Global Warming Makes Weather In Boreal Summer More Persistent

[bdgwx]

30 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

My gosh, this is not how the atmosphere works!  You can't maintain anomalies for centuries in either directions. Basic fluid dynamics refutes that. You have uneven heating on a rotating oblate spheroid known as the Earth.  How can you maintain a positive anomaly one place and negative another given the current configuration of continents and ocean currents. This is inconsistent with atmospheric science and it is a cop out. The MWP and LIA are very inconvenient to the alarmists.  And by the way, Dessler is an alarmist. He doesn't have an atmospheric science background. His work on moistening in the upper troposphere is wrong based on the fact that ENSO can explain his moisture variations at high levels. This actually is similar to the ERA5. 

Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. If ocean heat transport moving north increases/decreases then it only make sense that the atmospheric temperature response increases/decreases in the North Atlantic region as well. I'm having a hard time envisioning a mechanism by which the accumulation/depletion of a significant portion of heat in a particular region would not produce effects like the MWP and LIA.

If anything the MWP and LIA are a testament to the fact that regions are more responsive to climate shifts as compared to the global scale. And we already know that the Earth is quite amendable to global scale climate shifts...a la...the PETM, other ETMx events, the glacial cycles, etc. Given the right nudge the Earth seems quite willing to undergo dramatic climate shifts that are magnified on regional scales. And we are giving the planet quite the nudge today; unprecedented at least through the Holocene.

[skierinvermont]

29 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

So basically the Arctic stayed extremely cold during the MWP because of a +NAO for centuries? Eventually this would break down. Likewise a -NAO for centuries would mean large high pressure systems up there which eventually by radiational cooling would break down. This shows a deep lack of understanding of the NAO and atmospheric fluid dynamics. 

Funny.. even in the last hundred years there have been changes in circulation patterns. And yet you argue it couldn’t have happened in the past.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

My gosh, this is not how the atmosphere works!  You can't maintain anomalies for centuries in either directions. Basic fluid dynamics refutes that. You have uneven heating on a rotating oblate spheroid known as the Earth.  How can you maintain a positive anomaly one place and negative another given the current configuration of continents and ocean currents. This is inconsistent with atmospheric science and it is a cop out. The MWP and LIA are very inconvenient to the alarmists.  And by the way, Dessler is an alarmist. He doesn't have an atmospheric science background. His work on moistening in the upper troposphere is wrong based on the fact that ENSO can explain his moisture variations at high levels. This actually is similar to the ERA5. 

The authors of the MWP paper did not claim that the NAO was positive throughout the duration of the MWP. When one is dealing with centennial and sub-centennial timeframes, as was the case in the paper, one is dealing with predominant tendencies over those timeframes. A positive or negative tendency does not preclude even significant variability over much shorter timeframes. Weather is day-to-day; climate is longer-term.

The authors found that the western North Atlantic region was generally cold during the MWP unlike the eastern North Atlantic region. Moreover, their study of the glacier record in the Baffin Bay region on which they based their conclusion is supported by additional proxy data. They explained:

Overall, beyond the high-frequency complexity, we interpret these independent proxy records to support our glacier signal, indicating regional cool conditions through the MWP, perhaps interrupted by brief warming episodes. Our glacier record does not rule out periods of decadal warming between ~975 and 1275 CE, but the down-valley persistence of glaciers through this interval indicates that any warming was not of sufficient magnitude or duration to have driven glaciers significantly up-valley.

In contrast to proxy records from the western North Atlantic region, records from the eastern North Atlantic region generally support warm conditions during the MWP. Historical observations and paleo-data indicate that sea ice off the Iceland coast was not common during the MWP, and an SST reconstruction off northern Iceland depicts a sharp rise in temperatures beginning ~1000 through ~1350 CE...

The authors attribute the temperature anomalies to a persistent NAO+ state. This is a persistent tendency over the timeframe they covered.

For example, let's say I was writing a paper on temperatures in the CONUS during the January 2012-2020 period. Among other variables, I could argue that a persistent NAO+ was responsible for the outcome.

January 2012-2020:

The argument against it would be, 'You can't maintain anomalies for such a period in either direction." But that would never have been my suggestion.

If one went to the daily NAO data for the period in question, one would find:

% days -1.000 or below: 1%
% days negative: 24%
% days positive: 76%
% days +1.000 or above: 20%

Each of the January cases during the period had a positive NAO value. The overall average daily value was just above +0.400.

Now, if one steps back from this example and substitutes the MWP for the January 2012-2020 period and, let's say, year-to-year variability for daily variability in the NAO, one can still wind up with a skewed tendency for positive values over the timeframe considered, even as annual values would be both negative or positive.

Finally, Andrew Dessler was not an author of the MWP paper. His background is in chemistry and physics. The climate system is comprised not just of the atmosphere, but also the hydrosphere, biosphere, and cryosphere. There is no compelling reason that Dr. Dessler is somehow unqualified for climate science.

Also, do you have any papers that refute Dr. Dessler's work?

Thanks.

[blizzard1024]

33 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The authors of the MWP paper did not claim that the NAO was positive throughout the duration of the MWP. When one is dealing with centennial and sub-centennial timeframes, as was the case in the paper, one is dealing with predominant tendencies over those timeframes. A positive or negative tendency does not preclude even significant variability over much shorter timeframes. Weather is day-to-day; climate is longer-term.

The authors found that the western North Atlantic region was generally cold during the MWP unlike the eastern North Atlantic region. Moreover, their study of the glacier record in the Baffin Bay region on which they based their conclusion is supported by additional proxy data. They explained:

Overall, beyond the high-frequency complexity, we interpret these independent proxy records to support our glacier signal, indicating regional cool conditions through the MWP, perhaps interrupted by brief warming episodes. Our glacier record does not rule out periods of decadal warming between ~975 and 1275 CE, but the down-valley persistence of glaciers through this interval indicates that any warming was not of sufficient magnitude or duration to have driven glaciers significantly up-valley.

In contrast to proxy records from the western North Atlantic region, records from the eastern North Atlantic region generally support warm conditions during the MWP. Historical observations and paleo-data indicate that sea ice off the Iceland coast was not common during the MWP, and an SST reconstruction off northern Iceland depicts a sharp rise in temperatures beginning ~1000 through ~1350 CE...

The authors attribute the temperature anomalies to a persistent NAO+ state. This is a persistent tendency over the timeframe they covered.

For example, let's say I was writing a paper on temperatures in the CONUS during the January 2012-2020 period. Among other variables, I could argue that a persistent NAO+ was responsible for the outcome.

January 2012-2020:

The argument againsBut t it would be, 'You can't maintain anomalies for such a period in either direction." But that would never have been my suggestion.

If one went to the daily NAO data for the period in question, one would find:

% days -1.000 or below: 1%
% days negative: 24%
% days positive: 76%
% days +1.000 or above: 20%

Each of the January cases during the period had a positive NAO value. The overall average daily value was just above +0.400.

Now, if one steps back from this example and substitutes the MWP for the January 2012-2020 period and, let's say, year-to-year variability for daily variability in the NAO, one can still wind up with a skewed tendency for positive values over the timeframe considered, even as annual values would be both negative or positive.

Finally, Andrew Dessler was not an author of the MWP paper. His background is in chemistry and physics. The climate system is comprised not just of the atmosphere, but also the hydrosphere, biosphere, and cryosphere. There is no compelling reason that Dr. Dessler is somehow unqualified for climate science.

Also, do you have any papers that refute Dr. Dessler's work?

Thanks.

Overall century time periods, it is very unlikely that climatic features are "regional". There is also a lot of evidence of a MWP and LIA in the SH. I will dig those papers. But we know that Dessler and company are the gatekeepers of peer review which shuts down anything they don't agree with.   

[blizzard1024]

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

Funny.. even in the last hundred years there have been changes in circulation patterns. And yet you argue it couldn’t have happened in the past.

Like what for instance....

[donsutherland1]

3 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Like what for instance....

The Arctic Dipole.

https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/arctic-sea-ice-movement-pattern-and-arctic-rapid-change-pattern-arctic-dipole-anomaly/973

[skierinvermont]

7 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Like what for instance....

 

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The Arctic Dipole.

https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/arctic-sea-ice-movement-pattern-and-arctic-rapid-change-pattern-arctic-dipole-anomaly/973

Or a weakening of the Walker circulation

[skierinvermont]

13 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Overall century time periods, it is very unlikely that climatic features are "regional". There is also a lot of evidence of a MWP and LIA in the SH. I will dig those papers. But we know that Dessler and company are the gatekeepers of peer review which shuts down anything they don't agree with.   

Yeah which is why Curry has been published numerous times with conclusions at odds with most other climate scientists. Just one of the many examples I have given that are published and peer-reviewed against the consensus. But you ignore as usual and at your own peril.

[LibertyBell]

On 9/22/2020 at 5:02 PM, blizzard1024 said:

This will be a disaster for seabirds. How can they tell how many are killed when they drop to the bottom of the ocean.   Wind farm lower the energy of incoming TCs?  Smh. 

Have a read, it's from Scientific American:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offshore-wind-farms-could-knock-down-hurricanes1/#:~:text=An intriguing new computer simulation,storm surge by 79 percent.

and while we're talking about replacing fossil fuels:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-power-the-world/

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/22/2020 at 8:36 PM, Hailstoned said:

He demonstrates all  the signposts of a MAGA troll, or perhaps a creepy-crawly comrade based in St. Petersburg.

The "comrades" have a really good reason to want to preserve the status quo, if climate continues to warm like this, Siberia becomes the new bread basket of the planet.

[LibertyBell]

On 9/22/2020 at 5:56 PM, skierinvermont said:

Lindzen has taken fossil fuel money his whole career. Besides the whole paper is flawed and reads as though a high school senior wrote it. His whole argument is premised that there was 3w/m2 of forcing by 2010, he based this off of nothing. No evidence was provided and I’ve read the whole paper. The actual figure is only 2.3. Then he does some magic without any evidence to convert forcing into temperature based off hypothesized climate sensitivity without any any serious consideration of how oceans absorbing the heat slow the warming down. It’s a bunch of hand waving and radical oversimplification written by a senile old man trying to collect his last check from the Koch brothers.

 

It also had no formal peer review. And I’ve never seen a paper where the authors toot their own horn so much. 
 

The Judith curry paper - despite its flaws - was infinitely better than this one and comes to a much higher estimate of sensitivity with a central estimate of 1.55. Lindzen comes up with a hard maximum of 1.5 and a central estimate of like 1. But all his hand waving, false assumptions, oversimplification etc are all that really separates this from the Judith curry paper. It’s the same basic method of estimating climate sensitivity from current temp trends, he just has no attention to detail or getting the numbers correct. At least curry tried to appear scientific and didn’t just make stuff up in her paper.

 

Its sort of funny but also quite sad that you think this is brilliant science

The PBS series Hacking Your Mind shows how even experienced professionals can succumb to tribal us vs them thinking where no matter how questionable the source, if it agrees with them they hold it in esteem and no matter how much evidence there is for an opposing viewpoint, it only makes them even more stubborn.

Cant wait for the series finale next week where they show how to combat this built-in vulnerability by hacking our own minds to prevent manipulation from the outside.

 

[blizzard1024]

6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Its sort of funny but also quite sad that you think this is brilliant science

It's actually common sense.  A minor greenhouse gas which never dominated the climate system in the past now does.  Lindzen is a brilliant scientist. he would eat you alive in a debate. And no, they are not just siding with common sense to protect the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the mainstream climate scientists are protecting their billions of dollars worth of taxpayer funded research money. You can say the same thing for these climate "activists" who are supposed to be objective scientists. They own the peer review process.  If you don't conform, you either don't get your MS, PhD, or your tenure. President Eisenhower warned about this kind of behavior in his farewell presidential address back in 1961. We are living it today. 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

It's actually common sense.  A minor greenhouse gas which never dominated the climate system in the past now does.  Lindzen is a brilliant scientist. he would eat you alive in a debate. And no, they are not just siding with common sense to protect the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the mainstream climate scientists are protecting their billions of dollars worth of taxpayer funded research money. You can say the same thing for these climate "activists" who are supposed to be objective scientists. They own the peer review process.  If you don't conform, you either don't get your MS, PhD, or your tenure. President Eisenhower warned about this kind of behavior in his farewell presidential address back in 1961. We are living it today. 

 

 

I'm well familiar with Eisenhower and his great exit speech and it still applies today (Teddy Roosevelt was another very forward thinking conservationist and antitrust conservative, we dont have them these days, sadly, probably because of all the dark money and corporate lobbying in politics.)

Also please check the post, it says I made that response to you, but in actuality it was Skiier.

 

[blizzard1024]

12 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I'm well familiar with Eisenhower and his great exit speech and it still applies today (Teddy Roosevelt was another very forward thinking conservationist and antitrust conservative, we dont have them these days, sadly, probably because of all the dark money and corporate lobbying in politics.)

Also please check the post, it says I made that response to you, but in actuality it was Skiier.

 

Oh I am so sorry. 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

It's actually common sense.  A minor greenhouse gas which never dominated the climate system in the past now does.  Lindzen is a brilliant scientist. he would eat you alive in a debate. And no, they are not just siding with common sense to protect the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the mainstream climate scientists are protecting their billions of dollars worth of taxpayer funded research money. You can say the same thing for these climate "activists" who are supposed to be objective scientists. They own the peer review process.  If you don't conform, you either don't get your MS, PhD, or your tenure. President Eisenhower warned about this kind of behavior in his farewell presidential address back in 1961. We are living it today. 

 

 

Those claims are aimed at dismissing climate scientists to circumvent the absence of scientific evidence to dismiss AGW. While we’re discussing independence or perceived independence of researchers, it should be noted that Lindzen cited above had been receiving funding from coal interests (Peabody Energy). 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

[SnoSki14]

At what point is blizzard just gonna admit he's a climate change denier so we can move on. 

And there's no point arguing with one. You can cite 1000s of examples and debunk every claim they make and they'll still come up with some nonsense.

The fact is that the earth is rapidly warming mostly due to human related activities. Even when factoring in every natural cause, there's still a ton of excess warmth that could only be caused by humans. 

CO2 PPM levels went from 240 to 420+ since the industrial revolution, which is exactly when the long term warming trends began...it's not a coincidence. 

Some 99.7% of the 11K+ scientists agree. The only ones that don't have been proven to have interests in the fossil fuel industry.

If you still reject all this then you're simply a denier who either has some vested interest in the fossil fuel industry or is just some edgy anti-science contrairian, which we def don't need more of. 

[blizzard1024]

26 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

At what point is blizzard just gonna admit he's a climate change denier so we can move on. 

And there's no point arguing with one. You can cite 1000s of examples and debunk every claim they make and they'll still come up with some nonsense.

The fact is that the earth is rapidly warming mostly due to human related activities. Even when factoring in every natural cause, there's still a ton of excess warmth that could only be caused by humans. 

CO2 PPM levels went from 240 to 420+ since the industrial revolution, which is exactly when the long term warming trends began...it's not a coincidence. 

Some 99.7% of the 11K+ scientists agree. The only ones that don't have been proven to have interests in the fossil fuel industry.

If you still reject all this then you're simply a denier who either has some vested interest in the fossil fuel industry or is just some edgy anti-science contrairian, which we def don't need more of. 

Don't you dare call me a denier. I am not denying climate change and even contribution from CO2. I just am not on board with the climate crisis crowd. there is no way that doubling CO2 is going to destroy our climate system. It will warm it by 1-2C. I know the IPCC has set 1.5C as the danger point but I totally disagree with this. During the Holocene climatic warm period it is known that at least the mid and high latitudes were between 2C and 4C warmer than today based on pollen samples and the fact that tree lines were farther north than today or higher up in the Alps.  A warming of 1-2C in the next 50 to 100 years (assuming there is no natural climatic variability) will benefit mankind. of course those who live near the ocean will have problems. But if you build on the beach, mother nature is gonna take it back anyway either from a storm or rising sea levels which have been on-going since the 1800s.  

Another thing, saying that there was no global MWP and LIA is saying the climate system was in almost complete stasis since the year 1000. That is crazy. the climate is always changing. In a sense, those who believe that the climate was stable from 1000-1900 are actually denying climate change! 

[skierinvermont]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

It's actually common sense.  A minor greenhouse gas which never dominated the climate system in the past now does.  Lindzen is a brilliant scientist. he would eat you alive in a debate. And no, they are not just siding with common sense to protect the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the mainstream climate scientists are protecting their billions of dollars worth of taxpayer funded research money. You can say the same thing for these climate "activists" who are supposed to be objective scientists. They own the peer review process.  If you don't conform, you either don't get your MS, PhD, or your tenure. President Eisenhower warned about this kind of behavior in his farewell presidential address back in 1961. We are living it today. 

 

 

Lindzen has been paid by oil and gas companies and the Koch brothers. The paper is full of basic factual errors. He literally just makes stuff up. He made up the forcing number since 1900 for example. It reads like a high schooler wrote it. And it starts off with an overtly political statement that completely undermines his credibility. "eat me a live in a debate" lol.. what do you think this is a reality TV show? This is science, and Lindzen's paper is a political screed full of factual error.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

 

Another thing, saying that there was no global MWP and LIA is saying the climate system was in almost complete stasis since the year 1000. That is crazy. the climate is always changing. In a sense, those who believe that the climate was stable from 1000-1900 are actually denying climate change! 

No climate scientist has published a paper that argues that the climate was "in almost complete stasis" since 1000 CE. Climate has always been dynamic due to changes in natural forcings, not to mention internal variability. There have been periods where it has been relatively more stable than at other periods.

The big issue concerns the abrupt and sharp warming that commenced since the mid-20th century, predominantly on account of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. That warming has occurred despite little change in solar irradiance and a long-term decline in summer solar insolation in the Arctic. The change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the warming that has occurred in mere decades is remarkable, as such changes have typically (not always) occurred over geological timeframes, not decades.

[blizzard1024]

Abrupt warming?  compared to what?   how do we know how quickly the climate changed in the MWP or LIA? tree rings?  really....

[donsutherland1]

44 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Abrupt warming?  compared to what?   how do we know how quickly the climate changed in the MWP or LIA? tree rings?  really....

Abrupt as in taking place in a matter of decades rather than the far longer geological timeframes such changes have typical (not always) occurred. Actually, I probably should have used a somewhat different term, as abrupt can infer an unexpected development when the warming is consistent with the latest understanding of climate change.

Also, there’s no need to dismiss the work of paleoclimatologists who have pieced together climate records from various proxies. The proxies offer a reasonably consistent picture. They provide a lot of insight. The alternative is to pretend that what wasn’t recorded is unknown and unknowable. That’s not a scientific approach. 

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Lindzen has been paid by oil and gas companies and the Koch brothers. The paper is full of basic factual errors. He literally just makes stuff up. He made up the forcing number since 1900 for example. It reads like a high schooler wrote it. And it starts off with an overtly political statement that completely undermines his credibility. "eat me a live in a debate" lol.. what do you think this is a reality TV show? This is science, and Lindzen's paper is a political screed full of factual error.

This happens a lot unfortunately.  I was just reading about how hypocrites Amazon and Bezos are, they put out a clean energy image and yet in the background they cater to the oil and gas industry and threaten their employees who want them to switch to clean energy.  They have even been caught monitoring their employees who have been unionizing according to identity or issues.  Bezos is like Trump in many ways.  His is another one of this giant tech companies that needs to be carved up into little pieces.

 

 

[Bhs1975]

What would you do if you wanted to terraform a planet to make it warmer and wetter especially at higher latitudes?

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Lindzen has been paid by oil and gas companies and the Koch brothers. The paper is full of basic factual errors. He literally just makes stuff up. He made up the forcing number since 1900 for example. It reads like a high schooler wrote it. And it starts off with an overtly political statement that completely undermines his credibility. "eat me a live in a debate" lol.. what do you think this is a reality TV show? This is science, and Lindzen's paper is a political screed full of factual error.

This happens a lot unfortunately.  I was just reading about how hypocrites Amazon and Bezos are, they put out a clean energy image and yet in the background they cater to the oil and gas industry and threaten their employees who want them to switch to clean energy.  They have even been caught monitoring their employees who have been unionizing according to identity or issues.  Bezos is like Trump in many ways.

Meanwhile, California has set 2035 as the year to stop manufacturing fossil fuel powered vehicles.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

What would you do if you wanted to terraform a planet to make it warmer and wetter especially at higher latitudes?

Mars lol?  You'd want to add CO2 to its atmosphere of course.  NASA has a machine on its latest mission to Mars that actually converts CO2 to O2.

 

[Bhs1975]

Mars lol?  You'd want to add CO2 to its atmosphere of course.   

 

Any earth sized planet in the habitable zone that was too cold for our liking. Mars is a bit too small. Earth is on the inside edge of the habitable zone so warming is bad. We should be terraforming by pulling GHG out and stop adding more. The Sun will eventually get too hot for any amount of GHG levels to make Earth habitable and we would have to actually block a lot solar radiation which would be impractical. Then we would have to find another planet. This scenario has been going on in the universe for a very long time. We are speeding up the process.

[chubbs]

On 9/23/2020 at 8:39 PM, blizzard1024 said:

Again, the 850 mb specific humidity declines from the late 1970s to 2000, a time of warming. This is within the convective mixed layer. Warming oceans should lead to more evaporation. This doesn't make physical sense. At upper levels, temperature and specific humidity are almost 1:1 correlation. What process would cause that other than changes in global convection? Increased global convection leads to vertical transport of heat and moisture and hence this basically linear correlation. You don't need peer review literature here. You think for yourself. This is very basic meteorology. That is why most meteorologists don't buy all the hype related to this so-called climate crisis. Most if not all meteorologists I know agree CO2 doubling will lead to modest warming but not the hyped up scenarios portrayed by the mainstream climate scientists.  These folks are looking out for their careers, egos and fame. I have followed this topic for 30 years and I have seen many folks in atmospheric sciences leave research because of this scientific "corruption". The climate emails of the late 2000s were classic and really the tip of the iceberg in this field. So to answer your question, there is no peer review on this. The atmospheric theory for upper tropospheric moistening in the ERA5 is global convection changes. And the ERA5 data is flawed in that there should be more evaporation off the oceans with a warmer Earth from insolation and the convective mixed layer. This is really basic stuff here. I attached the 300 and 850 mb q and T, q by the way is specific humidity if you didn't know that.

Without looking at a map showing the location of changes you can't draw any conclusion about the cause of the decreasing 850 mb trend between 1980 and 2000. There could be a period of drying in the descending subtropical highs, that is what the TPW data show. Whether you want to accept it or not, there is very good agreement between the re-analysis and satellite moisture data in the upper troposphere. There is also strongly increasing surface temperature, TPW, and ocean heat content and the timing is perfectly matched to man-made forcing with a big ramp after 1970. All well explained by climate science.

The science explanation makes much more sense than your "theory":  a natural forcing which hasn't been identified but which is related in some way to the little ice age suddenly ramped temperatures in 1970 despite the absence of any water vapor feedback. Sorry that just doesn't hold together.

[LibertyBell]

On 9/25/2020 at 1:59 PM, Bhs1975 said:

On 9/25/2020 at 1:48 PM, LibertyBell said:

Mars lol?  You'd want to add CO2 to its atmosphere of course.   

 

 

Any earth sized planet in the habitable zone that was too cold for our liking. Mars is a bit too small. Earth is on the inside edge of the habitable zone so warming is bad. We should be terraforming by pulling GHG out and stop adding more. The Sun will eventually get too hot for any amount of GHG levels to make Earth habitable and we would have to actually block a lot solar radiation which would be impractical. Then we would have to find another planet. This scenario has been going on in the universe for a very long time. We are speeding up the process.

well by transitioning to renewable energy and also finding ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere we are doing just that, hopefully we quicken the pace, we need to halve fossil fuel consumption by 2030.

We have three Class V worlds in our solar system- Mars, Europa and Enceladus.  Tidal forces make the latter two worlds hotter than they would seem by their distance.  

[Bhs1975]

well by transitioning to renewable energy and also finding ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere we are doing just that, hopefully we quicken the pace, we need to halve fossil fuel consumption by 2030.

We have three Class V worlds in our solar system- Mars, Europa and Enceladus.  Tidal forces make the latter two worlds hotter than they would seem by their distance.  

Mars has tons of lava tubes that could be sealed off a pressurized for habitation.

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

Mars has tons of lava tubes that could be sealed off a pressurized for habitation.

Recent report came out that perhaps saltwater ponds have been discovered beneath Mars' surface.