donsutherland1

Hurricane Dorian may begin to gradually weaken later tonight or tomorrow as its forward motion continues to slow and then it eventually begins to turn to the north. Even as Dorian will likely pass offshore, portions of the Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas' coastlines could still experience heavy rain and at least some damaging winds. Enough EPS members suggest the possibility of landfall to avoid completely ruling out such a scenario in Florida and especially in eastern North Carolina. Afterward, Dorian will likely pass far enough to the east to avoid having a significant impact on the greater New York City region, though it will very likely lead to rough surf and strong rip currents. Parts of Long Island and eastern New England could still receive some periods of rain or heavier showers and gusty winds associated with Dorian. Dorian's principal impact might be the amplification of the larger circulation. As a result, an unseasonably cool air mass could push into the region for the latter part of this week. Beyond that, the timing for a return to normal and then above normal temperatures could be slow. Some of the guidance is signaling a rebound to notably warmer conditions after mid-month. Across the Atlantic Ocean, the latest round of heat that toppled records in large parts of Europe will be concluding Europe. Earlier today, a number of daily and even monthly records were registered in Norway and Sweden. Select records included: Bardufoss, Norway: 73°; Bodo Vi, Norway: 73° (tied September record); Evenes, Norway: 75° (new September record); Kirkenes Lufthavn, Norway: 68°; Leknes, Norway: 72° (new September record); Liepaja, Latvia: 84°; Linkoping, Sweden: 81° (new September record); Murmansk, Russia: 68°; Norrkoping, Sweden: 82° (new September record); Pori, Finland: 77°; Stockholm: 79° (tied September record); Svolvaer, Norway: 68° (new September record); Vadso, Norway: 64°; Vassa, Finland: 77°; Vasteras, Sweden: 79°; and, Visby Flygplats, Sweden: 82° (new September record). The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was 0.0°C for the week centered around August 21. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.43°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.27°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 -14.32 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was -0.186. The AO has averaged -1.062 for August. 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. Therefore, a warmer than normal September and fall appear likely, though the persistence of Dorian's impact on the larger circulation has reduced the probability of a warmer than normal September, though a warm monthly anomaly remains the base case. The potential for autumn 2019 to rank among the 30 warmest cases on record is on the table. On August 31, the MJO was in Phase 4 at an amplitude of 1.058 (RMM). The August 30-adjusted amplitude was 1.185. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, the implied probability of New York City having a warmer than normal September is 46%.

On August 31, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,259,262 square kilometers on JAXA. Based on sensitivity analysis, the following are implied probabilities for various minimum extent figures: 4.25 million square kilometers or below: 99% 4.00 million square kilometers or below: 59% 3.75 million square kilometers or below: 0.6% 75th percentile: 4.041 million square kilometers 25th percentile: 3.916 million square kilometers Minimum extent figures based on historic 2010-2018 data: Mean decline: 3.979 million square kilometers Median decline: 4.016 million square kilometers Minimum decline: 4.078 million square kilometers Maximum decline: 3.757 million square kilometers Summary: After a pause likely due to storminess over the Polar region, Arctic sea ice extent has again begun to decline. Arctic sea ice extent will likely decline with some momentary increases over the next 1-2 weeks. A minimum extent figure below 4.000 million square kilometers still remains possible, but the probability of that outcome has declined markedly over the past week.

Notes: This post was prepared in scientific style to provide links to key points in the section on climate change. All temperature data is from the National Climatic Data Center. The EPO data is through August 29. OVERVIEW Prior to 2019, July 2016 was Anchorage, Alaska's warmest month on record. Summer 2019 was even warmer than July 2016. A warm synoptic pattern that occurred within the context of increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing resulted in exceptional and persistent record-breaking warmth this summer. During June-August 2019, Anchorage experienced its warmest summer on record by 2.0°F (1.1°C). Its summer mean temperature (62.815°F/17.119°C) exceeded that of its warmest month on record prior to 2019 (62.694°F/17.052°C in July 2016). Summer 2019 saw Anchorage record its warmest-ever June, July, and August. Anchorage tied its all-time record high minimum temperature on two consecutive days. Anchorage reached 90°F (32.2°C) for the first time on record. The duration of the excessive warmth and extreme temperatures recorded during the summer would have been very unlikely, if not improbable, without human-induced climate change. PREDOMINANT SYNOPTIC PATTERN Summer 2019 featured a remarkable coupling of atmosphere and ocean. A persistent upper air ridge that promoted warm and dry conditions was anchored over the waters with the highest sea surface temperature anomalies. These conditions promoted a synoptic pattern where the East Pacific Oscillation (EPO) was negative. The negative EPO combined with a negative Arctic Oscillation (AO) to form a negative Arctic Oscillation-negative EPO pattern (AO-/EPO-) that predominated during the summer. During summer 2019, the AO was negative on 81/92 (88%) days. The EPO was negative on 64% of days. An AO-/EPO- pattern is typically a warm one in Anchorage. For the current climate reference period (1981-2010), the average summer temperature in Anchorage was 56.9°F (13.8°C). During AO-/EPO- patterns, the average was 57.6°F (14.2°C). Climate change has led to summers becoming warmer and also warm synoptic patterns (AO-/EPO-) becoming warmer. ROLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE The observed global warming since the 1950s is unequivocal with anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions being the dominant driver of that warming (IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report 2014). The warming is a global phenomenon with 98% of the world having experienced its warmest 51 years during the current 2,000 years (Neukom, et al. 2019). Since 1880, Arctic temperatures have been increasing at more than twice the rate of global temperatures (GISTEMP Data Set). In recent decades, the rate at which the Arctic has been warming relative to worldwide temperatures has increased. From 1980 through 2018, the Arctic has warmed at a decadal rate of 1.51°F (0.84°C), which is just over 3.5 times the global rate (GISTEMP Data Set). Multiple lines of evidence corroborate the rapid warming that is taking place in the Arctic. Increases in humidity, precipitation, river discharge, glacier equilibrium line altitude and land ice wastage; warming of near-surface permafrost; and, decreases in sea ice thickness and extent, and spring snow cover extent and duration are consistent with rising temperatures (Box, et al. 2019). Consistent with the Arctic warming, Alaska has recently experienced temperatures that are warmer than they have been at any time in the past century (Thoman et al., 2019). As Alaska has warmed, Anchorage has also experienced rising temperatures. A disproportionate share of Anchorage's warmest months has occurred in 2000 or later. During the 1961-1990 base period, Anchorage had a summer (June 1-August 31) mean temperature of 56.4°F (13.6°C). During the current climate reference period (1981-2010), Anchorage's average summer temperature had risen to 56.9°F (13.8°C). For the most recent 30-year period (1989-2018), Anchorage's average summer temperature had increased further to 57.6°F (14.2°C). The last time Anchorage had a cooler than normal summer (mean temperature below the 1981-2010 reference period) was 2012 when the average summer temperature was 56.0°F (13.3°C). Without climate change, the extreme summer 2019 warmth would have been improbable. However, the combination of a rising average summer temperature and increasing variability (1961-1990: mean temperature 56.4°F/13.6°C; standard deviation: 1.4°F/0.8°C vs. 1989-2018: mean temperature: 57.6°F/14.2°C; standard deviation: 1.6°F/0.9°C) has made summers like 2019 approximately 190 times more likely than they had been. The long duration of the AO-/EPO- synoptic pattern led to the relentless persistence of above to much above normal temperatures in Anchorage that allowed monthly warm temperature records to be set in June, July, and August. Rapid Arctic warming has contributed to an increasing frequency of long-duration upper air patterns (Francis, et al. 2018). Should the world warm 3.6°F (2.0°C) above its pre-industrial temperatures, the persistence of boreal summer weather will likely increase further (Pfleiderer, et al. 2019). Based on the above evidence, human-driven climate change played a key role in bringing about Anchorage's historic summer warmth. Without anthropogenic warming, the combination of the exceptional heat and remarkable duration of the warmth in Anchorage would have been very unlikely, if not improbable. DATA AND RECORDS Summer 2019 Temperature Thresholds: Lows 60°F (15.6°C) or above: 9 days (previous summer and annual record: 4, 2016) Highs 70°F (21.1°C) or above: 49 days (previous summer record: 40, 2004; previous annual record: 42, 2013) Highs: 80°F (26.7°C) or above: 8 days (previous summer and annual record: 4 days, 2015) Highs: 90°F (32.2°C) or above: 1 day (none prior to 2019) Daily Record High Minimum Temperatures: June 8: 54°F (12.2°C) (old record: 53°F/11.7°C, 1978) June 24: 58°F (14.4°C) (tied record set in 1984) June 28: 57°F (13.9°C) (old record: 56°F/13.3°C, 2015 and 2016) June 29: 60°F (15.6°C (old record: 58°F/14.4°C, 1984 and 1990) June: 3 new records and 1 tied record July 2: 57°F (13.9°C) (tied record set in 1970) July 3: 58°F (14.4°C (tied record set in 1979 and tied in 1999 and 2014) July 5: 61°F (16.1°C) (old record: 60°F/15.6°C, 1984) July 6: 59°F (15.0°C) (tied record set in 2015) July 8: 61°F (16.1°C) (old record: 59°F/15.0°C, 1968, 2003, and 2004) July 9: 62°F (16.7°C) (old record: 59°F/15.0°C, 2003) July 12: 60°F (15.6°C) (old record: 59°F/15.0°C, 1977) July 13: 59°F (15.0°C) (tied record set in 1972 and tied in 2013) July 20: 59°F (15.0°C) (old record: 58°F/14.4°C, 1973, 1983, 2003, 2004, and 2016) July 22: 58°F (14.4°C) (tied record set in 1984 and tied in 1996, 2013, and 2016) July 24: 59°F (15.0°C) (tied record set in 1984) July: 5 new records and 6 tied records August 7: 61°F (16.1°C) (old record: 58°F/14.4°C, 1979 and 1983) August 13: 63°F (17.2°C) (old record: 57°F/13.9°C, 2003) ***tied all-time record*** August 14: 63°F (17.2°C) (old record: 58°F/14.4°C), 2001) ***tied all-time record*** August 16: 58°F (14.4°C) (tied record set in 1967) August 17: 57°F (13.9°C) (old record: 56°F/13.3°C, 1984) August: 4 new records and 1 tied record Summer: 12 new records and 8 tied records Daily Record High Maximum Temperatures: June 23: 78°F (25.6°C) (old record: 75°F/23.9°C, 1974) June 24: 75°F (23.9°C (old record: 74°F/23.3°C, 2015) June 27: 79°F (26.1°C) (old record: 78°F/25.6°C, 1997) June 28: 81°F (27.2°C) (old record: 80°F/26.7°C, 1997) June 29: 82°F (27.8°C) (old record: 77°F/25.0°C 1968, 1989, and 1990) June: 5 new records July 3: 80°F (26.7°C) (tied record set in 2018) July 4: 90°F (32.2°C) (old record: 77°F/25.0°C), 1999) ***all-time record*** July 5: 81°F (27.2°C) (old record: 77°F/25.0°C, 1999) July 6: 81°F (27.2°C) (tied record set in 2015) July 7: 85°F (29.4°C) (old record: 79°F/26.1°C, 2009) July 8: 85°F (29.4°C) (old record: 84°/28.9°C, 2003) July: 4 new records and 2 tied records August 7: 77°F (25.0°C) (tied record set in 2015) August 10: 77°F (25.0°C) (old record: 75°F/23.9°C, 1960, 1972, and 2004) August 12: 77°F (25.0°C) (tied record set in 2005) August 13: 77°F (25.0°C) (old record: 75°F/23.9°C, 1963, 1977, 2007) August 14: 75°F (23.9°C) (old record: 74°F/23.3°C, 1990) August 15: 77°F (25.0°C) (old record: 76°F/24.4°C, 1984) August: 4 new records and 2 tied records Summer: 13 new records and 4 tied records CONCLUSION Anchorage experienced a historically warm summer. The all-time record high temperature was established, the all-time record warm minimum temperature was tied on two consecutive days, and numerous daily record high maximum and minimum temperatures were set or tied. June 2019 was the warmest June on record. July 2019 was the warmest July and month on record. August 2019 was the warmest August on record. Ocean-atmosphere coupling produced a persistent pattern associated with warmer than normal temperatures. Anthropogenic climate change, that has driven global and Arctic warming and led to increasing temperature variability in the Arctic region, has dramatically increased the probability of persistent warmth and extreme high temperatures. Absent the contribution of climate change, the kind of warmth seen during summer 2019 was extremely unlikely, if not improbable. Going forward, the ongoing warming is likely to continue on account of a continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Although summer warmth equivalent to 2019 will likely remain rare over the next decade or two, the probability of such occurrences will very likely increase.

Hurricane Dorian will likely remain a dangerous Category 4 hurricane through much of tomorrow. Later this weekend, the steering currents will likely break down leaving Dorian drifting on its approach to Florida. The probability that Dorian will avoid destructive landfall has increased. Most EPS members now show Dorian's remaining offshore. Nevertheless, the Florida coastline will still experience heavy rain and damaging winds. Afterward, it remains uncertain whether Dorian or its remnants will have a direct impact on the greater New York City region, though it will very likely lead to rough surf and strong rip currents. Its impact on the larger circulation could drive an unseasonably cool air mass into the region for the latter part of next week. Across the Atlantic Ocean, Europe continues to experience record-breaking warmth. This latest round of heat will shift into eastern Europe beginning tomorrow before dissipating. Select daily records included: Cannes, France: 88°; Cape Mele, Italy: 93°; Clermont-Ferrand, France: 93°; Copenhagen: 79°; Fassberg, Germany: 88°; Genoa, Italy: 91°; Istres, France: 91°; Lille, France: 88°; Malmo, Sweden: 79°; Meppen, Germany: 86°; Nimes, France: 91°; Roenne, Denmark: 79°; Ronchi Dei Legionari, Italy: 95°; Soenderborg Lufthavn, Denmark: 79°; St. Dizier, France: 91°; Trieste, Italy: 95°; and, Wittmundhaven, Germany: 86°. Anchorage has experienced its warmest summer on record with a mean temperature of 62.8°. That temperature exceeds what had previously been the warmest monthly temperature on record prior to July 2019 by nearly one-tenth of a degree while smashing the prior summer of 60.8° from 2016. In addition, Anchorage experienced its warmest August on record. That follows a record warm June and a record warm July (and month). 2019 is the only year with three consecutive monthly records (cold or warm). San Francisco experienced its warmest August on record with a mean temperature of 68.4°. The old record was 68.0°, which was set 2015. Summer 2019 was also the warmest summer on record with a mean temperature of 66.1°. Although that rounded figure tied the average from summer 2014, it was nearly five hundredths of a degree warmer. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.3°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was 0.0°C for the week centered around August 21. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.43°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.27°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 -11.90 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was -0.579. The AO has averaged -1.062 for August. 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. Therefore, a warmer than normal September and fall appear likely, though the persistence of Dorian's impact on the larger circulation has reduced the probability of a warmer than normal September. The potential for autumn 2019 to rank among the 30 warmest cases on record is on the table. On August 30, the MJO was in Phase 4 at an amplitude of 1.183 (RMM). The August 29-adjusted amplitude was 1.109. Finally, New York City had an August mean temperature of 75.5°. that was 0.3° above normal.

DCA _ NYC _ BOS __ ORD _ ATL _ IAH ___ DEN _ PHX _ SEA 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.4 1.3 0.6 1.5 2.1

Early this morning, Joe Bastardi retweeted a twitter post noting that Moscow had an unusually cold summer and wrote, "yet not a peep from the warming weather media." The reason the warmth, not Moscow's cold, received widespread news coverage is or should be largely self-evident: 1. This summer, warmth, not cold, was the big global story 2. Cold areas were relatively localized, but areas of warmth were widespread 3. Historic heat waves affected Europe (two of which shattered widespread all-time high temperature records, including national high temperature records) 4. Alaska experienced its warmest month on record and Anchorage's summer will likely match its warmest month on record prior to 2019 On August 1, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported: Exceptional heat has been observed across the globe in recent week, with a string of European countries logging record highs temperatures that have caused disruption to transport and infrastructure and stress on people's health and the environment. As the heat dome spread northwards through Scandinavia and towards Greenland, it accelerated the already above average rate of ice melt. "July has re-written climate history, with dozens of new temperature records at local, national and global level," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. "The extraordinary heat was accompanied by dramatic ice melt in Greenland, in the Arctic and on European glaciers. Unprecedented wildfires raged in the Arctic for the second consecutive month, devastating once pristine forests which used to absorb carbon dioxide and instead turning them into fiery sources of greenhouse gases. This is not science fiction. It is the reality of climate change. It is happening now and it will worsen in the future without urgent climate action," Mr Taalas said. "WMO expects that 2019 will be in the five top warmest years on record, and that 2015-2019 will be the warmest of any equivalent five-year period on record. . https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/july-matched-and-maybe-broke-record-hottest-month-analysis-began Below are the global Temperature Anomalies (June 1-August 27, 2019): Below are the GISS temperature anomalies and rank: June: +0.92°C (1st warmest June) July: +0.93°C (1st warmest July and also 1st warmest month) August: To be available by mid-September　 In sum, in the big picture, excessive and persistent warmth was the major story of summer 2019. Widespread monthly and all-time high temperature records were set. Localized areas of cold existed, but they were the exception this summer. Only few monthly record low temperature records were set. The coverage properly focused on the major weather story of this summer, the widespread and, in places, historic warmth.

The ugly side of the climate change denial movement... Excerpts from Scientific American: The verbal and written attacks derive mostly from men. That’s probably not a coincidence. Studies show that climate skepticism is a male-dominated perspective. Men are less likely than women to accept scientific conclusions about people being responsible for rising temperatures. And they’re more likely to overestimate their knowledge of the issue... “I do see a shift toward a lack of substance sharing,” Cobb said. “So much of the flak from the climate-denial community, I think, was in the form of trying to share graphs to show their point, trying to question you on the validity of the science. And a lot of that was very misguided, of course, but it was still pretending to be substantive, on the data, on the issues themselves. But it seems much of it today has turned completely to ad hominem attacks, these stream of emotionally laden insults with no substance whatsoever behind them, just trying to land one below the belt.” ...“I can tell you that there is a very large overlap between those who harbor conspiracy theories about climate science and those who express unenlightened views when it comes to matters of ethnicity and gender,” Mann said. “In short, yeah—a surprisingly large number of climate deniers are misogynists. And so our female colleagues are at the receiving end of a particularly toxic brew of denialism, conspiratorial ideation and misogyny. It is most unfortunate and most disturbing.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-climate-scientists-speak-out-sexist-attacks-are-on-the-rise/

The JAXA data suggests otherwise. 1990-2007: Mean Melt: 8.897 million square kilometers (59.4% of mean maximum) 2008-2018: Mean Melt: 9.916 million square kilometers (69.2% of mean maximum)

The science doesn't suggest that in 12 years we will "die." That's a caricature of what the science is actually suggesting: time is somewhat limited if the world is to achieve its 1.5°C goal.

If one is referring to the AOC plan, I strongly oppose it. It contains substantial extraneous provisions that have nothing to do with climate/clean energy. Instead, those provisions would dramatically shift the U.S. away from a market-oriented economy. There are far better ways to approach the issue.

The points the guide is making are: 1. Carbon dioxide has a long residency in the atmosphere. 2. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have been the dominant influence for recent warming. The IPCC explained: Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. As the guide is intended for young audiences, it greatly simplifies the conclusions. Concepts such as probability and atmospheric residency are for older students. This is introductory material aimed at providing the big picture. It was vetted by climate scientists and the IPCC.

On August 23, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,412,266 square kilometers on JAXA. Based on sensitivity analysis, the following are implied probabilities for various minimum extent figures: 4.25 million square kilometers or below: 99% 4.00 million square kilometers or below: 86% 3.75 million square kilometers or below: 45% 3.50 million square kilometers or below: 9% 75th percentile: 3.918 million square kilometers 25th percentile: 3.635 million square kilometers Minimum extent figures based on historic 2010-2018 data: Mean decline: 3.776 million square kilometers Median decline: 3.788 million square kilometers Minimum decline: 3.941 million square kilometers Maximum decline: 3.618 million square kilometers Summary: Through August 23, Arctic sea ice extent remains firmly on a path that will very likely result in the second lowest minimum extent figure on record and the second such figure below 4.0 million square kilometers.

Earlier this year, France's Office for Climate Education prepared a guide for teachers on climate science. The guide was written in multiple languages and it was also publicized by the World Meteorological Organization. It would make a useful addition to any early STEM class that covers earth science. Among other things, the guide explains the ongoing warming, climate change impacts at 1.5°C and 2.0°C, potential approaches for achieving the Paris Agreement's target of limiting warming to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial temperature average, and addressing climate change within the context of sustainable development. The guide introduces educators and students to credible resources. For example, one task involves looking up the definition of "climate" on the World Meteorological Organization's website. It also provides a link by which users can visit the relevant portion of the IPCC's 2013 assessment. The report is consistent with the climate science consensus. Among other things, its summary explains: Human activities have caused a 1.0°C rise in the global temperature over the past 150 years. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052, if warming continues at the current rate. Our CO2 emissions will remain in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia, maintaining the warmer temperatures long after these emissions were released. The English version of that guide can be found at: http://www.oce.global/sites/default/files/2019-04/ST1.5_final_040419.pdf Under a creative commons license, it can be freely shared, used, and adapted for non-commercial use.

I am not sure why you are confusing a term that describes a dynamic process with a notion that the past ‘causes’ today’s weather (or that 'weather statistics cause today's weather'). That’s not how scientists define climate change or the context in which events are discussed with respect to climate change. Statistics are measurement tools. Statistics are used in fields far beyond climate. Rates of change describe phenomena far beyond climate, too. One sees them in fields ranging from economics to engineering. No one in any of those fields is suggesting that statistics (used to measure change) drive the events that are being measured. Climate change is defined as “any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.” https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_science.pdf The detailed definition of climate change is: Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.’ The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate variability, Global warming, Ocean acidification (OA) and Detection and attribution. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/ For a simple illustration, let's assume a case where the statistics reveal that the average temperature at a given location is rising 0.5°C per decade. Everything else in this simple illustration remains unchanged. On account of the warming, the statistical probability of a given threshold of heat has increased by a given percentage (assuming simple statistics and a Gaussian distribution). In the real world, let's assume that the frequency of cases meeting that threshold of heat has increased consistent with the statistical probabilities noted above. That increased frequency does not mean that the statistics by which temperature trend and probability of such cases were measured actually caused the increase in such cases. The underlying factors resulting in the warming are responsible. The same holds true with respect to events attributed to climate change. Statistics don't cause events. They measure things, some of which can cause or contribute to events. Finally, no one is disputing the reality that climate is dynamic. The issue at the forefront of contemporary discussions of climate change concerns the role of anthropogenic forcing as the predominant factor driving the contemporary warming. That anthropogenic role is "unusual" for different, as shifts to climate epochs during the past were driven by external forcing e.g., changes in solar irradiance. The current temperature trend cannot be explained by any of the known natural forcings or factors. It has diverged from what would be expected from those factors. It is strongly explained by the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

Redundancy doesn't have to cover the whole system. Only a sufficient share of excess power capacity from alternative approaches needs to be available during the transition to cover issues that may arise. Complete failure of the entire system is not a likely scenario. Partial failure is. China is aggressively pursuing solar power and making rapid progress in terms of production cost effectiveness. Nuclear power is another alternative.

There’s actually growing evidence that climate change has an impact on tropical cyclones. Three examples: https://you.stonybrook.edu/kareed/2018/09/12/estimating-the-potential-impact-of-climate-change-on-hurricane-florence/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1750-x https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL075888

The term "climate change" is used to refer to a dynamic situation, in this case the present ongoing observed warming. The increasing greenhouse gas forcing resulting from the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is primarily responsible for that warming. Internal variability (ENSO, etc.) occurs within the context of this increasing external forcing. Both have effects at synoptic and climatic timeframes with real societal and human impacts.

Abstract: One of the most destructive natural hazards, tropical cyclone (TC)–induced coastal flooding, will worsen under climate change. Here we conduct climatology–hydrodynamic modeling to quantify the effects of sea level rise (SLR) and TC climatology change (under RCP 8.5) on late 21st century flood hazards at the county level along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. We find that, under the compound effects of SLR and TC climatology change, the historical 100-year flood level would occur annually in New England and mid-Atlantic regions and every 1–30 years in southeast Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions in the late 21st century. The relative effect of TC climatology change increases continuously from New England, mid-Atlantic, southeast Atlantic, to the Gulf of Mexico, and the effect of TC climatology change is likely to be larger than the effect of SLR for over 40% of coastal counties in the Gulf of Mexico. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11755-z

I agree. I suspect that such technology isn’t too far in the future (probably a decade or less away).

Multiple steps are required. Bringing about cost parity and later cost superiority (lower costs) is one part of the larger problem. Expansion of the application, including but not limited to issues related to storage is another. Redundancy will still be needed for the foreseeable future, even if solar power ultimately becomes the primary source of electricity.

On August 20, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,507,767 square kilometers on JAXA. Only 2007 (4,877,731 square kilometers), 2012 (4,143,648 square kilometers) and 2016 (4,922,931 square kilometers) had figures below 5 million square kilometers by August 20. Based on sensitivity analysis, the following are implied probabilities for various minimum extent figures: 4.50 million square kilometers or below: 99.9% 4.25 million square kilometers or below: 98% 4.00 million square kilometers or below: 86% 3.75 million square kilometers or below: 55% 3.50 million square kilometers or below: 20% 75th percentile: 3.895 million square kilometers 25th percentile: 3.543 million square kilometers Minimum extent figures based on historic 2010-2018 data: Mean decline: 3.719 million square kilometers Median decline: 3.711 million square kilometers Minimum decline: 3.922 million square kilometers Maximum decline: 3.542 million square kilometers Summary: Through August 21, Arctic sea ice extent remains firmly on a path that will very likely result in the second lowest minimum extent figure on record and the second such figure below 4.0 million square kilometers.

New research has revealed that solar power has reached grid parity in China’s cities. Such an outcome in which new technologies become cost effective with scale and experience has been the norm with major technologies that move from the introductory to the growth phase. The abstract is below: We reveal that all of these cities can achieve—without subsidies—solar PV electricity prices lower than grid-supplied prices, and around 22% of the cities’ solar generation electricity prices can compete with desulfurized coal benchmark electricity prices. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0441-z

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

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.