2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

I request peer reviewed research instead of random links because the peer reviewed research has already had qualified people spending hours checking the work to make sure the data matches the conclusions, and I have very good reasons for not trusting you to follow up on my questions. Dumping links is easy because you can just ignore any comments afterwards.

Primary data is the starting point of science. The conclusions from peer reviewed research are the outcome of that data being assessed against our collective knowledge

so what is your aim in posting sst anomaly gifs if you don't know what the baseline is? That's a fundamentally important element when you're arguing about multi decadal trends like Climate change

so the anomaly baseline is in the previous few weeks?

How ludicrous is that? In the northern hemisphere SSTs get hotter until the summer ends and then get colder as autumn and winter kick in.

How on earth could any sensible person think that this anomaly gif is anyway useful in the context of this argument?

You might as well take a picture of a cloud and use that as an argument against climate change

in a warming world, the observations lag the model predictions.

We cannot use double blinded experiments on planetary systems. This is why we use Models. The models are our best way of assessing risk and responses to theoretical changes.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

also keeping it super simple.

If extreme events required multiple rare confluences to happen, then they happen over long timespans, but happen infrequently. If you make any of those required events less rare, then all else being equal that same extreme event becomes more common.

Its as simple as that. One of the most common requirements for rapid intensification is hot SSTs

It the rest of the requirements are random stuff like wind sheer, the PDO, the NAO, ENSO, jet stream being in a certain position etc etc etc

Locking the SSTs to be generally much warmer than preindustrial means that one of the random events becomes a constant instead of a potential blocker. So what is left to decide is the intensity of the event, rather than whether or not it forms

Or because I obviously can’t keep things simple. The odds of rolling a double 6 on 2 sets of dice are 2 times in a hundred. I’d you make both dies 7 sided, the odds of rolling 12 or greater changes to more than 8%