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

That is total BS - can you explain why our power prices failed to fall in the previous few years when the price of oil/gas tanked around 2018??

Here's another "double standards" one for you today.

This climate scientist believes the Irish High temperature record from 1880s shouldn't stand because it doesn't tally with record breaking in other countries, however the lower 1976 one should, because it stands a better chance of being broken soon!

Bonkers stuff for any scientist 🙈

SSE Airtricity - proud to be Ireland’s largest provider of 100% green energy

The Price of wind must have increased!

Especially since they don't have a clue what effect CO2 has on global temperature. They speak exact numbers like 2.7 °C rise at current emissions, yet ask them how they calculate that and they won't be able to tell you because they have such a broad range for ECS.

Not so much denier, as completely hopelessly out of your depth scientifically, if you think the statement that "the planet is warming, yet we don’t have a year on year hottest global record temperature." is anything other than a completely ridiculous statement that not one single scientifically literate person would accept

Nobody expects every single year to be the next hottest year on record. Not one single person who know a thing about climate would expect that. While the earth's energy imbalance grows greater every year, that doesn't mean every single year is hotter than the last, because the heat doesn't all just go into the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures. There are lots of processes that distribute heat around the planet and these operate on all different timescales, multi day, multi-week, multi annual, multi decadal and multi century timescales. Only a child or someone completely ignorant of planetary science could think that the surface temperature of the planet is going to go up in a straight line year on year.

You're clearly just along for the ride here Nabber, luckily for you the 'science forum' on boards.ie has been hijacked by a bunch of conspiracy theorists and self appointed experts (who's conclusions on the severity of AGW happen to be contradicted by 99.9% of all the published science on this matter) so you can feel secure enough to proclaim such utter nonsense in public without the ridicule it richly deserves

We get it, global political elites are all a bunch of self serving hypocritical arseholes. You don't need to point that out every 5 minutes. But we need them to come to an agreement to do something about this crisis that every credible scientific body on the planet agrees needs to be tackled. Every single one.

When you're 4 nill down in a relegation playoff, you don't care if your striker is an arsehole who talks shite all the time and is a complete hypocrite in his personal life. You just want him to play football and score score a lot of goals for the team he is playing for

The politicians at COP26 are supposed to be playing for team humanity. We need to encourage them to score goals for our team, and absolutely eviscerate them if they are corrupt and throw the game on purpose.

Says the poster who who churns out opinion as fact. Drunk station operators and storms getting worse in Ireland.

Mine was more a tongue in cheek quote to what I’ve consistently said from the beginning, which is we don’t know enough to make the level of predictions that are currently thrown around.

You only have to look into the Young Sun Paradox to see that we clearly don’t know enough. Extend that further to Young Sun affect on Mars and all current understanding of greenhouse effect becomes irrelevant. Both planets accommodated liquid water with only ~70% of current output from our Sun, on our understanding it’s not possible, yet it happened.

Global heat temperature is an estimation of compiled data accounting for large swathes of the planet with zero data, propped up with satellite imagery, which is a poor data and requires more manipulation than any other data source. We could be warming faster, could be far worse than what Alarmist think. I’ve never argued that the planet is not warming, my gripe is with Alarmist scare mongers.

Good thing our species is known for its honesty 😂😎

I have continued to read the thread, despite my frustrations with individuals who won't just debate using logic, but instead come at everyone with "I am obviously right, and you should take my word for that."

As some know, I took a third approach to this whole question which would mystify the COP26 delegates, namely, that they are probably right for the wrong reasons. Next time the Sun goes back to more active cycles, and/or we get two or three strong El Nino events, the previously noted temperature rises of about 1990 to 2012 will resume and then we would probably reach a critical point.

If the frequency of much warmer summers noted in my research into arctic Canada temperatures picked up again (it has dropped back slightly) then I think that would correlate with accelerated melting in Greenland. It stands to reason that if the Canadian arctic becomes a less potent source of arctic air masses, hemispheric temperatures will have to rise at least slightly, the only other source of mobile winter cold is Siberia. If the "cold pole" slips further west and it becomes more statistically frequent for the coldest anomalies to develop over European Russia, this will only load the deck against the land ice which is 99% concentrated in North America (Russian islands like Canadian islands have their glaciers, but all told I don't think Eurasian land ice iincluding mountain glaciers is more than 2% of the hemispheric total.

So while I have criticisms of the IPCC theories, my own analysis is probably more dire than theirs since I don't see how we would avoid significant northern land ice losses unless we catch a break with natural variability taking the curves down harder than AGW is pushing them up (which I acknowledge to be a component of the overall result, and here again, short term even spectacular gains in human intervention would fail to do much about the inertia of the already present greenhouse gas load).

The whole philosophy of the Glasgow crowd is wrong-headed. By now we should be accepting that problems are very likely unavoidable with rising sea levels around 2040 to 2070, and we should be focusing all attention on mitigation. Something will need to be done with the excess ocean water volumes, in order to avoid a plan B which is to evacuate or fortify coastal areas that are flat enough to be at risk from one to three meter sea level rises later this century. I am not saying this is inevitable but I don't honestly think that any political or socio-economic planning (however benign or dangerous those changes might be in relation to political stability) can substantially alter the probabilities now. We are stuck with the prospect of a global temperature increase of around 1.5 C for sure, and possibly 2.0 to 3.5 before the trend reverses well beyond the end of the 21st century for the twin reasons that natural variability factors will by then be loaded more towards decline and also our greenhouse gas loading will have settled back out to whatever levels the natural environment and our very clean future technologies (and much smaller population, seems inevitable to me that we'll have quite a dying off event of either war or famine-disease origins) would sustain.

I think we can move to much lower emission rates, the question is whether developing nations like India and to some extent China will go along or just ignore the situation and continue to claim that since we did it in the 20th century, they get to do it in the 21st to catch up. Unlike most of the forecasts I make, I am really hoping that my dire predictions are wrong, this would cause me no pleasure at all to be proven right about natural variability factors making the sea level rise inevitable, however, if anyone at Glasgow is looking in, don't write my prediction off, you know how much of an acceleration there was in the warming after about 1988 and that is not all due to sudden increases in greenhouse gas emissions (which were prolific after about 1950 really), it was at least equally due to the frequency of strong El Nino events in the 1990s and 2000s decades.

The problem is, their narrative favours certain political objectives whereas mine points more to pragmatic solutions that are almost entirely focused on usage of excess ocean water, such as massive desalination. I find it rather depressing to realize that we have probably a thousand brands of beer and five thousand types of cosmetics, and perhaps a half dozen tiny desalination projects using no significant volume of water. And we have a lot of deserts, drying up city water supplies, and a food shortage looming. All that beer and those cosmetics may help a bit, I suppose.

1-3m sea level rise? 1.5-3 deg C temp rises? Your predictions suddenly even more dire than the IPCC scenarios? Mass population dieoffs! Sounds like neoliberal alarmist talk, your followers here wont know whats going on...

What a load of ass covering waffle to avoid saying you've been wrong for years with your citizen scientist amateur research nonsense and the scientific consensus is playing out even worse than predicted and its just getting too embarrassing for even you to dispute it.

Also your "pragmatic solution" to catastrophic sea level rise is massive desalinisation as a way to deal with "excess ocean water"? LMAO.