LibertyBell

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.

Well we would have been in a FAR better place had Gore become president rather than the illegitimate "election" of war criminals Bush, Junior and Mercenary Cheney.

Heh yeah I've been wondering about the vulnerability of a democracy in which a large segment of the population isn't properly educated to make smart decisions about existential threats. They are very easy to manipulate without even knowing it's happening.

You used to be a climate change skeptic and had a radio show? I didn't know either of that. I thought climate change had been settled going way back to the 80s. The science is not that difficult (for those of us who love science) and your use of analogies is a handy method for showing people how it works without having to delve into mathematics, charts, etc. We already knew it was happening back then and it turns out that the fossil fuel cartel knew about it even before that. It's just much more obvious now then it was back then. Obviously the cartel had been doing a great job covering their tracks, and now that they can no longer do that (well to most of us anyway) they espouse failed strategies like removing carbon from the atmosphere and "clean coal".

15% slower was the figure I've seen attributed to TC forward speed. Not sure on the strengthening as they near landfall factor, but the SST are abnormally warm near shore. That Siberian megaheatwave sure was something to behold, never heard of anything so anomalous lasting so long.

what about something like rapidly strengthening hurricanes as they approach the Gulf Coast? The water is abnormally warm there and in the last few years we've seen a spate of hurricanes strengthening right to landfall- Harvey, Michael, Laura, and now also Sally? Also much slower moving storms (Harvey, Florence and now Sally).

the sky is a pale yellow here.....

One of the reasons I chose 08-09 is because it came after two back to back well below normal snowfall seasons and also follows the snowy March theme we have seen in recent years.

does 08-09 sound like a reasonable analog to you?

may be a major at landfall

Prediction is for lows of 37-38 at my other home in NE PA and highs in the upper 50s for next weekend.

We'll be onto the Greek alphabet before the end of this month. Will beat 2005 in total tropical storms, but not in hurricanes or majors.

I like the European heat index better, it accounts for sun angle, wind speed and other variables. Question- what is the difference between wet bulb temperature and dew point?

Nature paper on life on Venus https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1174-4.pdfhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1174-4.pdf

Sudden methane release would be an ELE (extinction level event)....it has happened in the past and caused mass extinctions....

One of the higher execs in FB regularly attends Trump banquets.

On a lighter note, if life can exist on the Greenhouse Hellhole that is Venus, we should be fine even if we burn all the carbon on the planet right?! You know I'm kidding.....

Don, on a more positive note, this is breaking news from the British RAS

San Francisco, Portland and Seattle all have the worst air quality on the planet.

Yes all those la nina winters that I remember from the late 80s thru early 90s had very little snow in December, some of them only a T. I'd be thrilled if we even had an average winter, something like 08-09!