donsutherland1

Yes. This is an extremely impressive outbreak of heat.

In parts of the South, monthly record high temperatures were shattered. Monthly records included: Birmingham: 99° (previous October record: 94°, 10/1/1919, 10/5/1927, and 10/6/1954) Chattanooga, TN: 97° (previous October record: 94°, 10/5/1954) Huntsville, AL: 99° (previous October record: 96°, 10/8/1911) Lexington, KY: 97° (previous October record: 93°, 10/6/1941) Louisville: 96° (previous October record: 93°, 10/7-8/2007) Mobile: 97° (previous October record:95°, 10/2/1904) Montgomery, AL: 101° (previous October record: 100°, 10/6/1954) Nashville: 98° (previous October record: 95°, 10/1/1953, 10/5/1954, and 10/8/2007) Pensacola: 96° (previous October record: 95°, 10/8/1884 and 10/5/1951)

Today was a day of records in many parts of the United States. In the wake of a historic late September snowstorm, record low temperatures were recorded in parts of Montana. Records included: Cut Bank: 1°(old record: 14°, 1950) Great Falls: 9° (old record: 22°, 1959) In parts of the East, monthly record high temperatures were shattered. Monthly records included: Akron: 91° (previous October record: 89°, 10/1/1927 and 10/5/1922) Birmingham: 99° (previous October record: 94°, 10/1/1919, 10/5/1927, and 10/6/1954) Cleveland: 93° (previous October record: 90°, 10/6/1946) Huntsville, AL: 99° (previous October record: 96°, 10/8/1911) Lexington, KY: 97° (previous October record: 93°, 10/6/1941) Louisville: 96° (previous October record: 93°, 10/7-8/2007) Nashville: 98° (previous October record: 95°, 10/1/1953, 10/5/1954, and 10/8/2007) Pensacola: 96° (previous October record: 95°, 10/8/1884 and 10/5/1951) Some of this warmth will push into the Mid-Atlantic region tomorrow. Temperatures will likely reach the middle and upper 80s into parts of southern New England. Locations, including Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, and possibly even New York City could reach 90°. The last October 90° or above temperature for select locations occurred on the following dates: Baltimore: October 15, 2015, 90° New York City-Central Park: October 6, 1941, 90° New York City-JFK Airport: October 8, 2007, 90° New York City-LaGuardia Airport: October 6, 1946, 90° Newark: October 6, 1959: 91° Philadelphia: October 7, 1941: 93° Washington, DC: October 4, 2018, 90° Afterward, a period of cooler than normal readings will move into the region during the latter part of the first week of October. This pattern could last 7-10 days, though not every day will be cooler than normal. 　 The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.5°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.5°C for the week centered around September 25. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.73°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.07°C. The recent strong cooling in Region 1+2 indicates that the prospects for a neutral-cool ENSO during the winter have continued to increase. Since 1991 when weekly ENSO region data was available, five years have seen September record 2 or more weeks with -1.0°C or cooler weekly anomalies in Region 1+2: 1996, 1999, 2007, 2010, and 2017. 4/5 (80%) of those cases went on to feature warm December-February temperature anomalies in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. Those cases include La Niña winters. However, the larger pool of neutral-cool ENSO winters, many of which predate the weekly ENSO regional data, have often featured frequent Atlantic blocking. For now, there is a mixed winter signal. The SOI was +2.32 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was not available. 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 through November in New York City was 58.9° (59.6° adjusted). All cases featured a warmer than normal fall. The potential for autumn 2019 to rank among the 30 warmest cases on record has increased in recent weeks. For New York City, that would translate into a September-November mean temperature of at least 58.8°. Events during September, including the SOI's falling to -35.30 on September 19, the MJO's being in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 2.000 or above during the September 20-30 period for more than two days, the historic late September snowfall in Great Falls, MT, and the possible ongoing evolution toward a generally positive AO regime, favor a warmer than normal October based on past outcomes. On September 30, the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 1.909 (RMM). The September 29-adjusted amplitude was 2.041. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, the implied probability of New York City having a warmer than normal October is approximately 60%.

At 1 pm, the temperature was 91° in Cleveland. That set a new October high temperature record. The previous monthly record was 90°, which was set on October 6, 1946.

DCA _ NYC _ BOS __ ORD _ ATL _ IAH ___ DEN _ PHX _ SEA 2.4 2.2 1.4 0.5 3.0 1.3 0.4 0.7 -1.0

At least some research shows that at least parts of the Arctic today are the warmest in at least the last 44,000 years. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057188

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center video on this year's Arctic sea ice extent minimum:

Consistent with what might expect based on that paper, Lorenzo became a Category 5 hurricane tonight at 45W longitude. The NHC's update statement is below: 000 WTNT63 KNHC 290207 TCUAT3 Hurricane Lorenzo Tropical Cyclone Update NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL AL132019 1010 PM AST Sat Sep 28 2019 ...LORENZO STRENGTHENS INTO A CATEGORY 5 HURRICANE... Recent satellite data indicate that Lorenzo has continued to rapidly strengthen to an extremely dangerous category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds near 160 mph (260 km/h). This increase in intensity will be reflected in the forecast issued at 11 pm AST (0300 UTC). SUMMARY OF 1010 PM AST...0210 UTC...INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------- LOCATION...24.1N 45.0W ABOUT 1410 MI...2270 KM SW OF THE AZORES MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...160 MPH...260 KM/H PRESENT MOVEMENT...N OR 360 DEGREES AT 10 MPH...17 KM/H MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...925 MB...27.31 INCHES $$ Forecaster Brown/Latto

Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) remains solidly on course to experience its first September on record with a mean temperature of 40.0° or above. At present, a figure of 40.5° +/- 0.1° appears likely. Based on sensitivity analysis, there is an implied 97% probability of a 40.0° or above mean temperature. The current record is 37.7°, which was set in 1998. Overall, summer 2019 featured historic warmth in Alaska. Anchorage had its first 90° day. The meteorological summer mean temperature of 62.8° exceeded the mean figure for the hottest month on record prior to 2019 by 0.1°. In an opinion piece published in The New York Times three scientists, Vera Trainer, Rick Thoman, and Gay Sheffield, wrote about the impact climate change is having on Alaska and its environs. In part, they explained: Nome lies south of the Arctic Circle, on the edge of the Seward Peninsula along the northern Bering Sea. The peninsula is the closest point of the North American mainland to Russia. Months of darkness and daylight alternate there. And the effects of the warming climate are front and center. In June, people there told us, they watched a herd of musk ox retreat to small patches of snow that lingered in the hills as they panted through a three-day heat wave of temperatures at and above 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The normal daily maximum in June is 54.9 degrees. More ominous, the ocean is now free of ice most of the year; not that long ago, ice covered the sea near Nome generally from early November to late May. The ice is crucial to the sea life that is central to the people who live there... Over past centuries, the temperature gradient at the edge of the sea ice near Nome was a signal to marine animals that food was plentiful. Melting ice provides nutrients that fuel plankton blooms when sunlight is sufficient for photosynthesis. This ice melt during warmer, sunny days provides a banquet of plankton for small fish, shellfish and baleen whales. Those whales and other marine creatures typically followed the retreating ice, feasting as they hugged the Alaska coastline. Now whales often show up emaciated because the timing and extent of the ice melt has changed. The system is out of sync. The ice melt happens too early in the season, when shorter days and lack of sunlight are insufficient to nourish the algae blooms. What’s also troubling is the recent discovery of enormous cyst beds, the seedlike dormant resting stages of ocean algae, in ocean sediments in the Chukchi Sea, north of the Bering Strait. Unlike the nourishing blooms that bring life to the waters of Nome, these cysts can hatch into toxic algal blooms when the ocean warms. The toxins produced by these algae were recently detected at low levels in over a dozen species of marine mammals throughout Alaska, many of which are consumed by Native Alaskans. These algal toxins were also identified in dead sea birds — murres, fulmars and storm petrels — found during an unusual die-off in Alaska beginning in 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/climate-change-ocean-Arctic.html

At the time Syria's civil war erupted, there had been a severe and ongoing drought. It's plausible that the drought was one variable that contributed to that outcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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