Typhoon Tip

As this is a tedious exercise in subjectivity ... I'm sure this will roll-eyes in the same vane, but I agree with that Dr. Dew user. That warm March in particular in 2012 was a truly extraordinary event, considering the preceding some 200 years of both reanalysis and/or empirical-based climate construction(s). That should be on the list, imho - One particular reason that is important for me is that it was one of the few examples spanning the last 20 years ... when mid latitudes of N. America experienced the type of anomalies that have become more common place abroad. I think that's an important distinction. Our above normals seem to not be in the best of the best ... save that event, and perhaps the heat wave in the mid west to mid Atlantic later that summer. I think the specter of 2015's February should also rank highly but it gets and a question for two reason: a, it was more local to SNE and N. M/A.... and b, the snow was a lower pwat anomaly, which sort of 'inflated' depth. From there drill down to specific events... obviously very few using this past-time/social media would probably rank 1953 Worcester Tornado but that's a high ranker. Then, 1978 February... etc etc..

I don't mind a back-loaded winter idea ... Hate it, but can see intellectually why one may assess things that way - if they are considering the latest school of what's happenin' now. The Hadley Cell ( ambient tropical height bulge that extends some latitude N/S of the equatorial trough ...usually terminating in the subtropical band(s) ) has been expanding over recent decades: Birner, T., S. M. Davis, and Dian J. Seidel, 2014: The changing width of Earth’s tropical belt. Physcis Today, 67, 38–44, doi:10.1063/PT.3.2620. Why that is important: It may be over a lot of readers heads in here ? ( seems that way... but I don't know ), but, when you have a surplus thermal energy source in a system that relies upon systemic circulation/integrated with thermodynamics to remove it, that is going to take more time than when/if said region does not have said surplus. This happened last year. As late in the season as early February ... NCEP noted that the atmospheric circulation in the broader scope and scale was not demonstrating that it was coupled to the ENSO state... In simple terms, the El Nino - regardless of its form - was irrelevant. A mild warm ENSO event will not couple to the atmosphere as readily during an expanded Hadley Cell, as it will when said tropical circulation is less expanded. The reason for that is "integrate-ability" ... You need gradient to do that... When the Hadley balloons, the gradient which is where the Hadley Cell kisses the Ferral Cell latitude, slips too far N or S of the ENSO latitudes and that's kinda of a geo-physical ball-game. So,... long about early mid February... the "deflating" processing had elapsed long enough that the gradient crept south and then... boom, we triggered more atmospheric response. The only problem is... February is a spring month already for the kiss-latitudes of the HC and FC circulation eddies of the large scaled general circulation of the atmosphere... Anyway, if a given ENSO event is more intense, that may 'trigger' earlier in this sense.... to which this ain't that. We are supposedly in a modest warm anomaly that is < +.5 and should fit all safe a snug inside the confines of the HC... and the surrounding atmosphere's of the mid levels/latitudes will remain blissfully unaware because of it... I could see that lasting similar to last year... As an after though, it may be why the flow has at times looked more NINA -like despite. But ... this isn't absolute. Anomalies relative to anomalies happen too - we could be right about all this and still clock a 30" juggernaut on December 10, just before going back to the same mildish ennui. And everyone would claim this circuitry of reasoning above isn't true because of that storm ... of course.

how about "notsnowmeggetin ' " does anyone ever have the plumbs to make that call ?

Mm ... From what source.. ?

This graph inspires some speculative ideas ... Like, seeing the present curve cross the 2012, per date, means we are setting a time-relative record... so that much is more empirical. I still think it interesting... how it's a under-the-radar achievement. Don and I discussed this a month or so ago, how that behavior in its self is probably just as important as the actual bottom of the curve. But the other more speculative wonder is whether the onsetting solar minimum, together with black-body feed-backs, could have something to do with that nadir falling shy of 2012. The present heavily advertised 'super minimum' was not yet that far along in 2012, so this year's total insolation might be some critical fraction less than 2012 ... less implying less melt now. Again... speculation .. but, melt temperature for sea-ice is a discrete temperature ... It's not like oh, it's 3 warmer but it doesn't feel like a melt day.. heh. At the point of seasonal loss, that temperature is being influenced very delicately by outside influence, wither it is quantum sufficient in energy to flip phases - and not all those influence may be Terrestrial in origin. There are other factors that are more important, though ( probably ). Like days with cloud cover/increased albedo not allowing as much solar energy reaching the darkening sea/ice interface... Or just the vagaries of the wind and weather patterns happened to chance 2012 with more delivery long-wave radiation air masses to/at high latitudes... or this, or that ... and on and so on. I guess at the end the day, it really comes down to the fact that although that gap looks pretty coherent there in that graph, we're really talking about almost imperceptible variations from the orbital polar stereographic view.

Probably sooner than people think at that... a year with "as much" ice as 2012 will become the anomalous summer - Eyes roll .. ones with dim electrical circuitry in the brain box they serve, but this list of ice loss years provided by Bluewave ? I am pretty sure they were all ahead of early forecasts ... Please correct this if I am wrong - no ego to bruise here - but I was under the impression that we're witnessing acceleration over the earlier scientific reasoning/prognostics from years ago. And if so ... it would be illogical to assume we won't keep accelerating - not without sufficiently compensatory and cogently veracious reasons to do so.

I was talking to Don about this last week - I think - ...about how 'less relevant' the specific comparison is to 2012 or other notable nadir years, vs the general distinction - which is more indicative of the status. It's a logic principle... but, it's important for conveying to a public hell-bent on using any means plausible to bend/rationalize this into being something else. Being a little sarcastic there/here ... But, the point I was making then - as is illustrated above - is that it is less important that 2019 did not absolutely bottom out below 2012, as much as it is important that it fits snugly along a trend line that is going to hell ... This record above, is just as achieving in paving that course -

It's all tedious really ... I mean, not to dissuade others from keeping track. But, this level of detail seeking ... ( not to mention if they are veracious - we are always finding out that a clad data set is found to be flawed, passe' ) it's all stuff that seems more appropriate to those stationed out upon a slab of faux Terra Firma, just slightly too big to actually be defined as a mere ice-floe, with portable sat-dishes and a battery, jerry-rigged to send current in AC to a lap-top. They're scrambling to get one last empirical data set entered before their scheduled hilo's arrive and whisks them away before the the PV's cryo hell engulfs the setting. These kind particulars will resonate to those walking sectors of society - and of course are important for discrete sciences back in labs and University desks and white-boards and what have you. We in here, we're internet junkies finding free publications of their findings, to repackage surrounding our own hypothesis - okay, but for what? Here's a thought: There's a tendency toward a microcosm of what goes on out there, just colored differently when we play a hedging game with decimals, in here. The reality is that we are obsessing over serrated elevated points and dips along a curve that's descending clearly to hell - no matter how we cut it up and look at it. The fact that we do, strikes me as a kind of bargaining tact. It's same shit that is happening out there is society overall. How? Those that are finally coming out of the auto-pilot, knee-jerk denial stat and are accepting that there is a problem, there is a tendency to fall-back rely upon this invented notion, that it is somehow "unclear that Human's are the cause," .. Um, no. That's bargaining. It's just taking on a different form/color. I don't want to say the word appropriate, because that sounds stilted, and almost toeing the line, and not questioning authority and ...well, for better or worse, I'm too maverick at the core to do that, either. However, keeping it 100,000 mile perspectives, is the appropriate conclusion nonetheless. Because, delineating lost ice as less than 2012 given the reality, absolutely should not allay the concerns, certainly not the gravitas ( that is real ) of the problem of a climate change that is highly probably caused by anthropogenic forcing ... Not even by decimal amounts of fear for that matter. I don't wanna be out of line? I just would hope there is not a "bargaining" thing going on here, where one might even be less aware they're doing it. It's where if 2019's data is less than 2012 that somehow, in some deeper way enters a plausible justification for "phew, that was close" - I mean... close to what? Irrelevant ... It's not stopping an inevitability to 'make sure' 2019 is decimals less. ha ha. Ultimately it doesn't matter... Fact of the matter is, for all the work that's being published to this site's social media depot, I could not locate one general populate out among the provincials to the bourgeoisie, in a random sampling, that [most likely] even knows it exists. Ha ha. It's kind of funny - doing endlessly, something, that makes no difference. Hm. Kinda flirts with the old insanity definition, huh. But, we engage in this shit because we are hobbyists, and well.. concomitantly we have an interests. And that's fine, too -

Can you imagine the ballz on this guy ... That bucket's gotta be some kind of prorated to get those boulders that high. No amount of money -

It's the behavioral difference that tell the character of the field imho - These statistical comparisons and variance as elaborated upon, they are very useful as gateways into a deeper realm of "arctic-introspection" - it is only there where the 'gestalt' reveals what is really going on... The fact you elucidated above - to me - is a fine expose on a way in which the arctic is shrinking/in crisis, both faster and worse than mere numbers suggest. Because when the edges start receding earlier springs, and the recuperation is being delayed - and allowing further melting while in wait - in autumns, let's consider: It really is a matter of time before the instraseasonal melting factors of 2012 will in greater proportion, recur/redux ( I would argue they did not this year; we are just further alone in the assault crisis on the arctic domain so we may be converging on a similar look in that sense). But when the former does - while there retarded recuperation and earlier erosion dates taking place - that's a synergistic acceleration effect, right there - and it would not be necessarily something suggested by these linear statistical comparison very well. As well, tell the real story. Not you per se/personally .. .but "people" in general don't get that synergy, or 'more than the sum of identifiable/constituent parts' is an emergent property of complex systems. They are not allows evidence-able. But when they are, they can have striking presentations. It just offers another layer in the communication issue/denier political diplomacy headache, in that getting folks around to admitting a problem ( be that by force or not...) is one thing; try then explaining that, 'oh, by the way, this is going to be far worse'

ah ha ... -1 + + 1 = 0

I guess the devil's in the semantics, huh I mean, what is meant by "very" in that context. As in ... almost never? Or how about, once. Or, even if just rare, really, we are not capable of comprehending how truly vast the cosmos is. Rare could be 1 per galaxy. Well, there are uncountable numbers of galaxies - and whenever cosmologists get to a consensus re how many there may be ( give or take exponents ) there's a trend of having to up that count by additional exponents ever couple of decades of ever refining deep field, astronomical observation technologies. The impetus being... who know how many their are, but the numbers is really too vast - so vast in fact that to even consider it a limited number escapes all practical meaning and therefore we can get into whether any such limit actually exists ( more a philosophy ). But, each galaxy that can be studied, there is estimated to average hundreds of trillions of stars ... Yes, the Milky Way alone has 200 trillion stars, all of which are - presently scienced and considered to be gravitation anchors for planets ... which are also gravitational wells that concentrate potentially volatile chemistry and the building blocks of life as we know it - not to mention the hypothetical bio-chemistry ... to which the adage amid scholars and scientists of the cosmological field often refer, "if you can imagine it ... the odds are, the Universe is doing it somewhere." No imagine having to multiply all that latter intrascale galactic factoidal array by a an 'incomprehensible to the point of essentially escaping all effective meaningly' large number and well ... you get something like quasi-infinity. Rare, ironically... becomes a huge number Something else - simple logic would beg - must be going on to limit the observation of other advanced civilizations. I read a lot. I get exposed to lots of hypothesis and counter-hypothesis in the yin and yang of speculation in these matters.. It seems to me that dumb luck plays a role too. Hell, for all we know,... there really is "A Galaxy Far Far Away ..." that has species interacting like the 401 outside of Los Angeles. We just happen to be circumstantially distanced like a Baluga hunter's bivouac Igloo ... ephemerally set out upon a glared white landscape too desolately removed and blinded by other lights to know or even know how to see that a proverbial 401 exists.. That would be funny premise for some sort of sci fi... We are, at long last, encountered by a transgressing extraterrestrial exploring species that's like, " where are your constituencies...?" "Pardon - constituencies?" "Wait.. your species has none... as in 0 contacts?! How is that possible" Through it all .. one thing that always struck me is, we can see the light from distantly red-shifted structures .. these objects that only came into exposure after putting a telescope fixated on a previously black region of interstellar space, for hundreds of hours... slowly capturing sparse photon at a time.. to finally create an image of galaxies some 13 billion light years away. Yet, we cannot detect the after glow - assuming these species obey the same physical laws that appears the entire Cosmos has to... - of these outre worlds. We should be able to hear their song long after they've evolved and or annihilated away. Throw a rock in a lake on a glassy still morning and the water returns to that same mirror reflecting serenity with no echo, signifying nothing took place there ... Yet the wave permeates a mile or more arcing outward away ... To any detecting source that may be that mile away, the arc arrives and it carries a message of something that appears to have just happened. Yes yes ..we all know this ... But, there are no rings - the point being, did the stone ever happen in the first place. That's less the annihilation thing, and more the Fermi paradox..and that, despite having the technological capacity to detect red shifted objects, in deep field Astronomy, that are 13 billion light years away there's nothing else but that light. It's definitely a head scratcher. The other aspect .. this could all be moot if the little green men ( and women ) are communicating with some other form of aggregate electromagnetism ..or even if something more sci-fi were involved.

Yup... agreed on the bold HUGELY. I have a personal hypothesis that relates: The modern conveniences of the Industrial Revolution are creating a society of apathy, which ultimately leads to partial failure in accessing the intellects of its population precipitates, along with 'putting to sleep' the morality that is believed to be emerged from the consciousness rooted in executive higher mental functions - those that are needed in a more cooperative/cooperating landscape. This is a particular con in the total pros and cons assessment of the IR - and there are pros ( I'm not meaning to damn the IR ). It is/has forced changes in how Humanity engages both at the individual, but in the collective sense, however. Cooperation suffers... The last million and half years of an evolutionary process that many don't even believe occurred, much less are aware, created a species uniquely dependent upon one another to survive. That's abruptly, instantaneously on a geological scale, become less needed - IR has effectively cut those requirements. And, nature abhors a vacuum. In the absence of those cooperative circuitry's .. how do the minds of the denizens get wired? I dunno - ask Columbine? We are unwittingly IN a vast sociological experiment - i.e., an evolutionary turn..etc etc etc. It's not that clear and cut, though, either. I mean, obviously... we are not all nut-jobs. But it really is a human failing ( IR or not ), where we try to put boundaries and definitions ...overtly quantize Nature into nice neat, tidy police work concepts and disciplines... when reality is actually more like "the Cloud" Seamlessly interacting probability curves. IR's over provision is, despite being a distinction that is non-ubiquitous among all humans, increasing the probability of errant vectors in the population. The latter stuff you mention is intriguing. Your content reminds me of that which circulates the Sci-Fi underground, the "kill-switch" hypothesis ... You used the term 'agency,' which is a loaded jest ha. But, agency could also mean that no species is allowed to exceed this "Civilization 0" rank. Kill-switchers believe we must be flirting with doing so, perhaps driven to do so, in fulfillment of that over-arcing Cosmic theme. There are more philosophical approaches. Take, the "Fermi Paradox" for example. The simplified - maybe - mutilated version goes: If the Universe is so favorably organized in such a way to promote the evolution of life, ... where is everybody ? Wiki' actually has a decent entry ...though I would not recommend anyone use that source as gospel by any stretch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

We can't ... His use is/was a common vocal-contextual trope - "human beings" in that context doesn't mean were damning all to hell for some unredeemable limitation... It usually means 'the majority'? I don't have a problem with that based upon evidences. "People" (same idea..) need examples ... ones that appeal, directly, to one of the five major senses before they believe any kind threat is real ( more of psychological take there but a good one, because the individuals integrate the modes of the mean). If they don't get that tactility, they 'tend to' be like that typical water-cooler head nods and lip service politeness thing - "yeah yeah, right - sounds true. Interesting" I agree that it shouldn't be as assessment applicable of ALL who walk under shade or sun but I don't believe that was the intent ... if he was precise, which titling contexts seldom are, he might have said people too often tend not to be wired for - I agree that people have trouble with larger specter ( if they even can see it for that matter) of what the issue is about - it's almost like they hear what it will mean, and since they don't get why, and don't directly sense the evidences ( above ), they knee jerk deny. The 'whys' requires component analytic decomposition into constituency aspects, such that one can then see how it all fits together -.. heh, not many folks engage in that sort of mathematical processing as a general rule. That's part of the "untenable" nature of it right there, tho. Some can, few do, save one or two... and they get ignored. Humanity ignoring it's own pathway to destruction might be a road paved long before modern treks ever walked - it happened when evolution chose the great brain experiment. Being a bit spacious if not even specious-for-fun in that description, admittedly. But still, that's what is meant by not wired to see it. If we were born with a gene for it, we would be compelled not to buy plastic, burn paper with chemicals that make the smoke look black. Gas and oil technologies would have be vetted for consequence before accessing their stored chemical energies in a rush for profit. We just would have emerged different tech along the way - unwittingly, in concert with the gestalt of Gaia-health, perfunctorily. Most have to study math and complain while doing it...and are happy to have survived their B.A. (if they get that far or beyond). To that end, that is what Dr. Gupta is talking about - it's not as tenable to the commoner as we ( unfortunately) need it to be, and even many who rank "above" the hoi polloi for that matter are either having problems doing so, or ... ..that's the moral/ethic arm of the denier stuff. Which is related to your monetary interest thing. Some are just flat out self-centered to the point where they fight is really against god - speaking euphemistically. They are really pissed at the finality of life and flip the bird to reality and the universe for ending theirs at the end of 80 or 90 years if they're lucky, so they're burning all their bridges and partying one way or the other.. That's all rhetoric for this "it won't happen in my life-time" mantra you come across once in a while.

Dr. Sonja Gupta recently put up an op ed on CNN ... wanna side four months ago at this point? But it fascinatingly discussed the untenable nature of Global Warming .. which probably the difficulty in accepting AGW is thus directly-causally related/precipitating. "...Human beings are just not wired to understand global warming..." This may or may not be true, but I wonder if what this Nakamura is writing is what happens when we mash-up greater than average I.Q. and mental faculties with that untenability - you get this sort of product. Wrong ... yet well-delivered, and thus what's ( interestingly untenable) is how the lay-person's inability to appropriately think critically, on-the-fly, when his information passes inside. There are a lot of dubious disconnects in these statements - ...it's like instead of conflating ( the usual mistake in the denier narratives/mantra), he takes the opposite tact and well ... these systems are less effectually influencing one another.

Mosquitoes/EEE are the buzz right now ( heh..see what I did there. nyuk nyui). Anyway, it is actually a rare infectious disease, passed along by Mosquitoes. It's not "more complicated" than Malaria though? I'm not admittedly certain what you mean by that... I think you might mean rarer? If so, that's true. At least via the reading available by NCBI and CDC, they don't illustrate a transmission cycle that is more complicated - More mosquitoes along with the host avian species moving into regions due to species migration ... these are papered btw if anyone cares to read. Anywho, these are carrying the virus and increased probability of infection in humans ... that's not a difficult logical leap. We can call that uncertain but ...for some of us, we're safe using the information at hand and making protective assumptions. That part of that specific part of that discussion we'll just disagree with I guess. We need a freeze!

heh not sure folks should be dinkin' around with the socratic method in this particular interpretation/case.. Warm weather means mosquitoes means EEE ... arithmetically that is clear. That's pretty much it. In general, CDC/ ... IPCC etc.. rely upon the larger pantheon of sciences, "..Increase in the number of patients with mosquito-borne infectious diseases.." I feel pretty confident that EEE is part of that concern. -even though I get it that we're in free speculation format in here. obviously but, maybe there's a darwin award in there... run around at dusk in 70/70 October mosquitoes because EEE isn't Dengue Fever haha

There seemed to be some disbelief or discrediting attempts in that other thread before it got evacuated of the triple e stuff, as to how/why it relates to CC and insect -related pathology. Yes, there is a causal link being presently scienced. It was report in the Fourth IPCC ..which I won't get into politicizing and fear mongering/paranoid "GRETA" this and whatever people need to do that - I don't care what you do beyond, I'm just exposing the information is there. Table 1 ( c/o NCBI ) Emerging and forecasted effects of climate change/global warming on infectious diseases and other human health conditions in the world Direct effect on other health conditions Heat waves: Short-term increase in mortality, especially among those with cardiovascular and/or respiratory diseases, and increase in heat shock patients Co-effect with air pollution: Increase in asthma and allergy patients Storms and floods: Increase in morbidity and accidental death Indirect effect on infectious diseases Expansion of mosquito- and tick-infested areas, and increase in mosquito activity: Increase in the number of patients with mosquito-borne infectious diseases (i.e. dengue and malaria) and expansion of epidemic areas preetty sure 'EEE' falls into this category ... But again, this is not me - this is IPCC and is available in multiple formats/sources if one chooses to go and look Contamination of water and foods with bacteria: Increase in the number of patients with water- and foodborne infectious diseases Deterioration of environmental and social conditions: Increased risk of infectious diseases

Not that you asked ... but that smacks as "primal" more so than "ironic" to me - but I think I get what meant in your context there. It is probable that human beings walk along with more in the way of instincts whether the conceit of modernism and/or species-centric egoism allow us to know or perceive we do. That, and...we're 'in-the-weeds,' so we may not be inclined to think of it that way. But, "monsters in the closet" or "under the bed" ? These are in-born in the nature of human beings. Fearing the dark cave, keeps individuals from going near the dark cave, and they don't suffer the consequence bear or big cat ... although I'm not sure what to do with "bulls" in this but I guess. Anyway, so, they pass that trait on and neither do their kids... or their kid's kids...and on and so on. And there we have it. Instinct. And as children are closer to the primal mid brain ... we've gone and built bedrooms with built-in dark caves.. Ha! ..kinda funny when you think about it ...

Capitalism isn't the solution in that way, either though - The solution is, don't burn fossil fuels, period. Nothing else. If an economic system is footed on Oil, that oil cannot be burned - literally as in..set on fire. It's just that simple. If we can get to a reality where the provisions necessary to feed and cloth, and warm ... 8 billion souls and counting, takes place without burning fossil fuels - great! It doesn't matter whether the organization of society ( economic engine ) into ways and means that proficiently disseminate, is footed in oil, agrarian-base ... pixie dust, so long as whatever those means are, are not doing what we are doing to the planet [ apparently ]. You didn't ask... but, one of the fundamental flaws of the denier frame-work is: If something of uncertainty is causing a problem in a system, why does that mean one should keep doing anything before figuring out what that is? It's just laughably illogical - what's your point or goal in denial? But.. around and around we go. This denier crap is either that, illogical ( and can be caused by incapability to register the problem intellectually... ), or, is flat out immoral. In either circumstance, the denier is incapable of parsing out that question, and so there can be no winner in the debate. One side is right - the other side can't accept it. And that's it

Maybe ... I'm not sure how well the model performance is for those specific facet regions/ways in which these cyclones formulate - so if they are latching onto anything now, I'm not an authority on anything. I just know the climate regions. I mean ... a front meandering down there and book-ending a low that starts going out of control is bit different causally/physically in the models than a CV wave kiting westward along the 15th parallel ... couple K east of the Windwards. Different atmospheric kinematics. I will say, ...I was singularly impressed with the handling of Lorenzo in the models... particularly the Euro! It flagged that thing closing off and deepening smartly some six days prior to it emerging off the coast of Sierra Leone. No problem - nailed it. Actually the other guidance latched on early too... just happen to notice the Euro first so not sure who/what really gets the trophy. But this has been true in recent seasons... We're probably ... oh somewhere in the 50% success for spin-rate vs phantoms ...compared to back in the 1990s - you didn't dare enter a cumulus cloud into the modeling grids or you'd wipe islands off the face of the Earth. Seems the models have improved overall with genesis points... That said, yeah...I've been noticing a tendency for cyclonic curvature between the Gulf and Bermuda.. I'm also noticing - as I discussed elsewhere - this propensity for over-top high pressure to spread ESE from Canada through NE and the lower Maritimes.. That preponderant activity is putting enhanced baroclinicity and enhanced easterly trades in general into that same region. These are not altogether bad omens for development prospect so maybe keep and eye on things.

"September remember; October all-over" ... it was in a folklore reference in the "American Weather Almanac" This is the Opal time of year. Home growns, as it were... Things to watch for are 'book-end' lows... That's when fronts meander vestigial signatures of convergence into the Gulf latitudes and off the SE U.S. coast ... These regions can fester and close off circulations..probably somewhat hybrid at first when weak, but then their cores go purer soon after. Altho, Opal's a bad example. It's origin might have been a tropical wave in the Caribbean ..or perhaps some ejected perturbation off N. S/A...

Yeeeah... if you'll indulge me for a moment ...that (bold) is the "bargainers" saying that. There are those still in the earlier denial phase - if one accepts the 'post-mortem stages of recovery' metaphor to describe this climate change reticence. I mean... it's still using historical facts to try and justify an inaction going forward - which is technically in the denial..but is also engaging the debate now, which is why it is bargaining. Otherwise, it would be just denial with raised hands. It's a step in the right direction. There's all that... but there's also some poor erudition in diplomacy back-draft consequence from those early years of Neolithic incompetence/bombasting the impending doom ... That's a separate sort of issue that is spanning mutliple generations ... which means it now has a cultural "virtual institutional" root ... great! That makes it harder. It goes something like this, ' ...It's gotta be bullshit because it was bullshit in my parent's time and they're now 80 years old and doing fine.' Also, look harder - there are reams of papers out there that use coring samples and other forensic sciences, to then break matters down to molecular chemistry ... in the areas of/for paleoclimate and palegeology advancing studies .. I mean come on

Probably more for the random thought thread but ... when faced with such alarming and incontrovertible evidence ...delivered in the above cinema like that, the production value in terms of drama/ magnitude I feel is necessary for an entirely apathetic society that doesn't appreciate/respect or "believe" ( because of the specter is too unbelievable for tenability ). And the latter aspect in that parenthetical, it seems to be proving an unavoidable first responder tact. It's almost like a longer protracted/staggered variation of the post-morem phasing. First denial, eventually leads to anger then bargaining ... The tenor of present seems to be somewhere between those three.

Yes Menfeld! ...apologies; I didn't see your post before submitting my own missive, else I would have responded directly to that one you made. It's directly was I was referencing in mine. As well, Don, agreed, and it's more than merely plausible, https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1 ..is an article that I found to be fairly comprehensive in elucidating the many terrestrial factors out side of purely geopolitical distinctions that fed into Syria upheaval.