donsutherland1

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.

The mechanism that has made the marginal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions that tipped the system out of balance, leading to a steady rise in the atmospheric concentration of such gases, did not exist then. The physical properties of such gases are well-established. No serious scientist has argued that the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has no meaningful impact. The consensus in the scientific literature is strong: such gases contribute to warming and the anthropogenic contribution is the largest basis for the ongoing warming. No credible alternative explanation is present in the literature.

Yesterday, Anchorage tied its all-time highest minimum temperature for the second consecutive day.

New research highlights the role “new media” is playing in promoting climate disinformation. That role underpins the importance of assuring the public a reliable and continuing source of climate science information. From Nature: We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

Yesterday’s 63 degree low temperature in Anchorage set a new August mark and tied that city’s warmest minimum temperature on record, which was set on July 10, 2005. Such exceptional warmth during what could be that city’s warmest summer on record is very likely linked to climate change.

The Great Wall of China at Badaling. Notice the smog due to an inversion in the distant right of the image.

Outliers, both low and high, are rarely the most likely scenario. It is extremely rare that the most extreme ensemble member verifies. That’s the nature of scenarios that lie in the tails.

Forbidden City on an infrequent day with little haze in Beijing:

The IPCC’s existence predates the Trump Administration. Its work predates it. The report was not prepared specifically for the Trump Administration. It was prepared for all global policy makers and relevant stakeholders. It is very likely that the IPCC will also continue to exist long after the Trump Administration has ended, as much of the world accepts the findings of climate science and finds the body, which summarizes and draws upon that large and growing body of work, to be useful.

In general, there is a direct relationship between solar insolation and temperature. There is peer-reviewed literature that Arctic solar insolation is in a long-term decline. Some fluctuations for internal variability can be expected. Also, today’s Arctic temperatures are dramatically warmer than they were during the 1930s and 1940s. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt (64N-90N)

Newly published IPCC report, “Climate Change and Land”: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl-report-download-page/ Some excerpts: A 2. Since the pre-industrial period, the land surface air temperature has risen nearly twice as much as the global average temperature (high confidence). Climate change, including increases in frequency and intensity of extremes, has adversely impacted food security and terrestrial ecosystems as well as contributed to desertification and land degradation in many regions (high confidence). {2.2, 3.2, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, Executive Summary Chapter 7, 7.2}... A 5. Climate change creates additional stresses on land, exacerbating existing risks to livelihoods, biodiversity, human and ecosystem health, infrastructure, and food systems (high confidence). Increasing impacts on land are projected under all future GHG emission scenarios (high confidence). Some regions will face higher risks, while some regions will face risks previously not anticipated (high confidence). Cascading risks with impacts on multiple systems and sectors also vary across regions (high confidence). {2.2, 3.5, 4.2, 4.4, 4.7, 5.1, 5.2, 5.8, 6.1, 7.2, 7.3, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 6, Figure SPM.2}... D3.2. In future scenarios, deferral of GHG emissions reductions implies trade-offs leading to significantly higher costs and risks associated with rising temperatures (medium confidence). The potential for some response options, such as increasing soil organic carbon, decreases as climate change intensifies, as soils have reduced capacity to act as sinks for carbon sequestration at higher temperatures (high confidence). Delays in avoiding or reducing land degradation and promoting positive ecosystem restoration risk long-term impacts including rapid declines in productivity of agriculture and rangelands, permafrost degradation and difficulties in peatland rewetting (medium confidence). {1.3.1, 3.6.2, 4.8, 4.9, 4.9.1, 5.5.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3; Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 7}

Even as climate change receives coverage that is disproportionately limited relative to its societal impact in the United States (The Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang is a notable exception), The Sydney Morning Herald is one major newspaper that now provides dedicated coverage to climate change. That newspaper’s coverage includes articles on recent events and even articles concerning new research published in scientific journals on the issue. The section can be found at: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change Perhaps similar coverage could be useful in the United States. A regular source of articles, including new scientific research findings, could weaken the ability of “denier activists” to confuse and mislead the American public. Certainly, the issue of climate change is at least as consequential to some of the other areas that receive dedicated coverage. The Washington Post might be ideally positioned to assume that role of journalistic leadership given the work of the Capital Weather Gang, the quality of its journalism, and its reach.

Absolutely. If AGW were not underway, the Arctic would continue to be cooling today. It isn’t. It’s rapidly warming.

A rainy Beijing:

No climate scientist has stated that “the past controls the future.” If you are aware of such a claim, can you provide a link given how extraordinary it would be? Moreover, during climate regimes different conditions are more frequent than others. The climate regimes offer useful descriptions. For example, drought does not cause weather events (setting aside feedbacks). It describes abnormally dry periods. And looking ahead, if droughts become more likely in a given area, one has some understanding of what to expect in a big picture sense, even as specific day-to-day events, magnitude, etc., cannot be forecast.

This is a wonderful and important summary of yet another historic period of warmth in the Arctic region. I suspect an attribution study will be published some time during the fall or winter. That study will almost certainly confirm the rarity of the summer (Alaska and probably much of the Arctic region) and very large role played by climate change.

The issue you cite concerning 300 mb developments has already been addressed in papers. It does not, in any way, disprove the reality that the Arctic is the fastest warming region of the world. For example: Another positive feedback is less well known and is based on the observation that the warming trend in the Arctic is mainly confined to the lower part of the atmosphere. This is still far below the levels where thermal radiation escapes from the atmosphere on average, which is around 5 km (3 miles) high. This implies that the radiative cooling of the warmer air near the surface is not as efficient as in lower latitudes where the trend at altitude is similar to (mid-latitudes) or higher than (tropics) near the surface. The reduction of radiative cooling due to the vertical structure of the warming trend is called the lapse-rate feedback. https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/north-pole-nov-dec-2016/