Bhs1975

One day, younger voters will be the largest share of the electorate. And if they face a materially worse climate, they may well choose abrupt breaks from existing policy arguing that failed leaders from past generations left them no other choice. Today, transitions are still possible, though the rate of needed change is much greater than it was 10-20 years ago on account of relative policy inaction. For now, the world remains on a course where it will be 2.9C warmer by 2100 (higher if Hansen is right).

The sun was 0.6-0.7% brighter 65 million years ago. You don't need as much CO2 for a given temperature this time around.
Antarctica glaciated around 650ppm, but my guess is that due to solar luminosity increases, you'd only need around 550-600 to deglaciate it this time around.
Humans do not appreciate just how late in the game we showed up and how lucky we are for CO2 to be as (relatively) low as it is now. Another 200-300m years and this planet is going to be a permanent hothouse.

It seems like that temperature dip was necessary for human life to come around and flourish in the first place. What's true in the present day is that humanity can't support itself in an ice-free world. 2 billion people rely on glaciers for drinking water, power, and agriculture. 

 
 

Let's go back even further Charlie! The Earth is essentially at its coolest point in the last 65 million years, but climate alarmist love to tell us the planet is “too hot” because temperatures are 1.2°C warmer than they were in 1850, the tail end of the Little Ice Age!!

Related to the CO2 fertilization post above, the recent study below  accounted for the albedo effect of planting trees. In many places around the world, planting trees causes warming, as increases in absorbed sunlight offset the benefit from CO removal.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46577-1
 

Good afternoon CW. I read every one of your posts and value the civil interaction demonstrated by the different positions. I’m not qualified to speak technically but I find the example above, if I’m looking at it correctly, reflects a period of tine that was known as the dust bowl era. The effects were attributed to practices that ignored any present day sense of conservation. As a species we do seem to have the power to manipulate for the good and sadly for the bad. Please continue to post with civility as you have and I will certain read all and the responses. Never fear I do understand the ‘read more, post less axiom’ stay well, as always ….

Remember 10 years ago, when every denier was crowing about "flat temps since '98", increasing Antarctic sea ice and an impending "grand solar minimum"?
Imagine saying that, then looking at this graph and *still* wanting to short sell it.

The disasters will become so catastrophic and numerous that funds will run out for recovery and folks will mass migrate to less affected areas which will collapse the system. Humans will become nomadic again.

That’s what’s so impressive about this is the type of damage modern well built structures took. Not many examples come to mind especially with the high rise damage. There’s no question those taller structures took 200+ mph gusts to produce what we’re seeing. Think about Laura and lake Charles. That was a cat 4 with gusts to near cat 5 measured in the city and those high rises had mostly window damage. This completely gutted entire floors and any windward facades are just gone. It’s not just one building either, it’s all of them. I don’t even think there’s a remote comparison to this storm given the city it hit

Looks like we are going to commit climate suicide and the only solution is collapse which would set us back to before the industrial revolution.

There is an EQ swarm occurring near Ojai, CA.

Really can’t believe there isn’t more discussions around this. This is likely something we won’t see again in our lifetimes and the interior flooding has a chance, as stated, to be 1000 year event. 
 
it’s kind of like the rareness of Ophelia a few years ago nearly making it to Ireland as tropical. 

90L is looking nice this morning.  Will be interesting to see how far west it tracks.  I feel like models don't have a good handle on it.

Quite a few of the GFS runs have been showing a CAG like storm forming in the western Caribbean. CMC has been showing it a lot too and now EPS is hinting it at. Where it goes from there is a toss up but the fact that it forms on many models is what's important. 

 Should the CFS due to its inferiority be ignored? For at least two runs, it has shown a TS moving into the NE Caribbean late week while no other operational shows any TC.

So if we drastically lowered emissions and irrigated and grew plants on as much available land as possible it would both provide a cooling effect and draw down huge amounts of CO2.

 Look how much cooling of the extreme warmth of the SSTs shown by the buoys in/near shallow FL Bay occurred between late Monday afternoon's highs and this morning's lows just from a weak surface trough causing a significant increase in showers (the most rain in weeks) and much less sunshine (these are SSTs (F), not air temperatures):
Manatee Bay: from 101 to 84


Johnson Key: from 98 to 79

 
Murray Key: from 99 to 81

 
 In contrast the Key West buoy, which is in deeper waters and thus has a much lower intraday range that is often only ~1F, cooled much less (from 92.3 to 89.6) and is still very warm:

That's like one of those therapeutic pools.


.

 The Johnson Key buoy SST rose from 98.2 at 5PM to 98.4 at 6PM. This is the hottest I've seen it since I started following it earlier this month. Based on other sunny days, 6PM is typically the hottest hourly of this very shallow (5 ft) water.

 Regarding the SST the Johnson Key buoy's low this morning was 1.1 warmer than yesterday meaning 90.0 (8AM). Today's 3PM SST of 96.1 is 1.3 warmer than the 94.8 of 24 hours ago. There's potentially still another 3 hours of SST warming with full sunshine and no showers anywhere nearby. Thus, there's a good chance that yesterday's 97.2 SST high will be exceeded today.
Edit: An hour later (4PM) the SST rose from 96.1 to 97.5 with potentially another two hours of warming.
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=jkyf1

We're not yet to the point where we need to worry with WBTs. You need T/Tds of 100/85 or 115/80 type temps to hit dangerous levels (>31C WBTs) and 115/90 or thereabouts for true, hard habitability limits. 100/85 seems reachable in a few select areas for brief times, but Tds of near 90 don't seem possible yet.

Looks like your the only one here spouting denier nonsense.

The arctic can go ice free all year? Based on what evidence?
 
but but… Al gore said it would be ice free in 2008. Why isn’t it ice free now?
 
how gut hooked do you have to be to believe the arctic can be open water all year?

if anything the IPCC predictions have been way too conservative