donsutherland1

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.

At this point in time, ice was growing very quickly in 2012. Unless the rate of ice growth accelerates, 2019 could fall below 2012 within the next 5-7 days.

While I agree with the literature in psychology related to cognitive biases and decision making, a subset of which relates to climate change denial (e.g., motivated reasoning), one would expect that a competent scientist would be in a stronger position to analyze and assess data objectively. That at least some can't likely demonstrates the power of cognitive biases and the barriers to objectivity that they present. He has dispensed with objectivity. Sustaining his belief depends on rejecting the enormous body of evidence that now makes the argument for anthropogenic climate change unequivocal from an objective, purely evidence-informed path. Thus, he greatly discounts the quality of the instrument temperature record, embraces a "magical" starting point (1980), ignores paleoclimate data and, in doing so, implicitly denies the expertise and knowledge developed by a wide range of scientists in a broad slice of science. Another explanation may also be involved: shifting attention from his own forecasting failure. Upon further research, it turns out that back in 2013, he forecast that the Northern Hemisphere would begin cooling in 2015. So, 2015 should have been cooler than 2014 according to his forecast. For purposes of comparison, the 2013 Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly (GISS) was +0.81°C and in 2014 it was +0.92°C. Since then, the annual Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies have been: 2015: +1.18°C 2016: +1.31°C 2017: +1.18°C 2018: +1.04°C 2019: +1.18°C (January-August) During the January 2015 through August 2019 period, just 3 of 54 months have had a monthly anomaly that was cooler than the 2014 average while 43/54 months have had an anomaly of +1.00°C or above. IMO, just as the field of economics would benefit from a mechanism for tracking and evaluating forecasts and outcomes, the same applies here. There's nothing wrong with a failed forecast, as analysis of causes can lead to better future forecasts. Doubling down, though, is typically counterproductive, as it ignores the source(s) of the error. In this case, it seems that rather than trying to understand the cause of his failed Northern Hemisphere cooling forecast (growing anthropogenic forcing), he has decided to question the entire understanding of climate science.

A climate change denial website posted a story about Mototaka Nakamura who authored a book rejecting climate change. In part, the article states: “Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.” Nakamura's argument does not hold up. 1. The notion that 1980 was a magical point where temperature data suddenly became trustworthy has no basis in fact. Even if one relied strictly on the instrument record, the instrument record extends into the early 20th century and even middle to latter part of the 19th century over much of the world. One isn't dealing with "only a small part of the earth" where temperatures were observed with "accuracy and frequency." 2. It seems that Nakamura is largely or wholly unfamiliar with the paleoclimate record, or worse, dismisses it out of hand. Multiple proxies corroborate one another and point to the anomalous warming that has occurred particularly from the late 20th century to the present. One is dealing with tree rings, ice cores, corals, and sediments, among other proxies. 3. The physical properties of carbon dioxide have been known since the 19th century. Data for natural forcings e.g., solar irradiance exist. The recent temperature trend has decoupled from the trend in the natural forcings. When the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is considered, one has a very close match to the observed temperature trend. Nakamura has impressive credentials. But, it appears that he is unwilling or unable to take an objective perspective of the climate change issue. At the same time, he subjectively dismisses the credibility of the temperature data that exists (while imposing a magical "1980" point where the data became useful) while largely or wholly ignoring paleoclimate data.

A lot of research is ongoing. We'll see what subsequent papers over the next few years show.

Some climate scientists have calculated that the commitments made in the Paris Agreement only go about 50% of the way toward what's necessary to avoid warming above 1.5°C.

Yes. I agree. It should be noted that subsidies can skew things toward the activity that is being subsidized. Elimination or phase-out of the subsidies (the latter might be the easier policy path, but less effective climate change mitigation path) would be beneficial.

The big challenge for the tax credit would be how one would demonstrate that they qualified. It's easier to tax consumption than expect people to save receipts, etc., to demonstrate that they refrained from consuming certain products.

I agree. Such a consumption tax would generate revenue and it would have the desired impact of reducing carbon-intensive consumption. The CBO provided a summary related to a potential $25 per ton carbon tax last year: https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2018/54821

IMO, markets will need to be leveraged, not supplanted, to offer perhaps the highest probability that the challenge of anthropogenic climate change is met. Policy that aims to supplant markets will probably run aground.

It should be noted that the above is political commentary by a Senate candidate. Policy and political discussions related to climate change are not necessarily the same thing as scientific discussions.

At least some research shows that at least parts of the Arctic today are the warmest in at least the last 44,000 years. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057188

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center video on this year's Arctic sea ice extent minimum:

Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) remains solidly on course to experience its first September on record with a mean temperature of 40.0° or above. At present, a figure of 40.5° +/- 0.1° appears likely. Based on sensitivity analysis, there is an implied 97% probability of a 40.0° or above mean temperature. The current record is 37.7°, which was set in 1998. Overall, summer 2019 featured historic warmth in Alaska. Anchorage had its first 90° day. The meteorological summer mean temperature of 62.8° exceeded the mean figure for the hottest month on record prior to 2019 by 0.1°. In an opinion piece published in The New York Times three scientists, Vera Trainer, Rick Thoman, and Gay Sheffield, wrote about the impact climate change is having on Alaska and its environs. In part, they explained: Nome lies south of the Arctic Circle, on the edge of the Seward Peninsula along the northern Bering Sea. The peninsula is the closest point of the North American mainland to Russia. Months of darkness and daylight alternate there. And the effects of the warming climate are front and center. In June, people there told us, they watched a herd of musk ox retreat to small patches of snow that lingered in the hills as they panted through a three-day heat wave of temperatures at and above 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The normal daily maximum in June is 54.9 degrees. More ominous, the ocean is now free of ice most of the year; not that long ago, ice covered the sea near Nome generally from early November to late May. The ice is crucial to the sea life that is central to the people who live there... Over past centuries, the temperature gradient at the edge of the sea ice near Nome was a signal to marine animals that food was plentiful. Melting ice provides nutrients that fuel plankton blooms when sunlight is sufficient for photosynthesis. This ice melt during warmer, sunny days provides a banquet of plankton for small fish, shellfish and baleen whales. Those whales and other marine creatures typically followed the retreating ice, feasting as they hugged the Alaska coastline. Now whales often show up emaciated because the timing and extent of the ice melt has changed. The system is out of sync. The ice melt happens too early in the season, when shorter days and lack of sunlight are insufficient to nourish the algae blooms. What’s also troubling is the recent discovery of enormous cyst beds, the seedlike dormant resting stages of ocean algae, in ocean sediments in the Chukchi Sea, north of the Bering Strait. Unlike the nourishing blooms that bring life to the waters of Nome, these cysts can hatch into toxic algal blooms when the ocean warms. The toxins produced by these algae were recently detected at low levels in over a dozen species of marine mammals throughout Alaska, many of which are consumed by Native Alaskans. These algal toxins were also identified in dead sea birds — murres, fulmars and storm petrels — found during an unusual die-off in Alaska beginning in 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/climate-change-ocean-Arctic.html

At the time Syria's civil war erupted, there had been a severe and ongoing drought. It's plausible that the drought was one variable that contributed to that outcome.

Lindzen et al., who wrote the letter, have no defensible scientific basis to make requests of the UN Secretary-General as it relates to climate change. What you've highlighted reaffirms that reality. Hopefully, the UN Secretary-General will not act upon their request.

As the deniers get even more desperate, they have continued to attack Greta Thunberg. New attacks include a recycled dishonest claim by Anthony Watts that Greta Thunberg claimd that she can "see" carbon dioxide. Joe Bastardi is the latest to recycle the dishonest Watts claim. https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1177031514728685568 Back on May 2, Watts wrote a blog entry entitled, "Quote of the Week: Greta Thunberg claims to be able to 'see' carbon dioxide in the air." The blog entry then goes on to quote her mother, not Greta Thunberg. Greta Thunberg is quoted nowhere in the blog entry. Nevertheless, the headline proclaims that Greta Thunberg "claims" the ability. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/02/quote-of-the-week-greta-thunberg-claims-to-be-able-to-see-carbon-dioxide-in-the-air/ In any case, the source of the quote comes from a website. On May 4, Greta Thunberg responded on Facebook: Of course the ongoing hate campaigns never rests… There is at least one new conspiracy theory a day. The latest - and perhaps most entertaining - spin is that "I can see CO2 with my own eyes". This is of course a metaphor from a book taken out of it's context, taken from a German newspaper. No one has said that I can literally see CO2… that is beyond stupid. This should of course not be necessary to mention but since some respected newspapers have written about this without realizing that this is a fake news campaign I thought it was best to point this out. While I am at it I also want to point out that when I say that "our civilisation is almost like a castle built in the sand" or that "our house on fire" these are metaphors too:) https://www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/of-course-the-ongoing-hate-campaigns-never-rests-there-is-at-least-one-new-consp/823189474715541/ And from the website on which Watts based his claim that quoted the book: But does the mother mean that literally or only figuratively? That cannot be precisely determined from the excerpt – which we present below in its entirety. That is why we contacted the publisher of the book in Sweden. “I was shocked by the commotion in Germany, Belgium and now also in Italy,” he says. “I can assure you that it is a metaphor; if you read the entire passage, end it with the tale of “The New Emperor’s Clothes” by Christian Anderson. So it is certainly not literal.” In a text message, the mother also says that it is only about imagery. https://www.afrinik.com/gretas-mother-creates-clarity-passage-about-seeing-co2-was-figuratively-intended/ Did Watts take down his misleading blog entry? No. Did Watts even bother to correct the headline attributing the quote to Thunberg? No. Did Watts even acknowledge Thunberg's response? No. Now, the dishonest claim is being recycled on Social Media, likely to dampen the growing attention climate change is currently receiving. Watts bears direct responsibility for this outcome whenever his misleading blog entry is cited, as those citing or linking to his claim often don't undertake the due diligence that they should to verify the claims he made. In general, when claims are sensational, due diligence is especially important. As one looks at the climate denial movement's growing panic in the face of its shrinking influence, the nature of that movement becomes ever more apparent. The climate denial movement is not about integrity or truth. It is about dishonesty and deception, as it has no credible scientific basis on which to stand.

If awards were granted to the individuals who display the greatest ignorance on climate and climate change, perhaps this individual's "contribution" would make him a strong candidate. In an op-ed published by the Washington Times, Anthony J. Sadar, wrote: [C]rowding into an expansive metropolis, no matter how enticing it may be, just adds to the problem of long-term climate change. People have thrived in their own custom-built climate change for centuries. Today, there are numerous locations across the globe where manmade outdoor temperatures consistently exceed natural ambient conditions by 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit... Nobody is overly concerned with the heat island effect... He then goes on to mock today's concerns about climate change tying those concerns to discredited past warnings about overpopulation and mass starvation that did not come to pass. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/24/the-trouble-with-the-political-push-for-climate-ch/ His message: 2.8°C -5.6°C (the equivalent temperatures of those he cited for urban heat islands) is not bad. People have demonstrated the ability to 'thrive' in such environments. Moreover, "nobody is overly concerned" with such environments, thus, a similar indifferent attitude should be taken with respect to anthropogenic climate change. Even as the individual self-identifies as a meteorologist, it is clear he knows little or nothing about climate and climate change. His perspective is grossly simplified and is not applicable to a world that includes land masses (not just cities), oceans and water bodies, ice sheets, and the atmosphere. A few quick things: First, the increase in radiative forcing from rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has a global impact. Second, warming oceans experience themal expansion. Third, melting glaciers, along with the Greenland and Antrarctic ice sheets are increasing sea levels. Fourth, rising sea levels mean more flooding/flood events in coastal regions, some of which are also experiencing subsidence. Fifth, rising global temperatures have led to an increase in heat extremes. Sixth, rising global temperatures are leading to a shift in flora, and not all areas will have optimal soil for the changes taking place. Seventh, absorption of heat by the oceans has led to an increasing incidence of marine heat waves. In short, the article is the equivalent of a medical diagnosis offered by a 17th century witch doctor rather than a highly-skilled, highly-educated 21st century medical professional. It is pseudoscience in which the localized phenomenon of the urban heat island effect is stretched beyond repair to a global conclusion. All credible scientific evidence suggests that a 2.8°C -5.6°C warming on a global basis would be highly damaging to ecosystems and human society. Artifacts of pseudoscience such as the one advanced in the opinion piece should be ignored. They carry no meaningful insight when it comes to climate and climate change. They only distract from science and understanding.

Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) remains on course for a record warm September. It is also increasingly likely to see its first September with a mean temperature of 40.0° or above. Overall, largely on account of low summer sea ice, resulting in Arctic amplification, the area has been warming very rapidly. September 2019 Mean: 39.7° - 40.8° (estimated) September Record: 37.7°, 1998 1981-2010 Mean: 32.1° 30-Year Moving Average: 1990-2019: 33.5° (estimated) Low Summer Ice Era: 2007-Present

Richard Lindzen, among others, has written a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Secretary-General, in a bid to divert the UN's attention from the issue of climate change. The Secretary-General should ignore it. Those who wrote the letter argued, "Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power." They provided no hyperlinks or references to evidence to support such a claim. Absent credible evidence, this claim is uninformed noise. At its worst, it is hysterical exaggeration, a charge deniers often hurl at climate scientists. Trying to invoke a sense of balance, albeit an undeserved one, they wrote, "We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020." Translation: Climate change deniers should have a seat at the table and be treated as equals. Not mentioned is the absence of published research cited by those who wrote the letter that suggests that their beliefs--I used the term "beliefs," because scientific conclusions are based on empirical evidence--have credibility. In contrast, contemporary evidence for the anthropogenic nature of the ongoing warming is overwhelming. Just as the invited climate scientists rejected the Heartland Institute's attempts to set up a "debate" that would have served only to elevate the standing of climate science deniers and illuminate their inaccurate claims, the UN Secretary-General should not accommodate the letter writers' demand. They added, "A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate polities should be more scientific." Claims to authority, alone, don't overcome an absence of research to back the belief system held by those who signed the letter. Further, insisting that uncorroborated beliefs should carry equal weight to published peer-reviewed work is what would politicize climate science and crowd out the science from political discussion of climate-related policies. By rejecting science, the appeals to authority of these letter writers ring hollow. They continued, "The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic." This is the old, 'earth has warmed, earth has cooled, therefore humanity can have no role in climate' argument. In reality, the existence of natural drivers for past changes in climate do not in any way preclude anthropogenic drivers today. Indeed, there's no difference in the physical impact of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere whether the greenhouse gases reach that atmosphere via nature processes or are emitted by human activities. Can Lindzen et al., explain by CO2 released via natural processes from under the earth or the very same CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels should somehow be different? Human activities explains the rising concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases. It is that development that provides the radiative forcing responsible for most or all of the ongoing warming. Solar Irradiance: Source: IPCC Why have global temperatures decoupled from solar irradiance? Lindzen et al., have no answer. Instead, they expect the UN Secretary-General to take it on blind faith, alone, that today's warming is of natural origins. It isn't. Changes in radiative forcing (1750-2011): Source: IPCC Why won't Lindzen et al., explain what it means that the overwhelming increase in radiative forcing results from anthropogenic causes? Because it would shatter their belief system. Finally, if one runs a literature search, even using Google Scholar with its limitations, one finds the vast majority of papers in the past decade have indicated that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions explain most or all of the recent warming. To suggest that "very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic" suggests that one has either stopped reading the research for at least the last decade or is deliberately ignoring the research. In sum, the UN Secretary-General should ignore the letter. That 500 individuals have signed a letter seeking to divert the UN's attention from the overwhelming consensus of climate science today means little. That they have tried to establish standing by proclaiming themselves "knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields" also means little when they bring no evidence to back their claims while ignoring the enormous body of evidence that establishes that much or all of today's warming is the result of anthropogenic factors. What matters is the empirical evidence. The letter comes without evidence, because there is no serious evidence any longer that puts the fundamental conclusion related to anthropogenic warming in doubt. Residual uncertainties remain, but they also do not put into question the fundamental understanding of climate science today.