LibertyBell

and then a four month long depression in the nonwinter of 01-02.....

that was backside snow that often gets mentioned but rarely occurs Of course people's expectations were much higher than just some backside snow. We had 5" here in SW Nassau, I think Patchogue got a foot? That was the highest amount I saw mentioned on Long Island. SW CT got a lot more.

Yes I have high hopes for future generations as it seems like they have a sense of urgency the rest are lacking. And by future I mean like within the next 5-10 years lol

it also sounds a lot like 2005-06

He is the shining light here, he recognizes that the Paris Treaty is now out of date and we need much faster action now and stronger penalties for those nations who dont. This is a sad commentary, but the rising number of climate catastrophes and their multibillion dollar costs is actually a good thing as it is going to motivate conservatives and so-called moderates in states like Louisiana and Florida to faster action. The more disasters we have and the faster they occur the better for the changes we need. Ditto for pandemics and getting universal healthcare. Sad commentary on the state of this country but this is where we are.

wow a bit more tepid than Jan 2015....but Mar 01 is considered the bigger bust?

We hope they will, but it's going to be a wait and see attitude because some of the people on their transition team have connections to the fossil fuel cartel. Cedric Richmond and Moniz in particular. It's been talked about before. Richmond was one of a few Democrats who voted to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline.[18] He is the fifth-biggest recipient of money from fossil fuel donors among House Democrats. The League of Conservation Voters gave him one of the lowest ratings for any Democrat in Congress.[19] https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-appoints-fossil-fuel-ally-cedric-richmond-as-his-climate-movement-liason

I'm waiting for some AFD's from the March 2001 fiasco.

did you hear about this big event that will occur in the latter part of December? Wow this link says they will be close enough to seem like a single point of light https://www.sciencealert.com/the-planets-will-align-in-christmas-week-for-a-rare-spectacle-not-seen-in-800-years?fbclid=IwAR1R1rtsaSHcIAh8yKaFgAM99SLeBDPlhoPnTEKWg-mvd-V98VNK-34h7bw In that image you can see their moons clustered around them as if they were all about to collide..... "You'd have to go all the way back to just before dawn on March 4, 1226, to see a closer alignment between these objects visible in the night sky." To get the best viewing experience for this spectacular show, you're going to need to be somewhere near the equator – but if the skies are clear then the alignment should still be visible from just about anywhere on Earth. The pair of planets will show up in the night sky for about an hour after sunset each evening, according to astronomers. If you're hoping to catch a glimpse yourself, you'll need to point your telescope towards the western sky. "On the evening of closest approach on Dec 21 they will look like a double planet, separated by only 1/5th the diameter of the full moon," says Hartigan. "For most telescope viewers, each planet and several of their largest moons will be visible in the same field of view that evening." "The further north a viewer is, the less time they'll have to catch a glimpse of the conjunction before the planets sink below the horizon." The planets will be bright enough in the sky to be visible in twilight, which might be the best time to try and take a look at them if you're in the US. Websites such as Stellarium should help you work out where you should be looking from your vantage point. While this kind of alignment hasn't occurred since the Middle Ages, it will happen again fairly soon, in March 2080. After that though, Jupiter and Saturn won't get as close in our night sky until 2400.

the issue was that we waited for it to snow all day and the heavy snow occurred in the middle of the night when most us were asleep. I HATE THAT

1999 is catching up quick....I see a lot of records both in the east and west that were previously set in 1999. I just have caution with it because of the 11 yr cycle. By the way, this is far out there, but what do you see for next summer? 2021 is part of the 11 yr cycle of hot summers but if we have a developing el nino next year it might be like some of the 11 year cycle summers that had a developing el nino which have a week or two of heat but mild besides that (then again there's 2002 which was pretty hot throughout; it's not part of the 11 yr cycle of extremely hot summers but shows that you can have a hot eastern summer even during a developing el nino.) I've also seen 1975-76 being tossed out there....what do you think of that comparison? The funny thing about 2005-06 was that the second half of winter should have been more wintry.....March was pretty cold but we didn't get much snow. Most of the snow we got that winter was concentrated in two storms, the one in December and the other one in February. As you mentioned previously, in la ninas, December tends to be an indicator for how the winter will go. It doesn't even have to be the beginning of December, but if you have a decent snow event sometime during the month it usually means good things for the rest of winter.

Reminds me of 2010 here!

I concur with you guys, it would be amazing if they could replant it. I also gained some more empathy for trees after watching Cosmos s 3 e 7, where it was mentioned that trees reach out with their roots to sustain one of their own that just got cut off at the trunk and how a "mother" tree controls the growth of her offspring. All very eye-opening.

Are there any that you are putting more weight in above the rest, Ray? I have them listed as follows: 1) 2007 2) 1970 3) 1999 and 2010 a very distant fourth lol. Also wondering if you considered 2005-06?

He was indeed. Cosmos and Contact were two of my favorite books

it even goes beyond this, the wildfire particles are going high up and causing the formation of another hole in the ozone layer

You guys really need to watch Cosmos: Possible Worlds. Excellent narration by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Season 3 Episode 7- The Four Kingdoms of Life- was particularly memorable. He mentioned the intelligence and empathy of trees and bees (and the mathematical and astronomical knowledge that bees possess) and how humans first need to realize the sentience that exists on earth itself before they go looking for it elsewhere. Talks about empathy, sentience and intelligence among nonhumans (including trees!) And how human-centricism may prevent us from recognizing it elsewhere.

I've never agreed with this policy of hacking down a tree and putting it in the middle of Rockefeller Center.

1999 and 2007 are reappearing analogs. I've seen some extreme temp records in the SW (Phoenix, for example) that were previously held on the same dates in 1999.

I wouldn't be surprised if they're right. History has taught us that pessimism is usually correct. With so many factors interconnected it's not a surprise there would be a feedback mechanism to amplify the outcome. I put the odds that we avoid a runaway greenhouse effect at around 10%. I've always believed that we should've started to cut greenhouse consumption back in the 80s-90s and should never have turned to fracking, but humankind has a history of making dumb shortsighted decisions (one of many reasons why I favor artificial intelligence and scientists running govt over politicians.)

from SciAm https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-green-new-deal-is-more-relevant-than-ever/

Excellent papers guys! Going to read them now as the big severe weather outbreak is now behind us. One question I have emanating from this research is will it lead to Nina/Nino like events being defined for the other ocean basins, not just the Pacific? It could also help with TC forecasting in other parts of the world and the interconnected relationships with global weather patterns!

https://www.inverse.com/science/5-strategies-for-climate-change According to a new study published Thursday in the journal Science, the food industry is on track to produce 1,356 gigatons of carbon dioxide between 2020 and 2100. As the researchers highlight in the study, that is enough carbon dioxide to push the Earth beyond 2 degrees Celsius of global warming within that time frame, even if every other industry that produces CO2 suddenly halted. But there is a way out. In the report, the scientists detail five strategies to change how we produce, supply and consume our food. Together, these solutions would result in an up to 18 percent decrease in CO2 emissions from food production. They could even tip the industry into being carbon negative. The five strategies the scientists propose are: Global adoption of a plant-based diet, like the Mediterranean diet. Reducing personal consumption to healthy, recommended amounts. Improving crop yields using genetics and other technology. Cutting food waste by half. Using precision technology, like fertilizers and food additives. Why change — Right now, food production releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Clearing and deforestation for agriculture and livestock, fertilizers, and fossil fuels used in food production and supply chains all added up to the release of more than 35 trillion tons (16 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide equivalents per year from 2012 through 2017, according to the paper. Reducing food-related emissions will “likely be essential” to meeting goals to prevent global warming set out by the Paris Climate Agreement, according to the study.

and now for some good news lol.... a soil bacterium that extracts methane from the atmosphere https://www.inverse.com/article/54695-this-bacterium-could-help-curb-climate-change

Good luck to whomever still exists on this planet in 2100 and thereafter. I'm most certainly glad that I wont be here and that I decided to not have any children, I wouldn't wish this kind of hell on my worst enemy. https://www.inverse.com/science/the-permafrost-is-doomed They look at two possible scenarios. In the far more likely of the two scenarios, they assume that humans completely eliminate manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2100. Under this scenario, global temperatures reach a peak around 2075 before falling for 75 years to 2 degrees Celsius above temperatures in a pre-industrial Earth by 2150. That's in tune with other science on what such a drastic action would have on global warming. What is unexpected is everything that happens after 2150. After 2150, the global temperature counterintuitively starts rising again, despite no new production of greenhouse gases. In the highly unrealistic second scenario, which posits that humanity abruptly cuts all greenhouse gases in 2020, the same pattern of initial decline followed by global warming still occurs. Essentially, we've missed the boat. Rather, to stop the melting of the permafrost now, the study states that "all man-made emissions would have had to be cut to zero sometime between 1960 and 1970" — when the global temperature was only 0.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Oh No. New study reveals the true cost of Earth's melting permafrost We are "beyond the point-of-no-return," the scientists say. BlackJack3D/Getty Images Tara Yarlagadda 11.12.2020 3:21 PM The science behind the melting Arctic permafrost, is, frankly, terrifying. As it melts, mummified remains of animals are slowly emerging, offering us a glimpse at the ancient world — one that scientists believed would always remain hidden, locked up for good. These puppies, birds, and other fauna are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine. Now, a new study published Thursday in Scientific Reports gives us even more cause for concern. Jørgen Randers is one of the study's authors and professor emeritus of climate strategy at the BI Norwegian Business School. He tells Inverse that the permafrost may not just be melting — it might never freeze again. "According to our system dynamics simulation model ESCIMO, humanity is beyond the point-of-no-return when it comes to halt the melting of the permafrost using greenhouse gas cuts as the single tool," Randers says. In other words: cutting down on (or completely eliminating) greenhouse gas emissions now won't stop the melting of the permafrost in the future. Instead, Randers explains, it "will continue to melt over the next 500 years — irrespective of how quickly humanity cuts its greenhouse gas emissions." The melting Siberian permafrost represents a vicious cycle of climate change.The Washington Post/The Washington Post/Getty Images How did we get here — To come to this dire conclusion, Randers and co-author Ulrich Goluke used a simulation model known as ESCIMO (an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity) to observe the self-sustained melting of the permafrost. Goluke is assistant professor at the Business School Lausanne, Switzerland. They look at two possible scenarios. In the far more likely of the two scenarios, they assume that humans completely eliminate manmade greenhouse gas emissions by 2100. Under this scenario, global temperatures reach a peak around 2075 before falling for 75 years to 2 degrees Celsius above temperatures in a pre-industrial Earth by 2150. That's in tune with other science on what such a drastic action would have on global warming. What is unexpected is everything that happens after 2150. After 2150, the global temperature counterintuitively starts rising again, despite no new production of greenhouse gases. In the highly unrealistic second scenario, which posits that humanity abruptly cuts all greenhouse gases in 2020, the same pattern of initial decline followed by global warming still occurs. Essentially, we've missed the boat. Rather, to stop the melting of the permafrost now, the study states that "all man-made emissions would have had to be cut to zero sometime between 1960 and 1970" — when the global temperature was only 0.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The melting of the Siberian permafrost.Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post via Getty Images Vicious cycle — This bizarre oscillation in global temperature comes down to three factors: the melting of the permafrost itself, increased water vapor, and decreasing surface albedo. These three processes interact in a self-sustaining feedback loop, resulting in more carbon (in the form of methane or CO2) being released into the atmosphere. More carbon increases global temperatures and causes even more melting of the permafrost. Let's focus on that last factor: surface albedo. "Surface albedo is the same as the reflectivity, shininess of the Earth's surface as seen from space. Bright surfaces like snow and ice reflects most of the incoming energy from the Sun," Randers says. By contrast, dark areas — like the sea — reflect less and instead absorb more energy. "This means that as the globe warms, the area covered by ice and snow diminishes, laying bare ever more ocean surface, which absorbs more of the incoming light, warming and melting even more surface ice," Randers says. This has extreme implications for humans over the next 200 years — from 2150 on, the global temperature will continue to rise 0.5 degrees Celsius every century, according to Randers. "The rise will be so slow that humanity will probably adapt," Randers says — but he cautions that we will also suffer worse than if the temperatures and sea levels did not rise. What's next for the permafrost — Cutting greenhouse gases in the next fifty years is still important for the survival of our species, and our actions now do influence temperature increases in the future. But we also need to innovate our way out, too. "The world should accelerate its effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions and start developing the technologies for large scale removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere," Randers says.