donsutherland1

Sea ice melt doesn't raise the sea level by itself. It does make an indirect contribution as a feedback mechanism that is accelerating Arctic warming. That warming affects the Greenland ice sheet. Greenland's melt, which has accelerated greatly over the past few decades, has been a key driver in rising sea levels.

Young ice melts fairly fast. It's the ice melt over the summer that has a large influence over how much of the incoming solar radiation is reflected and how much is not. Declining summer sea ice is playing a large role in Arctic amplification (as it is a feedback that amplifies the ongoing warming already underway). That's a major reason why Arctic warming has exceeded the rate of global warming, especially in recent decades.

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology reported regarding yesterday: Based on preliminary analysis, yesterday, Australia recorded its hottest day on record. The nationally-averaged maximum daytime temp was 41.9 °C exceeding the record set on Tuesday, 40.9 ºC. 40.9°C is 105.6°F. 41.9°C is 107.4°F. The highest temperature anywhere in Australia yesterday was 47.7°C (117.9° F) at Birdsville Airport. The national December record is 49.5°C (121.1°F), which was set on December 24, 1972 at Birdsville Police Station. Australia's hottest temperature on record is 50.7°C (123.3°F), which was set on January 2, 1960 at Oodnadatta Airport.

It's a difficult situation. Externalities e.g., the cost of carbon emissions and their consequences, aren't captured in the pricing mechanism of fossil fuels. That's part of the reason at least some economists favor a carbon tax. In addition, certain governments have little or no meaningful commitment to addressing the great challenge of climate change (or even recognition of the science). Yet, the time left to avoid making what amounts to an almost irrevocable commitment via emissions to temperature increases above 2.0 degrees C or 1.5 degrees C is shrinking.

Thanks for this information. The 12/13-16 data has now been pulled and replaced by "M." Given the temperatures at Sitka, I suspect based on what you found and the lower temperatures there than a few days ago, the sensor was, in fact, malfunctioning.

I don't think such a model is practical given the risks that such power could be abused given human nature as it is. However, the issue of ignorant leaders or those who put narrow interests (e.g., Russia and oil) ahead of even serious global challenges are a real problem.

I believe I was quoting Vice Regent. We agree about living in a more sustainable way. The former almost certainly won't be broadly supported. The latter could and should be.

The high temperatures at Yakutat, Alaska for the past three days and for today (preliminary value) were: December 13: 56° (old record: 49°, 2017) December 14: 58° (old record: 49°, 2017) December 15: 61° (old record: 48°, 2005) December 16: 57° (old record: 50°, 2005) All four days exceeded the previous December record high temperature of 52°, which had been set on December 8, 1960. The 61° temperature yesterday broke the meteorological winter record of 58°, which was set on January 19, 1930 and tied on December 14, 2019 and was also above the November monthly record of 59°, which was set on November 1, 1947. Prior to yesterday, the latest 60° temperature on record occurred on October 13, 1969 when the temperature reached 60°. Daily records go back to May 1, 1917.

According to the GISS dataset, November 2019 ranked as the second warmest November on record with a +1.02°C anomaly. Only 2015 with a +1.06°C anomaly was warmer. As a result, 2019 has a year-to-date anomaly of +0.97°C, which is the second warmest at this point in time. 2019 is extremely likely to wind up as the second warmest year on record on that dataset. To wind up cooler than 2017 (+0.92°C annual anomaly), which currently ranks as the second warmest year on record, December would need a temperature anomaly of +0.37°C. The last month with a temperature anomaly of +0.37°C or less was January 2008, which had a temperature anomaly of +0.30°C. The last time December was at least as cool occurred in 2000 when the monthly anomaly was +0.28°C. The coolest anomaly so far this year is +0.86°C, which occurred in May.

Winter Forecast Update... Over the past 6 weeks, the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly had averaged +0.53°C. Gradual cooling of that region is forecast for the remainder of the winter. As a result, the base case idea of a neutral-warm ENSO remains on track. At the same time, the cool anomaly in ENSO Region 1+2 has largely disappeared (-0.05°C average anomaly over the past 6 weeks). Persistent warmth in this region could have an adverse impact on seasonal snowfall in parts of the eastern United States. The NAO had been positive for 100% of the first 15 days of December before falling to -0.069 on December 16. The core assumption of a predominantly positive NAO remains on track. During the December 1-15 period, the Arctic Oscillation (AO) averaged +1.584 with a peak figure of +3.059on December 3. Nevertheless, a portion of the northern Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions had colder than normal temperatures on average. Since 1950, there were 13 prior cases where the AO averaged +1.000 or above during the first fifteen days of December. Such outcomes have typically been followed by somewhat less than normal snowfall in parts of the Great Lakes Region, Middle Atlantic States, and southern New England. These figures are modestly below those in the winter idea posted at the beginning of this thread. However, the differences are sufficiently small to suggest that the overall idea remains on track. What could lead to higher snowfall amounts: 1. Prolonged deep blocking (AO of -1.000 or below) 2. The MJO's persistently being in Phases 7, 8, 1 and 2 at a high amplitude 3. The ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly falling to somewhat negative values as the winter progresses 4. A mainly negative NAO What could lead to lower snowfall amounts: 1. A persistently positive AO coupled with a strongly negative SOI 2. The MJO's persistently being in Phases 4, 5, and 6 at a high amplitude 3. Dramatic warming in ENSO Region 1+2

I don't think one can be certain about how much of the needed CO2 can be absorbed. IMO, until the risks are better understood, society should probably avoid such approaches unless absolutely necessary.

Such a geoengineering approach, not withstanding other risks that may or may not be known, would only capture a fraction of the annual CO2 emissions per year (around one-eighth). That assumes one could produce enough iron sulfate for maximum effect. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon

I'm not as pessimistic, though I have worries given how impotent and unwilling today's generation of leaders (political and business) are in addressing the challenge of anthropogenic climate change. Addressing climate change should not require "phasing out civilization." It does entail some significant changes. Among those changes are a transition to cleaner fuels, increased energy efficiency, a carbon tax/elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, etc. In my view, were the same leaders involved in tackling the problem of anthropogenic climate change today, credible, binding, and concrete commitments would have been undertaken. They understood what today's leaders don't, namely that today's choices have consequences for tomorrow. Consequently, they were not paralyzed by the suffocating short-term thinking that defines today's leaders.

In 1987, humanity was confronted with a growing ozone hole over the Southern Hemisphere and the implication of an inevitable and dramatic rise in skin cancer cases. The world's leaders at that time, even while taking on an existential Cold War struggle, came together in Montreal to adopt a solution to address the problem. A binding commitment to completely phase out the use of CFCs and halons was agreed. That treaty was universally ratified. Since then, much progress has been made. NASA recently revealed: Thirty-two years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of man-made ozone depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons— banned chlorine-containing synthetic compounds that were once frequently used as coolants—continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/2019-ozone-hole-is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery Then, science carried the day. Political leaders made the kind of decisions that fall with responsible leadership. They made no excuses. They did not embrace defeatist conclusions that acting would be economically harmful, much less that nothing could be done. They did not descend into "denialism" or conspiracy theories aimed at alleviating accountability from their shoulders. They acted with conviction. They put the world on a better path. Just three decades later, when confronted by another global challenge--that of anthropogenic climate change--the world's leaders abdicated their responsibility in Madrid. They proved unable to summon the courage, foresight, and leadership to tackle the global challenge of the contemporary era. They chose timidity at a time when no great struggle comparable to the Cold War is raging. Put simply, they failed the test of leadership. They demonstrated that although they hold positions of authority, they lack the capacity and qualities necessary to lead. Instead, they chose to remain passive bystanders to history. They failed as leaders. They failed as people. In their enormous failure to lead, they have substantially magnified the burden they have already left to today's youth and future generations to come. In doing so, they have defined their generation as arguably the most short-sighted one in modern history. They chose to leave the world a worse place than they inherited. Given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and range of tools available to launch a credible effort to curb then reverse greenhouse gas emissions, their fateful choice is a deliberate one. Ignorance is not a valid defense. At the same time, they have unequivocally made clear to today's youth that the concerns and futures of those youth are to be sacrificed for the preservation of the short-sighted status quo. Given the urgency and gravity of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, this is a most sad outcome. Urgent problems aren't punted to the future year after year. Great problems are not routinely ignored, much less cloaked in the packaging of brave words disconnected from concrete and credible measures to evade responsibility. Fortunately, as time passes, those who occupy today's positions of leadership will gradually depart those positions. In their wake, future generations will be left with a tremendous mess. The passage of time will determine whether leadership capacity on the global stage merely skipped today's generation of global leaders or whether the absence of leadership capacity is a new and persistent problem. Considering that human nature has changed remarkably little since the emergence of Homo Sapiens, the odds are still high that the contemporary leadership deficit is merely a temporary phenomenon.

A quick note: The COP25 conference was, for all intents and purposes (when credible outcomes are considered) a failure. In effect, the colllective choice was to punt to next year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/un-climate-talks-end-with-hard-feelings-few-results-and-new-doubts-about-global-unity/2019/12/15/38918278-1ec7-11ea-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html

It appears that a significant number of countries that came to the COP25 conference on climate change likely did so for cosmetic appearances rather than serious decisions. Barring last minute developments, inaction and the status quo will likely prevail. One can't rule out a last-ditch flurring of non-binding commitments, but non-binding commitments lack credibility. Hopefully, I am incorrect about this, but the latest news out of Madrid suggests what would, in practical terms, be a failed conference. The BBC reported: The pact's intention is to keep the global average temperature rise to well below 2C. This was regarded at the time as the threshold for dangerous global warming, though scientists subsequently shifted the definition of the "safe" limit to a rise of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. But Mr Meyer commented: "The latest version of the Paris Agreement decision text put forward by the Chilean presidency is totally unacceptable. It has no call for countries to enhance the ambition of their emissions reduction commitments. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50795294 That's a ratification of the status quo. The status quo path is not enough. Excerpts from the 2019 Emissions Gap Report: There is no sign of GHG emissions peaking in the next few years; every year of postponed peaking means that deeper and faster cuts will be required. By 2030, emissions would need to be 25 per cent and 55 per cent lower than in 2018 to put the world on the least-cost pathway to limiting global warming to below 2˚C and 1.5°C respectively... Had serious climate action begun in 2010, the cuts required per year to meet the projected emissions levels for 2°C and 1.5°C would only have been 0.7 per cent and 3.3 per cent per year on average. However, since this did not happen, the required cuts in emissions are now 2.7 per cent per year from 2020 for the 2°C goal and 7.6 per cent per year on average for the 1.5°C goal. Evidently, greater cuts will be required the longer that action is delayed. Further delaying the reductions needed to meet the goals would imply future emission reductions and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere at such a magnitude that it would result in a serious deviation from current available pathways. This, together with necessary adaptation actions, risks seriously damaging the global economy and undermining food security and biodiversity. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30797/EGR2019.pdf Tragically, the policy path of choice is to delay credible steps, shift the burden to today's youth, and hope that they will possess the courage, foresight, and leadership capacity that the current generation of leaders at the conference lacks. The idea that nothing can be done, market-based approaches are impossible, or credible measures would be economically disruptive are fallacies aimed at preserving the status quo. They are not reality. Even without new technologies, a number of policy tools are available. Those tools include increased reliance on wind, solar, and nuclear power for supply and increases in efficiency to deal with the demand side. The latter may be less costly than scaling up the former, but only at present. Estimated costs of various investments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/images/122019/Gillingham-tbl-lg2.jpg For comparison, the true cost of carbon emissions per ton is an estimated (median) figure of $477 per ton. http://www.cobham-erc.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/preprint_Ricke2018_country_level_scc.pdf Phasing out production of the dirtiest carbon-based fuels early on, namely coal, should be prioritized. Tax expenditures and other policies that favor carbon-based fuels are not market-oriented. Instead, they skew market function via externalities (cost-shifting to taxpayers, shielding producers from the full costs of their products, etc.). They also prop up a false scenario that makes it appear that the status quo is more beneficial than a transition based on cost-benefit analysis. If the costs associated with the consequences of climate change--ranging from increased storm damage to the impact of rising sea level--were added to the cost of carbon-based fuels responsible for anthropogenic climate change, the cost picture would be quite different. When the full costs of climate change are considered, the status quo is more costly than the transition.

Thanks Jerry. I hope all is well with you and also that the snowfall amounts are underdone.

Utqiagvik is easily on course for its warmest year on record. It is all but improbable that the record will fall. Further, that city will likely finish with its first annual mean temperature of 20.0 degrees or above.

From the ECMWF's Copernicus Program: Globally, November 2019 was one of the three warmest Novembers on record, differing only marginally from November 2015 and 2016. Most land areas saw above average temperatures, with the exception of much of the eastern USA and Canada and a central Asian region extending from Siberia to the Iranian coast. Europe saw an autumn (September-November) temperature 1.1°C above the 1981-2010 average, a value that since at least 1979 has been exceeded only in 2006, 2015 and 2018. https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-november-2019

I took regional snowfall to date as one piece of information for some context, which added a degree of confidence to my thinking. That suggested that the numbers could be plausible. The major assumptions largely drove the forecast.

I hope that they are low, too. Personally, I found the snowfall estimates that came up quite dissatisfying. I would prefer a notably snowier winter.

During September, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly fell below -1.00°C for multiple weeks. Since 1950, only a single El Niño winter (2002-03) followed a September with one such week. Therefore, based on a combination of the current guidance and historical ENSO data, the underlying ENSO assumption for winter 2019-2020 is a neutral (warm) ENSO state. There could be periods where the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly is somewhat above +0.5°C, but the winter average should be neutral. For much of the winter the Region 1+2 anomaly should be negative. The September-October ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.82°C. Since 1950, 12/16 (75%) cases when the Region 1+2 anomaly averaged -0.99°C to -0.50°C had a predominantly negative PDO. In fact, the PDO fell to -0.45 in October. The last time the PDO was negative for a month was November 2018 when it was -0.05. A negative PDO winter favors a negative PNA. Since 1950, there were five years that saw the AO average -1.000 or below in November and -1.500 or below during the second half of November. Out of the total of 15 months that followed, the AO averaged < 0 during 12 (80%) and -0.500 or below during 10 (67%). This data suggests at least somewhat above average frequency of AO blocking for winter 2019-2020. However, winters during which the AO rises to +3.000 or above in December typically have less frequent blocking. Therefore, the assumption is that there will be periods of blocking and periods where blocking is absent. The NAO appears to have transitioned to a predominantly positive state. A generally positive NAO has also been modeled on the seasonal guidance. The core assumption is a positive NAO. The large pool of warm SSTAs south of Alaska has been cooling gradually in recent weeks. Warm SSTAs in that region have often been a precursor of a predominantly negative Eastern Pacific Oscillation (EPO). Based on this trend, the first half of winter 2019-2020 may see more frequent EPO blocking than the second half. Key Assumptions: 1. Neutral-warm ENSO 2. Generally positive NAO 3. Negative to somewhat positive PDO 4. AO variability 5. EPO variability with a tendency toward more positive values later in the winter. A composite temperature anomaly map is below (DJF 1950-51 through DJF 2018-19): The multi-model (C3S)outlook is below: Additional factors to be considered include the observed ongoing warming occurring in the Arctic region. Based on all of the above factors (including some weight being placed on the seasonal climate models), my estimated December-February temperature thinking is: Colder than normal (1.0° to 2.0° below normal): Eastern Canada (eastern Ontario, Quebec, Labrador, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI) Near Normal (0.5° below normal to 0.5° above normal): Desert Southwest, Great Lakes Region, New England Somewhat above normal (0.5° to 1.5° above normal): Middle Atlantic Region, Plains States, West Coast, Canada (except for Eastern Canada and Northwest Canada) Warmer than Normal (1.0° to 3.0° above normal): Southeast Much Warmer than Normal (More than 3.0° above normal): Alaska, Northwest Canada (Yukon) Select seasonal snowfall estimates are below: Albany: 60"-70” Atlanta: 0.5"-2.5" Baltimore: 10”-20” Binghamton: 80”-90” Boston: 30”-40” Buffalo: 100”-110” Burlington: 80”-90” Chicago: 25”-35” Detroit: 30”-40” Nashville: 5”-10” New York City: 20”-30” Newark: 20”-30” Philadelphia: 10”-20” Providence: 25”-35” Richmond: 5”-10” Scranton: 45”-55” Sterling: 10”-20” Washington, DC: 7”-17” What could lead to higher amounts: 1. Prolonged deep blocking (AO of -1.000 or below) 2. The MJO's persistently being in Phases 7, 8, 1, and 2 at a high amplitude 3. The ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly falling to somewhat negative values as the winter progresses 4. A mainly negative NAO What could lead to lesser amounts: 1. The development of a persistently positive AO coupled with a strongly negative SOI 2. The MJO's persistently being in Phases 4, 5, and 6 at a high amplitude 3. Dramatic warming in ENSO Region 1+2

Mann was accused of manipulating data in an attack on his professional and personal integrity.

The Supreme Court declined to block Michael Mann’s defamation case from proceeding to trial. IMO, this is good news, as the defendants made harsh allegations for which they had no evidence. Debate is undermined when parties fabricate allegations aimed at diverting discussion from the merits, especially when character is attacked to intimidate others into silence. This latest legal development is good news, both from a legal and debate perspective.

Many thanks for tagging me. It was an exciting event for Colorado and it will be interesting to see the storm as it continues to track eastward.