donsutherland1

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.

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.

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.

To be fair, that is a Federal Reserve conference. The focus is on areas within the Fed's domain. We agree that climate goes beyond monetary policy, finance, and economics.

Historic fire weather conditions in Australia:

On Friday, the San Francisco Federal Reserve hosted a conference on climate change. Excerpts from San Francisco Federal Reserve President Mary C. Daly's address are below: Why is the San Francisco Fed hosting a climate conference? ...The answer is simple. It’s essential to achieving our mission... Extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires destroy property and disrupt essential services like health care and education. But they also impact how people buy things. Without power, electronic payment methods – debit cards, credit cards, and mobile services like Apple Pay – don’t work. So you need cash for everything... The Fed’s second core function is the regulation and supervision of the banking system. And climate events are becoming an increasing area of risk for many of the financial firms we supervise. Higher sea levels, heavier rainfalls, dryer conditions, and the associated fallout can cause catastrophic losses to property and casualty insurers – especially if the majority of their clients are geographically concentrated in the affected region. In 2018 alone, it’s estimated that damages from severe weather in the United States cost insurers upwards of $50 billion... Finally, climate change can also influence our third function: conducting monetary policy to achieve our congressionally-mandated goals of full employment and price stability. Early research suggests that increased warming has already started to reduce average output growth in the United States. And future growth may be curtailed even further as temperatures rise. Several of the papers on the program today outline other ways in which the micro- and macro-economic environments may be impacted by climate change. While more work needs to be done to clearly understand these effects, there’s little doubt that we need to recognize, examine, and prepare for these risks in order to fulfill our core responsibilities. https://www.frbsf.org/our-district/files/Speech-Daly-Economics-of-Climate-Change-Conference.pdf

As the observed warming of the global climate, including the continuing rapid warming in the Arctic region despite gradually declining solar insolation, proceeds, the degree of scientific ignorance being pushed on Social Media to deflect attention from athnropogenic climate change is expanding. One stunning example: https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1190278220043579393 The hashtag, #CelebrateIgnorance would have been more appropriate. Let's take a look at the Eocene, which experienced the world's warmest temperatures since the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago. We show that sea surface temperatures near the North Pole increased from ∼18 °C to over 23 °C during this event. Such warm values imply the absence of ice and thus exclude the influence of ice-albedo feedbacks on this Arctic warming. At the same time, sea level rose while anoxic and euxinic conditions developed in the ocean's bottom waters and photic zone, respectively. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04668 We attribute a massive drop in dinoflagellate abundance and diversity at peak warmth to thermal stress, showing that the base of tropical food webs is vulnerable to rapid warming. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1600891.short Associated with the rapid carbon release during this event are profound environmental changes in the oceans including warming, deoxygenation and acidification. To evaluate the global extent of surface ocean acidification during the PETM, we present a compilation of new and published surface ocean carbonate chemistry and pH reconstructions from various palaeoceanographic settings. We use boron to calcium ratios (B/Ca) and boron isotopes (δ11B) in surface- and thermocline-dwelling planktonic foraminifera to reconstruct ocean carbonate chemistry and pH. Our records exhibit a B/Ca reduction of 30–40% and a δ11B decline of 1.0–1.2‰ coeval with the carbon isotope excursion. The tight coupling between boron proxies and carbon isotope records is consistent with the interpretation that oceanic absorption of the carbon released at the onset of the PETM resulted in widespread surface ocean acidification. The remarkable similarity among records from different ocean regions suggests that the degree of ocean carbonate change was globally near uniform. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2017.0072 How does the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gas emissions compare to that period? Research has found that "current carbon emission rates are nine to 10 times higher than those during the PETM." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190220112221.htm Further, climate sensitivity could increase with the warming on account of feedbacks such as those concerning cloud processes. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaax1874/tab-pdf In the end, the growing extremes to which climate change deniers are now going to try to defend an indefensible case and evade their near total absence of scientific support demonstrates that the charlatans involved--in this case in tweeting, retweeting, or otherwise disseminating what amounts to quackery--should be ignored on any matters pertaining to science. Science is evidence-based. It is not an article of blind faith. Most definitely, it is not blind faith spiced by a combination of profound ignorance and a willingness to mislead. The body of scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is clear and overwhelming. Residual uncertainties exist, but the basic conclusion concerning the contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is now near unequivocal.

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.

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)

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.