donsutherland1

On the recent policy path that was launched in 2017, that’s a plausible outcome. I suspect some of the adverse changes that were made will be reversed by new leadership in coming years.

The status quo tends to be “sticky” for lack of a better term. When companies, countries, or societies have done well under the status quo, complacency sets in and that hardens their determination to preserve the status quo, even when developments render it unsustainable and its extension leads to worse outcomes. It’s too soon to be sure about the U.S. as a whole, but status quo thinking currently constrains U.S. policy. Efforts to move away from the status quo are subjected to defeatist “can’t be done” thinking. Had today’s thinking that thwarts effective climate change policies and a rapid shift away from fossil fuels defined the nation’s effort during World War II, the Allied countries would likely have lost the war. Had it defined things at the time the Apollo Project was launched, humans would still be looking to the future when they could set foot on the moon. Had it constrained the Ozone Hole and Acid Rain responses, both problems would have continued to grow worse.

What one is witnessing in this thread, unless I am somehow misreading things, is a general unwillingness to consider evidence that is inconsistent with beliefs and unflinching support for those beliefs despite overwhelming evidence (including numerous peer-reviewed papers) and the case made to demonstrate that such beliefs are flawed. In contrast, the alternative to AGW has virtually no support in the literature (and none that I could find in the recent literature) and it cannot explain the warming that has taken place since 1950, and especially from the late 20th century onward. Nevertheless, all that is largely ignored or dismissed. Those approaches of maintaining flawed belief in spite of the evidence are more consistent with dogma than science. Science is based on evidence and it is responsive to new empirical information (conclusions can and do change when there is sufficient credible evidence to justify such changes). This responsiveness to better information/discovery is what has allowed science to advance in a way that has expanded human understanding/knowledge and made possible much of the human progress that has been achieved.

My principal concern is that he will be working under the unqualified David Legates who is a well-known denier of climate change. That will increase risks that the NOAA could be diverted from its scientific work onto anti-scientific political paths. In turn, such a development could undercut the NOAA's credibility, which would be damaging for public safety, etc.

For those who are interested, JFK had a low temperature of 47 and LGA had a low of 55.

Morning thoughts... Today started off with very chilly and, in some cases, near record low temperatures. Minimum temperatures included: Albany: 32°; Allentown: 36°; Bridgeport: 43°; Boston: 45°; Islip: 43°; New York City: 48°; Newark: 46°; Philadelphia: 47°; Poughkeepsie: 33°; Providence: 45°; Westhampton: 32°; and, White Plains: 42°. Under bright sunshine, a noticeable warmup should commence today. The temperature will likely top out mainly in the lower 70s across the region. Likely high temperatures around the region include: New York City (Central Park): 72° Newark: 74° Philadelphia: 73° Above normal temperatures will likely continue through the remainder of this week.

The chart displayed radiative forcing. Atmospheric methane leads to a modest increase in stratospheric water vapor via oxidation. The maximum amount of tropospheric water vapor is a function of temperature. It increases at roughly 7% for every 1 degree C rise in temperature. Climate models incorporate changes in water vapor, so water vapor is not ignored. This increase in water vapor is one reason why climate scientists have correctly projected an increase in intense precipitation events. But, by definition, that is a feedback and it is one that amplifies the warming. Stating that it is a feedback is a fact, not a “cop out.” If one wants to argue that the increase in tropospheric water vapor is the equivalent of an indirect anthropogenic forcing, that’s not far-fetched, as its observed increase is the result of a temperature rise. In turn, that temperature rise is predominantly the result of rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases, not natural forcings or other natural processes.

No one expects that proxy data would be as precise as the instrument data. But the agreement among the proxies gives one confidence that they provide reasonable insight into past climate regimes. Below is a chart of the forcings (1980-2011): Source: IPCC The anthropogenic greenhouse gases explain most of the energy imbalance and warming that has occurred since 1980. Solar irradiance had a net negative (cooling) contribution. Finally, scientists are in strong consensus about the role anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have played in driving the energy imbalance and warming. Uncertainties about feedbacks and other details exist, but there is strong (95% confidence in the last IPCC report and likely to be 99%-100% confidence in the upcoming one) about the primary cause of those developments.

There are numerous paleoclimate proxies that can allow researchers to construct temperature records (sediments, coral, ice cores, leaf wax, tree rings, etc.). For some basic information: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/nature’s-archives-piecing-together-12000-years-earth’s-climate-story Whether one uses temperature records constructed from the proxies or the instrument record, the recent warmth exceeds that of at least the past 1,000 years globally and the increase in temperatures has been exceptional. While the natural forcings do well in reproducing the temperature record prior to 1950, only the addition of greenhouse gases allows for the reproduction of the temperature record subsequent to 1950. The physical properties of those gases are also known. The probability that global temperatures would be rising consistent with increasing greenhouse gas forcing, can be replicated very well only with the inclusion of such forcing, and are behaving as expected based on understanding of physics, but would have little or nothing to do with such gases is extremely remote at best.

New York City's Central Park saw the temperature dip below 50° for the first time in September since September 24, 2013. At Saranac Lake, NY, the thermometer fell to 21°. That broke the previous daily record low temperature of 25°, which was set in 1962 and tied in 1993. Warmer readings will arrive starting tomorrow afternoon. Afterward, temperatures will likely remain at above normal levels for much of the remainder of September. Phoenix has an implied 74% probability of recording just its 13th September on record with a mean temperature of 90° or above. The most recent such occurrence was 2018 with a mean temperature of 91.8°. Phoenix will very likely record its hottest June-September period on record with a four-month mean temperature of 95.1°-95.3°. The existing record is 93.9°, which was set in 2011. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.8°C for the week centered around September 16. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.93°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.68°C. La Niña conditions have developed and will likely prevail through the remainder of autumn. The SOI was +14.32. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +2.225. That is the highest AO figure since March 25, 2020 when the AO was +3.174. On September 20, the MJO was in Phase 5 at an amplitude of 0.879 (RMM). The September 19-adjusted amplitude was 0.912. Since 1990, there have been 11 La Niña events, 6 of which followed an El Niño winter. 10/11 (91%) case saw warmer than normal September. All 6 following an El Niño winter were warmer than normal. September mean temperatures for New York City for those cases were: 11 cases: 69.9°; Subset of 6 cases: 70.8°; Entire 1990-2019 period: 69.0°. The September mean temperature for all La Niña and neutral-cool cases following an El Niño winter (1950-2019: n=13) was 69.9°. Since 1950, there have been five cases where a La Niña developed during June-July-August or afterward following an El Niño winter. 4/5 (80%) of those cases saw a predominant EPO+/AO+ winter pattern. The most recent such case was 2016-17. 9/10 (90%) of the La Niña winters that followed an El Niño winter featured a predominantly positive EPO. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 64% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal September. September will likely finish with a mean temperature near 68.4°.

In the United States, there is little talk about binding medium-term commitments to 100% renewable energy. Any such commitments, where they exist, lie decades into the future to 2050 or later. In contrast, tiny New Zealand, which has so far demonstrated world-class leadership in managing the coronavirus pandemic, provides an example of leadership on the climate change policy front. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern appears poised to commit to 100% renewable energy by 2030 if she is re-elected. Australia's SBS News reported: Looking to deepen her clean, green credentials in the lead-up to October's election, Jacinda Ardern has promised to bring forward New Zealand's renewable energy goal. If re-elected as prime minister, Ms Ardern says she'll end all non-renewable energy generation in New Zealand by the end of the decade. "The COVID-19 economic recovery represents a once in a generation opportunity to reshape New Zealand's energy system to be more renewable, faster, affordable and secure," she said on Thursday. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/jacinda-ardern-pledges-to-end-non-renewable-energy-generation-by-2030-if-she-s-re-elected As noted previously, the United States would do well to view the climate change crisis with the same urgency and undertake the same effort that was displayed in pursuing the Manhattan Project, Apollo Project, addressing the Ozone hole, and combating acid rain. All four examples demonstrate that ambitious and effective problem-solving can be achieved within tight time frames with sound leadership, even when new technologies must be invented. The biggest obstacles confronting the U.S. today are defeatist "can't be done" pessimism, outright denial of the climate change problem among a small but still not insignificant share of the public, and entrenched anti-science ideology among a segment of the population and political leaders.

Coupled climate models consider ocean currents and circulations. But even excluding the other variables, the natural forcings don’t explain the observed warming, but inclusion of greenhouse gases does. Even if one set aside the dynamic models and just did a pure statistical analysis, one would find that the natural forcings and ENSO would do a poor job replicating what has happened since 1950. In contrast, just a straight analysis of moving averages of CO2 (as a proxy for greenhouse gases) as the independent variable and the moving average global temperature would have an extremely close fit. The coefficient of determination would be well above +0.9. Accepting the physical basis for the warming based on the long understood properties of the greenhouse gases and changes in atmospheric content and seeing observations in line with those expectations does not require a leap of faith. Dismissing the overwhelming body of evidence and hoping that there is some hidden mystery variable that could explain the divergence between natural forcings and temperatures requires the leap of faith. Leaps of faith, of course, are not science.

This was a hugely important study. It confirms what scientists have long expected from their work with the models. The models have been very useful in projecting the rise in temperatures once the correct emissions data has been included. The models also confirm the physical understanding of the science as it presently stands. There is no alternative framework that is even remotely in the same ballpark in explaining the observed warming or replicating it. Finally, that a large number of models have performed well destroys any argument of random chance that any given model performed well. It is the greenhouse gases that were incorporated in the models and that are responsible for the largest share of warming.

No. Neither site reached freezing.

JFK: 46 LGA: 52

For this to hold, then the nature of clouds, convection or both would have had to have undergone a dramatic change after 1950. Is there credible evidence for either outcome? Recognizing the role rising atmospheric greenhouse gases played, which is in line with what would be expected, and is confirmed by the modeling is the far safer conclusion. And it’s one for which there is overwhelming evidence.

Morning thoughts... This morning, the temperature fell below 50° in Central Park. The last time the temperature fell in the 40s in September was September 24, 2013 when the temperature fell to 47°. Today will be partly sunny and still very cool for the season. The temperature will likely top out in the lower and middle 60s across the region. Likely high temperatures around the region include: New York City (Central Park): 64° Newark: 66° Philadelphia: 66° Starting tomorrow, a warmer pattern will develop. In terms of verification, here's how last evening's estimates worked out: Albany: 33°; Actual: 32° Allentown: 37°; Actual: 33° Boston: 47°; Actual: 45° Bridgeport: 48°; Actual: 44° Harrisburg: 42°; Actual: 43° Hartford: 36°; Actual: 34° Islip: 48°; Actual: 44° New York City: 49°; Actual: 49° Newark: 47°; Actual: 45° Philadelphia: 48°; Actual: 47° Poughkeepsie: 36°; Actual: 31° Providence: 44°; Actual: 43° White Plains: 43°; Actual: 41° Average Error: 2.2°

In many parts of the U.S., including the New York City area, September has become an extension of summer.

A useful op-ed from 2018 on climate change from Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/opinion/climate-change-global-warming-trump.html Excerpt: Like forensic detectives, climate scientists have developed a new array of tools in recent decades designed to skillfully calculate what the fingerprints of these changes look like, and more important, how they differ from one another. It turns out that increases in solar activity produce warming throughout the atmosphere, while carbon dioxide increases cooling in the upper atmosphere and warms the surface. Variations in ocean circulation distribute heat, while changes in the sun or in greenhouse gases change the total heat amount in the system. Air pollution, volcanoes and irrigation all cool the climate, while rising greenhouse gases warm it. Ozone depletion has increased the speed of the winds around Antarctica, affecting ocean circulation and sea ice. But even taking into account uncertainties in the amount of air pollution in the 19th century or in estimating global temperatures through time, scientists have concluded that the current warmth is impossible to explain without human contributions. It is on a par with the likelihood that a DNA match at a crime scene is purely coincidental.

Temperatures rose into the middle 60s across much of the region today despite bright sunshine. Another cool night lies ahead. Tomorrow morning, Central Park could have a minimum temperature below 50°. The last time the temperature fell into the 40s in New York City during September was September 24, 2013 when the temperature fell to 47°. Low temperature estimates include: Albany: 33° Allentown: 37° Boston: 47° Bridgeport: 48° Harrisburg: 42° Hartford: 36° Islip: 48° New York City: 49° Newark: 47° Philadelphia: 48° Poughkeepsie: 36° Providence: 44° White Plains: 43° Warmer readings will arrive toward mid-week. Afterward, temperatures will likely remain at above normal levels for much of the remainder of September. Phoenix has an implied 69% probability of recording just its 13th September on record with a mean temperature of 90° or above. The most recent such occurrence was 2018 with a mean temperature of 91.8°. Phoenix will very likely record its hottest June-September period on record with a four-month mean temperature of 95.1°-95.3°. The existing record is 93.9°, which was set in 2011. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -1.0°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -1.0°C for the week centered around September 9. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -1.08°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.75°C. La Niña conditions have developed and will likely prevail through the remainder of autumn. The SOI was +13.73. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +1.521. On September 19, the MJO was in Phase 4 at an amplitude of 0.915 (RMM). The September 18-adjusted amplitude was 1.284. Since 1990, there have been 11 La Niña events, 6 of which followed an El Niño winter. 10/11 (91%) case saw warmer than normal September. All 6 following an El Niño winter were warmer than normal. September mean temperatures for New York City for those cases were: 11 cases: 69.9°; Subset of 6 cases: 70.8°; Entire 1990-2019 period: 69.0°. The September mean temperature for all La Niña and neutral-cool cases following an El Niño winter (1950-2019: n=13) was 69.9°. Since 1950, there have been five cases where a La Niña developed during June-July-August or afterward following an El Niño winter. 4/5 (80%) of those cases saw a predominant EPO+/AO+ winter pattern. The most recent such case was 2016-17. 9/10 (90%) of the La Niña winters that followed an El Niño winter featured a predominantly positive EPO. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 60% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal September. September will likely finish with a mean temperature near 68.4°.

That was before the tragic divorce between conservatism and science. In the past, science was not what divided political groups. I cannot think of a rational basis why conservatism, as traditionally conceived, should be reflexively anti-science. But it is today. I suspect that a lot of that has to do with the collapse of what was once an intellectual ecosystem and its replacement by often ignorant Talk Radio/Cable TV personalities whose understanding of public affairs and science is dim to non-existent. Contemporary American conservatism has become little more than a hollow movement aimed at perpetuating favored interest groups, including industries, regardless of evidence or facts, and often drawing upon conspiracy theories and irrational beliefs to justify its positions. This isn’t a healthy situation for the nation’s political affairs.

JFK was charismatic and inspirational. I do believe we have had some very good Presidents since then and expect more in the future. The present is not the norm. Climate change wasn’t the preeminent issue then. We’ve seen lots of big problems—the Cold War, acid rain, the Ozone hole issue, financial crisis, etc., addressed. Bold leadership, which includes a binding challenge, will be needed to address climate change. The leadership component is what is needed. The recipe of a bold challenge has worked effectively when it came to the Manhattan and Apollo Projects.

Quite frankly, I think the odds are very low. Already, China’s emissions have burst above the pre-COVID emissions. U.S. emissions were rising fast and will probably be there by year’s end. Significant policy changes will be needed. The reality is that there is very little support for requiring fossil fuel companies to pay full cost or even close to it for their externalities. Thus, this underpricing will lead to higher quantity demanded than would otherwise be the case. There could be a different U.S. path depending on the outcome of the 2020 election. Nevertheless, achievement of that policy path could still be difficult given the dynamics in the Senate, unless the reconciliation process is used (could face rules-related challenges) or the filibuster is waived (via the “nuclear option”). Overall, though, the base case is a policy lag that makes it difficult to achieve what is needed. Personally, I think the U.S. needs a challenge similar to the Apollo Project challenge: 10 years to get off fossil fuels with a hard deadline coupled with rising fees for covering the externalities related to carbon emissions (with all due respect to the Biden campaign, carbon neutrality by 2050 is little more than a punt). Excuses of impossibility should be rejected just as they were then. New technologies were invented. There was a “can do” spirit not a resigned “can’t do” mentality. The project succeeded. The same can apply with fossil fuels unless people have suddenly and inexplicably become less capable and less innovative than in the past. I don’t accept that dreary assumption.

That’s much lower than both the mean point and the minimum figure in the consensus ECS estimates.

Every scientific field relies on models to represent complex phenomena. Climate science is no exception. The expectation that models should outright be ignored is unreasonable and impractical. They physics associated with CO2 is well-established. Even absent modeling, one should reasonably expect that increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse gases) would lead to an increase in temperatures, among other things. One would need to reject physics to expect a different outcome. That’s a far riskier course. That the expected observed warming has been underway is consistent with expectations. The modeling brings a much greater insight into what is happening.