if the air temperature reaches 36.5c, it's in extremely deadly heatwave territory, even healthy young people will die within hours if exposed to this level of heat.

    Changing rainfall patterns may bring some benefits but with climate change, there are also risks of catestrophic events that the local populations are not prepared for

    At 50c air temperature, RH needs only to reach 35% to become deadly

    And of course, this 35c WBGT is the un-survivable level for fit healthy people sheltering from the heat. At temperatures and conditions lower than this, people will die if they are working outdoors or have other underlying conditions

    And if you think you're safe because you live in air conditioned buildings, the grid is placed under extreme pressure during temperature spikes and some generation facilities are unable to operate at these temperatures (including nuclear BTW)

    Nuclear plants facing closure as heatwave grips Europe - Independent.ie

    The IPCC warns strongly of these risks and that these heatwaves will become many times more common, leading to geometrically more opportunities for the convergence of unlikely events that are the progenitors of extreme weather events

    All of the scientists worth listening to agree that we're getting into a very dangerous climate regime. not one sensible climate scientists advocates a wait and hope for the best approach, or 'it's not certain yet so lets' just continue as normal and see what happens.

    The IPCC 'Code Red For Humanity' is about as clear a warning as it is possible to give. What more do you people need?



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


    It also flooded New York causing recordbeaking rain resulting in unprecedented flash flooding, dropping 3.15 inches of rain in one hour, beating the previous record of 1.9 inches in an hour, set only 1 week before....

    and destroyed billions of Dollars worth of infrastructure and breached Levees that were supposedly re-enforced following Katrina...

    But yeah. Ida was just another every day storm.

    All of these records being shattered all around the world. Records lasting only weeks or months before being shattered again.



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


    One of the resident geniuses on this thread who do not know what the word 'enhanced' means



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


    How was it enhanced? Any data to prove it, apart from a probability?



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


    Just some info from the top guys at the NHC. It also applies to such things as detecting rapid intensification and indeed maximum intensities.

    Was 2020 a Record-Breaking Hurricane Season? Yes, But. . . « Inside the Eye

    Take Aways

    The answers and conclusions to “Was 2020 a Record-Breaking Hurricane Season? Yes, but…”:

    Doubling in the number of named storms over a century is very likely due to technology change, not natural or man-made climate change;

    2020 set a record for number of named storms, but given the limitations in our records it is possible that other years (such as 1887) were just as active for long-lived named storms; and

    The boost in average or “normal” conditions from 12 to 14 named storms is due to a combination of a busy era that began in 1995 as well as the ability of the National Hurricane Center to observe and accurately diagnose more weak, short-lived named storms than had been done previously, mostly due to technology advancements.

    Some key sections:

    For overall monitoring of tropical storm and hurricane activity, tropical meteorologists prefer a metric that combines how strong the peak winds reached in a tropical cyclone, and how long they lasted – called Accumulated Cyclone Energy or ACE[2].  By this measure, 2020 was extremely busy, but not even close to record breaking. In fact, with a total ACE of 180 units, 2020 was only the 13th busiest season on record since 1878 with seasons like 1893, 1933, 1950, and 2005 substantially more active than 2020. One can also see that while there is a long-term increase in recorded ACE since the late 1800s, it’s quite a bit less dramatic than the increase seen with named storms. There also is a pronounced busier/quieter multi-decadal (40- to 60-year) cycle with active conditions in the 1870s to 1890s, late 1920s to 1960s, and again from the mid-1990s onward. Conversely, quiet conditions occurred in the 1900s to early 1920s and 1970s to early 1990s.


    So why would the record for named storms be broken in 2020, while the overall activity as measured by ACE is not even be close to setting a record?                              

    The answer is very likely technology change, rather than climate change.  

    Such technology, though, was not available back at the advent of the U.S. Signal Service’s tropical monitoring in the 1870s. Without these sophisticated tools, meteorologists in earlier times not only had difficulty in forecasting tropical cyclones, but they also struggled in even knowing if a system existed over the open ocean. In the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the only resource hurricane forecasters could use to monitor tropical cyclones were weather station observations provided via telegraph. Such an approach is problematic for observing – much less forecasting – tropical cyclones that develop and spend most of their lifecycle over the open ocean. Here’s a timeline of critical technologies that have dramatically improved tropical meteorologists’ ability to “see” and monitor tropical cyclones:

    The upshot of all of these advances in the last century is much better identification of the existence of tropical cyclones and their strongest winds (or what meteorologists call “Intensity”). So, the further one goes back in time, the more tropical cyclones (and portions of their life cycle) were missed, even for systems that may have been a major hurricane. 

     HURDAT2 – our Atlantic hurricane database – is an extremely helpful record which is a “by-product” of NHC’s forecasting operations, but it is very deficient for determining real long-term trends.

    In research that the lead author had investigated (Chris Landsea and company in 2010’s Journal of Climate), we discovered that weak, short-lived (lasting less than or equal to two days) named storms – aka “Shorties” – had shown a dramatic increase in occurrence over time. There were only about one a year in HURDAT2 up until the 1920s, about 3 per year from the 1930s to the 1990s, and jumping up to around 5 per year since 2000.

    Of the 30 named storms in 2020, seven were Shorties and a few more were just longer than two days in duration. Of these seven Shorties, four are very unlikely to have been “named” before around 2000: Dolly, Edouard, Omar, and Alpha. These and other weak, short-lived systems since 2000 have been observed and recognized as tropical storms due to new tools available to forecasters including scatterometersAdvanced Microwave Sounding Units, the Advanced Dvorak Technique, and the Cyclone Phase Space diagrams


    The resulting final time series shows tremendous variability, with highest values of 23 in 2020 and 20 in 1887 and 2005, and lowest values of 2 in 1914, and 3 in 1925, 1982, and 1994. Overall, there remains a modest upward trend in the database over the entire time series superimposed with quasi-cyclic variations seen in the ACE data as was discussed earlier: higher activity in the late 1800s, mid-1900s, and from the mid-1990s onward, but lower activity in the early 1900s, and in the 1970s to early 1990s. These cycles of higher and lower activity have been linked to a natural phenomenon called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (see paper by Stan Goldenberg, Chris Landsea, and colleagues in 2001’s Science). Recent controversial research, however, is calling into question whether the AMO actually exists (see paper by Michael Mann and company in 2021’s Science). Regardless of the validity of the AMO, the bottom line is that the doubling in the number of named storms over a century is very likely due to technology change, not natural or man-made climate change.





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


    What's Morocco got to do with the Sahel?

    You're missing the basic physics of maximum temperatures. The hottest temperatures occur with hot, dry and vegetation-free ground (i.e. desert) or with very localised topographical effects, such as in Canada this year. In general, with vegetation cover, maxima are several degrees lower. With lower temperatures come lower dewpoints and hence wbt. You can't have it both ways.

    At 50c air temperature, RH needs only to reach 35% to become deadly

    "Only". That requires a dewpoint of 30. Air with already higher dewpoint is harder to heat up to critical levels. 50 °C with a dewpoint of 30 °C is not physically possible in 99.9% of locations in the world.

    So again, desertification is bad, but so is the alternative. It seems nothing any of "us people" state will do anything to curb you ott and irrational fear.



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


    I've already posted this paper before, but WB 35c has already been seen locally and is happening more often now than the models predicted would occur by 2050

    "Climate models project the first 35°C TW occurrences by the mid-21st century. However, a comprehensive evaluation of weather station data shows that some coastal subtropical locations have already reported a TW of 35°C and that extreme humid heat overall has more than doubled in frequency since 1979. Recent exceedances of 35°C in global maximum sea surface temperature provide further support for the validity of these dangerously high TW values. We find the most extreme humid heat is highly localized in both space and time and is correspondingly substantially underestimated in reanalysis products. Our findings thus underscore the serious challenge posed by humid heat that is more intense than previously reported and increasingly severe."

    You underestimate how much energy we're adding to the oceans and the air. As the SSTs get hotter, the risks of WB35c events get higher too, along with the other impacts such as more powerful TCs and devastating rainfall events.



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


    Bad flooding in New York overnight, but despite what I just listened to on RTÉ radio earlier, the rainfall was not of record proportions. A max of 8.92" in New York and 9.91" in New Jersey.

    NEW YORK...
    STATEN ISLAND                        8.92                    
    BROOKLYN                             7.76                    
    MIDTOWN MANHATTAN                    7.49                    
    FORDHAM                              7.38                    
    NEW YORK CITY, CENTRAL PARK          7.19                    
    FLUSHING                             6.90                    
    NEW YORK, LA GUARDIA AIRPORT         6.89                    
    HARLEM                               6.00                    
    MONTGOMERY, ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT    5.24                    
    WHITE PLAINS                         4.28                    
    HARTFORD, HARTFORD-BRAINARD AIRPORT  2.73                    
    ALBANY INTL AIRPORT                  1.06                    
    ISLIP, LONG ISLAND MAC ARTHUR APT    0.81 
    
    NEW JERSEY...
    RINGOES                              9.91                    
    CARTERET                             9.31                    
    HOPEWELL TWP. 2.4 NW                 9.13                    
    WARREN TWP 1.3 W                     8.94                    
    HARRISON                             8.61                    
    WALDWICK                             8.59                    
    NEWARK                               8.44                    
    PASSAIC                              8.43                    
    NEWARK INTL AIRPORT                  7.81                    
    LINDEN                               6.72                    
    BRIDGEWATER 3 NNW                    6.58                    
    WHITEHOUSE STATION                   6.42                    
    TRENTON, MERCER COUNTY AIRPORT       5.41 
    
    
    

    Below are the storm record storm totals from the period 1900-2020 for the New York/Newark area (source). Again, the worst were back in the good ole days of ideal climate.

    The state records are 24.00" (1940) and 11.70" (Labor Day, 1935) for New York and New Jersey, respectively.




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


    How do you equate a handful of subtropical coastal locations under hot sea surface temperatures with a large area of sub-Saharan African vegetation? The paper you quoted itself states that these WBTs only occur in conjunction with very specific sea conditions, and the last time I checked the Sahel region spans across the centre of a fairly large continent (Africa). 

    So again, where will all this excess moisture magically appear from? Do you think vegetation is a net producer of water vapour (producing more water than falls in rainfall)?

    Post edited by Gaoth Laidir on


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


    I only saw this post now. Yes, record rainfall at the Newark and LaGuardia stations but at Central Park (closest to the flooded Subway stations that so many networks are showing) it was the 5th highest daily total. When was the highest? September 23rd, 1882 (8.28").




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


    The rainfall records I referred to were in the per hour rainfall not the 24 hour total.



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


    Some strange but interesting conditions were set in selection of datapoints in that paper. Looks like a total of 337 extreme TW occurrences were disregarded because they occured early in the time period chosen for the study. No reason is given why. Maybe it's because it would reduce the longterm trend...

    We additionally eliminate HadISD station data that fail any one of the following meteorological and climatological tests. Tests are listed in the order implemented, with the fraction of HadISD 31+°C readings removed at each successive step shown in parentheses:

    ....


    3. A TW extreme occurring in 1979–1993 is greater than the maximum in 2003–2017 (67/10,138).

    ...


    10. A TW extreme before 2001 is higher than any value recorded since 2001 (270/8864).




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


    All around the world?

    In limited select areas. Notably wealthy countries. 1 weather station per 54,000sqkm that is an average. Antarctic is 264,000kmsqd. With over whelming majority in USA and EU.

    So not all over the globe, just in select areas. Failing to determine expected rainfall is also disingenuous to any one reading. Break it down, what did we expect naturally in the rain fall? Was 98% natural and 2% man made.


    We are once again we are looking at first world weather events.



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


    Maybe the observer was on the lash and mistook the gauge for a pot? I've heard drunk observers were a common problem in the 1880s!



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


    Of course it would be impossible to obtain such data, but it would be interesting to see if long term records (regarding any parameter) are broken with more frequency today that they would have in bygone years at established long term stations across the globe, and if so, are more of these stations breaking records during any one event today than in the past.

    And it is an interesting point you make about the 'first world' as big weather events that occur within the Anglosphere always seem to be sensationalised more than which happen outside of this zone. All about what brings in the most money. It's about the story, not whether that story is true on not.

    https://twitter.com/frankcorder/status/1432156322317967368?s=20

    New Moon



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


    There is a media focus on the disasters suffered by wealthy nations, but these events are happening all around the world

    the most recent IPCC report covers this. Please read it



Advertisement