donsutherland1

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.

One other statistic: Utqiagvik had 55 days with low temperatures of 40 or higher. The old record was 32.

The low sea ice and resulting Arctic amplification is a big reason why Utqiakvik (Barrow) had its latest first freeze on record (9/19 vs. the old record of 9/7) and has a chance of registering its first September with a mean temperature of 40° or above. The current monthly record is 37.7°.

On JAXA, Arctic sea ice extent had increased further to 4.054 million square kilometers on September 20. It is increasingly likely that the 3.964 million square kilometers measured on September 17 will prove to be the 2019 minimum figure. That would be the second lowest minimum extent on record.

To be fair, some of the big breakthroughs that led to contemporary understanding of anthropogenic climate change i.e., Hansen's work, Mann's proxy research, etc., were still years in the future. Today' scientific understanding of the fundamentals of climate change is unequivocal. Yet, there's a large gap between the urgent realities of the continuing rapid rise of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and political will. For at least the next 5 or perhaps even 10 years, the unfortunate reality is that a path pretty close to the status quo is probably the base case for policy. I very much hope my dreary assessment is wrong, because delay only magnifies the scale of an already great challenge.

Thank you for the kind words. Perhaps, as the number of climate scientists expands and the field increases in scale, such a professional organization will be established. Certainly, it would be beneficial, as the AMA has played an invaluable role in the medical field. I'm not sure how a Cabinet-level department can be safeguarded from political bias from a determined President/hostile Administration. In recent years, the EPA has essentially been stripped of its climate-related work and other federal scientists involved in climate-related research have been hindered or worse (e.g., the Department of Agriculture's climate research group). Congress has been unwilling or unable to protect them.

As the world's youth engage in demonstrations to break the unwillingness of policy makers to meaningfully launch a sustained effort to address the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, some of those with high profiles in the shrinking movement that rejects the overwhelming and unequivocal basis of climate change, are now launching broad ad hominem attacks against the youth, particularly 16-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg. One denier, who has no known medical degree or any expertise in the field of psychiatry, diagnosed 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, who has galvanized the international youth movement, as "mentally ill." Another dehumanized her, labeling her a "puppet" while gloating about rising global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet another mocked her as a child who enjoys "sacred status" only due to her youth. What do these ad hominem attacks by such climate change deniers as Bjorn Lomborg, Steve Milloy, and Tom Nelson say? First, they demonstrate that they lack credible evidence or knowledge to rebut the overwhelming and unequivocal body of scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change. They cannot explain the observed warming. They cannot escape the reality that solar irradiance has not increased to produce such warming. Second, it reveals that individuals who have less exposure to the consequences of climate change than the youth simply don't care about the future to which they seek to confine the world's young people and succeeding generations. After all, by the end of the 21st century when the consequences of climate change will be growing ever more severe, those reactionaries will have long departed this world. Third, it potentially says a lot about their character and who they are as people. A recent article published in The New Republic explains the underlying dynamic that may be driving those who engage in the nasty attacks aimed at tearing down the youth, a disproportionate share of whom are female, leading today's climate change movement. As Thunberg approached America, she was followed by a tsunami of male rage. On her first day of sailing, a multi-millionaire Brexit activist tweeted that he wished a freak accident would destroy her boat. A conservative Australian columnist called her a “deeply disturbed messiah of the global warming movement,” while the British far-right activist David Vance attacked the “sheer petulance of this arrogant child.” While these examples might feel like mere coincidence to some, the idea that white men would lead the attacks on Greta Thunberg is consistent with a growing body of research linking gender reactionaries to climate-denialism... In 2014, Jonas Anshelm and Martin Hultman of Chalmers published a paper analyzing the language of a focus group of climate skeptics. The common themes in the group, they said, were striking: “for climate skeptics … it was not the environment that was threatened, it was a certain kind of modern industrial society built and dominated by their form of masculinity.” The connection has to do with a sense of group identity under threat, Hultman told me—an identity they perceive to be under threat from all sides. Besieged, as they see it, both by developing gender equality—Hultman pointed specifically to the shock some men felt at the #MeToo movement—and now climate activism’s challenge to their way of life, male reactionaries motivated by right-wing nationalism, anti-feminism, and climate denialism increasingly overlap, the three reactions feeding off of one another. That reactionaries would assail those leading a reform movement is not new. When Martin Luther King, Jr. was leading the American Civil Rights movement during the 1960s, he and many of those involved in the movement, encountered vicious attacks aimed at delegitimizing the movement and violence aimed at suppressing it altogether. Once one looks beyond the noise and ugliness of the dying climate change denial movement of today, there is reason for optimism. Today's engaged youth appear to be embarked in sustained pursuit of a long-term goal supported by overwhelming empirical evidence. In other words, the movement won't end with today's demonstration. Today's youth have also demonstrated a capacity to leverage the Internet and Social Media to organize intensively across national borders to take on what is a global, not national, challenge. This capacity will serve them well as they become of voting age and enter the political realm. That advancing scientific knowledge has prevailed across time offers the prospect that the youth will ultimately prevail in their cause. Perhaps in decades from now, just as the Segregationists were permanently discarded onto the proverbial trash heap of history, so will the climate deniers, particularly those who engaged in the vile and reprehensible conduct cited in the above examples. In stark contrast, just as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s place in history as a reformer who advanced human welfare is secure, the place of Greta Thunberg, among the other organizers of today's demonstrations, will also be secure. Most importantly, the world will be far better off from the courage, effort, and persistence of the youth who made that better world possible.

That the climate is dynamic (has always changed and would continually change absent an anthropogenic influence) does not mean that humans aren't the predominant driver of the contemporary change. The evidence of the dramatic ongoing warming and the anthropogenic nature are overwhelming and unequivocal. Solar irradiance has not materially increased since 1950. Global temperatures have decoupled from solar irradiance. Unlike with a solar driver, where all levels of the atmosphere warm on account of an increase in incoming shortwave radiation, the stratosphere has been cooling while the troposphere has been warming. That is a classic fingerprint of greenhouse gases emitting some of the earth's outgoing longwave radiation back to the surface. This imbalance is leading to warming. http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php The physical properties of carbon dioxide were discovered back in the 19th century. Their atmospheric concentration has increased dramatically from 316 ppm in 1959 to just under 409 ppm in 2018 at the Mauna Loa Observatory. No natural variables can explain this increase. Human emissions, not all of which are absorbed by carbon sinks, do. When atmospheric greenhouse gases are included, the recent warming is represented very well. There is a very high coefficient of determination between the greenhouse gases and temperature (as one would expect from the demonstrated physical properties of such gases). https://climexp.knmi.nl/imageoftheweek.png This strong relationship is part of the reason the shrinking minority who rejects the reality of anthropogenic climate change often attempt to discredit the temperature records. They have no scientifically-valid alternative explanation for the warming. Hence, they try to get around that barrier by discounting or denying the warming. Of course, even if no temperature record existed, trends in declining Arctic sea ice, migration of flora, general retreat of glaciers, rising sea level, etc., are all consistent with a warming world.

Yesterday, Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) experienced its first freeze of the season. That was its latest freeze on record. The prior record was September 7, 2009. As a result, that city's 85-consecutive day stretch above freezing ended. The old record was 68 consecutive days, set in 2009. Both records are likely, in large part, due to low Arctic sea ice.

On September 19, Arctic sea ice extent rose further to 4.010 million square kilometers on JAXA. It is possible that the minimum extent for 2019 has been reached. Whether that is, in fact the case, will become evident in coming days.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent: September 18, 2019 vs. September 18, 1989: Source: NSIDC

I provided one paper earlier that dealt with the accuracy issue. The temperature data can be relied on with a very high degree of confidence. At 2 sigma (> 95% confidence), the error is around 0.1°C (e.g., for GISS). Thus, for example, the decadal average mean anomaly during the last 10 years on GISS (+0.78°C) clearly was warmer than that during the 1990s (+0.39°C). The difference between the two 10-year periods was so great that one was dealing with > 99.9% confidence. Statistically, arguments that the 1990s were just as warm (or warmer) are inaccurate.

Global average temperatures and anomalies are not a single area temperature/anomaly. They are measured in thousands of areas on land and in the ocean. Thus, the hypothetical scenario, which was meant to illustrate the concept of averages in thousandths of degrees, is spot on.

Averaging can lead to numbers in tenths, hundredths, thousandths of degrees even if the averaged numbers are whole numbers. For example, assume there is a hypothetical 1,000 stations. All but 1 record 50 degree readings. One registers a 51 degree reading. The average is 50.001 degrees, even as no thermometers measure temperature in thousandths of degrees.

Monthly and annual temperature errors within a greater than 95% confidence interval were very small 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C back in 2013. http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/robert-rohde-memo.pdf Since then, better ocean measurements have become available and the averaging errors are even smaller. Even at the earlier figures, one could reject the null hypothesis that the global climate had not warmed at a 95% level of confidence.

The issue doesn’t mean measuring sea ice extent or area is not science. The issue concerns limitations of satellite-based measurements and the concept of margins of error. Statistically, when error is considered, measurements within 40,000 km2 are treated as being the same.

More inaccurate information on the climate change denier front. From twitter: One of the biggest flaws in AGW theory are increased heavy rain events. Rain comes from clouds, which form when warm, moist air rises, and cools. This only happens if there's a steep drop in temp with altitude to force the temp to reach the dew point, otherwise, NO clouds form. https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1174553165745786880 The problem with the above claim is that the dew point is not a fixed value. That both the surface and troposphere are warming does not mean that atmospheric temperatures can no longer reach the dew point. What the literature shows is that the warmer atmosphere, which remains capable of cloud formation, holds more moisture. As a result, the frequency of intense precipitation events in parts of the world increase. Such an increased frequency has also shown up in some of the data. https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/7/ Some attribution analyses related to a number of extreme precipitation events can be found at: https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/analysis/rainfall/

On September 18, Arctic sea ice extent increased by 14,600 square kilometers (JAXA) to 3,978,839 square kilometers.

The court transcript related to Mann v. Ball is now available. Key excerpts: There have been at least two extensive periods of delay. Commencing in approximately June 2013, there was a delay of approximately 15 months where nothing was done to move the matter ahead. There was a second extensive period of delay from July 20, 2017 until the filing of the application to dismiss on March 21, 2019, a delay of 20 months. Again, nothing was done during this period to move the matter ahead... The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. Thus, in addition to finding that presumption of prejudice has not been rebutted, I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay... Turning to the final factor, I have little hesitation in finding that, on balance, justice requires the action be dismissed. The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial. I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm In sum, the lawsuit was dismissed on grounds of delay. The delay had nothing to do with Mann's failure to provide materials related to his "hockey stick" analysis and had nothing to do with the substance of climate change. The lawsuit was dismissed on procedural grounds.

As the world's attention focuses on climate change, a matter over which the scientific fundamentals are settled, at least one climate change denier has cited a discredited petition allegedly signed by "31,487 scientists." https://twitter.com/tan123/status/1174432569854705669 The 1997 petition comes complete with a non-peer reviewed paper written by Willie Soon, Arthur Robinson, and Noah Robinson, none of whom have backgrounds in climate science or a related field. But there's more. Just as the paper's conclusions were inconsistent with scientific understanding even then, its conclusions were incompatible with basic physics related to greenhouse gas properties (some findings, of which, go back to the 19th century), its signers are far from authentic. The May 1, 1998 issue of The Seattle Times reported: The petition with 15,000 signatures surfaced shortly before the April 22 Earth Day and quickly became music to global warming's critics. They highlighted it in news releases, at congressional hearings, even on the Senate floor... Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." https://archive.is/eQIGW The article also noted: Robinson, who acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming, said the petition includes thousands of people "qualified to speak on this subject" including biochemists, geophysicists and climatologists. Nevertheless, Robinson felt fit to put his name on a "paper" concerning a matter over which he claimed he had "done no direct research." What does that say about Robinson? More broadly, what does it say about the three authors, none of whom have relevant climate science backgrounds to submit peer-reviewed work on climate change, to essentially manufacture a paper, have it posted on Robinson's organization's website in a font and structure that leaves casual readers with the perception that it was published in a journal? What does it say about those peddling the petition, which was documented to have been riddled with fake names?

So far, Galveston has received 5.96" rain today. That easily surpasses the daily record of 2.47", which was set in 1979. It is also Galveston's biggest one-day rainfall total since August 29, 2017 when 8.64" rain associated with Hurricane Harvey fell.

Arctic sea ice extent registered yet another decline on September 17 on JAXA. Arctic sea ice extent stood at 3.964 million square kilometers assuring 2019 the second lowest minimum extent on record. Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the August 31 figure, the bottom 25% value would be 3.916 million square kilometers. https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/48618-arctic-sea-ice-extent-area-and-volume/?do=findComment&comment=5308717 The bottom 10%, which was not listed above, would be approximately 3.850 million square kilometers. The latest minimum extent on record is September 30, which was set in 1995 with a minimum extent of 6.018 million square kilomters. During the 2010-18 period, 2 years had minimum extent figures on September 17 and 2018 recorded its minimum extent on September 21.