donsutherland1

Lindzen et al., who wrote the letter, have no defensible scientific basis to make requests of the UN Secretary-General as it relates to climate change. What you've highlighted reaffirms that reality. Hopefully, the UN Secretary-General will not act upon their request.

The retraction note can be found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5 Review is helpful. Occasionally, errors are made and they require papers to be retracted. Even with this paper's retraction, the fundamental understandings related to climate change and the increase in oceanic heat content have not changed.

As the deniers get even more desperate, they have continued to attack Greta Thunberg. New attacks include a recycled dishonest claim by Anthony Watts that Greta Thunberg claimd that she can "see" carbon dioxide. Joe Bastardi is the latest to recycle the dishonest Watts claim. https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1177031514728685568 Back on May 2, Watts wrote a blog entry entitled, "Quote of the Week: Greta Thunberg claims to be able to 'see' carbon dioxide in the air." The blog entry then goes on to quote her mother, not Greta Thunberg. Greta Thunberg is quoted nowhere in the blog entry. Nevertheless, the headline proclaims that Greta Thunberg "claims" the ability. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/02/quote-of-the-week-greta-thunberg-claims-to-be-able-to-see-carbon-dioxide-in-the-air/ In any case, the source of the quote comes from a website. On May 4, Greta Thunberg responded on Facebook: Of course the ongoing hate campaigns never rests… There is at least one new conspiracy theory a day. The latest - and perhaps most entertaining - spin is that "I can see CO2 with my own eyes". This is of course a metaphor from a book taken out of it's context, taken from a German newspaper. No one has said that I can literally see CO2… that is beyond stupid. This should of course not be necessary to mention but since some respected newspapers have written about this without realizing that this is a fake news campaign I thought it was best to point this out. While I am at it I also want to point out that when I say that "our civilisation is almost like a castle built in the sand" or that "our house on fire" these are metaphors too:) https://www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/of-course-the-ongoing-hate-campaigns-never-rests-there-is-at-least-one-new-consp/823189474715541/ And from the website on which Watts based his claim that quoted the book: But does the mother mean that literally or only figuratively? That cannot be precisely determined from the excerpt – which we present below in its entirety. That is why we contacted the publisher of the book in Sweden. “I was shocked by the commotion in Germany, Belgium and now also in Italy,” he says. “I can assure you that it is a metaphor; if you read the entire passage, end it with the tale of “The New Emperor’s Clothes” by Christian Anderson. So it is certainly not literal.” In a text message, the mother also says that it is only about imagery. https://www.afrinik.com/gretas-mother-creates-clarity-passage-about-seeing-co2-was-figuratively-intended/ Did Watts take down his misleading blog entry? No. Did Watts even bother to correct the headline attributing the quote to Thunberg? No. Did Watts even acknowledge Thunberg's response? No. Now, the dishonest claim is being recycled on Social Media, likely to dampen the growing attention climate change is currently receiving. Watts bears direct responsibility for this outcome whenever his misleading blog entry is cited, as those citing or linking to his claim often don't undertake the due diligence that they should to verify the claims he made. In general, when claims are sensational, due diligence is especially important. As one looks at the climate denial movement's growing panic in the face of its shrinking influence, the nature of that movement becomes ever more apparent. The climate denial movement is not about integrity or truth. It is about dishonesty and deception, as it has no credible scientific basis on which to stand.

A generally warmer than normal pattern will likely prevail into the start of October with some fluctuations. There is potential for much above normal warmth to start October. However, cooler than normal readings will likely move into the region during the latter part of the first week of October. The PNA is forecast to plunge in coming days. Typically, a strongly negative PNA (-1.50 or below) during the October 1-3 period has translated into readings averaging 2°-4° above normal in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. The warmth has been even more pronounced when the strongly negative PNA has coincided with a negative SOI. Courtesy of low sea ice, abnormal warmth continued to prevail in northern Alaska. There is a >99% implied probability that Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) will record its warmest September on record. It is possible that Utqiagvik could register its first 40° mean temperature for September. A 40.0° mean temperature would rank 30th out of 99 years for the warmest August on record). The existing monthly record of 37.7° has stood since 1998. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -1.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.2°C for the week centered around September 18. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.77°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.16°C. The recent strong cooling in Region 1+2 indicates that the prospects for a neutral-cool ENSO during the winter have continued to increase. Such a scenario is now more likely than not. Since 1991 when weekly ENSO region data was available, five years have seen September record 2 or more weeks with -1.0°C or cooler weekly anomalies in Region 1+2: 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, and 2017. 4/5 (80%) of those cases went on to feature warm December-February temperature anomalies in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. Those cases include La Niña winters. However, the larger pool of neutral-cool ENSO winters, many of which predate the weekly ENSO regional data, have often featured frequent Atlantic blocking. For now, there is a mixed winter signal. The SOI was +6.00 today. On September 19, the SOI fell to -35.30. Often an SOI figure at or below -30.00 during the second half of September has been followed by a warmer than normal October. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.869. That is the highest AO value since March 31 when the AO was +2.329. Since 1950, there have been five prior cases when the AO averaged -0.500 or below in both July and August: 1950, 1958, 1960, 1968, and 2015. The average temperature for September was 69.1° (69.8° after adjusting for ongoing warming) and 58.9° (59.6° adjusted) for September through November in New York City. The 1981-2010 baseline normal figures are 68.0° and 57.5° respectively. The majority of cases saw a warmer than normal September and all cases featured a warmer than normal fall. Among those five cases, 2015 made a transition from predominantly negative AO values to predominantly positive ones during the fall. The combination of the AO's recent increase to the strongest positive values since April and some of the extended range guidance leave open a scenario where the AO is currently in the early stages of evolving to a predominantly positive regime. Such an outcome would also favor a warmer than normal fall and possible warm start to winter in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. Many additional variables are involved. A warmer than normal September is very likely. A warmer than normal fall is likely. The potential for autumn 2019 to rank among the 30 warmest cases on record has increased in recent weeks. For New York City, that would translate into a September-November mean temperature of at least 58.8°. On September 24, the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 2.541 (RMM). The September 23-adjusted amplitude was 2.291. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, the implied probability of New York City having a warmer than normal September is approximately 98% and the probability of a monthly mean temperature of 70.0° or above is 56%. Should September 2019 have a mean temperature of 70.0° or above, 2019 would be the 5th consecutive year with such September warmth. Prior to the current stretch, the record was 2 consecutive years (1930 and 1931; 1970 and 1971; 1979 and 1980; and, 2010 and 2011).

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12219 I believe the concern being expressed by some climate scientists is that the IPCC special report concerning tropical cyclones may not fully give weight to some of the later studies that reaffirm a modest increase in tropical cyclone strength, possible increase in tropical cyclone frequency (past results suggested no change or even a small decrease), and a higher ratio of Category 4-5 storms relative to Category 1-2 storms. One such study: Application of a tropical cyclone downscaling technique to six CMIP5-generation global climate models run under historical conditions and under the RCP8.5 emissions projection indicates an increase in global tropical cyclone activity, most evident in the North Pacific region but also noticeable in the North Atlantic and South Indian Oceans. In these regions, both the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones are projected to increase. This result contrasts with the result of applying the same downscaling technique to CMIP3-generation models, which generally predict a small decrease of global tropical cyclone frequency, and with recent CMIP5-based projections that show little consistent change in frequency. https://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12219 In any case, the debate that is underway concerning tropical cyclones is, IMO, a legitimate and healthy debate rooted in science. That debate is not, in any way, an example of the evidence-free beliefs being asserted by Lindzen et al. in a bid to misinform the public about anthropogenic climate change.

If awards were granted to the individuals who display the greatest ignorance on climate and climate change, perhaps this individual's "contribution" would make him a strong candidate. In an op-ed published by the Washington Times, Anthony J. Sadar, wrote: [C]rowding into an expansive metropolis, no matter how enticing it may be, just adds to the problem of long-term climate change. People have thrived in their own custom-built climate change for centuries. Today, there are numerous locations across the globe where manmade outdoor temperatures consistently exceed natural ambient conditions by 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit... Nobody is overly concerned with the heat island effect... He then goes on to mock today's concerns about climate change tying those concerns to discredited past warnings about overpopulation and mass starvation that did not come to pass. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/24/the-trouble-with-the-political-push-for-climate-ch/ His message: 2.8°C -5.6°C (the equivalent temperatures of those he cited for urban heat islands) is not bad. People have demonstrated the ability to 'thrive' in such environments. Moreover, "nobody is overly concerned" with such environments, thus, a similar indifferent attitude should be taken with respect to anthropogenic climate change. Even as the individual self-identifies as a meteorologist, it is clear he knows little or nothing about climate and climate change. His perspective is grossly simplified and is not applicable to a world that includes land masses (not just cities), oceans and water bodies, ice sheets, and the atmosphere. A few quick things: First, the increase in radiative forcing from rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has a global impact. Second, warming oceans experience themal expansion. Third, melting glaciers, along with the Greenland and Antrarctic ice sheets are increasing sea levels. Fourth, rising sea levels mean more flooding/flood events in coastal regions, some of which are also experiencing subsidence. Fifth, rising global temperatures have led to an increase in heat extremes. Sixth, rising global temperatures are leading to a shift in flora, and not all areas will have optimal soil for the changes taking place. Seventh, absorption of heat by the oceans has led to an increasing incidence of marine heat waves. In short, the article is the equivalent of a medical diagnosis offered by a 17th century witch doctor rather than a highly-skilled, highly-educated 21st century medical professional. It is pseudoscience in which the localized phenomenon of the urban heat island effect is stretched beyond repair to a global conclusion. All credible scientific evidence suggests that a 2.8°C -5.6°C warming on a global basis would be highly damaging to ecosystems and human society. Artifacts of pseudoscience such as the one advanced in the opinion piece should be ignored. They carry no meaningful insight when it comes to climate and climate change. They only distract from science and understanding.

Thanks for sharing this. I believe a number of climate scientists were puzzled why the latest research and evidence concerning the recent increase in strong hurricanes wasn't fully considered.

Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) remains on course for a record warm September. It is also increasingly likely to see its first September with a mean temperature of 40.0° or above. Overall, largely on account of low summer sea ice, resulting in Arctic amplification, the area has been warming very rapidly. September 2019 Mean: 39.7° - 40.8° (estimated) September Record: 37.7°, 1998 1981-2010 Mean: 32.1° 30-Year Moving Average: 1990-2019: 33.5° (estimated) Low Summer Ice Era: 2007-Present

Richard Lindzen, among others, has written a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Secretary-General, in a bid to divert the UN's attention from the issue of climate change. The Secretary-General should ignore it. Those who wrote the letter argued, "Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power." They provided no hyperlinks or references to evidence to support such a claim. Absent credible evidence, this claim is uninformed noise. At its worst, it is hysterical exaggeration, a charge deniers often hurl at climate scientists. Trying to invoke a sense of balance, albeit an undeserved one, they wrote, "We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020." Translation: Climate change deniers should have a seat at the table and be treated as equals. Not mentioned is the absence of published research cited by those who wrote the letter that suggests that their beliefs--I used the term "beliefs," because scientific conclusions are based on empirical evidence--have credibility. In contrast, contemporary evidence for the anthropogenic nature of the ongoing warming is overwhelming. Just as the invited climate scientists rejected the Heartland Institute's attempts to set up a "debate" that would have served only to elevate the standing of climate science deniers and illuminate their inaccurate claims, the UN Secretary-General should not accommodate the letter writers' demand. They added, "A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate polities should be more scientific." Claims to authority, alone, don't overcome an absence of research to back the belief system held by those who signed the letter. Further, insisting that uncorroborated beliefs should carry equal weight to published peer-reviewed work is what would politicize climate science and crowd out the science from political discussion of climate-related policies. By rejecting science, the appeals to authority of these letter writers ring hollow. They continued, "The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic." This is the old, 'earth has warmed, earth has cooled, therefore humanity can have no role in climate' argument. In reality, the existence of natural drivers for past changes in climate do not in any way preclude anthropogenic drivers today. Indeed, there's no difference in the physical impact of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere whether the greenhouse gases reach that atmosphere via nature processes or are emitted by human activities. Can Lindzen et al., explain by CO2 released via natural processes from under the earth or the very same CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels should somehow be different? Human activities explains the rising concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases. It is that development that provides the radiative forcing responsible for most or all of the ongoing warming. Solar Irradiance: Source: IPCC Why have global temperatures decoupled from solar irradiance? Lindzen et al., have no answer. Instead, they expect the UN Secretary-General to take it on blind faith, alone, that today's warming is of natural origins. It isn't. Changes in radiative forcing (1750-2011): Source: IPCC Why won't Lindzen et al., explain what it means that the overwhelming increase in radiative forcing results from anthropogenic causes? Because it would shatter their belief system. Finally, if one runs a literature search, even using Google Scholar with its limitations, one finds the vast majority of papers in the past decade have indicated that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions explain most or all of the recent warming. To suggest that "very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic" suggests that one has either stopped reading the research for at least the last decade or is deliberately ignoring the research. In sum, the UN Secretary-General should ignore the letter. That 500 individuals have signed a letter seeking to divert the UN's attention from the overwhelming consensus of climate science today means little. That they have tried to establish standing by proclaiming themselves "knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields" also means little when they bring no evidence to back their claims while ignoring the enormous body of evidence that establishes that much or all of today's warming is the result of anthropogenic factors. What matters is the empirical evidence. The letter comes without evidence, because there is no serious evidence any longer that puts the fundamental conclusion related to anthropogenic warming in doubt. Residual uncertainties remain, but they also do not put into question the fundamental understanding of climate science today.

Following yesterday's unseasonably warm temperatures, cooler air returned to southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic region. However, warmer readings are likely later this week. The potential for much above normal warmth to start October exists. Courtesy of low sea ice, abnormal warmth continued to prevail in northern Alaska. There is an implied 98% probability that Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) will record its warmest September on record. It is possible that Utqiagvik could register its first 40° mean temperature for September. A 40.0° mean temperature would rank 30th out of 99 years for the warmest August on record). The existing monthly record of 37.7° has stood since 1998. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -1.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.2°C for the week centered around September 18. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.77°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.16°C. The recent strong cooling in Region 1+2 indicates that the prospects for a neutral-cool ENSO during the winter have continued to increase. Such a scenario is now more likely than not. Since 1991 when weekly ENSO region data was available, five years have seen September record 2 or more weeks with -1.0°C or cooler weekly anomalies in Region 1+2: 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, and 2017. 4/5 (80%) of those cases went on to feature warm December-February temperature anomalies in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. Those cases include La Niña winters. However, the larger pool of neutral-cool ENSO winters, many of which predate the weekly ENSO regional data, have often featured frequent Atlantic blocking. For now, there is a mixed winter signal. The SOI was -2.43 today. On September 19, the SOI fell to -35.30. Often an SOI figure at or below -30.00 during the second half of September has been followed by a warmer than normal October. 2002, which saw severe October blocking during which the Arctic Oscillation fell to as low as -5.098 on October 18, was an exception. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.475. That's the highest figure since April 23 when the AO was +1.503. Since 1950, there have been five prior cases when the AO averaged -0.500 or below in both July and August: 1950, 1958, 1960, 1968, and 2015. The average temperature for September was 69.1° (69.8° after adjusting for ongoing warming) and 58.9° (59.6° adjusted) for September through November in New York City. The 1981-2010 baseline normal figures are 68.0° and 57.5° respectively. The majority of cases saw a warmer than normal September and all cases featured a warmer than normal fall. Among those five cases, 2015 made a transition from predominantly negative AO values to predominantly positive ones during the fall. The combination of the AO's recent increase to the strongest positive values since April and some of the extended range guidance leave open a scenario where the AO is currently in the early stages of evolving to a predominantly positive regime. Such an outcome would also favor a warmer than normal fall and possible warm start to winter in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. This is merely a hypothetical discussion of one potential path toward winter. Many other variables are involved. Therefore, a warmer than normal September and fall appear likely. The potential for autumn 2019 to rank among the 30 warmest cases on record remains on the table. For New York City, that would translate into a September-November mean temperature of 58.8°. On September 23, the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 2.288 (RMM). The September 22-adjusted amplitude was 1.727. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, the implied probability of New York City having a warmer than normal September is approximately 95% and the probability of a monthly mean temperature of 70.0° or above is 56%. Should September 2019 have a mean temperature of 70.0° or above, 2019 would be the 5th consecutive year with such September warmth. Prior to the current stretch, the record was 2 consecutive years (1930 and 1931; 1970 and 1971; 1979 and 1980; and, 2010 and 2011).

The potential peak heat is for Tuesday-Thursday (October 1-3), assuming the latest guidance is accurate.

Yesterday was also Utqiagvik's 94th day of the year above freezing (highlighted by the 85-consecutive day streak). That surpassed the previous mark of 93, which was set in 1998.

Today saw temperatures rise into the upper 80s and lower to middle 90s across the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. High temperatures included: Allentown: 90°; Baltimore: 95°; Boston: 92°; Harrisburg: 90°; New York City: 89°; Newark: 93°; Philadelphia: 92°; Richmond: 94°; Sterling: 94° (old record: 93°, 2005 and 2010); and, Washington, DC: 94°. Today was the 57th time Baltimore recorded a 90° or above high temperature. Only 2010, with 59, had more. Today was Washington, DC's 59th 90° or warmer day this year, which is tied with 5 prior years for 3rd most such days during a year. Only 1980 and 2010, both with 67 such days, had more. The excessive warmth in Boston provides yet another potential signal of at least one more significant bout of high temperatures for the Middle Atlantic and southern New England areas. Since 1872, Boston has had 10 prior years during which the temperature reached 90° or above during the September 20-30 period. In 6/10 (60%) cases, October 1-15 had a maximum temperature of 80° or above and in 4/10 (40%) cases, October 1-15 had a maximum temperature of 85° or above. Courtesy of low sea ice, abnormal warmth continued to prevail in northern Alaska. There is an implied 93% probability that Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) will record its warmest September on record. It is possible that Utqiagvik could register its first 40° mean temperature for September. A 40.0° mean temperature would rank 30th out of 99 years for the warmest August on record). The existing monthly record of 37.7° has stood since 1998. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -1.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.2°C for the week centered around September 18. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.77°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.16°C. The recent strong cooling in Region 1+2 indicates that the prospects for a neutral-cool ENSO during the winter have continued to increase. Such a scenario is now more likely than not. Since 1991 when weekly ENSO region data was available, five years have seen September record 2 or more weeks with -1.0°C or cooler weekly anomalies in Region 1+2: 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, and 2017. 4/5 (80%) of those cases went on to feature warm December-February temperature anomalies in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. Those cases include La Niña winters. However, the larger pool of neutral-cool ENSO winters, many of which predate the weekly ENSO regional data, have often featured frequent Atlantic blocking. For now, there is a mixed winter signal. The SOI was -4.45 today. On September 19, the SOI fell to -35.30. Often an SOI figure at or below -30.00 during the second half of September has been followed by a warmer than normal October. 2002, which saw severe October blocking during which the Arctic Oscillation fell to as low as -5.098 on October 18, was an exception. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +0.701. Since 1950, there have been five prior cases when the AO averaged -0.500 or below in both July and August: 1950, 1958, 1960, 1968, and 2015. The average temperature for September was 69.1° (69.8° after adjusting for ongoing warming) and 58.9° (59.6° adjusted) for September through November in New York City. The 1981-2010 baseline normal figures are 68.0° and 57.5° respectively. The majority of cases saw a warmer than normal September and all cases featured a warmer than normal fall. Among those five cases, 2015 made a transition from predominantly negative AO values to predominantly positive ones during the fall. The combination of the AO's recent increase to the strongest positive values since April and some of the extended range guidance leave open a scenario where the AO is currently in the early stages of evolving to a predominantly positive regime. Such an outcome would also favor a warmer than normal fall and possible warm start to winter in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. This is merely a hypothetical discussion of one potential path toward winter. Many other variables are involved. Therefore, a warmer than normal September and fall appear likely. The potential for autumn 2019 to rank among the 30 warmest cases on record remains on the table. For New York City, that would translate into a September-November mean temperature of 58.8°. On September 22, the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 1.727 (RMM). The September 21-adjusted amplitude was 1.464. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, the implied probability of New York City having a warmer than normal September is approximately 93% and the probability of a monthly mean temperature of 70.0° or above is 55%. Should September 2019 have a mean temperature of 70.0° or above, 2019 would be the 5th consecutive year with such September warmth. Prior to the current stretch, the record was 2 consecutive years (1930 and 1931; 1970 and 1971; 1979 and 1980; and, 2010 and 2011).

Congratulations. I wish you and your fiance all the best going forward.

Update... Bastardi has deleted the retweeted image concerning Greta Thunberg. Perhaps the many calling it out on Twitter and elsewhere on Social Media led to this outcome. A tweeted apology to Ms. Thunberg would have been nice, but at least the offensive image is gone.

Fortunately, after part of the first week of October, the air conditioner may get a well-deserved break.

The latest PNA forecast shows a dramatic drop that could take place over a very short period of time. Since daily PNA data have been available beginning in 1950, there have been 13 cases where the PNA dropped 3.000 sigma or more during a 5-day period in the September 20-October 10 timeframe. In the New York City region, such a development typically provided a signal that the remainder of meteorological autumn (October and November) would have similar temperature anomalies as September (9/13 or 69% of cases). When it comes to a warm September, as appears very likely this year, 6/8 (75%) cases were followed by a warm anomaly over the October-November period. Both cool cases had cool October anomalies. In short, the PNA appears to be offering a signal that the above normal temperature regime of September will likely predominate during the autumn.

Rising and increasingly vicious personal attacks on Greta Thunberg who has played a pivotal role in building a global youth movement aimed at persuading policy makers to address climate change are contemptible. They also offer fresh indications that science is advancing and those who seek to align public policy with science are making progress. The increasingly unhinged responses of the climate change denial crowd reveal that they are out of anything resembling climate, meteorological, or other scientific ammunition, as their discredited cause is anti-science at its core. That Ms. Thunberg is now being loosely associated with the Nazis via a conspiracy theory of her being placed in her position via the Left (even as Nazism was on the Far Right) is particularly reprehensible. Yet, it's happening. https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1175948680253362178 Whether this will prove the low water mark so to speak remains to be seen. After all, the climate change denier movement is frightened with its loss of ability to influence, terrified of a move away from the status quo, naked before science, and desperate for relevance. For now, it has moved into the dark shadows of conspiracy theories (almost certainly the environment in which the remnants of that movement will persist after society has moved on) and it seeks the personal destruction of those who stand for science. Historic experience is not on its side.

Today saw temperatures rise into the middle and upper 80s across the Middle Atlantic region. A few locations reached or exceeded 90°. High temperatures included: Allentown: 90°; Baltimore: 91°; Harrisburg: 91°; New York City: 86°; Newark: 89°; Philadelphia: 89°; Richmond: 92°; Sterling: 91°; and, Washington, DC: 93°. Parts of southern New England also saw readings well into the 80s, including Boston (89°), Hartford (88°), and Providence (85°). Today was the 56th time Baltimore recorded a 90° or above high temperature. Only 2010, with 59, had more. Today was Washington, DC's 58th 90° or warmer day this year, which tied 2016 for the 8th most such days during a year. Courtesy of low sea ice, abnormal warmth continued to prevail in northern Alaska. There is an implied 89% probability that Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) will record its warmest September on record. It is possible that Utqiagvik could register its first 40° mean temperature for September. A 40.0° mean temperature would rank 30th out of 99 years for the warmest August on record). The existing monthly record of 37.7° has stood since 1998. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -1.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around September 11. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.65°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.03°C. There remains uncertainty about the ENSO evolution later this fall. Despite the guidance, the strong cooling in Region 1+2 indicates that the prospects for a neutral-cool ENSO during the winter have increased. Such a scenario may be somewhat more likely than not. That outcome could have significant winter season implications. Since 1991 when weekly ENSO region data was available, six years have seen September record 2 or more weeks with -1.0°C or cooler weekly anomalies in Region 1+2: 1996, 1999, 2002, 2007, 2010, and 2017. 5/6 (83%) of those cases went on to feature warm December-February temperature anomalies in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. 2002 had one such week ahead of what would evolve into an El Niño winter. The SOI was -11.94 today. On September 19, the SOI fell to -35.30. Often an SOI figure at or below -30.00 during the second half of September has been followed by a warmer than normal October. 2002, which saw severe October blocking during which the Arctic Oscillation fell to as low as -5.098 on October 18, was an exception. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +0.676. Since 1950, there have been five prior cases when the AO averaged -0.500 or below in both July and August: 1950, 1958, 1960, 1968, and 2015. The average temperature for September was 69.1° (69.8° after adjusting for ongoing warming) and 58.9° (59.6° adjusted) for September through November in New York City. The 1981-2010 baseline normal figures are 68.0° and 57.5° respectively. The majority of cases saw a warmer than normal September and all cases featured a warmer than normal fall. Among those five cases, 2015 made a transition from predominantly negative AO values to predominantly positive ones during the fall. The combination of the AO's recent increase to the strongest positive values since April and some of the extended range guidance leave open a scenario where the AO is currently in the early stages of evolving to a predominantly positive regime. Such an outcome would also favor a warmer than normal fall and possible warm start to winter in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. For now, this is merely a hypothetical discussion of one potential path toward winter. Many other variables are involved. The only idea that carries weight at this time is that the possible evolution reaffirms the longstanding signal for a warm fall. Therefore, a warmer than normal September and fall appear likely. The potential for autumn 2019 to rank among the 30 warmest cases on record remains on the table. For New York City, that would translate into a September-November mean temperature of 58.8°. On September 21, the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 1.466 (RMM). The September 20-adjusted amplitude was 1.377. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, the implied probability of New York City having a warmer than normal September is approximately 92% and the probability of a monthly mean temperature of 70.0° or above is 61%. Should September 2019 have a mean temperature of 70.0° or above, 2019 would be the 5th consecutive year with such September warmth. Prior to the current stretch, the record was 2 consecutive years (1930 and 1931; 1970 and 1971; 1979 and 1980; and, 2010 and 2011).

Climate change denier dishonesty increases as youth ratchet up pressure for governments to prioritize, tackle climate change... The Guardian reported: A hoax photo that claims to show rubbish left behind by Australian climate strike protesters is circulating on Facebook, despite being revealed as fake months ago. Though it lacks any verification, and was debunked in April, the image and false caption have been shared 19,000 times in 12 hours, and thousands of times from copycats. On Friday, an estimated 300,000 Australians, and millions of people around the world, took part in protests against inaction on the climate emergency. Hours later, an Australian pro-coal page reposted the photo, which originated in April. It was captioned: "Look at the mess today’s climate protesters left behind in beautiful Hyde Park." However, the photo is not from a climate strike, not from Friday and was not taken in Australia. It is from a marijuana-based festival called 420 held in London in April 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/21/climate-strikes-hoax-photo-accusing-australian-protesters-of-leaving-rubbish-behind-goes-viral Of course, one should not be surprised by this outcome. The scientific evidence for ongoing warming is overwhelming. The conclusion concerning the anthropogenic cause of the ongoing warming is unequivocal. No serious scientist disputes the fundamentals, even as the field recognizes residual uncertainties exist. As the rising youth movement for tackling climate change cannot be discredited by scientific evidence, the gradually shrinking pool of climate change deniers has resorted to deception. The resort to such tactics only serves to further illustrate the intellectual and scientific bankruptcy of those who deny climate change.

Personally, I think the mechanisms by which policy makers look to the future and devise policy are deeply flawed, untethered from meaningful prioritization (largely ignore the opportunity costs of doing nothing), and confined in at least semi-closed personal belief systems. The new UN synthesis report on climate change shows that dramatic changes need to be made to limit warming to 1.5C or 2.5C. The report also notes carbon emissions are not expected to peak by 2020 or even 2030. Having said that, history is filled with examples of overcome challenges and today's youth movement may well mark the early stages of a restoration of effective political leadership that is capable and willing to address big challenges.

The United Nations' synthesis report on the latest climate science information has now been released. Some excerpts: Average global temperature for 2015-2019 is on track to be the warmest of any equivalent period on record. It is currently estimated to be 1.1°C above pre-industrial (1850-1900) times and 0.2°C warmer than 2011-2015. Observations show that global mean sea level rise is accelerating and an overall increase of 26% in ocean acidity since the beginning of the industrial era... CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use continue to grow by over 1% annually and 2% in 2018 reaching a new high. Growth of coal emissions resumed in 2017... Global emissions are not estimated to peak by 2030, let alone by 2020. Implementing current unconditional NDCs would lead to a global mean temperature rise between 2.9°C and 3.4°C by 2100 relative to pre-industrial levels, and continuing thereafter. The current level of NDC ambition needs to be roughly tripled for emission reduction to be in line with the 2°C goal and increased fivefold for the 1.5°C goal. Technically it is still possible to bridge the gap... Heatwaves were the deadliest meteorological hazard in the 2015–2019 period, affecting all continents and setting many new national temperature records. Summer 2019 saw unprecedented wildfires in the Arctic region. In June alone, these fires emitted 50 megatons (Mt) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is more than was released by Arctic fires in the same month from 2010 to 2018 put together. The complete report can be found at: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30023/climsci.pdf

IMO, if the focus is shifted to one of capitalism vs. socialism, that will be a recipe for preserving the status quo. Instead, the emphasis needs to be on addressing the challenge of climate change, not trying to use that challenge to pursue unrelated political goals. Like you, I believe nuclear power will be an important piece of any coherent approach to addressing climate change.

The last full day of summer featured lots of sunshine and summerlike warmth. As of 3 pm, New York City had a high temperature of 86° and Newark had registered a high temperature of 88°. On the Long Island Sound, a refreshing sea breeze kicked in during the middle of the afternoon. Three photos from this afternoon:

Just so there's no confusion, everyone enjoys free speech under the U.S. Constitution. However, the guarantee of free speech does not mandate that publications grant one's views equal weight to all other views. Thus, disproved or discredited theories typically won't appear in the scientific journals. They also won't be touted in the larger mainstream media. Still, that does not mean that those who hold such beliefs cannot enjoy their right to free speech. That's a crucial distinction.