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

You just never know what industries Boardsies work for. I reckon Akrasia works for Shell as Head of P.R.

'Sir' (he obviously cares about ostentatious titles) David Attenborough probably has more air miles behind him than the entirety of those on this entire public forum (and that is many).

When multi-millionaires and elitists in general start preaching, I start not listening. It's my punk instinct.

I picked my avatar because it was one of the few available on the old site and I liked to play Quake

You picked your avatar out of the trillions of images available on the internet, or you made it yourself. because want to make fun of the idea that CO2 is a pollutant. If that's not your intention, then you're sending a different message to whatever you're intending to send.

And I didn't say you don't post references. You post lots of references to charts and data, but you very rarely post references to published research. You post data points and then infer conclusions from those datapoints. but datapoints on their own do not tell the full picture, there needs to be methodological analysis on those data, and that is why peer reviewed research is important

I quoted Oneiric, the site layout is sh1te.

Speaking of references to peer-reviewed papers, I'm still struggling to find the reason why 337 occurrences of severe wet-bulb temperature events from the end of last century were omitted from that paper that you referenced. I asked you a few times if you knew, seeing as you were the one who endorsed the paper by quoting it in the first place, but still no answer. Maybe you're still working on it.

Here, let me show you what I'm talking about.

They report that:

Yet, just in their Materials and Methods section they state:

This is their graph, not mine...

If I started removing high Arctic sea-ice extent years from that same period and claimed that the trend is flat or rising I think you'd be the first to question it (and rightly so). Yet, this one seems to have slipped through the net. Now maybe I'm missing something glaringly obvious, so if I am I'll gladly fess up to it.

Smacks of desperation when you look at the historical record of big freezes in that part of the world. It appears now that every possible weather event will be used to push the extreme alarmist agenda:(

I don't know what their exact reasoning was, but all of the 17 validation steps are there to remove outliers and unreliable data from the dataset. The researchers must have been of the view that the data that showed much greater temperature anomalies than their decadal averages were more likely to be errors.

The first one removed 0.64% of the records with a TW above 31c, so not really worth bothering with

the other one you mentioned was clearly to remove errors. The hottest ever dewpoints ever recorded have all been measured since 2001. 35c being recorded in 2003, so it is more likely that a station as an error with it's temperature or humidity reading, than it accidentally recorded the hottest ever TW event and forgot to tell anyone about it

Also, they removed more hot records from later in the series than both of these two adjustments combined, so you can't say that they're just cherrypicking records from the early part of the time series to force a trend

The paper did go through peer review, so the methodology has been validated by other scientists

You have used half a quote that is not apt for this situation. I question whether you read the posts you are commenting on.

I never said the site was unusable. I said the layout was sh1te. I didn't wanna quote the whole of a post in response. This seems to be another case of you distracting, like that time you were offended that on page ~18 of a weather forum discussing climate change you called out that AGW wasn't spelled out. We got an introduction to your accreditation as a graduate of Harvard. Fun times.

Perhaps what's in your mind is best not shared with others.

All very good, but you didn't answer the question. Do you practice what you preach regarding the use fossil fuels?

Would imagine 2021 is rapidly overtaking 2020 with the damage tolls from Ida looking like top ten material.

Even so, the Ida damage in Louisiana and around the northeast U.S. pales in comparison to the 1900 Galveston hurricane disaster or the 1926 and 1928 Florida hurricane impacts (in today's dollars those would both be tens or hundreds of billions of dollars).

Thus the basic premise of recent year high impact weather events is always going to be in the shadow of those past years, what is really significant is that there might have been an era of relative tranquility in the 1960s to 1980s between eras of higher impacts, although of course you can find counter-examples in that supposed quieter period (would say more precisely 1962 to 1988 because 1961 and 1989 had high impact hurricane strikes, also within that quiet period are such events as Camille (1969) and the second worst tornado outbreak in 1974. Also Hurricane Allen 1980 was fairly costly in south Texas.

All these things are hard to compare because of different warning systems, different construction standards, and growing populations (which expose more people and buildings to impacts, that cannot be pinned on climate change).

I remain unconvinced that we are entering an era of accelerating weather extremes. The test for me is always the "back and forth" test from a given year, do you hit a stronger extreme going forward or going backwards?

If the 1900 hurricane hit Galveston again, it might be only a bit worse than Ike (2008). Or it might be considerably worse, hard to say when you're talking about extreme winds and a storm surge that could threaten even today's much better protection.

If the 1925 super-tornado outbreak happened today, death tolls would undoubtedly be lower despite perhaps double the population in the path, damage on the other hand would be catastrophic, no building codes protect much against EF4 or EF5 tornadic winds.

People might also want to google the September 1821 hurricane that hit NYC directly and speculate about modern damage levels from that sort of event. Opinions vary as to whether it would be billions or merely millions of dollars of damage.

A sign of things to come? Back in June, by democratic vote, the Swiss rejected an amendment on the Federal Act on the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but restrictions are going through anyway.

Swiss climate experts propose personal CO2 budget - SWI swissinfo.ch

This is not surprising to me the environmental movement is deeply authoritarian at its core. It has an unquenchable will to power that cannot be satisfied and will not be denied easily by democracy. Today the eco-mentalists are trying to enforce a new 21st century prohibition era by restricting who, where, when and how energy can be consumed. 

In Ireland look into the circumstances of how the climate emergency act was passed in Ireland, most of the TDs were missing!!   That law has been enacted for purposes that are anti-democratic. It is an enabling tool for the eco-mentalists and the special interests behind them. So far Irish judges have steered clear of this and the climate quango have enough people on it to ensure the right political consensus decision is reached.  Of concern is the "human rights" court in Europe having the power to decide such. How lawfare is abused to circumvent democracy is discussed by Andy May in a recent blog post.

Notice the concern creeping in the Irish administration as a combination of accelerating energy costs and the prospect of electricity blackouts this Winter season loom. If you watch carefully warnings from eirgrid and others have been making the media in small sidebars over the past few months. 

Severe weather events have always caused loss of life and economic loss and always will global warming or not. Technological improvements in weather forecasting and infrastructure provision have massively reduced the death toll due to these events. The headline costs are going to rise due to a combination of inflation, increased population and more complex infrastructure. There are no discernible trends in frequency of such events despite over 100 years of warming and the reporting system is such today that every little bushfire gets reported around the world.

The people pushing the global warming narrative do not take seriously the consequence of basing our energy system on inefficient weather dependent random generation sources. We are mostly blinded by having an existing infrastructure in place today that shields us from the technological and economic shortcomings of random energy generation, all the while the reliable infrastructure is being dismantled.  There are consequences for the pursuit of this policy every bit as great as the oil shocks of the 1970s and if not careful we will end up the power infrastructure problems that plague South Africa today. Within a decade weather forecasting is going to take on a new dimension as people plan their energy use around it.

7 inches of rain falling in NYC in one day is extraordinary

It's not unprecedented, but it's certainly not Ordinary weather for the location

And yet it happened twice in a week from independent weather systems

But you go off and find some more goalposts to shift as you usually do.