Bhs1975

If they actually had recon in the WPAC i could see this storm having something like an 875-885 mb pressure at its peak intensity, and probably something close to Patricia in terms of windspeed

I think this one was stronger than Typhoon Tip.

Can you imagine something like this hitting Miami or something like holy cow. 

Almost did with Dorian and with AGW it’s way more likely.

Josh not wanna chase this one?

Saw a great series on Nature last night about expanding forests to take carbon out of the atmosphere.  Bhutan is the world's first carbon negative nation.  We need to expand forests to get them to cover 60% of the world's land surface and that means a few trillion more trees.  That will greatly help our efforts to get carbon dioxide levels lower and improve biodiversity.
 

Unfortunately, a large chunk of the sea level rise is already baked in so to speak.

Yeap we would have to draw down the CO2 lower than preindustrial lvls to stop it at this point.

A great quote from Jeremy Symons, former vice president for political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund, concerning why climate change is now one of the leading topics of tonight’s Presidential debate: “It’s leaped out of the science books and into the communities where people have to deal with the deadly consequences of pretending it doesn’t exist.”

It’s going to awesome to see what happens when all these coastal areas get flooded.

The link to the full response by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes can be found here:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abbe82

It is abundantly clear what the ExxonMobil Vice President is seeking to do. Hopefully, in the future, ExxonMobil, among others, will have to pay full cost for their externalities (greenhouse gas pollution) and face legal exposure for deliberately misleading the public and investors.  There should be no de facto “too big to be held liable” for fraud exemption.

 

All oil and gas assets need to go towards fixing this mess.

I suspect that as climate change progresses, insurers will increasingly drop coverage in high-risk areas and the case for federal support to cover damages in those areas will be questioned. Some form of limited "buy outs" might be provided as an alternative to such support.

Or the losses will accelerate and collapse the economy.

Totally agree. Yeah the oil and coal industries have been horrible on the environment. This doesn't give the "green" companies a pass. There was a company pushing hard to have a huge wind farm on a migratory bird pathway by eastern Lake Ontario. They almost got their bird killing wind farm on a large scale except a bird watcher found a bald eagle nest on the exact area that they were gonna to put the  majority of the wind mills. In fact, they were going to have to take that tree down. They didn't disclose that there was an eagle nest their on purpose!  The entire project was cancelled. Serves them right.  When there is money to be made, companies do anything they can to make money, even if it destroys the environment. We saw with this oil and coal companies. Coal companies destroyed mountain tops completely! Oil companies have a terrible track record too. To think green energy is going to be different is wrong.

We need a strong well funded EPA and the states need strong well funded environmental protection. But you know how that goes. anyway, the prospect of wind farms on a massive scale will cause a lot of bird deaths especially raptors including eagles. The eagles just came back from the banning of DDT.  Contrary to what many of you may think of me, I am a staunch environmentalist. Birds are very adaptable creatures to changing climates. Cardinals for instance 120 years ago were southern birds. Now they have spread north to the northern U.S. Many other southern species have slowly been moving north. Northern species actually have been doing fine because of the maturation of northern hardwood forests and conifer forests. There has been no major declines for many forest birds. The birds that have declined most are those that nest in brushy areas ones that need less mature woods (which have grown up), field birds and shorebirds. Shorebirds are a BIG concern. Many species migrate up through the Plains from South America and the obstacles of wind farms now dotting the landscape in the fields that use to forage will eventually threaten many species with extinction. It is has been found that they do much better in the Arctic nesting grounds raising more young during milder summers which have been happening lately. Yet they decline still. It is likely the wind farms. Green energy is mean energy for birds. 

 

They survived a giant asteroid hitting the Earth. They will be fine.

With the economy weakened by COVID AGW will deal the final blow.

I forgot to add the crazy election coming up as well. How many more nails to we need in the coffin?

With the economy weakened by COVID AGW will deal the final blow.

Copernicus just released the September 2020 report based off the ERA reanalysis.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-september-2020

It is the warmest September on record.

This brings the warming trend since 1979 up to +0.1910C/decade +- 0.005. In the last 24 months the trend has increased by 0.01C/decade.

Using the baseline defined in the IPCC Global Warming of 1.5C report and taking the average of the last 12 months from ERA the warming since the industrial revolution is now 1.3C. 

Looks like we’re gonna blow by that 1.5C limit soon.

All this forest management talk is BS. It made the issue worse but without AGW to dry it up we wouldn’t be having these mega fires.

There’s a lot we still don’t understand like these feedbacks that will make the situation worse.

Unfortunately, even if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the world has committed to additional warming from the present atmospheric concentration of such gases. In terms of the Arctic, prior to 1990 (1851-1989), the NSIDC extended ice record indicated only 1952 had a minimum extent value below 7 million square kilometers. After 1990,, such figures became routine. Then, as Arctic warming accelerated, things deteriorated. 2009 was the last year during which the figure stayed at or above 5 million square kilometers. It is possible that the world has now reached the point where the minimum extent values will routinely fall below 4 million square kilometers. If not, it will very likely happen this decade. The 2012 minimum figure will probably be surpassed this decade, as well.

Even if we stop all emissions now we are still in big trouble. We need a massive draw down and solar blockage at this point.

https://news.yahoo.com/arctic-hasnt-warm-3-million-122739770.html

Recent report came out that perhaps saltwater ponds have been discovered beneath Mars' surface.

We may end up there soon by looking at the way things are going here.

well by transitioning to renewable energy and also finding ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere we are doing just that, hopefully we quicken the pace, we need to halve fossil fuel consumption by 2030.

We have three Class V worlds in our solar system- Mars, Europa and Enceladus.  Tidal forces make the latter two worlds hotter than they would seem by their distance.  

Mars has tons of lava tubes that could be sealed off a pressurized for habitation.

The issue of the MWP and LIA has already been addressed by several people here at several times. Different proxies examined from different parts of the world show that the MWP and LIA were regional, not global, events.

Three papers and the abstract of another (the full copy of which can be requested from the authors):

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797.epdf?sharing_token=Pm1NFtFxqxcwIUqtvBVOsdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OXdKps0x-mydYxlxY1CTS2FraCgd_SIOyFr3Frnr2wB7rEiUt5oncmTKp32KflJCHeITcA-EqP5p3xfWpkUotuN0E3ir4Us_bcTtsZ27MrFmdPv9A4iznKkWIxs3GlY8t2zgJ1RqKr1SMAGJNtp3FZCGkf9OhfrosIZ6HA_48P3A%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.realclimate.org

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334662695_No_evidence_for_globally_coherent_warm_and_cold_periods_over_the_preindustrial_Common_Era

Finally, relying on a single proxy in one particular location to make a continental or global judgment is no different from relying on the temperature record of one location and making a similar judgment. If one wouldn’t make judgments about North America, the Northern Hemisphere or global temperatures based on the temperature record of let’s say only Seattle, why should one make similar judgments strictly from a single ice core measurement?

Cause he’s a dumb ass.

The literature cites increasing Arctic solar insolation, often from fluctuations in the earth’s orbit, as one of the natural mechanisms that kicks off the initial warming. As temperatures rise, stored carbon is unlocked and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increases. In turn, the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide promotes additional warming. Given the physical properties of carbon dioxide, it should make no difference how the stored carbon dioxide is released. The impact should be the same if the physical properties of CO2 are understood correctly. The observed ongoing warming is consistent with what one would expect when atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.

I said nothing about feedbacks, as one is dealing with the much larger issue of forcings. Additional feedbacks, some of which are non-linear and some of which are still poorly understood, influence how much warming actually takes place. Nevertheless, the general scientific conclusion concerning the role increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing has played in driving ongoing warm is a very high confidence matter in science. The confidence level will likely be 99%-100% when the IPCC publishes its next assessment (an increase from the current 95% figure).

I strongly disagree that the objectivity of climate scientists has been corrupted by “money, fame, power and egos.” If anything, it is the movement that rejects AGW that faces that problem. It offers no credible empirically-supported alternative to AGW. It increasingly evades the research and publication route by which scientific knowledge is built/expanded/revised, likely because it is trapped by the limits imposed by science itself and it cannot bear subjecting its lack of alternative to rigorous scrutiny. Absent a concrete scientific basis for its positions, it increasingly displays motivated reasoning consistent with its sources of funding (often fossil fuel-related interests).

How many times you gonna rehash this? The SMF ain’t listening.

This paper shows that SSTs where cooler in the tropics during that time and changes in ocean circulation not CO2 was in the drivers seat like it is now.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100119135516/http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001PA000724.shtml

There have been a few comprehensive style studies that have been published recently which try to provide the best estimates of critical metrics related to climate change based on the large body of evidence available at the time of publication. I am but an amateur, but it is my belief that these publications are impactful and that they are of the type that may appear prominently in the forthcoming IPCC AR6 report. If anyone has noteworthy or impactful peer-reviewed publications then by all means please post them to this thread. If possible provide a link to an open access (non pay-walled) version of the manuscript. 

Temperature Reconstruction

Kaufman 2020: Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach

Kaufman 2020: A global database of Holocene paleotemperature records

Summary: The rate of warming during the contemporary era is likely unprecedented during the Holocene. The global mean temperature is very likely to be much higher than at any point in the last 2000 years and possibly even exceeding the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000+ years ago.

Climate Sensitivity

Sherwood 2020: An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence

Summary: For 2xCO2 they report 2.6 - 3.9C and 2.3 - 4.7C for 66% and 95% certainty respectively with a value of 3.1C being at the peak of the probability distribution curve. It is noted that the upper bound should be considered more cautiously. It is far easier to constrain the lower bound than the upper bound. Values Earth Energy Imbalance

Schuckmann 2020: Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go?

Summary: The EEI is +0.87 +- 0.12 W/m^2 and is increasing. 1% goes into the atmosphere. 4% goes into the cryosphere. 6% goes into the land. 89% goes into the oceans. To pull the EEI back to 0 would require a change in CO2 concentration from 410 ppm to 353 ppm. For those that don't know EEI is the amount of forcing still needing to be equilibriated via an increase in temperature. It should not be confused with effective radiative forcing (ERF) which is the cumulative forcing after fast feedbacks (like water vapor, etc.) have played out. EEI goes to zero after the climate system fully equilibrates to the ERF. This publication says the following of EEI.."This simple number, EEI, is the most fundamental metric that the scientific community and public must be aware of as the measure of how well the world is doing in the task of bringing climate change under control."

This further confirms that 350ppm CO2 is the max safe limit.

Mars lol?  You'd want to add CO2 to its atmosphere of course.   

 

What would you do if you wanted to terraform a planet to make it warmer and wetter especially at higher latitudes?