LibertyBell

I dont know why some people have so much trouble with this concept. It's not hard to see how the industrial revolution has adversely affected the planet on a variety of levels. Patrick Moore puzzles me, he used to be associated with Green Peace. They kicked him out so he has an axe to grind with the planet? He probably isn't well-versed enough in science to know that higher CO2 means plants have less nutritive value- they lose their content of certain minerals that we need- like zinc and iron.

Funny thing is I was reading some of those posts just before a large gust took out my power here- for 25 hours!

The storm a year later was similar (but more snow for us), very little on the north shore but 8" from the LIE down to here. LIS is too warm for these early season events.

and it looks like this dry west pattern will continue for the foreseeable future!

paid for lol- you do realize you are talking about the fossil fuel CARTEL?! it's just as corrupt as the tobacco CARTEL or the pharma CARTEL or the ag CARTEL or the Colombian drug CARTEL ever were.

It's amazing that some people make the same "arguments" they made decades ago, they are just as invalid now as they were back then and are the reason we haven't made progress.

all you need to see is the trend from how the forest fire season has evolved from a short season to a year long occurrence.

The interesting thing is we were pretty well certain about this even back during the 80s. Actually if you want to go even further back, Exxon's own scientists were aware of it in the 70s, but just like the Tobacco industry, they suppressed the research (which is part of the reason they are considered a cartel and not an industry.)

About the same here in Nassau County. We needed the storm to be a bit further east.

Damn, if that storm had tracked a bit further east we all would have been buried!

Unfortunately there are "scientists" who do this; I was researching cosmic rays and mass extinction events and found that there is a scientist who actually says cosmic rays are the main cause of current climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Postulated_role_in_climate_change A role for cosmic rays in climate was suggested by Edward P. Ney in 1959[100] and by Robert E. Dickinson in 1975.[101] It has been postulated that cosmic rays may have been responsible for major climatic change and mass-extinction in the past. According to Adrian Mellott and Mikhail Medvedev, 62-million-year cycles in biological marine populations correlate with the motion of the Earth relative to the galactic plane and increases in exposure to cosmic rays.[102] The researchers suggest that this and gamma ray bombardments deriving from local supernovae could have affected cancer and mutation rates, and might be linked to decisive alterations in the Earth's climate, and to the mass-extinctions of the Ordovician.[103][104] Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has controversially argued that because solar variation modulates the cosmic ray flux on Earth, they would consequently affect the rate of cloud formation and hence be an indirect cause of global warming.[105][106] Svensmark is one of several scientists outspokenly opposed to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, leading to concerns that the proposition that cosmic rays are connected to global warming could be ideologically biased rather than scientifically based.[107] Other scientists have vigorously criticized Svensmark for sloppy and inconsistent work: one example is adjustment of cloud data that understates error in lower cloud data, but not in high cloud data;[108] another example is "incorrect handling of the physical data" resulting in graphs that do not show the correlations they claim to show.[109] Despite Svensmark's assertions, galactic cosmic rays have shown no statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover,[110] and demonstrated to have no causal relationship to changes in global temperature.[111] Unfortunately this denialism shouts down the very real possibility that a supernova explosion induced cosmic ray barrage caused a relatively recent mass extinction event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Possible_mass_extinction_factor A handful of studies conclude that a nearby supernova or series of supernovas caused the Pliocene marine megafauna extinction event by substantially increasing radiation levels to hazardous amounts for large seafaring animals

Thought I should post this update, especially with the recent historic forest fires all over California and now in Los Angeles! https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1188160398320656385 The climate science is settled on direct causal links to California wildfires. Whether it is drier droughts, or whiplashes to wetness, the jet stream is acting freakishly. The fingerprints of climate change are all over this current event. https://t.co/avouF71zBo?amp=1 https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Scientists-see-fingerprints-of-climate-change-all-13128585.php

I am sick and tired of excuses being made for these "developing nations" Time to punish them financially for relying on outdated, polluting technology. Also, oil and nat gas are contributing factors, especially with the fracking "boom" contributing to methane leaks. Nuclear would be a far better option.

Skip 1995, I was hoping you'd say either 1994 or 1996

Well have a look at the Euro LR maps, Ray, they look like they're forecasting January to be below normal snowfall. Maybe normal snowfall for some areas. February is when they're depicting well above snowfall. https://bennollweather.com/ecmwf https://www.bennollweather.com/ukmet UKMet has a better snowfall distribution.

I was thinking backloaded winter too, with the "back load" starting later- perhaps in the first week of February?

The 2030s are when the Great Barrier Reef is predicted to be completely gone- to the massive detriment of the marine ecosystem!

This is going to be a bit OT but did you see the new research on the dinosaur extinction asteroid? The new research indicates that oceans quickly acidified killing sea life on a global scale rather quickly. I wonder if climate change induced ocean acidification could do something similar?

Thanks, I expect they will update this report too then: https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/783/Surface-Air-Temperature

Looks like new england bore the brunt of this one.

Here's the report card for 2018 https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/790/Clarity-and-Clouds-Progress-in-Understanding-Arctic-Influences-on-Mid-latitude-Weather When will the one for 2019 be issued?

btw the fossil fuel industry being this corrupt is no secret nor is it a surprise- the pharma industry (opioids), chemical industry (pesticides) and food industry (additives) are just as corrupt. And not coincidentally, all are being sued by various states.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/world-was-just-issued-12-year-ultimatum-climate-change-180970489/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/ According to Brulle's research, the 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations and trade associations that make up the American climate denial industry pull down just shy of a billion dollars each year, money used to lobby or sway public opinion on climate change and other issues. “The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires,” says the Guardian, “often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change.” This is exactly why we need to sue the heck out of billionaires, the only language they understand is money and the only way to castrate their power is to take away the one thing they love. That's where the 10-12 year figure comes from- from IPCC itself. And it was underreported in the media..... unless you consume PBS and NPR of course. The money of corrupt corporations behind the oligarchical movement of denial is instrumental also of course. But evidence in the new report, in which a team of 91 scientists from 40 countries analyzed over 6,000 scientific studies, shows that the future is bleaker than once thought. A 2-degree-Celsius rise in temperatures would spell widespread disaster. Even if the world manages to shave off that extra 0.5 degrees, we’ll still be well on our way to flooded coastlines, intensified droughts and debilitated industries. A seemingly small 1.5-degree-Celsius bump in temperature would also alter weather worldwide, wreaking havoc on agriculture and natural ecosystems, and cost about $54 trillion in damages, according to the report. Because agriculture is the leading source of income in already poor countries, it’s likely that a crippling wave of poverty would ensue. To make matters worse, the world is already clocking in at 1-degree-Celsius warmer than preindustrial levels, which means we’re more than halfway there. At the rate we’re going, global temperatures are set to hit the mark by 2040—unless a lot changes, and fast. “Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics," energy policy expert Jim Skea of Imperial College London, one of the authors of the report, explains to Christopher Joyce at NPR. “But doing so would require unprecedented changes.” Among them would be a 40 to 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2030—a mere 12 years from now—and a completely carbon-neutral world by 2050. Usage of coal as an electricity source would also have to take a significant plunge to make room for renewable energy, such as wind and solar, Davenport reports. Climate scientists warn that these goals probably won’t be met without some serious new technological firepower designed to suck greenhouse gases back out of the air. Considering that such techniques could save us even in the event that we overshoot the 1.5-degree-Celsius mark, this route sounds pretty appealing. There’s just one problem: We still have to invent and conventionalize some of these tools before we can actually put them into use, Joyce reports. Currently, a few experimental methods exist that can snatch carbon dioxide directly out of the air, but at up to $1,000 per ton of carbon dioxide, the price tag of such carbon capture is staggering—and billions of tons await extraction. “The best way to remove carbon dioxide from the air,” explains MIT engineer Howard Herzog in his book Carbon Capture, is “to not release it into the air in the first place,” Joyce reports. But the hurdles to clear aren’t just technological. As Davenport reports, the new study’s authors have already conceded that dampening the rise in temperature is probably “politically unlikely.” President Donald Trump announced intent to withdraw from the United States from the Paris agreement in 2017; it is now the only country publically opposing the accord. A recent U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report estimated that maintaining the administration’s current course will yield a 4-degree Celsius (7-degree Fahrenheit) rise in temperature for the planet as a whole by the end of the current century. The report explicitly acknowledges the human impact on climate, but instead uses the data to justify continued non-action. In other words, the administration is arguing that our “fate is already sealed,” reports The Washington Post. Hitting the 1.5-degree-Celsius goal won’t be easy. But saving a mere half-degree could make a huge difference in some parts of the world. For instance, it could pull corals back from the brink of complete eradication—an inevitable fate with a 2-degree-Celsius rise—and ease the severity of climate-related poverty, food shortages and water stress, Watts at The Guardian reports. And with scientists and government officials raising global alarm bells, perhaps there is hope that we can yet forestall the devastation. “We have a monumental task in front of us, but it’s not impossible,” study co-author and climate scientist Natalie Mahowald of Cornell University tells Joyce at NPR. “This is our chance to decide what [the next 50 years] will look like.”

FWIW we've found a planet that has water vapor in its atmosphere about 100 LY away, it's a super earth 8 times more massive than our planet but in its star's habitable zone. Next stage is to look for oxygen in the atmosphere, which would be an indicator of life being present, since (as far as we know) for oxygen to remain in an atmosphere, life must be present.

Want to read the kind of things that can happen to a society that is governed by fear? Read this classic short story- Nightfall http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/AST389/TEXTS/Nightfall.htm That was later extended to novel-length, but I have always found the short story version to be most poignant: and here is another one that has a shocking ending about how our universe ends (and begins?) The Last Question: https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html It's amazing these were written so long ago and yet are so timely. And for those who wonder if our universe (and other possible universes) are the product of intelligent design, just look at all the places the number 137 seems to show up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/137_(number)