donsutherland1

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.

The high temperatures at Yakutat, Alaska for the past three days and for today (preliminary value) were: December 13: 56° (old record: 49°, 2017) December 14: 58° (old record: 49°, 2017) December 15: 61° (old record: 48°, 2005) December 16: 57° (old record: 50°, 2005) All four days exceeded the previous December record high temperature of 52°, which had been set on December 8, 1960. The 61° temperature yesterday broke the meteorological winter record of 58°, which was set on January 19, 1930 and tied on December 14, 2019 and was also above the November monthly record of 59°, which was set on November 1, 1947. Prior to yesterday, the latest 60° temperature on record occurred on October 13, 1969 when the temperature reached 60°. Daily records go back to May 1, 1917.

I don't think one can be certain about how much of the needed CO2 can be absorbed. IMO, until the risks are better understood, society should probably avoid such approaches unless absolutely necessary.

Such a geoengineering approach, not withstanding other risks that may or may not be known, would only capture a fraction of the annual CO2 emissions per year (around one-eighth). That assumes one could produce enough iron sulfate for maximum effect. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon

I'm not as pessimistic, though I have worries given how impotent and unwilling today's generation of leaders (political and business) are in addressing the challenge of anthropogenic climate change. Addressing climate change should not require "phasing out civilization." It does entail some significant changes. Among those changes are a transition to cleaner fuels, increased energy efficiency, a carbon tax/elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, etc. In my view, were the same leaders involved in tackling the problem of anthropogenic climate change today, credible, binding, and concrete commitments would have been undertaken. They understood what today's leaders don't, namely that today's choices have consequences for tomorrow. Consequently, they were not paralyzed by the suffocating short-term thinking that defines today's leaders.

In 1987, humanity was confronted with a growing ozone hole over the Southern Hemisphere and the implication of an inevitable and dramatic rise in skin cancer cases. The world's leaders at that time, even while taking on an existential Cold War struggle, came together in Montreal to adopt a solution to address the problem. A binding commitment to completely phase out the use of CFCs and halons was agreed. That treaty was universally ratified. Since then, much progress has been made. NASA recently revealed: Thirty-two years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of man-made ozone depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons— banned chlorine-containing synthetic compounds that were once frequently used as coolants—continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/2019-ozone-hole-is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery Then, science carried the day. Political leaders made the kind of decisions that fall with responsible leadership. They made no excuses. They did not embrace defeatist conclusions that acting would be economically harmful, much less that nothing could be done. They did not descend into "denialism" or conspiracy theories aimed at alleviating accountability from their shoulders. They acted with conviction. They put the world on a better path. Just three decades later, when confronted by another global challenge--that of anthropogenic climate change--the world's leaders abdicated their responsibility in Madrid. They proved unable to summon the courage, foresight, and leadership to tackle the global challenge of the contemporary era. They chose timidity at a time when no great struggle comparable to the Cold War is raging. Put simply, they failed the test of leadership. They demonstrated that although they hold positions of authority, they lack the capacity and qualities necessary to lead. Instead, they chose to remain passive bystanders to history. They failed as leaders. They failed as people. In their enormous failure to lead, they have substantially magnified the burden they have already left to today's youth and future generations to come. In doing so, they have defined their generation as arguably the most short-sighted one in modern history. They chose to leave the world a worse place than they inherited. Given the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and range of tools available to launch a credible effort to curb then reverse greenhouse gas emissions, their fateful choice is a deliberate one. Ignorance is not a valid defense. At the same time, they have unequivocally made clear to today's youth that the concerns and futures of those youth are to be sacrificed for the preservation of the short-sighted status quo. Given the urgency and gravity of the challenge of anthropogenic climate change, this is a most sad outcome. Urgent problems aren't punted to the future year after year. Great problems are not routinely ignored, much less cloaked in the packaging of brave words disconnected from concrete and credible measures to evade responsibility. Fortunately, as time passes, those who occupy today's positions of leadership will gradually depart those positions. In their wake, future generations will be left with a tremendous mess. The passage of time will determine whether leadership capacity on the global stage merely skipped today's generation of global leaders or whether the absence of leadership capacity is a new and persistent problem. Considering that human nature has changed remarkably little since the emergence of Homo Sapiens, the odds are still high that the contemporary leadership deficit is merely a temporary phenomenon.

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.

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.

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.