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

After decades of denying that the planet is warming, you have arrived at a position where you now get to say that actually it's warming and even though humans are causing it, it's too late to do anything about it

And you've also managed to frame this in the most hubristic way imaginable by saying that all the worlds scientists were right by accident because only you truly understand the real reasons why the planet is warming

You're pathetic

And you're still wrong,it's not too late to stop the 3.5c warming you warn about, we should not abandon the next generation like cowards, or use hair brained schemes like flooding Somalia to protect vancouver...

and 3.5c is not the worst it could get, especially if we continue to extract fossil fuels and burn them until there's nothing left to burn or nobody left to burn them

Akrasia, I have never at any point denied that the planet is warming, you just made that up, thinking that if I was a critic of the theory in the past, I must have denied warming. No, I always said that natural variability was a larger component than the IPCC is willing to accept. I was saying this from a very early point in the global warming discussion around the early 1990s.

Also I have not advocated flooding anywhere that has any current economic or cultural significance, there must be places that can be used to create a larger surface area for the oceans, but if no country wants to sacrifice any of their land, they can just wait for all countries to lose equal amounts.

I would simply say that you are guessing about whether or not we could reduce the upward temperature trend by any significant amount. The theory is not that good. I have a perfect right to advance an alternate theory, this is how science works. Future events rather than blogger opinions will determine which theories are better than others. But there is no shame in searching for the truth in a forest of deceptive lies, lies that are used to drive forward economic and social agendas that will prove to be harmful and destructive and will benefit only a handful of people whose identities are already known in many cases. This is why the process seems so hypocritical to many observers including quite a few posters in this forum.

But don't worry about it, there isn't even the slightest chance that the elites will listen to me anyway, they have too much invested in their political agenda and the shaping of this scientific question to support that agenda. After they wreck the global economy for no rational reason, we can revisit who is pathetic. I will get my offspring to take my side in that debate because it won't be very clear to anybody what actually happened 1990-2021 until around 2050 when, with their agenda accomplished, it continues to warm up anyway.

Danno ... just to be clear on one detail, my assessment on the balance between AGW signal and natural warming while overall being about what you said in your comment, is probably changing towards a larger percentage for AGW since this past few years should have seen perhaps more cooling than we have seen, so by now I think we may be closer to 50-50 on those elements and it could continue to change going forward. It may drop off again if we get into a period of accelerated warming.

Anyway, what I think is pathetic is the exploitation of vulnerable children (Greta Thunberg being the prime example) to guilt their parents into following what I consider to be the wrong path on this issue, we should be planning for rising sea levels, not bankrupting society and forcing money to flow into what amount to sophisticated ponzi schemes and disguised taxation increases for purposes having nothing to do with climate change at all.

Some people think there will never be any consequences, that this unholy alliance between false science and bad politics will never be punishable because all forms of discussion can be controlled and anyone dissenting can be labelled as outsiders and social pariahs, however, if the majority of public opinion turns against the elites forcing these processes upon them, there will be a time of payback although it may only be a discrediting of their approach as history turns a page and moves on more realistically. By the way, I have already seen some signs of this starting to happen -- in the Netherlands, they can't afford to fart around with unworkable schemes, they have a very flat country behind sea walls already, and their approach is turning more pragmatic, as their government realizes that a higher set of seawalls is an urgent priority. And I learned this from a Dutch TV program shown on our local network, with a very pro-AGW host touring all the usual places, but getting that response anyway from Netherlands government spokesmen. They can't sit around hoping that some pie in the sky scheme to change the climate will work. And I'm willing to bet a few guilders that they don't believe that scheme can work.

Also quite pathetic is this current crop of world leaders. There does not seem to be one of them with the cojones required to stand up to this array of misguided scientists and activists, and say, "enough, we will make a sensible decision." The sensible decision is to accept that there could be significant coastal flooding within two or three decades. What we have now is a collection of special interest groups and political activists whose real objective is to transform society to an agenda that is never placed directly before the voters of various countries but is being imposed on them step by step. The voters have nobody to blame but themselves for allowing this to happen because there are political options that are opposed. These of course are demonized by the media who have taken it upon themselves to be sales agents for the globalist agenda. One wonders what they get as a commission.

You have always completely downplayed the scientific consensus on Climate change, you pay lip service to the 'possibility' that some climate change may be man-made, but you have always placed a much greater emphasis on the likelihood that climate is just undergoing natural variability and you have alluded to the fact that we don't need to take any action because we have so long before it would become a problem that all the oil will have been burned by then or Fossil fuels will have been completely replaced by then anyway

Here's a post from you from Jan 2018

in the thread "Climate Change - General discussion' started by Gaoth Laidir.

"Interesting discussion.

I tend to accept that instrumental records from 1659 (start of CET records) to mid-19th century come with some uncertainty but the averages are probably reliable, for one thing, the more severe winters can be cross-checked against more robust indicators like freezing of certain rivers or snow cover duration reported by reliable observers.

So I accept in general terms the concept that the Little Ice Age was a long interval of colder weather, that it had a last hurrah in the 19th century, and that the 20th century was generally warmer.

Beyond that, I don't entirely trust the narrative about ever-increasing warmth because it seems at variance with specific locations. I think what's going on generally is a complex mixture of expanding urban heat islands, regional changes in the subarctic, and a certain amount of fiddling with the data to improve the look. My comment: accusing scientists of falsifying data while giving merit to long debunked theories from Anthony Watts that this is just Urban heat island effect)

At some point that reaches a point of no return and that's exactly what the most recent trends indicate -- even using their own questionable numbers, the gatekeepers have to admit that the temperature trends have flat-lined. There's no more give in the system. My comment: There has been absolutely no flattening of the warming, if anything, it is accelarating with/ of the hottestt years on record all having fallen within the past  yearsThis may mean one of three things.

(1) We have reached an equilibrium where the forces at work on temperature trends have exhausted their ability to provide further warming, combined with a lack of easily manipulated new data opportunities, in other words, the IPCC are stuck with this steady-state situation which reminds one of the transition from a warming climate around the 1930s to a more variable one in the 1940s.My comment: You had absolutely zero scientific basis to put this as your first and preferred scenario. And it has been shown to have been completely wrong

(2) All of these observed trends, while reliable and un-manipulated, have been due more to natural than anthropogenic causes, and the cycle there is swinging towards a cooling trend, largely because of lower solar activity, where a lag time of 10-20 years is expected from past analogues. My comment: This scenario is even more climate denialist then the one before, where you make sure to get a snide dig in to the climate scientists who are doing the proper research that is leading to actual projections that are becoming reality with every passing year.

(3) There really is an AGW problem and we just happened to hit a natural downturn that is keeping it in check. Later on, if we don't abandon fossil fuels, we will see a fast increase in temperatures. my comment: even in paying lip service to the fact that climate change might be real, you still deny that there has been any actual warming, instead blaming falsified records and urban heat islands for distorting the measurements. It is possible that natural cooling cycles might actually be masking some AGW, but this does nothing to address your denial of the warming that had already been observed and proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of practising climate scientists and every credible scientific institute on the planet, way before this post was written in 2018

I don't know which of these three is the most likely option. However, I do suspect that our atmosphere has many undiagnosed or unsuspected ways of redistributing the warmth we might be generating, in complex feedback mechanisms. The climate change people are beginning to lean this way too, they want to have all bases covered so there is more emphasis on the warmth in the subarctic causing displacement of arctic air (the polar vortex scenario). While I think much of this is hype, it should be noted that glacial periods usually begin with open seas in the far north.my comment: No the climate change people were not leaning towards that, there was no need to explain a 'pause' in 2018. The established fact of greenhouse gasses forcing climate change was suffucient to explain the warming that was being observed, even if there is always uncertainty about the exact distribution of heat across the oceans and atmosphere

By the time we work out what's really going on (and it is bound to be more complicated, all things global-climate are complicated) we will probably have exhausted fossil fuels and perfected cleaner technologies. If we get over the widespread fears of nuclear technology, that might be the way forward. There is no shortage of hydrogen. my comment: Here you are basically saying that there's no need to do anything, because the problems won't arise for so long into the future that action is not required today - the exact opposite of what all climate scientists have been saying for decades

As to the climate of Ireland changing very much, can that be bad? Or should I say, must that be bad? There is always this assumption behind the climate change argument that all change is bad. But the climate has always been changing, that part we can't dispute, even skeptics of the AGW theory don't dispute that climate is changing, it always is, and always will be unless we perfect weather modification. my comment:adding a little bit of 'climate change is also a positive thing' in here for good measure. Got to hit all those Denial talking points even if you're not aware of it consciously

Then I wonder, how much will the Boards snow fanatics have to raise to bribe the weather modification people to make it snow?"

--------------------------------

Spare us the Gaslighting MT

You have been throwing out your 'research' on here every few months that has always downplayed the role humans are having in the changing climate, you never speak out in support of any climate science done by any credible scientific institutes if it contradicts your own pet theories, and you have been the Patriarch of your own little echo chamber here, where you have achieved a god like status, among many of the forum faithful who are either unaware of some of your, frankly, ridiculous theories, or simply choose to look the other way because you are one of them.

If you have actually decided that Human caused climate change is real and is happening now, and is a real problem, can you just come out and accept the scientific consensus instead of this nonsense about 'Scientists are right, but for the wrong reasons' bullsh1t

You were clearly wrong in 2018, this proves that your opinion is not as well thought out as you thought it was, so open yourself up to the idea that you're still wrong about your opinion on the need to act rapidly to reduce emissions if we want to have any chance to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

You don't have to agree with all the proposed solutions to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, but at least accept that we cannot keep increasing them at the rate we are doing now. And come up with sensible solutions for helping us to cut back on those emissions. regenerate our planet's ability to regulate CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and maintain a stable temperature for humanity, and for the many other biological systems that we are putting increasing strain on with each passing year.

Folks, does it really matter if climate change is man made or indeed cyclical?

fact is it’s happening, and it will have massive effects on the human population.

Therefore what steps are you taking to prepare for the consequences?

To clarify another point, I do not confuse urban heat islands with the larger scale warming of the atmosphere, the points made in 2018 were valid ... urban heat islands are expanding and surrounding weather stations of long duration, the people who run the CET have acknowledged that fact and continue to adjust their temperatures for an urban effect which I think is probably more significant in the northern station they use in greater Manchester. I know for a fact that Toronto airport data have warmed mostly from urban heat island influences and not from ambient climate change, when I compare the increase there to the increases downtown over the same decades (downtown was always in the heat island so the growth factor is less). But I don't confuse this with readings taken in the arctic and subarctic which (as I stated in 2018 and it's certainly a primary conclusion of my arctic Canada research) have increased in recent decades from the inflow of milder air masses from the temperate latitudes.

In fact, the process by which the arctic is warming is mainly periodic inflow of these milder air masses, not from some overall modification of all air masses. If you have warmer air masses 20% of the time instead of 10% as in past decades (to use round numbers) then you will definitely see an increase. If the warmer air masses have positive anomalies of +20 or more, then having them around 20% of the time instead of 10% will lead to a 2.0 C increase. The main question for research is this -- are the milder air masses flowing into the arctic more often because arctic air masses are weaker and cannot hold them back, or is it because the storm tracks are shifting so that inevitably they get into warm sectors of low pressure systems and move in with those? And are those actually two different things or two ways of saying the same thing?

No doubt in my mind that the arctic is warming, but I am not that certain that human activity is the main or only reason. Shifts in the position of the north magnetic pole have correlated very well with temperature trends in many parts of North America since the middle of the 19th century onward. And the NMP is now in an entirely different place from where it was through much of the 20th century, it was in northern Canada until 1990, and has since moved all the way west to the vicinity of the IDL at about 86 deg north latitude. Its future path is predicted to be west then southwest towards the New Siberian Islands. If there is any connection between geomagnetism and climate then we will be into uncharted territory and the most obvious conjecture would be that eastern North America (and Greenland) would see a strong warming trend (as was the case in the MWP apparently), while eastern Asia would see a colder climate and Europe might see more volatility especially in winter and spring when blocking is normally most frequent.

Those conjectures are part of my concern about the potential (and I want to stress the word potential) for further warming in the eastern and central portions of the North American arctic with its extensive land ice cover. And there isn't a thing we can do to change any of that, nor does it bring me much optimism to realize that a connection between climate and geomagnetism is shunned by the profession generally so there definitely won't be any awareness or research done until the thing is well past the point of no return.

We have very little idea where the north magnetic pole may have been in the 9th to 11th centuries but we do know from various archaeological evidence that Newfoundland, Labrador and Greenland had an even warmer climate then, which promoted the Norse settlement of Greenland. While the MWP may not have been appreciably warmer in Europe than the 20th century, it was apparently warmer in those regions. And that's not the only time that warmer climates have appeared up in that region, another time was around 1500 BCE when apparently whale hunting was successful in portions of northern Canada that are now blocked to whale populations by sea ice (for example, islands southwest of Ellesmere Island). I have to wonder if perhaps the NMP in its relentless and somewhat random wandering was north of Asia and not North America in these warmer climatic intervals. We only have reliable positions for the NMP since about 1830. It was on the Canadian mainland then, and started to drift north around 1880, passing through central and northwestern islands of arctic Canada before leaving land altogether around 1990. Some have suggested it may have been over Victoria Island some time around the 17th century before arriving at its discovery position. If so, it has made a long elliptical track that has now overshot the point of origin but where was it before 1600? Nobody really knows.

Cloudier, thus warmer, winter nights, even under optimal anticyclonic conditions, do seem to be becoming a thing. Last winter was the perfect example of that. Sunny cool days only to be followed by an inexplicable bank of cloud to develop by dusk and remain there for the night. Not sure what 'the science' is to explain why that happens but happening more often it most certainly is.

It's absolutely hilarious. F**king crackpots on this thread.

radio silence on what? The comments made are in line with previous posts from MT. Ignore Thelonious Monk, he was outraged in the last thread where MT shared his thoughts, so either memory loss of faux outrage, equally for Arkasia.

Not everyone supports each other’s points of view.

The group think certainly is one sided, as evidence of sentiments thrown MT’s way. It was swift pile in by a troll, a spam bot and an alarmist fanatic and as expected ‘playing the ball’ was not on the agenda, more of a character assassination. Which some in here have been accused of and continue to display.

So the real question is what have people in here done to make a change? As this is often ignored it can be assumed very little. We know that a prominent Alarmist poster in here feels it’s solely at the government. Wonder if COP is actually short for Cop-out? Probably.

I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see that champions of AGW Alarmism have a larger CO2 footprint than even the hard core ‘deniers’.. You’ll never see a study like that however.

The bigger issue with making any headway is the mentality. The overwhelming majority in here have advocated for clean energy, no pollutants, sustainable living ect.. Yet one poster has consistently berated them simply because they don’t accept their viewpoint. This is where the ‘holier than thou’ comes in.

We discussed this once before and I called it "global blanding" because it seems to me that a worldwide trend is for climates to shift into narrower ranges of variability while they warm. Certainly the change in frequency of record temperatures bears this out. In places where I was able to remove an urban heat island contamination, I found quite consistently that while the frequency of record highs has increased by about 30 to 50 per cent since some earlier base such as 1881-1930, the frequency of record lows has decreased by more than 150 per cent. I just finished compiling the record high and low maxima for the CET data set (1878 to present for those, they have mean daily from 1772 but only 1878 for the daily extremes). One half of the record low maxima were in the period 1878 to 1910 and the other half since 1910, and of that half, almost all were before 1990. Except for that cold spell in late 2010, and a few record lows in 2013 and 2018, most years since 1998 have seen none at all. (1998 to 2009 completely shut out).

The change in frequency of record highs while similar in its trends is not quite that unbalanced. So what we are seeing is a shift in air mass frequency with missing arctic air masses being replaced about equally by moderate (polar is the term used although I wish they would change that as polar and arctic seem like two ways of saying the same thing), and tropical (which is really subtropical when applied to European climatology). The same trends show up in analyses for Toronto, New York City, and the Canadian arctic.

Another interesting finding is that the two sides of the Atlantic show a tendency to hit record highs or lows much more frequently than at random at similar times, which indicates an external source of the variability. If there was a standard lag time from North America to Europe it would suggest air mass transfer across the Atlantic, and if the opposite, it would signal retrograde flow. Neither seem to be anywhere near as significant as simultaneous reception of warm or cold signals, which points at the Sun's variability in output as the main factor in play. This is not quite a dominant signal, you can find plenty of examples where there are not simultaneous outcomes, but the frequency of records overlapping in spells of several days is quite striking. It was particularly evident in Nov-Dec 2015. But it's not a new thing, another year with multiple overlaps was 1888.

My thinking may be changing on some issues but one factor remains constant, and that is caution about taking the AGW signal as being a dominant player and natural variability as a minor factor. I think that's the main weakness of the IPCC approach and it is what I meant when I said that they tend to dismiss new findings. A lot of research has been done on teleconnections and the frequency of El Nino events, that they seem to think is irrelevant. And there is absolutely no chance any of them would read through any of my research, all of which was done exactly the same way that climatology was done before climate science displaced it. Their comeback is always "well you're not a qualified scientist" which is just a circular argument -- anyone who disagrees with us can't be legitimate. Obviously for me it is a long-term frustration that has no other answer than that the prevailing orthodoxy would change from within, and I have no way to influence that possible outcome from the outside. Very similar things have happened in scientific controversies in the past, but we never seem to learn from that.