donsutherland1

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.

I agree. Almost certainly, multiple reasons including personal experience, have contributed to the shifting opinions. Those opinions are consistent with scientific understanding. However, scientific understanding, alone, very likely hasn't driven the trend. A poll that probes the shift would be interesting. It would also be helpful to scientists who have been trying to communicate the message against the noise of the climate change denial movement.

Despite the loud and ferocious campaign led by the shrinking climate change denial movement, the latest polling suggests that the American people are increasingly reaching climate-related conclusions based on science. A new Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll revealed, among other things, that 79% of respondents recognize that human activity is causing climate change and that 76% believe climage change is a major problem or crisis (38% each) vs. 59% in 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/washington-post-kaiser-family-foundation-climate-change-survey-july-9-aug-5-2019/601ed8ff-a7c6-4839-b57e-3f5eaa8ed09f/

Time has devoted an entire issue to climate change under the provocative title "2050: The Fight for Earth." The publication contains a wide range of articles ranging from a fairly optimistic piece by Bill McKibben of a scenario where the world was able to avert the worst of climate change to an article by Penn State professor of atmospheric science and director of its Earth System Science Center, Michael Mann who writes that lifestyle changes, alone, are insufficient to address the challenge of climate change. Not every article is science-related. However, the content is based on the dual premises that (1) the world is warming and (2) anthropogenic activities are largely responsible for that warming. Every serious data set shows that there has been an observed and persistent warming. The scientific evidence pointing to the anthropogenic basis of that warming is overwhelming. Put another way, all serious scientific debate has been settled on the core issues of whether the world is warming (it is) and whether human activities are largely responsible (they are). Residual uncertainties related to feedbacks such as the rate and impact of glacial retreat and non-linear questions concerning the rate of sea level increase remain to be resolved. But the overall reality of climate change and the anthropogenic driver of climate change are established beyond any serious scientific dispute. Therefore, just as astronomers today accept that the earth revolves around the sun, the magazine proceeds from the climate foundation that has been demonstrated by science. Just as astrophysics gives no weight to disproved belief systems of the past related to the solar system, the magazine ignores disproved denial of climate change. Fiction has no place in the important public discourse, especially that related to a big issue such as the world's changing climate. In building from the firm foundation of scientific understanding, Time seeks to provide a broad portrait of climate change as it continues to play out. Its articles include a degree of science. They also talk about human society and human health. Overall, Time's focus on one of today's biggest issues makes an important contribution to public discussion.

This is disappointing, but not surprising. It was clear from the onset that the unattributed NOAA statement was a political statement. That the origins are being traced to the White House can be expected given how forcefully and persistently the President clung to his erroneous statement concerning Dorian and Alabama.

Today's edition of The Washington Post has a feature story on climate change. In part, the story notes: The mysterious blob covers 130,000 square miles of ocean, an area nearly twice as big as this small country. And it has been heating up extremely rapidly — by over 2 degrees Celsius — or 2C — over the past century, double the global average. At its center, it's grown even hotter, warming by as much as 3 degrees Celsius, according to one analysis. The entire global ocean is warming, but some parts are changing much faster than others — and the hot spot off Uruguay is one of the fastest. It was first identified by scientists in 2012, but it is still poorly understood and has received virtually no public attention... The South Atlantic blob is part of a global trend: Around the planet, enormous ocean currents are traveling to new locations. As these currents relocate, waters are growing warmer. Scientists have found similar hot spots along the western stretches of four other oceans — the North Atlantic, the North Pacific, the South Pacific, and the Indian... The fastest-warming zones include the Arctic, much of the Middle East, Europe and northern Asia, and key expanses of ocean. A large part of Canada is at 2C or higher. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-world/ Following a historically hot summer, at the time of this article's publication, parts of Europe are engulfed in their fourth bout of record-breaking heat since June. Record temperatures were set in numerous parts of Finland, Norway, and western Russia earlier today. And in a recurrent theme, the number of daily record high temperatures vastly exceeded the number of daily record low temperatures. Svolvaer and Tromso, both in Norway, even tied their highest September temperatures on record. Although the scientific evidence for climate change and its anthropogenic basis is now overwhelming, some persist, especially on Social Media such as Twitter, to deny what is now undeniable when one rationally and objectively considers the scientific evidence. While many of those on Social Media lack scientific backgrounds and/or understanding, and this critique excludes them for that reason, some are involved in science-related fields where, unless they had not kept up with the advances in the literature since the 1970s, there is no defensible scientific reason to push back against the findings related to climate change. Perhaps astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson described that phenomenon quite well when he observed, "When scientifically investigating the natural world, the only thing worse than a blind believer is a seeing denier." He continued, "When people believe a tale that conflicts with self-checkable evidence it tells me that people undervalue the role of evidence in formulating an internal belief system." That gets to the heart of the matter. The "internal belief system" of climate change denial--and it's a non-scientific belief system, as the evidence for climate change and its anthropogenic nature, even respecting residual uncertainties, is now unequivocal--is sustained by a fundamental rejection of evidence.

No. The underlying data is publicly available. That wasn’t the issue. The data can be found here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

As far as I know, the case never got to the merits of the issue.

I have no issue with the chart itself. It was likely accurate at the time it was made. Today, it is obsolete.

Earlier today, Joe Bastardi tweeted a global temperature chart that ends in 1995. It's unclear whether he recognized when the chart ended. The link to @tan123 brings one to a widely-known climate change denier. https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1171386083051016193 The chart is misleading. The world has continued to warm since then. The 2018 global temperature anomaly was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 1995 figure (+0.85°C/1.53°F in 2018 vs. +0.45°C/+0.81°F in 1995). Further, to remove the noise of internal variability, the 30-year moving average in 2018 had increased to +0.57°C (+1.03°F) from +0.16°C (+0.29°F) in 1995. The red line on the bottom chart depicts the 1995 global temperature to help illustrate how things have changed since then. All temperature data is from the GISTEMP data set. Finally, the linear trend line shows an annual increase of +0.021°C (+0.038°F) since 1995. The coefficient of determination is 0.75.

In his blog article, Spencer claims, "(And, no, there is no fingerprint of human-caused warming. All global warming, whether natural or human-caused, looks about the same...)" http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/the-faith-component-of-global-warming-predictions/ His understanding is badly dated. The accumulating evidence strongly suggests otherwise. 1. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has been rising steadily. 2. No natural factor to explain this outcome has been identified. It does, however, have a strong correlation with greenhouse gas emissions by humanity (not all of which are being absorbed in sinks). https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ 3. The 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere has been decreasing. CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are of the 12C isotope. That declining ratio offers overwhelming evidence that the origin of the rising atmospheric concentration in CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/iso-sio.html?pagewanted=all 4. The climate models best represent recent warming when rising greenhouse gas forcing is included. There has been a decoupling between global temperature trends and natural forcings. That the evidence demonstrates that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 provides an unmistakable "fingerprint" of the anthropogenic cause of the ongoing warming).

There are two big issues with the above commentary: 1. A 5%-10% probability of tropical storm-force winds in the far southeast portion of Alabama is far from a "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated" scenario. 2. Had the President simply acknowledged that he misspoke (an issue that was corrected by BMX in a timely and sufficiently forceful fashion to regain control over sentiment as the Office was being bombarded by calls from worried Alabama residents) or refrained from commenting on the issue, the matter would never have spiraled to its present state. However, he took a different approach and, IMO, the worst possible one.

If politics can be permitted to supplant science when it comes to weather forecasting, it is or should be an open question whether politics will be permitted to displace unfavorable economic data at some future point in time. This is a bad and damaging precedent, not just for the scientists/meteorologists who have been adversely impacted, but for the U.S. public who relies on them.

The current estimated sea level rise is 3.7 mm per year. The full data can be found at: https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/mean-sea-level/products-images.html

The public information statement concerning Dorian's winds is not official data. Those data and other data will be subject to quality control before any data is finalized. Such quality-controlled figures will be part of the National Hurricane Center's report on Dorian. Because of the unofficial nature of the data, public information statements often carry the following disclaimer or others like it, "The following are unofficial observations taken during the past 24 hours for the storm that has been affecting our region..."