donsutherland1

Arctic sea ice extent fell to 3.555 million square kilometers on JAXA.

For another perspective concerning the rising temperatures at Phoenix, if one takes a look at record high and record high-tying maximum temperatures, 167 of those daily records have occurred 2000 or later. Among those, 113 have occurred 2010 or later. These figures are based on 366 days. For the 92–day June-August period, 55 of those records have occurred 2000 or later; 48 have occurred 2010 or later. Phoenix’s daily climate record goes back to August 1895. Under RCP 4.5, Phoenix is projected to have an average high temperature of 107.1 by the mid-2020s. By the mid 2050s, the record-breaking summer of 2020 is projected to be the “new normal” so to speak.

From Rick Thomas: https://twitter.com/AlaskaWx/status/1304864366106349569?s=20

Arctic sea ice extent rose by just under 1,600 square kilometers to 3.564 million square kilometers on JAXA. It will probably be at least a week before it is certain that the 2020 minimum extent has been reached.

From NPR: Legates confirmed to NPR that he was recently hired as NOAA's deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction. The position suggests that he reports directly to Neil Jacobs, the acting head of the agency that is in charge of the federal government's sprawling weather and climate prediction work. Neither Legates nor NOAA representatives responded to questions about Legates' specific responsibilities or why he was hired. The White House also declined to comment. Legates has a long history of using his position as an academic scientist to publicly cast doubt on climate science. His appointment to NOAA comes as Americans face profound threats stoked by climate change, from the vast, deadly wildfires in the West to an unusually active hurricane season in the South and East. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/12/912301325/longtime-climate-science-denier-hired-at-noaa This is a disturbing development. The NOAA has outstanding scientists. Individuals such as Legates (not to mention Jacobs) only undermine the NOAA’s performance and reputation. Hopefully, Congress will weigh in and, if there is a new Administration, Legates would be dismissed.

Apparently, Facebook enforces climate change denial.

Yes. I am aware of the great adversity that has confronted the Millennial Generation (both the financial crisis/great recession and then the pandemic/severe recession). Generation Z, at least the older members, are also facing severe challenges. It would be nice if more from the earlier generations would assist more with climate challenge, but I worry that this won't be the case. Breaking the inertia, despite the overwhelming body of evidence, is frustratingly difficult.

It’s deeply unfortunate. I was in Iceland a few years ago and the people there were had a lot to say about climate change. They mentioned changes that made fishing more difficult, that the year earlier puffins had a difficult time nesting on account of an absence of fish from abnormal warmth and the disappearing glaciers. I was able to see evidence of a vast retreat that had already taken place with some of the glaciers.

If the warming were merely artifacts of statistical manipulation, one would not be witnessing a lengthening of growing seasons, increased frequency of early- and late-season blooms, earlier nesting of numerous species of birds, the losses in mass from Greenland and Antarctica, the declining Arctic sea ice (summer minimum and annual average). In the big picture, even if one didn’t rely on the vast body of research showing the ongoing warming, there would be indications of big change from those other examples.

As noted earlier in this thread, here is a published paper showing that the UAH dataset may be flawed: https://journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-Data-Derived-from

The point about unknown accuracy is crucial. IEM is the Iowa Environmental Mesonet, which “collects environmental data from cooperating members with observing networks.” One is dealing with raw data in many cases. Quality control is vital. No researcher would use data that has not been quality controlled in their work. Homogenization is also important. This paper explains, among other things, what it is and why it is necessary (pp.5-6): https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical Report GHCNM No15-01.pdf The reality is that the quality-controlled data makes clear the extent of the warming that is underway. Such warming is extraordinary in how rapid and dramatic it has been when compared against geological time scales. Thus, efforts have been made to cast doubt on the high quality data. If there were a coherent alternative explanation, papers would already have been written, submitted for peer review and published. But no such alternative case exists.

Great points, Bluewave. The science is clear about the warming and its causes. It is no random occurrence that a disproportionate share of warm years and warm summers has occurred 2000 and later or 2010 or later. This is exactly what one would expect statistically in a climate where greenhouse gas forcing is increasing and, in turn, the world is warming.

From the IEM site: While we use care to provide accurate weather/climatic information, errors may occur because of equipment or other failure. We therefore provide this information without any warranty of accuracy. Users of this weather/climate data do so at their own risk, and are advised to use independent judgement as to whether to verify the data presented. The IEM is a volunteer effort and receives no funds for facilities or staff from Iowa State University or the State of Iowa. Users of the IEM must therefore recognize that the IEM may be discontinued at any time with little or no notice. Errors exist. For example, during Phoenix's recent September heat, I looked up Phoenix's highest hourly readings for September. Several hours listed 117 degrees on September 1, 1950. In fact, the high temperature that day was the September record figure of 116. The August record is 117.

Mean Summer Temperature (Contiguous United States): 30-Year Period Ending: 1950 71.7 1960 71.8 1970 71.3 1980 71.4 1990 71.4 2000 71.5 2010 71.9 2020 72.3 (highest on record) Source: NCEI Data

Those are 1 day anomalies. They are not year-to-date anomalies. 2020 is running very warm and could well wind up the 2nd warmest year on record on the major data sets (GISS, HadCru, NOAA, Berkeley). Below are the year-to-date anomalies:

Arctic sea ice extent was 3.562 million square kilometers on 9/11, which is by far the second lowest figure on record. In addition, it is at a record low in the central Arctic region. https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1304545195820748800?s=20

From LiveScience.com: Now, in a new study published today (Sept. 10) in the journal Science, researchers have analyzed the chemical elements in thousands of foram samples to build the most detailed climate record of Earth ever — and it reveals just how dire our current climate situation is... According to the researchers, the current pace of anthropogenic global warming far exceeds the natural climate fluctuations seen at any other point in the Cenozoic era, and has the potential to hyper-drive our planet out of a long icehouse phase into a searing hothouse state. "Now that we have succeeded in capturing the natural climate variability, we can see that the projected anthropogenic warming will be much greater than that," study co-author James Zachos, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a statement. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections for 2300 in the 'business-as-usual' scenario will potentially bring global temperature to a level the planet has not seen in 50 million years." https://www.livescience.com/oldest-climate-record-ever-cenozoic-era.html

This is a key point. ENSO does not explain either the observed ongoing warming or the larger issue of the earth’s persistent energy imbalance. Foster and Rahmstorf also found that when the effects of factors such as ENSO were removed from the global temperature record, the warming signal remained. In fact, it was stronger. There is no alternative physical basis to explain the warming being driven by increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing.

For context, here are the courses taught in Penn State’s atmospheric science major. I chose Penn State, because of its outstanding program: http://www.met.psu.edu/academics/undergraduate-studies/options-within-the-major/atmospheric-science Here’s the description of Meteo 436: “This course covers radiation and how it interacts with the atmosphere and earth's surface to drive motions in the atmosphere. The fundamentals of radiative transfer at the molecular level, including absorption, scattering, transmission, and emission of radiation by matter, are discussed and applied to help describe the earth's energy budget. Crucial to understanding these processes in the atmosphere are the interactions of radiation with water in the vapor, liquid, and solid states. Applications of radiative transfer to the understanding of seasons and of climate and climate change are presented as well.” http://www.met.psu.edu/intranet/course-syllabi-repository/fall-2015-syllabi/meteo-436-syllabus In short, atmospheric science is, in general, overly narrow for a broad climate science focus. It is highly specialized in its nature. The narrow but specialized focus is a big part of the reason that Penn State graduates excellent meteorologists.

For starters, the climate system is much broader than the atmosphere. It includes the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere. Climate scientists are not meteorologists. They don’t engage in operational weather forecasting. Their work is much broader and it involves long timescales from past to future (projecting scenarios). It is research-intensive. Modeling, as is the case in an array of scientific and non-scientific fields, is increasingly important in climate science. Thus, taking into consideration the broad nature and high research focus of their work, it is not surprising to see the degrees possessed by climate scientists. Andrew Dessler: Physics, chemistry James Hansen: Physics, mathematics, astronomy Michael Mann: Physics, applied mathematics, geology/geophysics Gavin Schmidt (who specializes in modeling): Mathematics and applied mathematics Jessica Tierney (paleoclimatology): Geology

This period will add to the literature. Influence can be skewed by, among other things, personality and capacity for reach. Examples include the numerous demagogic figures in history, the role of certain companies such as the East India Company that impacted British policy or more recently the tobacco companies (and currently fossil fuel companies) and their impact on public policy, and contemporary talk radio hosts who command large audiences despite possessing no expertise in the fields they usually comment on e.g., they all deny climate change. They have built their audiences through a combination of tapping into and festering senses of perceived grievance. Incitement to fear and envy has worked before in fomenting almost tribal divisions and tribal identity, now it is being applied on radio and also select cable TV outlets.

The State of Delaware has filed a lawsuit against 31 fossil fuel organizations seeking compensation for harm caused from greenhouse gas emissions and for harm likely to unfold. The lawsuit notes that the companies being sued knew for 50 years about the adverse consequences of dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It notes that despite this knowledge, the defendants engaged in a campaign of deception and misleading information to undermine public support for addressing greenhouse gas pollution. The complaint can be found here: https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wdel.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/2c/32c98e72-f3aa-11ea-8767-a3c54f1f6015/5f5a9699de2fd.pdf.pdf

It’s far too soon to conclude that clouds will alleviate some of humanity’s burden of addressing climate change. In a few years, the answers to key cloud-related questions might become clearer. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2936/clouds-arctic-crocodiles-and-a-new-climate-model/

Thanks Skierinvermont. I made the correction.

No. Implied TCR should not be confused with TCR associated with a doubling of CO2. From the paper’s supporting information: Implied TCR is defined as the ratio between the change in temperature and the change in external forcing over the model projection period, for both models and observations. It is referred to as ‘implied’ as it differs from the traditional definition of TCR, which is typically based on idealized experiments where CO2 is increased by 1% per year (IPCC 2001).