donsutherland1

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.

Yesterday was also Utqiagvik's 94th day of the year above freezing (highlighted by the 85-consecutive day streak). That surpassed the previous mark of 93, which was set in 1998.

Update... Bastardi has deleted the retweeted image concerning Greta Thunberg. Perhaps the many calling it out on Twitter and elsewhere on Social Media led to this outcome. A tweeted apology to Ms. Thunberg would have been nice, but at least the offensive image is gone.

Rising and increasingly vicious personal attacks on Greta Thunberg who has played a pivotal role in building a global youth movement aimed at persuading policy makers to address climate change are contemptible. They also offer fresh indications that science is advancing and those who seek to align public policy with science are making progress. The increasingly unhinged responses of the climate change denial crowd reveal that they are out of anything resembling climate, meteorological, or other scientific ammunition, as their discredited cause is anti-science at its core. That Ms. Thunberg is now being loosely associated with the Nazis via a conspiracy theory of her being placed in her position via the Left (even as Nazism was on the Far Right) is particularly reprehensible. Yet, it's happening. https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1175948680253362178 Whether this will prove the low water mark so to speak remains to be seen. After all, the climate change denier movement is frightened with its loss of ability to influence, terrified of a move away from the status quo, naked before science, and desperate for relevance. For now, it has moved into the dark shadows of conspiracy theories (almost certainly the environment in which the remnants of that movement will persist after society has moved on) and it seeks the personal destruction of those who stand for science. Historic experience is not on its side.

Climate change denier dishonesty increases as youth ratchet up pressure for governments to prioritize, tackle climate change... The Guardian reported: A hoax photo that claims to show rubbish left behind by Australian climate strike protesters is circulating on Facebook, despite being revealed as fake months ago. Though it lacks any verification, and was debunked in April, the image and false caption have been shared 19,000 times in 12 hours, and thousands of times from copycats. On Friday, an estimated 300,000 Australians, and millions of people around the world, took part in protests against inaction on the climate emergency. Hours later, an Australian pro-coal page reposted the photo, which originated in April. It was captioned: "Look at the mess today’s climate protesters left behind in beautiful Hyde Park." However, the photo is not from a climate strike, not from Friday and was not taken in Australia. It is from a marijuana-based festival called 420 held in London in April 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/21/climate-strikes-hoax-photo-accusing-australian-protesters-of-leaving-rubbish-behind-goes-viral Of course, one should not be surprised by this outcome. The scientific evidence for ongoing warming is overwhelming. The conclusion concerning the anthropogenic cause of the ongoing warming is unequivocal. No serious scientist disputes the fundamentals, even as the field recognizes residual uncertainties exist. As the rising youth movement for tackling climate change cannot be discredited by scientific evidence, the gradually shrinking pool of climate change deniers has resorted to deception. The resort to such tactics only serves to further illustrate the intellectual and scientific bankruptcy of those who deny climate change.

Personally, I think the mechanisms by which policy makers look to the future and devise policy are deeply flawed, untethered from meaningful prioritization (largely ignore the opportunity costs of doing nothing), and confined in at least semi-closed personal belief systems. The new UN synthesis report on climate change shows that dramatic changes need to be made to limit warming to 1.5C or 2.5C. The report also notes carbon emissions are not expected to peak by 2020 or even 2030. Having said that, history is filled with examples of overcome challenges and today's youth movement may well mark the early stages of a restoration of effective political leadership that is capable and willing to address big challenges.

IMO, if the focus is shifted to one of capitalism vs. socialism, that will be a recipe for preserving the status quo. Instead, the emphasis needs to be on addressing the challenge of climate change, not trying to use that challenge to pursue unrelated political goals. Like you, I believe nuclear power will be an important piece of any coherent approach to addressing climate change.

Just so there's no confusion, everyone enjoys free speech under the U.S. Constitution. However, the guarantee of free speech does not mandate that publications grant one's views equal weight to all other views. Thus, disproved or discredited theories typically won't appear in the scientific journals. They also won't be touted in the larger mainstream media. Still, that does not mean that those who hold such beliefs cannot enjoy their right to free speech. That's a crucial distinction.

One other statistic: Utqiagvik had 55 days with low temperatures of 40 or higher. The old record was 32.

The low sea ice and resulting Arctic amplification is a big reason why Utqiakvik (Barrow) had its latest first freeze on record (9/19 vs. the old record of 9/7) and has a chance of registering its first September with a mean temperature of 40° or above. The current monthly record is 37.7°.

On JAXA, Arctic sea ice extent had increased further to 4.054 million square kilometers on September 20. It is increasingly likely that the 3.964 million square kilometers measured on September 17 will prove to be the 2019 minimum figure. That would be the second lowest minimum extent on record.

To be fair, some of the big breakthroughs that led to contemporary understanding of anthropogenic climate change i.e., Hansen's work, Mann's proxy research, etc., were still years in the future. Today' scientific understanding of the fundamentals of climate change is unequivocal. Yet, there's a large gap between the urgent realities of the continuing rapid rise of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and political will. For at least the next 5 or perhaps even 10 years, the unfortunate reality is that a path pretty close to the status quo is probably the base case for policy. I very much hope my dreary assessment is wrong, because delay only magnifies the scale of an already great challenge.

Thank you for the kind words. Perhaps, as the number of climate scientists expands and the field increases in scale, such a professional organization will be established. Certainly, it would be beneficial, as the AMA has played an invaluable role in the medical field. I'm not sure how a Cabinet-level department can be safeguarded from political bias from a determined President/hostile Administration. In recent years, the EPA has essentially been stripped of its climate-related work and other federal scientists involved in climate-related research have been hindered or worse (e.g., the Department of Agriculture's climate research group). Congress has been unwilling or unable to protect them.

As the world's youth engage in demonstrations to break the unwillingness of policy makers to meaningfully launch a sustained effort to address the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, some of those with high profiles in the shrinking movement that rejects the overwhelming and unequivocal basis of climate change, are now launching broad ad hominem attacks against the youth, particularly 16-year-old Swede Greta Thunberg. One denier, who has no known medical degree or any expertise in the field of psychiatry, diagnosed 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, who has galvanized the international youth movement, as "mentally ill." Another dehumanized her, labeling her a "puppet" while gloating about rising global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet another mocked her as a child who enjoys "sacred status" only due to her youth. What do these ad hominem attacks by such climate change deniers as Bjorn Lomborg, Steve Milloy, and Tom Nelson say? First, they demonstrate that they lack credible evidence or knowledge to rebut the overwhelming and unequivocal body of scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change. They cannot explain the observed warming. They cannot escape the reality that solar irradiance has not increased to produce such warming. Second, it reveals that individuals who have less exposure to the consequences of climate change than the youth simply don't care about the future to which they seek to confine the world's young people and succeeding generations. After all, by the end of the 21st century when the consequences of climate change will be growing ever more severe, those reactionaries will have long departed this world. Third, it potentially says a lot about their character and who they are as people. A recent article published in The New Republic explains the underlying dynamic that may be driving those who engage in the nasty attacks aimed at tearing down the youth, a disproportionate share of whom are female, leading today's climate change movement. As Thunberg approached America, she was followed by a tsunami of male rage. On her first day of sailing, a multi-millionaire Brexit activist tweeted that he wished a freak accident would destroy her boat. A conservative Australian columnist called her a “deeply disturbed messiah of the global warming movement,” while the British far-right activist David Vance attacked the “sheer petulance of this arrogant child.” While these examples might feel like mere coincidence to some, the idea that white men would lead the attacks on Greta Thunberg is consistent with a growing body of research linking gender reactionaries to climate-denialism... In 2014, Jonas Anshelm and Martin Hultman of Chalmers published a paper analyzing the language of a focus group of climate skeptics. The common themes in the group, they said, were striking: “for climate skeptics … it was not the environment that was threatened, it was a certain kind of modern industrial society built and dominated by their form of masculinity.” The connection has to do with a sense of group identity under threat, Hultman told me—an identity they perceive to be under threat from all sides. Besieged, as they see it, both by developing gender equality—Hultman pointed specifically to the shock some men felt at the #MeToo movement—and now climate activism’s challenge to their way of life, male reactionaries motivated by right-wing nationalism, anti-feminism, and climate denialism increasingly overlap, the three reactions feeding off of one another. That reactionaries would assail those leading a reform movement is not new. When Martin Luther King, Jr. was leading the American Civil Rights movement during the 1960s, he and many of those involved in the movement, encountered vicious attacks aimed at delegitimizing the movement and violence aimed at suppressing it altogether. Once one looks beyond the noise and ugliness of the dying climate change denial movement of today, there is reason for optimism. Today's engaged youth appear to be embarked in sustained pursuit of a long-term goal supported by overwhelming empirical evidence. In other words, the movement won't end with today's demonstration. Today's youth have also demonstrated a capacity to leverage the Internet and Social Media to organize intensively across national borders to take on what is a global, not national, challenge. This capacity will serve them well as they become of voting age and enter the political realm. That advancing scientific knowledge has prevailed across time offers the prospect that the youth will ultimately prevail in their cause. Perhaps in decades from now, just as the Segregationists were permanently discarded onto the proverbial trash heap of history, so will the climate deniers, particularly those who engaged in the vile and reprehensible conduct cited in the above examples. In stark contrast, just as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s place in history as a reformer who advanced human welfare is secure, the place of Greta Thunberg, among the other organizers of today's demonstrations, will also be secure. Most importantly, the world will be far better off from the courage, effort, and persistence of the youth who made that better world possible.

That the climate is dynamic (has always changed and would continually change absent an anthropogenic influence) does not mean that humans aren't the predominant driver of the contemporary change. The evidence of the dramatic ongoing warming and the anthropogenic nature are overwhelming and unequivocal. Solar irradiance has not materially increased since 1950. Global temperatures have decoupled from solar irradiance. Unlike with a solar driver, where all levels of the atmosphere warm on account of an increase in incoming shortwave radiation, the stratosphere has been cooling while the troposphere has been warming. That is a classic fingerprint of greenhouse gases emitting some of the earth's outgoing longwave radiation back to the surface. This imbalance is leading to warming. http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php The physical properties of carbon dioxide were discovered back in the 19th century. Their atmospheric concentration has increased dramatically from 316 ppm in 1959 to just under 409 ppm in 2018 at the Mauna Loa Observatory. No natural variables can explain this increase. Human emissions, not all of which are absorbed by carbon sinks, do. When atmospheric greenhouse gases are included, the recent warming is represented very well. There is a very high coefficient of determination between the greenhouse gases and temperature (as one would expect from the demonstrated physical properties of such gases). https://climexp.knmi.nl/imageoftheweek.png This strong relationship is part of the reason the shrinking minority who rejects the reality of anthropogenic climate change often attempt to discredit the temperature records. They have no scientifically-valid alternative explanation for the warming. Hence, they try to get around that barrier by discounting or denying the warming. Of course, even if no temperature record existed, trends in declining Arctic sea ice, migration of flora, general retreat of glaciers, rising sea level, etc., are all consistent with a warming world.

Yesterday, Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) experienced its first freeze of the season. That was its latest freeze on record. The prior record was September 7, 2009. As a result, that city's 85-consecutive day stretch above freezing ended. The old record was 68 consecutive days, set in 2009. Both records are likely, in large part, due to low Arctic sea ice.

On September 19, Arctic sea ice extent rose further to 4.010 million square kilometers on JAXA. It is possible that the minimum extent for 2019 has been reached. Whether that is, in fact the case, will become evident in coming days.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent: September 18, 2019 vs. September 18, 1989: Source: NSIDC