donsutherland1

Yes. That’s why it is quite clear that anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is playing the larger role today. And that forcing will continue to increase in coming years/decades.

UHI has made a contribution. The sun, though, should have a small net negative contribution in recent years given the slight decrease in solar irradiance. New York City is also affected by the increase in sea surface temperature anomalies, as well. But rising greenhouse gas forcing has also driven the observed warming trend (larger role more recently). Natural variability is occurring within the context of growing greenhouse gas forcing. No disagreement on the role politics has played in skewing perceptions.

Over the past 30 years (1990-2019), October has averaged 0.6 sigma above the 30-year moving average temperature and standard deviation in Miami. The 5 warmest Octobers on a standardized basis (30-year moving average) are: 1. 2019 +2.6 sigma 2. 2009 +2.2 sigma 3. 2002 +2.15 sigma 4. 1995 +2.0 sigma 5. 1969 +1.9 sigma No other Octobers were 1.8 sigma or more above the 30-year moving average. This data shows that since 2000, the extremely warm Octobers have become even more extreme even when the rising temperature trend is considered.

DCA _ NYC _ BOS __ ORD _ ATL _ IAH ___ DEN _ PHX _ SEA 0.5 0.5 -0.1 -1.7 0.1 -0.7 1.2 2.0 2.1 Snowfall (11/21): DCA: 10.0" NYC: 23.5" BOS: 36.0" ORD: 30.0" DTW: 35.0" BUF: 110.0" DEN: 83.0" BTV: 90.0" SEA: 6.5"

The record warm October will follow a record warm September. The September 2019 mean temperature was 85.2°. The prior September record was 84.8°, which was set in 2017. Miami will also easily register the warmest September-October period on record with a mean temperature near 84.3°. The existing record is 83.1°, which was set in 2009. 8 of the 10 warmest September-October periods have occurred 2000 or later and 5 of the 10 warmest September-October periods have occurred 2010 or later. Records in Miami go back to 1895. Such warmth is consistent with the expected outcomes from anthropogenic climate change.

In large part, this is likely why Utqiagvik will have the highest September-October mean temperature on record this year by at least 2 degrees.

As October concludes, Chicago recorded an October 30 daily record snowfall of 1.2". Monthly record low temperatures were reported in many parts of the Northern Rockies. Perhaps in response, increasingly sensational forecasts are now being pushed on Social Media. Often, such hype concerns snowstorms. IMO, one needs to point out such extremes when support is lacking, as such calls can skew perceptions about what is likely to occur and, afterward, lead the public's to blame forecasters (most of whom did not call for such extremes) when those extremes don't materialize. Below is an example of the kind of severe cold that is being forecast to lock in (notice the explicit language about the severe cold shown on the map locking in). I have also included the forecast teleconnections toward mid-November. Most of the ensemble members suggest the development of an AO+/NAO+/PNA- to neutral pattern toward mid-November. Let's take a look at two major cities where the tweet suggests cold temperatures of 8° or more below normal will lock in: Chicago and New York City. Such teleconnections would suggest that the cold shown at the end of the extended range would abate. Here's the data for November 16-30 (1981-2010): AO+/NAO+/PNA (-0.5 to +0.5*): Chicago: 40.0°; New York City: 48.6° 1981-2010 Base Normals: Chicago: 37.7°; New York City: 45.9° *-A PNA- would be even warmer. Put simply, historic experience with the forecast state of the teleconnections argues that the severe cold shown in the tweeted map would not lock in for the second half of the month. What does the very long-range guidance show? Here are the week 3 and 4 CFSv2 forecasts: The October 28 0z EPS weeklies also show warm anomalies developing after mid-month across almost the entire CONUS. In sum, the coldest weather of the season so far is likely to develop beginning in early November with perhaps the strongest shot of cold reaching the East during the second week of the month. However, even allowing for uncertainty, there is little support for the idea that the notable cold shown at the end of the GEFS will lock in. Considering pattern persistence, the warming might be somewhat slower than modeled, but definitive language about severe cold locking in does not fairly represent things. All said, will Chicago and New York see November 16-30 with a mean temperature of 8° or more below normal? That scenario is very unlikely. Could it be cooler than normal? Possibly. Could it be warmer than normal? That's more likely than not given the forecast teleconnections and the long-range guidance. Clearly, all forecasts are subject to error and all forecasters make errors. My point is that one shouldn't assume extreme scenarios without strong support for such outcomes. IMO, support for severe cold to lock in is limited (teleconnections + long-range guidance).

Yesterday's low temperature of -9° was Casper's lowest October temperature on record. The previous record was -4°, which was set on October 27 this year. The October 27 temperature was also Casper's earliest subzero reading on record. The previous earliest reading was -1° on October 29, 1971. In addition, today saw Casper record its fourth consecutive and fourth subzero low temperature of October. Previously, the October record was two days on October 29-30, 1971.

At 8 pm MDT, Casper, WY had a temperature of -8°. That surpassed the -4° temperature of October 27 as that city's coldest October temperature on record. Casper appears headed for its coldest October on record. The lowest October mean temperature was 37.0°, which was set in 2009. Today's 8° high temperature in Casper is, by far, the earliest maximum temperature below 10°. The prior record was 6° on November 11, 2014.

On JAXA, 2019 has already moved ahead of 2016: 7.063 million square kilometers vs. 6.841 million square kilometers in 2016.

I agree that greater precision would be helpful. I just wanted to note that the issue was considered.

What is "real science?" If one is ignoring scientific research, how can one even make claims about science? As for the latter part about past higher CO2 levels, none of that means that humans can't be responsible for unlocking greenhouse gases when, prior to the emergence of humans, natural processes were the only means possible.

Forest management was considered. Excerpts: The above results strongly suggest that the observed increase in California summer burned area during1972–2018 (which mainly occurred in northern California forests) was mainly due to increased VPD and not concurrent changes in nonclimate factors such as forest management, fire suppression practices, or human ignitions. This is not to say that nonclimate factors were negligible in dictating modern annual burned areas. To the contrary, human ignitions greatly enhance the number of wildfires relative to that expected in their absence (Balch et al., 2017), and increased fuel density due tofire suppression (and warming/wetting trends in the high Sierra) may have enhanced the mean state of modern‐day forest‐fire extent, severity, and sensitivity to aridity (Dolanc et al., 2013; Harris & Taylor, 2015; Minnich et al., 1995;Swetnam & Baisan, 1996).

The semantics arguments used to deny climate change in general and the link between climate change and the incidence of wildfire in particular are not supported by the scientific literature and they are unconvincing in evidence-based discussion. First, regarding the semantics arguments: 1. "Climate change" or "anthropogenic climate change" are terms that describe shifts in the climate that are underway. That description concerns heat, precipitation, the cryosphere, etc. 2. Those elements are actual things, not abstract matters. 3. No one has suggested that there isn't a link between weather and climate. 4. The predominant cause of climate change is the increased greenhouse gas forcing due to anthropogenic contributions that have led to an imbalance between greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas absorption. The end result is the documented increase in the atmospheric concentration of such gases, leading to increased forcing from such gases. 5. The physical properties of such gases are well-established (and in the case of carbon dioxide have been known since the 19th century). These properties have not changed. Only the mechanism by which they have been released from storage via burning of fossil fuels has changed. 6. The increasing atmospheric concentration of such gases have been driving changes that are captured in the description "climate change." 7. Those changes have been linked to, among other things, the increased risk of wildfires. Now, onto the link to climate change: One such study revealed: We demonstrate that human-caused climate change caused over half of the documented increases in fuel aridity since the 1970s and doubled the cumulative forest fire area since 1984. This analysis suggests that anthropogenic climate change will continue to chronically enhance the potential for western US forest fire activity while fuels are not limiting. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/42/11770.full.pdf An even more recent study: Recent fire seasons have fueled intense speculation regarding the effect of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in western North America and especially in California. During 1972–2018, California experienced a fivefold increase in annual burned area, mainly due to more than an eightfold increase in summer forest‐fire extent. Increased summer forest‐fire area very likely occurred due to increased atmospheric aridity caused by warming. Since the early 1970s, warm‐season days warmed by approximately 1.4 °C as part of a centennial warming trend, significantly increasing the atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD). These trends are consistent with anthropogenic trends simulated by climate models. The response of summer forest‐fire area to VPD is exponential, meaning that warming has grown increasingly impactful. Robust interannual relationships between VPD and summer forest‐fire area strongly suggest that nearly all of the increase in summer forest‐fire area during 1972–2018 was driven by increased VPD. Climate change effects on summer wildfire were less evident in nonforested lands. In fall, wind events and delayed onset of winter precipitation are the dominant promoters of wildfire. While these variables did not change much over the past century, background warming and consequent fuel drying is increasingly enhancing the potential for large fall wildfires. Among the many processes important to California's diverse fire regimes, warming‐driven fuel drying is the clearest link between anthropogenic climate change and increased California wildfire activity to date. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001210 Do you have examples of papers published during the past 5-10 years that conclude that there is no link between climate change and the increased risk of wildfire?

The above reasoning is deeply flawed. For example, assume a hypothetical scenario where one has prolonged exposure to a heat index of 110° and winds up suffering from a heat-related health issue. Drawn from the above reasoning, one would assert that the high heat index wasn't responsible (after all, the heat index is merely an equation) and, by extension, some other issue led to the person's health issues (rather than the combination of heat and relative humidity, as measured by the heat index). That's the argument being made to deny that climate change has any link to the California wildfires. The empirical evidence in numerous published papers demonstrates the existence of such a link. Put simply, the measurements don't cause issues. But the underlying phenomena being measured or described--in this case, climate change--have very real consequences.

From the Arctic ice thread: To Maue's credit on this issue, he also tweeted, " I used to be skeptical of these jet-stream & climate links but the evidence has become overwhelming in just the past 2-years." While Maue has often taken skeptical positions on climate change-related matters, he has also displayed a willingness to be open to evidence, as noted above. Unfortunately, there are still individuals in the field (e.g., https://twitter.com/WeiZhangAtmos) who seek to poison understanding, e.g., his evidence-free claim that there is no climate change link to the fires (https://twitter.com/WeiZhangAtmos/status/1188795586906120194). Notice that he cited no papers. He provided no references to scientific research, even as he complained about a lack of "scientific analysis." That complaint was almost certainly an attempt to deflect attention from his lack of scientific evidence to dismiss the climate change link to the wildfires in order to lead others to believe that there is no scientific foundation for the climate change link for such fires. In fact, contrary to Zhang's claim, numerous papers have been published on the topic. Two recent papers: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001210 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153589 Zhang's bluster was hollow and lacked scientific merit. The lack of scientific merit should not be surprising. If one goes through his Twitter stream, one finds retweets of conspiracy theories e.g., baseless claims that the UK's Met Office is deliberately hiding UK temperature anomaly maps prior to 2000, as well as trolling and name-calling (e.g., https://twitter.com/WeiZhangAtmos/status/1187782675924475904). Those who troll on the Internet and/or peddle conspiracy theories should not be taken seriously in any serious endeavor, particularly an evidence-centered field such as science.

On October 20, Arctic sea ice extent on JAXA was 5,625,765 square kilometers. That is both the lowest on record for the date and the latest figure below 6 million square kilometers in record . The previous daily record low was 6,136,029 square kilometers from last year.

Yesterday was Utqiagvik's (formerly Barrow) 9th October minimum temperature of 30° or above. That is the second highest figure on record. Only October 2016 with 15 had more. The frequency of such elevated minimum temperatures in October has increased dramatically in recent years. 2015-2019 has accounted for 4 of the nine cases in which Utqiagvik recorded more than 3 days with minimum temperatures of 30° or above in October. The 1981-2010 base mean was 1.1 days. The latest 30-year period (1990-2019) has an average of 2.2. The average for the past 10 years is 4.2. Put another way, the average for the past 10 years would rank as the 8th highest such figure on record. Records go back to 1920. The increase in such October warmth has coincided with a dramatic decline in October Arctic sea ice extent. During the 1990-99 period, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 8.497 million square kilometers. During the 2009-18 period, it has averaged 6.466 million square kilometers, a 23.9% decline. During the October 1-18 period, which includes 2019 data, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 7.962 million square kilometers. During the 2009-18 period, it has averaged 5.737 million square kilometers, a 27.9% decline from the 1990s. For 2010-19, the average has been 5.603 million square kilometers (which includes the record low 4.776 million square kilometers from this year, which broke the old mark of 5.046 million square kilometers from 2007). The most-recent 10-year average is 29.6% lower than that during the 1990s. Finally, the following is the breakdown of record-breaking or record-tying warm minimum temperatures during October at Utqiagvik: 2000 or later: 20 days 2010 or later: 17 days 2015 or later: 8 days 2019: 4 days: October 10: 34° (old record: 33°, 1926) October 11: 32° (tied record set in 2016) October 16: 33° (old record: 31°, 1993) October 17: 32° (old record: 28°, 1951 and 2011)

According to the GISS data set, September 2019 was the second warmest September on record globally with a monthly temperature anomaly of +0.90°C. That was near September 2016's record +0.91°C anomaly. To date, 2019 has an annual temperature anomaly of +0.95°C. That is the second warmest January-September period on record. 2019 could finish as the second warmest year on record. To conclude as the second warmest year on record, the average temperature anomaly for the October-December period would need to be just above +0.82°C. The last time the three-month average anomaly was +0.82°C or below was July-September 2018 with an average anomaly of +0.80°C. It is very likely that 2019 will finish as at least the 3rd warmest year on record. To finish below third, 2019 would need an average 3-month temperature anomaly of just under +0.74°C. The last time that happened was June-August 2014 with an average anomaly of +0.69°C.

On JAXA, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,880,849 square kilometers on October 13. That figure is now below the 2012 extent for the same date. In 2012, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,911,701 square kilometers.

The slow recovery is certainly disconcerting. Unfortunately, there's still a lot of room for discovery when it comes to ice-related dynamics. FWIW, below is the difference between 2019 and 2012 in Arctic Sea Ice Extent for the past 7 days (2019 - 2012): 10/4 607,225 square kilometers 10/5 527,475 square kilometers 10/6 459,846 square kilometers 10/7 426,436 square kilometers 10/8 336,167 square kilometers 10/9 231,673 square kilometers 10/10 182,153 square kilometers 2019's slow ice growth relative to the faster recovery following 2012's record low figure may yet lead to 2019 falling below 2012's extent, especially as the Arctic was notably colder at this time in 2012 than it is today.

Yesterday, 7.1" snow fell in Bismarck. That easily surpassed the previous daily record for October 10 of 2.3" from 1959. In addition, it was the earliest daily snowfall of 6" or more on record. The prior record was established on October 23, 1991.

The following was posted on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1182331950318718978 While technically true, that is not a good use of the CFSv2. Several points are in order: First, the CFSv2 monthly forecasts are not typically skillful until 5-7 days out. Second, within 6 days, the CFSv2 had highlighted the potential for cold anomalies in the northern Rockies and Northern Plains. October 1-8, 2019 Temperature Anomalies: Third, if one applied the logic used to dismiss the CFSv2, which is not always accurate, it would be tantamount to judging the ECMWF's failure to forecast a significant storm from 5-days out when its forecasts from 72 hours and less were accurate. In general, there can be benefit to waiting for additional data before reaching conclusions. Model verification scores closer to events bear that out. Setting artificial cut-offs that deprive one of later data generally increases one's forecasting error.

At this point in time, ice was growing very quickly in 2012. Unless the rate of ice growth accelerates, 2019 could fall below 2012 within the next 5-7 days.

While I agree with the literature in psychology related to cognitive biases and decision making, a subset of which relates to climate change denial (e.g., motivated reasoning), one would expect that a competent scientist would be in a stronger position to analyze and assess data objectively. That at least some can't likely demonstrates the power of cognitive biases and the barriers to objectivity that they present. He has dispensed with objectivity. Sustaining his belief depends on rejecting the enormous body of evidence that now makes the argument for anthropogenic climate change unequivocal from an objective, purely evidence-informed path. Thus, he greatly discounts the quality of the instrument temperature record, embraces a "magical" starting point (1980), ignores paleoclimate data and, in doing so, implicitly denies the expertise and knowledge developed by a wide range of scientists in a broad slice of science. Another explanation may also be involved: shifting attention from his own forecasting failure. Upon further research, it turns out that back in 2013, he forecast that the Northern Hemisphere would begin cooling in 2015. So, 2015 should have been cooler than 2014 according to his forecast. For purposes of comparison, the 2013 Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly (GISS) was +0.81°C and in 2014 it was +0.92°C. Since then, the annual Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies have been: 2015: +1.18°C 2016: +1.31°C 2017: +1.18°C 2018: +1.04°C 2019: +1.18°C (January-August) During the January 2015 through August 2019 period, just 3 of 54 months have had a monthly anomaly that was cooler than the 2014 average while 43/54 months have had an anomaly of +1.00°C or above. IMO, just as the field of economics would benefit from a mechanism for tracking and evaluating forecasts and outcomes, the same applies here. There's nothing wrong with a failed forecast, as analysis of causes can lead to better future forecasts. Doubling down, though, is typically counterproductive, as it ignores the source(s) of the error. In this case, it seems that rather than trying to understand the cause of his failed Northern Hemisphere cooling forecast (growing anthropogenic forcing), he has decided to question the entire understanding of climate science.