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

I posted that list because pretty much all of them have been brought up on various threads on this forum over the years as justification for not taking action on climate change and when the argument gets defeated opinion never changes, another argument is pulled in to justify the opinion that never changes. And you’ve just done it again here, introducing a concept that is novel to you as though nobody in the scientific community is aware of it.

Biases and anomalies in station data are discovered by climate scientists or people working in the area and when these are validated, the data is regularly reanalysed and corrected where appropriate

‘skeptics’ for decades have been using these kinds of anomalies as excuses to disregard calls to act on climate change, always focusing only on the gaps in our knowledge or areas of uncertainty instead of the conclusions from what we do know

Scientists warned for decades that we needed to keep CO2 below 350ppm to limit warning to below 1c where dangerous consequences would begin to happen. Governments failed to act, in a very large part due to cynical deliberate efforts to spread doubt and prevent government action

we’re at 410ppm now and we are past the threshold where we can prevent 1.5c of warming so we’ve got severe consequences already locked in, our target now is to limit those consequences which will be locally catastrophic, and avoid globally catastrophic warming, which scientists agree, has the potential to escalate into the plot of those made for TV movies you accused me of fantasizing about.

Climate change of more that 5.5c for a doubling of CO2 is not ruled out by the IPCC.(there’s a roughly 10% chance of more than. 4.5c of warming for ECS) Given how high the risks to ecological and political stability are at ‘only’ 2 or 3c of global warming a 10% chance of 4.5c is unacceptably high

“climate change is the threat multiplier that worsens social, economic, and environmental pressures, leading to social upheaval and possibly even violent conflict”.

According to her, the “story” around climate change should not only be told in terms of resource scarcity, extreme weather and the need to foster clean energy. The narrative must go beyond and present climate change as a complex and multidimensional risk, with security and stability at its heart.

“If we fail to reduce emissions and build our capacity to cope with impacts, over the long term, climate change will result in more disruption, more instability and more displacement as impacts intensify. The world will be less stable, less secure … We must redouble our efforts or this story will have a dramatically different ending”.”

Anyone who continue to downplay climate change or call people ‘alarmists’ for urging action are on the wrong side of history

Hurricane Ida is showing many of the fingerprints of climate change Yet another rapid intensification fueled by extreme warm ocean surface temperatures

You’ve already stated your intention to downplay the climate change link to Ida. You’re putting in your rapid non attribution study before it’s blown itself out

In the UK dictionary, sceptic is spent with a c, in the US, it's spelt with a K, but by convention, because the 'scientific skepticism' originated largely in the US with claims like 'tobacco doesn't cause cancer' using the deliberate strategy to focus on the 'uncertainty' rather than the scientific evidence. when I use the word 'Skeptic' in quotes, this is what I refer to. Not genuinely sceptical, but more on the pretending to be sceptical because they've already made up their mind based on political ideology or some other non scientific basis

"There is an exception, though: In reference to some 21st-century strains of scientific skepticism, writers and publications from outside North America often use the spellings with the k."

https://grammarist.com/spelling/sceptic-skeptic/

Being sceptical is very important, all scientists are sceptical by profession.

People who claim to be sceptical but are only sceptical in one direction (they'll believe things that agree with their pre-existing with little or no fact checking or supporting evidence, but poke holes in absolutely everything the 'other side' say and demand certainty and other impossible standards

This was when Ida formed a couple of days ago. The cold anomaly was even larger.

Hurricane Camille, August 1969:

Hurricane Camille - August 17, 1969 (weather.gov)

And a list of 20th Century Gulf hurricanes from Baldy Bezo ran WaPo:

WashingtonPost.com: WeatherPost -- Memorable Gulf Coast Hurricanes of the 20th Century

Sorry Arkrasia, but your claim that 'rapid intensification before climate change (whatever that means in itself) was rare' is nonsense.

You are one to talk. You can’t spell my username when it’s right there in front of you

I'd prefer to read actual accounts, just as in those links on historic Gulf hurricanes I linked, which are evidence enough that you are talking complete nonsense.

I just posted links of historic accounts of major Gulf hurricanes which you also didn't read for the very same reason you accuse me of. Are you even capable of seeing the world outside of 'peer review'?

The 1971-2000 anomaly shows more or less the same thing:

Though the cooler south Gulf region may have been down to recent hurricanes passing through the area and absorbing a lot of that excess SST's as they passed over.

I didn't reply to any post, and I only brought up one small quote from you to make the point that you are trying to sell a very distorted version of history, which my links easily prove.

Gulf SST anomalies over the last month:

whats the baseline for these anomalies?

I don't know. NOAA does not (as far as I can tell) make this clear, just as they did not with the previous version of these maps which they ran for years.

But this long-winded link might give a hint: Description of the Version 3.1 NOAA Coral Reef Watch Daily Global 5km Satellite Coral Bleaching Heat Stress Monitoring Product Suite Climatology

If the conclusions were not supported by the data, then the paper either would not have passed peer review, or there would be other papers challenging the results by now.

If you have these links, send them to me and I'll happily retract my reference and revise my view, otherwise, your opinion is just waffle.

My point is that I try really hard to post data that has already been validate by experts (peer reviewed) you dump random graphics without even checking what the baseline for the anomaly is, thereby making everyone else do the work you couldn't be arsed doing. You have zero accountability for the information you repost on the internet. Just like all those unqualified bloggers who are never held accountable for their errors.

Wow, somebody is angry today...

I'm not the who has been giving out misleading and false information here.. you are. If you don't like to be called out for doing so, then don't do it in the first place.

I'm quoting the paper you yourself referenced, which states that the observations don't show what is claimed to be already happening. It the same with many other features too, where the only possible attribution comes down to some very shaky model outputs with ranges as wide as the Atlantic.

Now you're already attributing a future even (Ida) to CO2 without even one shred of evidence. You dismiss my opinion (based on actual facts, which I have always referenced) as waffle, which is a bit rich, considering.

There are several maps posted above spanning two different reference periods. What more do you want? They didn't show what you wanted so now you've gone off on some unrelated tangent.

I never analysed the results of those gifs because the base period was not provided, but I guarantee, than if these were the evidence provided in a peer reviewed research paper awaiting validation, that these would be first the questions asked of the researchers, and they would be obliged to justify why they chose these data, these baselines and to demonstrate how that data supports those arguments. If you don't like these questions, then I'm sorry, but that's the standard. you need to emulate if your arguing against other peer reviewed papers (in reputable journals)

at least you're honest.

Now that you've agreed you're clueless, do you think you might like to defer to people who are regarded as experts in their fields?

Gulf of Mexico annual temp (monthy or daily not availablve from this site) for 1969, the year of Camille, which brought a central low pressure of 900hPa and recorded winds of 200mph in August.

And long term temperature trend in Gulf SSTs.

From this 'random link' here:

Climate Reanalyzer

More than once, and only recently, you have given out misleading information on here and also accused me of saying things that even your own evidence that you produced says I didn't, so I'd quit with the preachy tone if I were you.

But a question I will put to you... do you ever do you own research on anything? or do you just leave everything to your chosen 'experts'? to do?

Where did the warm SSTs come from in 1856 or 1893?

I don’t do my own research. I’m not a researcher and have nobody to peer review my findings. I do try my best to fact check my claims and other people’s claims

This involves checking others sources to make sure they are based on peer reviewed science as much as possible

Local variability

ya know. Weather. Climate is the average of local weather over decades. anthropogenic Global climate change is the progressive changes to local climates caused by the global average temperature increasing caused by the greenhouse effect

This is basic stuff

And this local variability ceased to exist after the mid-20th century, right? It fits the story for explaining old events but not the new.