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

Yes, you did diss dem, even when I told you NOAA does not make this clear, which somehow you attempted to turn into my problem. Those charts, regardless of what the baseline is, gave a good overview of SST trends in the region in over the last month. They weren't trying to prove anything either way.

Why are climate scientists dealing with 'professional PR companies'? What new fresh hell is this?

If those charts confused you, then I don't know what to say. They were perfectly in tune with the discussion at the time and just added more context and closer view to those charts posted previously to it.

No, actual real examples of areas where humans won't be able to live, just as you said. Drought in southern Europe is nothing new and can easily be overcome. I gave a very good example of that in the case of Sardinia, and they did that back in the '60s. They are still one of the breadbaskets of Italy. If they can do it other can too. It goes right back to MT's first reply in this thread, where living with and adapting to changing climate has served us well in the past and will do in the future.

Again it's them blacks from Africa what's the problem, right? We don't want any more of them, do we? How is it that we always hear that Africa is feeling the worst effects of climate change? Is it actually true or is it just because these countries have very little station infrastructure and hence the lack of observational evidence can be wallpapered over by the use of pictures of starving children who been dessimated by drought for decades upon decades. It's nothing new, but it does serve to put a face on the alleged future crisis.

Oh and which places are these that will be inundated to the point of non-existence?

It is a worry that decarbonising will have negative consequences but it is essential that we do it, and the longer we delay, the less time we have to take increasingly desperate measures, the greater the risk that some terrible consequences are caused by rash decisions

we frittered away decades, procrastinated because the merchants of doubt exaggerated the uncertainty so they could line their pockets, Now we’ve guaranteed ourselves some degree of ecological destruction and the risk of collapsing ecosystems gets greater every day. To avoid these risks we needed to take the time to carefully implement the necessary changes, but we squandered that time arguing about things scientists already told us were true.

i can refer to the data we know about already.

if Ida intensified by more than 45mph in 24 hours it’s in the top 5 already

according to weather.com it has intensified by 65mph in 24 hours making it tied with Humberto as the fastest rapid intensification on record

https://www.google.com/amp/s/yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/08/climate-change-is-causing-more-rapid-intensification-of-atlantic-hurricanes/

Those charts I showed did not show a 'cooler anomaly' before the storm. What they did show were temporary cooler waters developing in specific regions during and in the wake of previous storms, which if you took note, I suggested might have been the case a couple of posts before it.

You are literally inverting what those charts actually showed.

doubt uncertainty whataboutary

you don’t think people would have noticed a 65mph intensification within 24 hours more than 20 years ago

and This is the 2nd time the same storm has rapidly intensified, the first was by 40mph, within the top 10 on record. The climate models agree that this is new and this is a feature of climate change

your doubt only works if you refuse to accept multiple lines of evidence

No, they probably did notice it back in 1856 when that storm literally exploded (that's the preferred term nowadays; it sounds so much more dramatic, don't you think?) out of nowhere and deepened over that same eddy area as today. We'll never be able to put an exact number on the mph/24 hrs but I suppose it was over a century and a half ago, back it utopian Neverland.

Wasn't there a Gulf hurricane, around this time of year at that start of the 20th century that exploded and caused untold devastation across the southern states?

But the scientists know this, and have developed sophisticated techniques to account for the varied distribution of stations and the data are regularly analyses and validated against independent lines of evidence including scientific observations (multiple independent types of sensory data) and proxy data, and modeling (essentially the best mathematical equations humans have ever developed, formulated and run independently by multiple different teams around the world. This might not be good enough evidence for you, but it’s the best we have, constantly improving and it’s good enough for 97% of all practicing professional climate scientists and every professional scientific institution on the planet

You wear your heart on your sleeve, admirably. Good on you.

Satellite data fills in the overwhelming majority, and is the in many cases the prime and only source of upper atmosphere.

The fossil fuel companies hired PR companies, advising them to maximize doubt and uncertainty. Exxon’s own internal research proved to them decades ago that this was real, and they buried the findings and spent millions on campaigns lobbying politicians and the media to emphasize doubt and uncertainty. They hired literally the same scientists and PR companies that the Tobacco companies used to deny smoking caused cancer

101 years ago almost to the day. Around 936 hPa and 125 kts on landfall.