donsutherland1

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.

I don't believe many here believed the single model showing an August minimum would verify. Having said this, I suspect we either reached our minimum or will do so in the next 3-5 days. It will be fascinating to see how things play out.

Serious scientific debate over climate change has ended. Residual uncertainties persist, but the fundamentals (observed warming; anthropogenic causes; broad increase in heat waves, droughts, and floods, etc.) are widely-agreed. As a result, non-science institutions are increasingly incorporating climate change into their work. One such institution is the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In its April 2019 World Economic Outlook, the IMF observed: There is a need for greater multilateral cooperation to resolve trade conflicts, to address climate change and risks from cybersecurity, and to improve the effectiveness of international taxation... Over the medium term, climate change and political discord in the context of rising inequality are key risks that could lower global potential output, with particularly severe implications for some vulnerable countries... Risks of a somewhat slower-moving nature with serious implications for the medium- and long-term outlook include pervasive effects of climate change and a decline in trust with regard to establishment institutions and political par-ties. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in October 2018 that, at current rates of increase, global warming could reach 1.5°C above preindustrial levels between 2030 and 2052, bringing with it extremes of temperature, precipitation, and drought. Such extremes would have devastating humanitarian effects and inflict severe, persistent output losses across a broad range of economies (Chapter 3 of the October 2017 WEO). The warning from the IPCC comes amid substantial distrust of establishment institutions and mainstream political parties—a distrust often born of rising inequality and entrenched beliefs that existing economic arrangements do not work for all. The accompanying polarization of views and growing appeal of extreme policy plat-forms imperil the medium-term outlook by making it difficult to implement structural reforms for boosting potential output growth and strengthening resilience, including against climate-related risks. Low-income developing countries have also borne the brunt of climate change and potent natural disasters. Lowering the fallout from these events will require adaptation strategies that invest in climate-smart infrastructure, incorporate appropriate technologies and zoning regulations, and deploy well-targeted social safety nets... By adding to migrant flows, climate-related events compound an already-complex situation of refugee flight from conflict areas, often to countries already under severe strain. Box 3.1 of Chapter 3 discussed the price of manufactured low-carbon energy technologies. The IMF recognizes the growing importance of climate change because, among other things, the IMF has member countries that are substantially and adversely impacted by it. For example, earlier this month, the IMF developed a climate change policy assessment for the Federated States of Micronesia. In sum, broad scientific consensus on climate change and its effects are being incorporated outside scientific fields. The IMF provides just one example of how science is beginning to inform the work of such entities.

On September 16, Arctic sea ice extent fell to 3.991 million square kilometers on JAXA. That is only the second time on record that Arctic sea ice extent will have a minimum figure below 4 million square kilometers.

The near-real time products are not quality controlled. The final data is. From the NSIDC site: The daily and monthly images that we show in Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis are near-real-time data. Near-real-time data do not receive the rigorous quality control that final sea ice products enjoy, but it allows us to monitor ice conditions as they develop. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#average-vs-daily It should be noted that the JAXA data set shows Arctic sea ice extent as second lowest and NSIDC shows it as 3rd lowest. One can probably have a reasonable degree of confidence that Arctic sea ice extent has fallen to at least the 3rd lowest figure on record at least somewhat below that of 2007. Corroboration across data sets adds confidence.

Quick update for the larger June 1-September 15 period for Anchorage: 2019 had a mean temperature of 62.0°F (16.7°C). That surpassed the previous record warm figure of 60.0°F (15.6°), which was set in 2016. The 10 warmest June 1-September 15 timeframes occurred as follows: Prior to 1980: 2 cases 2000 or later: 7 cases 2010 or later: 5 cases 2015 or later: 4 cases

Yesterday, National Hurricane Center scientist Eric Blake tweeted that Miami had set the record for the number of days with temperatures of 93° or above at 42 while noting that is "rouglhy double" the 40-year average. Blake's tweet was then retweeted by CBS' Jeff Berardelli, who noted that it provided an example of a "warming trend" and that in terms of such warmth "Miami is trending up quickly." Any serious look at the Miami climate record should have ended the discussion there. Berardelli was on the mark. Miami has had a clear temperature trend. Further, its 30-year moving average figure for annual temperatures reached a record high of 77.5° in 2017 and was tied in 2018. 2019 could lead to a slight increase in that figure. When one looks at Miami's years with a mean temperature of 77.0° or above, there were 26 such cases. 2 occurred prior to 1980. 22 occurred since 1990. 14 occurred since 2000. 8 occurred since 2010. 2019 is on track to become the 27th such case. Overall, there are a total of 119 cases in Miami's climate record. However, Berardelli's observation was questioned in spite of the data supporting it. Roger A. Pielke, Sr. went off on a tangent about dew points. That dew point temperatures are a distinct metric recorded by the NOAA needs to be emphasized. Blake's and Berardelli's observations concerned temperatures. They did not mention dew point figures. So, what happens when dew point data (which goes back to 1980) is included? Miami's dew point data revealed that the average number of days per year with dew point temperatures of 75° or above has generally increased in recent decades (20-year moving averages are in parentheses): 1980-89: 111.7 days per year 1990-99: 131.1 days per year (1980-1999: 121.4 days per year) 2000-09: 126.2 days per year (1990-2009: 128.7 days per year) 2010-18: 139.0 days per year (1999-2018: 130.8 days per year) The most recent 30-year period (1989-2018) averaged 130.7 days with dew point temperatures of 75° or above. That is the highest such average for a 30-year period on record.

On September 15, Arctic sea ice extent had declined further to 4.006 million square kilometers on JAXA. As a result, 2019 now has the second lowest minimum extent figure on record. The previous second lowest figure was 4.017 million square kilometers, which was recorded in 2016.

As the calendar marched deeper into September, France was experiencing yet another bout of record heat. Daily record highs in the 90s (fahrenheit) were recorded in parts of the country on the 15th. In large part due to the third lowest minimum extent of Arctic sea ice (JAXA), Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) was in the midst of what could become its warmest September on record. That city had already seen 81 consecutive above freezing days through September 14, easily surpassing the previous mark of 68. It had also experienced 55 days of readings at or above 40°, smashing the old record of 32 by more than three weeks. In coming days, the GISTEMP global land and ocean temperature anomaly for August will be released. Once that happens, it will likely show that summer 2019 was either the first or second warmest summer on record globally. In response to such developments that have been linked to ongoing anthropogenic climate change, the media has begun to focus strictly on science and scientific realities associated with climate. Its former misplaced practice of granting climate change deniers a visible platform to spout their anti-scientific beliefs was showing signs of yielding to scientific reality. This is a welcome and overdue development. Climate change denial is no more robust in terms of science than past notions of a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system, among others. Toward that end, Nature announced in an editorial: For one week, starting on 15 September, Nature and more than 250 other outlets — with a combined audience of more than one billion — have committed to a week of intensive climate coverage (see ‘Covering climate now’)... Along with our colleagues in Covering Climate Now, we are united with all those who stand behind the consensus view of researchers. But there can be no more delay. The time to act is now. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02734-x Such science-centered coverage is welcome. But one-time coverage over a short period of time is insufficient. If such coverage is sustained to reflect the sustained nature of ongoing climate change, the contribution will far more valuable. Throughout history, science has advanced in the face of often fierce resistance. The climate change denial movement almost certainly won't relent. The combination of motivated reasoning and the embrace of conspiracy theories is potent nutrition for that movement. That movement will continue to advance pseudo-scientific "explanations" for outcomes that can only be explained by anthropogenic forcing. It will deflect attention from science with false narratives and exaggerated caricatures. It will continue to launch vicious ad hominem attacks on climate scientists and climate change activists (especially females). It will seek to throw a cloak of ignorance over global society in a desperate bid to paralyze public policy and hobble the possibility for global collaboration on the challenge of climate change. But, in the end, as has happened throughout history, science will ultimately triumph. The timing of that outcome still remains uncertain. But once science prevails, society will be better for it.

After another decline, Arctic sea ice extent (JAXA) has now decreased to 4.026 million square kilometers. That is approximately 40,000 square kilometers below the 2012 minimum extent figure (4th lowest) and just under 9,000 square kilometers above the 2016 figure (2nd lowest).

On JAXA, Arctic sea ice extent has fallen to 4.054 million square kilometers. That is just below the 2007 minimum figure and is the third lowest minimum figure on record.

Just so there’s no confusion, my point dealt with temperatures on a global basis. At that time, I noted records in parts of Finland, Norway, and Russia.