donsutherland1

The attack on Dr. Michael E. Mann, one of the world's most-cited and visible climate scientists, provides just another illustration of the intellectual, scientific, and moral bankruptcy of the shrinking climate denial movement. That movement's success rests on total rejection of science, complete repudiation of evidence, and wholesale perversion of truth. Its arguments have nothing to do with science, evidence, or truth. Its arguments are nothing more than unsubstantiated (and more often, repeatedly discredited) public relations talking points aimed at confusing the public and raising doubt. The shrinking climate denial movement is currently engaged in an all-out noisy "Battle of Bulge" disinformation campaign. Its propaganda has largely recycled the discredited arguments made by the tobacco industry in the 1960s to counter unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of the link between smoking and, among other adverse health impacts, lung cancer. In this case, it seeks to evade the overwhelming and still growing body of scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, its causes, and its consequences. The climate denial movement does not seek to advance arguments through scientific peer review. Doing so would be futile, because its arguments could not survive rigorous scientific examination. In addition, doing so would not serve its purposes, because that movement is not interested in productive endeavors such as knowledge creation, along with the enormous positive spillovers that arise from new knowledge translated into innovation. That movement has a single goal: Sustain an indefensible status quo at all costs. Thus, its target audience is the general public, not the scientific community or others who have expertise in the field. The climate denial movement understands that as long as it can raise doubts among the general public, not all of whom are scientifically literate and many of whom are not connected to the scientific community, it is well-positioned to thwart effective public policy responses to the severe challenge of climate change. So long as the public policy landscape remains frozen in time, that movement can reap additional profits made possible from the status quo, while remorselessly shifting the burden of the costs of those destructive activities to future generations. The climate denial movement is nothing more than the 21st century version of the "tobacco prophets" who tilted against the windmills of scientific and medical understanding. The climate denial movement is not scientific. It is not noble. Its intentions are not good. Just as those who knowingly and tenaciously fought to deprive the public of knowledge of the devastating health-related risks of smoking, the climate denial movement knowingly aims to imprison society in a status quo that is hazardous to the economic, financial, and social well being of humanity, not to mention biodiversity. That movement has no concern whatsoever for the future generations who will be left to bear the full consequences of that movement's ruinous efforts.

Why the "LOL?" Mann has been among the most prolific, influential, and widely-cited climate researchers, including in recent years. His work has been cited more than 35,000 times, including more than 12,000 times since 2015.

Yes. I agree with you.

Some excerpts from a timely interview with Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann: JAISAL NOOR: So you actually traveled to Australia to study the links between climate change and extreme weather events. You didn’t go to cover what’s happening now, but describe what you have discovered since you’ve been there. MICHAEL MANN: Yeah. It’s a bit surreal, because this trip, this sabbatical, was more than a year in the making. And indeed my goal was to come here to Australia to collaborate with some Australian scientists and understanding the scientific linkages between climate change and extreme weather events in Australia. And of course, ironically I arrived at the time that Australia was experiencing perhaps the most extreme weather on record in the form of unprecedented heat across the continent. And of course these unprecedented bush fires that are literally spreading across the continent. I’ve witnessed these impacts firsthand here in Sydney where I’m staying. Yesterday, I couldn’t go outside and take my usual daily run because the air quality was dangerous from all the smoke that was blowing in from these wildfires. And so here in Sydney, climate change isn’t just some theoretical construct. It’s something that is playing out in real time. I can look out my window and see it... JAISAL NOOR: Now have we reached a tipping point when it comes to climate change and these catastrophes that are unfolding not only in Australia but you see around the world. You see this growing devastation that natural disasters are causing. And is it possible to reverse this at this point? What would that look like? MICHAEL MANN: Yeah, so there is the danger of tipping points. You know when things get dry enough and hot enough, you can see a very dramatic escalation of these wildfires and bush fires here in Australia. And arguably that’s what we’re seeing in California and the Western US. That’s what we’re seeing here in Australia and in any many other regions around the world where summers are getting hot enough and dry enough that you just see this almost exponential escalation in these wildfires. So we may indeed be starting to cross a tipping point where, in the very best case, we are dealing with the new norm. That is to say, if we stop warming the planet and we sort of stabilize temperatures, we don’t worsen the problem. https://therealnews.com/stories/australia-fire-denying-climate-change-wont-save-you

There has definitely been arson. However, the disinformation being circulated is a claim that 90% or more of the fires are the result of arson (not lightning, not accident, etc.).

Yes, I did read about how the bots are spreading disinformation. Social Media platforms may be the battleground where the dying climate denial movement is making its last stand. Science has already triumphed in the research publications field (though pseudo-journals may be launched to try to create confusion) and it has made major gains among numerous media outlets (except mainly for ideology- or interest-driven ones). Nevertheless, ignorance-driven movements typically prove unsustainable in the long-term when knowledge becomes widely-diffused. Unfortunately, when it comes to addressing the challenges of anthropogenic climate change, early significant progress is needed, due to the long atmospheric residence of some greenhouse gases and the increase in forcing associated with their increasing atmospheric concentration. There is real urgency for society--on a global basis--to begin to make serious efforts to address the challenge. But, for now, with some exceptions, there remains a leadership deficit and the impact of that deficit is compounded by the noise of the shrinking but still loud climate change denial movement (and the interests, some with vast financial resources, that have a vested stake in its goals).

It appears that the shrinking climate change denial movement--what's left of it--is becoming downright nasty and condescending, especially toward women who have vast expertise in the field (including those on the forefront of research). One Twitter exchange that highlights the problem: https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/1214367143837544448 Let's take a look at the two women who were told they should "spend some time in meteorology and climatology classrooms" via Twitter. Dr. Jacquelyn Gill is an ice age expert with extensive published peer-reviewed research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KAZsZhIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Dr. Kate Marvel is a NASA climate scientist with a PhD in theoretical particle physics. She has an extensive range of published peer-review research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cC8JXpQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao But what about the critic? The one who all but implied that the two women have little or no relevant knowledge? What about his body of research? The absence of a link to his peer-reviewed research is no accident. The critic has no peer reviewed research that can be found. Of course, that didn't stop him from telling Drs. Gill and Marvel to "spend some time" to learn about meteorology and climate. Put another way, expertise and evidence are irrelevant in the world of climate change denial. That world is endangered by expertise and evidence. This Social Media exchange is just another pathetic death rattle of a movement that has no relevant knowledge of climate/climate change and, therefore, no meaningful contribution to make to the scientific discourse. Despite its fatal flaws, it is desperate to overturn the now overwhelming body of evidence behind scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. Thus, detours aimed at discrediting and delegitimizing climate scientists are pursued. Those efforts cannot succeed. The problem the climate change denial movement faces is that the public now has access to who has published peer-reviewed research. Thus, the public, or those who seek to be informed and who possess information literacy skills to pursue the facts, can readily sort out the genuine experts from the climate change denial bomb throwers who offer little but attacks. Spoiler alert: The experts are the very scientists being assailed.

As the world's largest ocean, most of the world's oceanic heat content is there. That's why what happens in the Pacific region can have global consequences. Extreme developments in the Atlantic can also have a global impact, at times, but the Atlantic's overall influence is notably less than that of the Pacific.

I suspect that what's going on in Australia is a product of larger developments (including the steady expansion of SSTA changes in the Pacific) that is increasing the MJO's stay in the Maritime Continent phases. That outcome further tilts the probabilities toward a warmer winter outcome than would otherwise be the case.

It is horrific. Another terrible weekend lies ahead.

I agree concerning Antarctic ice melt accelerating. I was focused on the Arctic. Australia remains on a bad climate and bad policy course (still expanding coal production). It remains uncertain whether this season's historic fire season will prove to be a political game-changer there.

My guess based on what's happened from 2000 onward and the climate papers I've read is that a general decline will continue at varying rates. The average rate might slow somewhat from the most rapid average rate seen during the last 10 years, but the 2012 minimum extent figure will be surpassed during the 2020s, and maybe more than once. Arctic warming will continue with aggressive feedbacks. I don't see a plausible mechanism that might materially slow the rate at which it is warming right now, though maybe others can identify one if it exists.

Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann's op-ed from Australia where he will be conducting research: The brown skies I observed in the Blue Mountains this week are a product of human-caused climate change. Take record heat, combine it with unprecedented drought in already dry regions and you get unprecedented bushfires like the ones engulfing the Blue Mountains and spreading across the continent. It’s not complicated. The warming of our planet – and the changes in climate associated with it – are due to the fossil fuels we’re burning: oil, whether at midnight or any other hour of the day, natural gas, and the biggest culprit of all, coal. That’s not complicated either... Australians need only wake up in the morning, turn on the television, read the newspaper or look out the window to see what is increasingly obvious to many – for Australia, dangerous climate change is already here. It’s simply a matter of how much worse we’re willing to allow it to get. Australia is experiencing a climate emergency. It is literally burning. It needs leadership that is able to recognise that and act. And it needs voters to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/02/australia-your-country-is-burning-dangerous-climate-change-is-here-with-you-now And a link to commentary by Nerilie Abram, investigator at the ARC Center of Excellence for Climate Extremes and an associate professor at the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/australias-angry-summer-this-is-what-climate-change-looks-like/ 2019 was Australia's warmest and driest year on record.

A report by Goldman Sachs on climate change: https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/pages/gs-research/taking-the-heat/report.pdf

One shouldn't be surprised that Heller, who has no scientific background, would imply that the winter freeze suggests a healthy Arctic sea ice situation. The difference between the 12/23 extent and minimum extent is largely the result of a very low minimum figure. According to Heller's logic, 2012 would have been seen as a fantastic year, as sea ice extent increased by nearly 8.7 million square kilometers by December 23. Of course, 2012 saw a record low minimum extent figure of just under 3.2 million square kilometers. In fact, the 12/1-23 average of 11.144 million square kilometers is the 3rd lowest on record and is nearly 3% below the 2000-19 average. This is not a healthy Arctic sea ice situation. If multi-year "old" ice were increasing, that would be newsworthy. The annual refreeze in 2019 is not.

Thanks for the kind words and Holiday wishes. I hope your family and you have a great Holiday season.

There's a fallacy that complexity of making weather forecasts at extended ranges means that climate forecasts years out are essentially not possible to make. A closer look is in order for purposes of a quick sketch. Take for example, New York City (Central Park). Let's say one is seeking to forecast the high temperature on January 1, 2020. The highest maximum temperature on record is 62°, which occurred in 1966. The lowest maximum temperature on record is 10° from 1918. The 0z GFS forecast a high of 36°. The historic range is 1.4 times the forecast high. Finally, let's say one is seeking to forecast the 2020 annual mean temperature. The warmest such reading was 57.4° in 2012. The coldest such reading was 49.5° in 1875 and 1888. Since 2000, the mean has averaged 55.7°. If one uses that estimate, the range of error is just under 0.15 times the estimate. That latter situation is the type of situation one is dealing with when it comes to making climate projections. Thus, the fallacy of synoptic complexity's precluding climate forecasts does not apply. When it comes to climate (and climate change) there are widely-established drivers of climate: solar and greenhouse gases are among the most important. Therefore, if one gets the forcings right, one should get a reasonable projection of the climate. Well, that's exactly what the research shows. Climate models have proved skillful. Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyse the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally-estimated forcings were taken into account. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378 Key takeaway: Climate should not be viewed through a synoptic lens. Finally, the physical properties of carbon dioxide are well-established. There's no serious scientific debate on that matter. Therefore, it should make little difference whether carbon dioxide is released through natural mechanisms or if human activities release carbon dioxide. The molecules should behave in the same fashion, not follow different rules depending on whether they were emitted into the atmosphere via volcanic eruptions or the burning of fossil fuels.

It won't melt immediately and could take centuries to do so. Nevertheless, it appears that humanity is committing itself to a course that could lead to that outcome given little or no response to the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (projected to have increased another 0.6% this year). The latest Arctic Report Card provides a glimpse of what is currently happening in the Arctic. https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/ArcticReportCard/Documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2019.pdf

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.