donsutherland1

Sorry about the delay. July 2019 was Boston's warmest month on record. The mean temperature was 78.7°. The previous July and monthly record was 78.0°, which was set in 1983.

It's not an "attack" on person. It's an attack on deeply flawed article that has little to do with science. Noting that Watts does not have a background in climate science and is not an expert in the area of glaciers are both facts. Indeed, if one wants further details, there's question as to whether he, in fact, completed his college studies. http://sourcewatch.org/images/4/4d/Anthony_Watts.pdf That wasn't the point. Thus, the issue about his not possessing expertise in climate science and glaciers was noted. Nothing was mentioned about the above controversy. The major focus was on the flawed article he had written. Iceland is a volcanically active region, but not every volcano is active. The OK Volcano last erupted during the Pleistocene Epoch and may well be extinct. If it is extinct, there's no heat. Watts also posted the NSIDC quote. Nowhere does the quote issue any ranking concerning temperature, much less the claim of "temperature coming in last" as factors related to the retreat of glaciers. Were the Watts framework accepted, OK's retreat would be a relatively rare case due to unique circumstances (location atop a volcano, setting aside that the volcano is dormant and possibly extinct). Instead, as the paper to which I provided a hyperlink (which is one from among numerous studies related to global glacier trends), OK's retreat is part of a broader global trend where glaciers across the world are generally in retreat, even as many of those glaciers are not located atop volcanoes. Why is this the case? If not volcanoes, what factor do they have in common? The global data make the common factor unmistakably clear: temperatures are rising. Multiple high-quality datasets (HadCrut, GISS, NCDC, Berkeley, Copernicus) all show this trend. Further, 98% of the globe has experienced the warmest 50 years on record (Common Era). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf Instead, Watts discounted the importance of temperature (something NSIDC had not done). At the same time, he omitted any mention of the Arctic temperature record. That's a material omission. Further, Iceland is expected to continue its ongoing robust warming trend, which has contributed to OK's retreat. https://en.vedur.is/media/vedurstofan-utgafa-2017/VI_2017_009.pdf

The Greenland Ice Sheet holds 7.2 m of sea level equivalent and in recent decades, rising temperatures have led to accelerated mass loss. Current ice margin recession is led by the retreat of outlet glaciers, large rivers of ice ending in narrow fjords that drain the interior. We pair an outlet glacier–resolving ice sheet model with a comprehensive uncertainty quantification to estimate Greenland’s contribution to sea level over the next millennium. We find that Greenland could contribute 5 to 33 cm to sea level by 2100, with discharge from outlet glaciers contributing 8 to 45% of total mass loss. Our analysis shows that uncertainties in projecting mass loss are dominated by uncertainties in climate scenarios and surface processes, whereas uncertainties in calving and frontal melt play a minor role. We project that Greenland will very likely become ice free within a millennium without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/6/eaav9396

It should be noted that UAH 5.6, which was discontinued in 2017, had a better fit with the other climate datasets than 6.0. Indeed, running a regression analysis to estimate the value for 5.6 (in relation to GISS), one would have had a July 2019 value of +0.47. That would have surpassed the July 2016 record of +0.45 on that version. That outcome would be consistent with the findings from the GISS, NCDC, Berkeley, and Copernicus datasets. UAH 6.0 has consistently been a cold outlier. UAH 6.0 is a flawed product. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1

The following is an example of the kind of scientific illiteracy and efforts at disinformation that climate scientists must combat in order to ensure that the public has accurate information concerning climate change. Excerpts from an article by Anthony Watts: The media are abuzz over the first icy “casualty” of climate change: a small glacier in Iceland named Okjökull, also known as “OK.” The claim, made in a press release from Rice University, is that OK became the first glacier in Iceland to lose its glacial status because of global warming... As the U.S. Geological Survey noted, OK is actually an icecap on top of a volcano — located on a volcanically active Iceland. Yes, OK is slowly disappearing, but it is completely disingenuous to say climate change is without any doubt the main reason for OK’s demise. Even if we assume there’s no heat from the volcano, what else could be causing OK’s ice loss? To answer that question, you need to understand how glaciers work. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC): "A glacier forms when snow accumulates over time, turns to ice, and begins to flow outwards and downwards under the pressure of its own weight[.] … Glacier retreat, melt, and ablation result from increasing temperature, evaporation, and wind scouring. Ablation is a natural and seasonal part of glacier life. As long as snow accumulation equals or is greater than melt and ablation, a glacier will remain in balance or even grow. Once winter snowfall decreases, or summer melt increases, the glacier will begin to retreat." If snow is not added, glaciers don’t grow, and they naturally lose ice due to sublimation, ablation, and melt. I don’t think these people pushing OK’s death fully understand glaciers. The process of ice loss in a high-latitude glacier is mainly due to three things, with temperature coming in last. http://blog.heartland.org/2019/08/the-reports-of-icelands-glacial-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/ Now the facts: First, there is no credible evidence to implicate the volcano. Indeed, Mr. Watts claims the volcano may or may not be responsible. The volcano is, in fact, dormant and perhaps extinct. The OK volcano isn't even listed in the modern eruption record, as no known eruptions have occurred for millennia or longer. https://volcano.si.edu/database/search_volcano_results.cfm Second, the NSIDC language Watts quotes notes the role of temperature (underlined), "Glacier retreat, melt, and ablation result from increasing temperature, evaporation, and wind scouring..." Notice the NSIDC language never ranks the role of temperature, even as temperature is the first factor cited. Mr. Watts subjectively injects personal opinion into his piece. Temperature has played a large role. The Arctic has experienced unprecedented warmth during the instrument record and rapid warming over the past 50 years. The data can be found at: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt (64N-90N) Third, the dramatic retreat of the OK glacier is not an isolated event. Worldwide, glaciers have largely been retreating. That broad retreat has been documented in numerous scientific papers. One such paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2863 Further, most of those glaciers don't sit atop volcanoes. In sum, Mr. Watts ranked the role of temperature based on a read of the NSIDC's language on glaciers that is inconsistent with the intellectual integrity of that language. He engaged in speculation about a volcano's possible role without looking into the facts about that volcano. In the end, Mr. Watts, who has no background in climate science, much less the study of glaciers, reached an unsupported conclusion that has no foundation in the scientific literature. It is pure opinion spiced with baseless speculation. Its purpose is not to inform, but to mislead.

Parts of the Middle Atlantic and southern New England areas experienced record warmth today. Highlights included: Baltimore: 99° (old record: 97°, 1914); Boston: 95° (old record: 92°, 1906, 1966, and 1983); Norfolk: 96° (tied record set in 1912 and tied in 1954); Richmond: 99° (old record: 98°, 1914 and 2002); Sterling, VA: 95° (tied record set in 2002); and, Washington, DC: 98° (tied record set in 2002). Anchorage, which came off its warmest month on record, remains on track to record its warmest summer on record. At present, based on the sensitivity analysis, Anchorage will finish summer 2019 with a mean temperature near 62.0°. The summer record is 60.8°, which was set in 2016. There is also a chance that 2019 could set a new August record for highest mean temperature on record. If so, that would be the third consecutive monthly record set this year. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.7°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.1°C for the week centered around August 14. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.42°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.33°C. Neutral-warm ENSO conditions are in place in Region 3.4 with neutral-cool conditions in place in Region 1+2. There is considerable uncertainty about the ENSO evolution later this summer into the fall. Some of the guidance continues to show the development of neutral-cool ENSO conditions. The SOI was +10.86 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was --1.006. A general tendency for blocking could persist into the last week of August. By that time, the AO could move toward neutral to positive values. This evolution of blocking will promote a generally warm or perhaps very warm remainder of summer. Since 1950, there was only a single year that saw the AO average -1.000 or below in May and -0.500 or below in June (the preliminary June 2019 average was -0.665): 1993. 1993 featured much above normal readings in the East during the late summer (August 15-September 15 period) and predominantly cooler than normal readings across the western third of the nation during much of the summer. In addition, since 1950, there have been four prior cases when the AO averaged -0.500 or below in both June and July: 1957, 1958, 1993, and 2009. In three (75%) of those cases, August wound up warmer than normal. August 1993 was the warmest case. The mean anomaly from those cases suggests that the Middle Atlantic and southern New England areas could be approximately 0.5° to 1.5° above normal overall during August. On August 18, the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 1.128 (RMM). The August 17-adjusted amplitude was 0.751. Finally, based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, New York City has an implied 61% probability of having a warmer than normal August. In terms of receiving 50" or more precipitation, New York City's implied probabilities are 65% (1869-2018 historical period) and 77% (1971-2018 period).

Near dime-sized hail fell in Mamaroneck, NY during the now departing thunderstorm.

Since the time I posted about the article, I have seen her piece. As I was traveling in China and just got back, I could not access it until my return to the United States. Based upon some of the criticism, Dr. Curry's included, my view is that the general ideas likely hold up, especially when it comes to "new media" coverage. In areas where the differences were small e.g., certain major media outlets, the conclusions may not hold up e.g., (the small advantage in coverage for contrarians may, in fact, be a modest advantage for the climate scientists). It would be interesting to see what the numbers look like if things are re-run to take into consideration some of the criticism e.g., one climate scientist who debated the contrarians at the Heartland Institute was grouped as a contrarian (the general category for all Heartland participants).

Washington Post feature on climate change: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-america/

Today saw New York City reach 90°. As a result, August now has a positive monthly anomaly near 0.4°. Overall, August remains on course to be warmer than normal in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. Anchorage, which came off its warmest month on record, remains on track to record its warmest summer on record. There is also a chance that 2019 could set a new August record for highest mean temperature on record. If so, that would be the third consecutive monthly record set this year. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.6°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.4°C for the week centered around August 7. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.35°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.42°C. Neutral-warm ENSO conditions are in place in Region 3.4 with neutral-cool conditions in place in Region 1+2. There is considerable uncertainty about the ENSO evolution later this summer into the fall. Some of the guidance continues to show the development of neutral-cool ENSO conditions. The SOI was +7.46 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was -0.676. A general tendency for blocking could persist into the last week of August. By that time, the AO could move toward neutral to positive values. This evolution of blocking will promote a generally warm or perhaps very warm remainder of summer. Since 1950, there was only a single year that saw the AO average -1.000 or below in May and -0.500 or below in June (the preliminary June 2019 average was -0.665): 1993. 1993 featured much above normal readings in the East during the late summer (August 15-September 15 period) and predominantly cooler than normal readings across the western third of the nation during much of the summer. In addition, since 1950, there have been four prior cases when the AO averaged -0.500 or below in both June and July: 1957, 1958, 1993, and 2009. In three (75%) of those cases, August wound up warmer than normal. August 1993 was the warmest case. The mean anomaly from those cases suggests that the Middle Atlantic and southern New England areas could be approximately 0.5° to 1.5° above normal overall during August. On August 17, the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 0.754 (RMM). The August 16-adjusted amplitude was 0.348. Finally, based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, New York City has an implied 64% probability of having a warmer than normal August.

On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 4.635 million square kilometers (JAXA). Arctic sea ice extent remains on track of the second lowest figure on record. If Arctic sea ice extent declines at the 2010-18 mean rate, it would achieve a minimum figure of 3.695 million square kilometers. The median rate would produce a minimum extent of 3.672 square kilometers. Implied probabilities based on sensitivity analysis: 4.000 million square kilometers or below: 84% 3.750 million square kilometers or below: 57% 3.500 million square kilometers or below: 26% Highest 25th percentile: 3.905 million square kilometers Lowest 25th percentile: 3.486 million square kilometers In sum, Arctic sea ice extent will very likely fall below 4.0 million square kilometers for only the second time on record.

Very good piece, Tip. I’m really not focused on those who reject climate science and the overwhelming body of evidence that supports its fundamental conclusions. An anti-science rigidity and motivated reasoning preclude meaningful prospects of evidence-based reconsideration of their conclusions. There is a distinct difference between honest skepticism where one seeks additional evidence and then refines one’s thoughts based on that evidence and denialism where one seeks or contrives all rationalizations necessary to reject the conclusions drawn from the evidence. I do think this subforum has the potential to become a useful source of information on climate change and its realities. Others have been providing some good information. I have decided that I should also participate to a greater extent than I have.

This paper can be found at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0420-9.epdf

The GISS dataset also showed July 2019 as the warmest July on record (+0.93 degrees C anomaly).

My hypothesis is that the idea was floated with the hope that a purchase could be secured and an achievement registered just in time for Campaign 2020. Of course, my guess could be wrong, especially as I might lack some details on account of still being abroad.

Today, Kodak had an 86-degree reading. That tied the all-time record high, which was set on June 28, 1953.

Yes, but Denmark would have to agree to any purchase. Fortunately, things won’t reach that stage. Greenland has now weighed in. It rejected Trump’s idea.

The scientific understanding of AGW is based on far more than models (which are also widely used in scientific fields). Some uncertainties exist, but the fundamental understanding (the reality of ongoing warming, the role anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have played in raising the atmospheric concentration of such gases, and that rising concentration’s being the principal driver of recent warming) is essentially settled in the climate science field. No credible alternative has been advanced, much less withstood robust scientific scrutiny. Finally, the ongoing warming is indisputable. The NOAA observed in its July 2019 climate summary: Last month was also the 43rd consecutive July and 415th consecutive month with above-average global temperatures. In a relatively stable climate regime, the statistical probability of 415 consecutive months with warm anomalies is vanishingly small. Such streaks are almost certainly only possible during climate change, in this case toward a warmer state.

Back in late July, both the average statistical decline (2010-18 period) and sensitivity analysis indicated that it was likely that Arctic sea ice extent would fall below 4.000 million square kilometers at its minimum for only the second time on record. Since then, things have remained on track for such an outcome.

I doubt that Denmark will “sell” Greenland for any price. Greenland’s small population lives in freedom. U.S. military access does not require U.S. possession of Greenland. Such a purchase would serve few, if any, American interests, even if the President seeks to be immortalized as a 21st Century William Seward (who was instrumental in the nation’s purchase of Alaska). Exploitation of its raw minerals would be incompatible with trying to arrest the erosion of its ice sheet and preservation of its environment.

From the NOAA: The average global temperature in July was 1.71 degrees F above the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, making it the hottest July in the 140-year record, according to scientists at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. The previous hottest month on record was July 2016. Nine of the 10 hottest Julys have occurred since 2005 -- with the last five years ranking as the five hottest. Last month was also the 43rd consecutive July and 415th consecutive month with above-average global temperatures. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201907

This portal addresses many issues over which the public has received inaccurate or worse information from sources whose aim is to undercut public understanding, often to serve political, ideological, or other non-scientific ends. This portal can be found at: https://climate.nasa.gov/ The shortcut for facts about climate change is here: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Dr. Hansen has made a deliberate choice to become an activist. He believes that despite the strength of climate science understanding, humanity is doing too little to address the challenge. He sees a rising opportunity cost from that course. https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript

A few quick things: First, I just looked into how Pielke, Jr., wound up being grouped as a “contrarian.” He showed up on one of the authors’ key sources for identifying contrarians. Second, a quick look at some of the cited items for his being listed by that source revealed a gap between Pielke, Jr.’s thinking and the IPCC consensus. The gap was more than about his expressing uncertainty. Using the authors’ language, to describe types of skepticism, that would make him an ‘impact skeptic.’ Based on both reasons, the authors likely included him as a contrarian. For what it’s worth, Curry doesn’t appear on any of the sources referenced to identify contrarians. I make no personal judgment about the issue, as I haven’t seen enough of his work, including his blog that he ended, to reach a conclusion with confidence. I offered explanation about the grouping in which he found himself.

This is probably the reason. DeSmog was among the sources used to compile a list of climate change contrarians for a comparison group study. https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-pielke-jr Pielke, Jr. has repeatedly downplayed the climate change link to extreme weather. Perhaps, as attribution techniques are relatively young, his understanding is dated. But even before attribution techniques became robust, the IPCC position about the link between climate change and extreme weather events was stronger than Pielke’s. Finally, the paper in question concerns contrarians, not all of whom are “deniers.” The paper explained: In particular, by contrarians we refer to individuals frequently sourced by institutions denying the documented realities of CC and its consequences and/or individuals who have personally expressed inaccurate statements. As such, we selected CCC using open registries that clearly document their contrarian positions. There are several limitations to our data-driven analysis worth first discussing. First, we do not account for the range of professional backgrounds, nor do we account for the different types of skepticism promoted by different CCC. By way of example, recent work comparing fundamental skepticism (relating to sources and existence of CC) to impact skepticism (relating to potential impacts of CC) reveals that the frequency of the fundamental skepticism has decreased over time, whereas the frequency of impact skepticism has increased over time, possibly signaling a strategic shift within the contrarian movement. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4 Almost certainly, the “impact skepticism” description fits Pielke, Jr.’s work related to climate change and extreme weather events. He does not come across as being in the “fundamental skepticism” category.