LibertyBell

Nature mimicking the inequalities of human society on all levels we are seeing now.

We've seen the rapid rise in total annual precip here that you mentioned, as well as rapidly rising dewpoints and a much higher frequency of big 3" rainfall events.

I can tell you this though, the chances of us remaining below the 2C limit set by the IPCC for "irreversible damaging consequences" is probably 10% or lower. That isn't just because of US politics, but because of global politics. We should have made a bigger switch to nuclear years ago and then we could have completely eliminated fossil fuel consumption by 2030. That isn't going to happen and I have big doubts about 2050 also, because of the corrupt political influence of the cartel. It will only happen when people have to start moving away from the coast and avoid living near forested areas and the cost of billion dollar disasters is so high that our economy becomes crippled. That time is coming soon. All the trends are pointed in that direction. And if it takes for the climate to cripple our economy, then the sooner it happens the better. Bill Gates was right in saying that the climate change problem makes the pandemic look like child's play. History is going to look back at this time period as full of cowards who didn't have the guts to do what needed to be done. If there is anyone left to look back lol.

It seems like the average minimum is around the first day of fall now?

ha that's true, but I only took a video no images sorry and will post it when I get it up on youtube. I opted for video because the birds looked so adorable splashing around in the water and fighting with each other for room lol.

But we saw it in early August with Isaias. Either way, I think we aren't done with EC TC. The next one we get will most likely be from the Greek alphabet lol.

a college friend of mine was visiting when Floyd hit, he had never experienced a TC before and he asked me...so this is it? It's nothing more than a boring old rainstorm! He wasn't around for Irene or Sandy lol. Speaking of which, wasn't the 1903 Hurricane similar to Sandy with its track?

lol DSLR are ancient history, mirrorless cameras with fully electronic shutters are the new thing. I ditched all my DSLR a few years ago.

Saw an excellent doc on PBS that showed how the Starfish is one of those very important keystone species that indicates the health of the overall environment- and based on that, it isn't looking so good.

It looks like there was a 49 low on 9-2-2017?

best to be safe, air pollution is the number 1 cause of a shorter lifespan (2.0 yrs), even more than tobacco smoke (1.5 yrs)

121 mph wind gust reported on AL barrier island and rainfall of 30" + near Pensacola

the TCs in the Atlantic are sucking in the smoke from the west

I knew that massive high to our northeast would come into play sooner or later. This may not be the last time this year either.

It seems to be a lot more this year, this morning I had hundreds of birds mobbing around my backyard pond, of various different species. It was a sight to behold! They were bathing, eating and fighting amongst themselves.

Fire seasons have been getting more and more active over the past 20 years and on a global scale. Furthermore the Siberian heatwave isn't something one would expect to occur naturally because of its extremely long duration as well as the extremity of its anomalies. About hurricanes, we were specifically talking about those rapidly strengthening as they approach the coast in Gulf waters, where the waters are abnormally warm, as well as forward speed slowing down- both have been happening more frequently for a few years now.

well we have had several mass extinction events; we are in the middle of one right now.

Isn't the Starfish one of those key biomarkers that is undergoing a massive die off?

TCs rapidly strengthening as they approach land (and slowing down) in the Gulf has been a pretty strong signal over the last 5 years or so, and can be connected to the abnormally warm waters there.

Questioning everything is a nice trait to have, but if you are going to do that, you must question industry scientists even more- they have a long track record of deceit, across multiple fields.

hold on a sec though, do you at least acknowledge that research performed by the fossil fuel cartel back in the 70s was covered up by them? And if so, why do you think they covered it up? We see this across several industries. I dont understand why some call out scientists that rely on government funding when scientists who work for industry have proven to be way more biased. You see this across several industries- from tobacco to pharma to fossil fuels to the sugar and food industries. If you want to call out funding dependent scientists you must even more vociferously call out industry scientists.

If that's true then a reasonable assumption would be that ENSO may have offered a temporary counterbalance to atmospheric warming. The question then becomes if artificial sources were taken out of the equation, how much would the earth have cooled in that period?

In another piece I read, it stated that 93% of the heat went into the oceans first, that also explains part of the lag that skiier talked about.

It makes a lot of sense that oceanic heat content kept increasing. https://www.noaa.gov/news/global-ocean-is-absorbing-more-carbon-from-fossil-fuel-emissions The global ocean absorbed 34 billion metric tons of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels from 1994 to 2007 — a four-fold increase to 2.6 billion metric tons per year when compared to the period starting from the Industrial Revolution in 1800 to 1994.

We've generally come to the conclusion that the CO2 output went into the oceans first which may partially explain what you pointed out about the lack of warming during the first decade of the millennium (and has resulted in coral bleaching.) The ironic thing about the climate models is that they're now proving to be TOO conservative as far as sea level rise is concerned. I've always been of the philosophy that we need to be proactive and make changes (for a multitude of reasons) BEFORE the science was settled, and there have always been good reasons to do that (regarding air pollution and health, which we've already gone over.) And it's important for us to present a united front to the general public, which either doesn't have access to this data or doesn't have the time to sift through it. There's many reasons to end the consumption of fossil fuels, and climate change is only one of them. On top of that, if you want to wait until everything is 100% settled, it'll be too late. It almost is already. Perfection is the enemy of the good. Regarding Siberia, I think we're now seeing the accelerated temperature rise that has long been predicted. Not only that, we are also seeing it in other northern regions, including Vermont and other parts of Northern New England. A good analogy is that the attic is on fire and the fire is now spreading to other parts of the house.