Typhoon Tip

If someone is distorting, or attempting to alter an understanding of reality, that is “demagoguery” or gaslighting. The data that is real and empirical does not support a grand CC conspiracy to fabricate a climate crisis to jump in bed with macro-economics required to rewire the world around a green infrastructure, though... The following does not support the first sentence above. Glaciers melted... Seas already rising ... Global temperatures exceed previous record along a contiguously accelerating curve ... Species dying off or in states of diaspora due to lacking the ability to adapt at a pace their habitats are forcibly changing ... Math and physics demonstrating that these should exactly happen - and here we are... This compendium of objective realities does not suggest a grand CC conspiracy. They suggest CC. Period.

The reality vs mere notion of an 'existential crisis' is more debatable than a bullet point. No question.... With the ambrosia of empirical data that points to a crisis, a crisis that is geophysically determined by taking said data and implementing in physical/mathematical laws of nature ... no one can say there is no existential crisis with any assurance - in fact, quite the contrary. However, one may personally define crisis differently than the next person. Define crisis: is there a false dawn at the 3am as a fiery wall is imminently cresting the horizon in 20 minutes? No are we in a proven multi-species die off that is presently being considered a mass extinction event ? Yes The problem with acknowledging the latter is in part misrepresentation. That's the problem with "any" misrepresentation - however... I would argue that there are those choosing the wrong information to be true relative to that uncertainty. Because in the whole of it, there is both truth and falsity. People could and should choose information based upon some ability to objectively filtrate either content - As an aside ... there's also a gleaming logical flaw in denialism. If the price of denying is death... why take the risk? You cannot circumstantially be more certain in your denial than is the science in the other direction. So the cost of doing nothing, for what? so we don't have to change... It baffles the mind that this is a position at all.

https://phys.org/news/2026-10-countries-vulnerable-fossil-fuel-phaseout.html seein' as y'all arguin' about it. Apropos timing from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) ...

Get used to cold solutions, correcting warmer passing through the mid ranges

You may have already observed that correlation

Mentioned yesterday or the day before .. I was suss about that magnitude. Seriously not being a dick but the reason that's important is because the models have a bias in amplitude with that type of wave space/propagation. It's doing it already ...what's happening in winter - Not sure if it is a specific model bias because they all seem to do this. Probably it's just chaos load balancing, in that they don't see the permutations of the future, so all they physically end up with out in time is a purified field of just a shorter logistic of events in handling. But in reality ...all those future distractions will be there eroding - i mean it's the only logic i can come up with that starts to explain that all but completely dependable bullshit amplitude bias at that mid/ext range

Plus... if fossil fuel really is that impossible to get away from then we are assured of two world destinies: an ontological death an actual die-off I suspect though that folks just enjoy the sport of the argument...? fine. But while that ball-game is being played, those overarching ultimatums are objectively looming. In other words, do it! tough shit. But of course, the problem with that is that people do not believe that the proverbial pistol is actually pointed at the head. For the rest, look ... no one is insinuating any of this is going to be easy. It is going to be hard, very hard. In fact, so much so that it is of higher likelihood that humanity won't be able to get off the oil-heroin without transferring violent withdraw frustrations, unilaterally. That's rhetorical euphemism for destructive conflicts. I just wanna point out couple aspects for muse/thought: The first is ... the problem with Global Warming is not warming of the globe. That was a mistake of the early science ambit when this issue of humanity's industrial flatulence become abundantly clear to the very small population that is really even capable of understanding the future peril. When that become obvious to those that know, the 99.9999999% of the world that finds all this "math" as mentally untenable, simply were ill-equipped so... denial was going to be inevitable after sociological forces worked it over. The way GW should have been exposed was to say - it's species adaptation rate, more importantly .... being slower than the changes to the environments within which they were evolved prior to the arrival anthropomorphic forcing. Resources become challenged ? But that's a separate issue... We are inexorably dependent upon the interconnected species of the global "Gaia" - for lack of better word. When those relationships sever - because keystone bacteria ...say etc...- undermines the foundation of food and resource pyramids... tick tick tick The 2nd is that innovation in our species as tool makers has outpaced the normal checks-n-balances that intertwine use with the surrounding ecology. There are probably better ways to formulate that sentence/phrase out that sentiment, relative to the reader's comprehension, in hopes that they really understand what is trying to be conveyed. Look at it this way... in the Darwinian machinery, all other species mutate enough to survive, and those mutations thus live on so that the next generation has that ability built in. Human have a unique power, to innovate beyond that species requirement. If you sum-up the quotient that is over the top of the species basal requirement, that surplus is probably 1::1 equal with problems that are being defined. I've been saying for years that the moment in antiquity that the early hominid picked up the burning stick, we were doomed. It was just a matter thousands of years... a time span - by the way - that is an instant cataclysm relative to the geological ages. At a minimum, that same mutation, innovation, will have to become our savior.

it's probably underdone. these types of science -based studies result in estimates. Sophisticated as they may be compared to oh say ..., Kevin-types and their brilliant objective-based illustrations of what is going to happen to trees and building and stuff... , they are still based upon more linearly algebraic resolutions using available/reanalaytic metrical inputs. what they don't include are the synergistic products of complex higher order energetic systems. one question that immediately leaps to mind for me is the 'domino effect' thereof. You get to a certain pervasive failure quotient and the weight just topples everything. We actually observed something similar to this during the 2008 ice storm up there in N Worcester and Middlesex Co. The margin towns that didn't record any icing, or if so... limited amounts, lost power by load balancing when substations reeled - often times safety measures built in cut regional grids... This is particularly true in tangled messes of major events where regions are a labyrinth of partially mixed with total and non disrupted messes. Everyone goes down in that region... I'm sure their science takes that into consideration, but when events get in that GOAT range ... which comparing to 1938, heh ... there's almost always unexpected emergent properties.

First El NINO -related risk event of the season ?

Oh great ... instead of early season snow chance(s), the last half of the month is way better with higher chances for 59 F mist instead

come to think about it ... sudden potent short duration events have also been increasing in frequency every time Gretta sneezes so heh

i'm always a little suss about those fast moving cold slicing waves like that. often enough they prove to have been over amplified. but like Scott just noted ... the ambient polar boundary appears to be gradient saturated so maybe this time we'll yo-yo 36 deg spanning 30 hours.

Hell ... gon' be Georgian climate in a couple o coffee breaks so may as well get ahead of the investment curve.

what a day. 73 no wind tolerable RH and at least some feeble warmth value still to the sun. top 10er actually -

https://phys.org/news/2026-10-climate-fingerprints-reveal-stronger-evidence.html