donsutherland1

On JAXA, Arctic sea ice extent has fallen to 4.054 million square kilometers. That is just below the 2007 minimum figure and is the third lowest minimum figure on record.

Just so there’s no confusion, my point dealt with temperatures on a global basis. At that time, I noted records in parts of Finland, Norway, and Russia.

I agree. Almost certainly, multiple reasons including personal experience, have contributed to the shifting opinions. Those opinions are consistent with scientific understanding. However, scientific understanding, alone, very likely hasn't driven the trend. A poll that probes the shift would be interesting. It would also be helpful to scientists who have been trying to communicate the message against the noise of the climate change denial movement.

Despite the loud and ferocious campaign led by the shrinking climate change denial movement, the latest polling suggests that the American people are increasingly reaching climate-related conclusions based on science. A new Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll revealed, among other things, that 79% of respondents recognize that human activity is causing climate change and that 76% believe climage change is a major problem or crisis (38% each) vs. 59% in 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/washington-post-kaiser-family-foundation-climate-change-survey-july-9-aug-5-2019/601ed8ff-a7c6-4839-b57e-3f5eaa8ed09f/

Time has devoted an entire issue to climate change under the provocative title "2050: The Fight for Earth." The publication contains a wide range of articles ranging from a fairly optimistic piece by Bill McKibben of a scenario where the world was able to avert the worst of climate change to an article by Penn State professor of atmospheric science and director of its Earth System Science Center, Michael Mann who writes that lifestyle changes, alone, are insufficient to address the challenge of climate change. Not every article is science-related. However, the content is based on the dual premises that (1) the world is warming and (2) anthropogenic activities are largely responsible for that warming. Every serious data set shows that there has been an observed and persistent warming. The scientific evidence pointing to the anthropogenic basis of that warming is overwhelming. Put another way, all serious scientific debate has been settled on the core issues of whether the world is warming (it is) and whether human activities are largely responsible (they are). Residual uncertainties related to feedbacks such as the rate and impact of glacial retreat and non-linear questions concerning the rate of sea level increase remain to be resolved. But the overall reality of climate change and the anthropogenic driver of climate change are established beyond any serious scientific dispute. Therefore, just as astronomers today accept that the earth revolves around the sun, the magazine proceeds from the climate foundation that has been demonstrated by science. Just as astrophysics gives no weight to disproved belief systems of the past related to the solar system, the magazine ignores disproved denial of climate change. Fiction has no place in the important public discourse, especially that related to a big issue such as the world's changing climate. In building from the firm foundation of scientific understanding, Time seeks to provide a broad portrait of climate change as it continues to play out. Its articles include a degree of science. They also talk about human society and human health. Overall, Time's focus on one of today's biggest issues makes an important contribution to public discussion.

This is disappointing, but not surprising. It was clear from the onset that the unattributed NOAA statement was a political statement. That the origins are being traced to the White House can be expected given how forcefully and persistently the President clung to his erroneous statement concerning Dorian and Alabama.

Today's edition of The Washington Post has a feature story on climate change. In part, the story notes: The mysterious blob covers 130,000 square miles of ocean, an area nearly twice as big as this small country. And it has been heating up extremely rapidly — by over 2 degrees Celsius — or 2C — over the past century, double the global average. At its center, it's grown even hotter, warming by as much as 3 degrees Celsius, according to one analysis. The entire global ocean is warming, but some parts are changing much faster than others — and the hot spot off Uruguay is one of the fastest. It was first identified by scientists in 2012, but it is still poorly understood and has received virtually no public attention... The South Atlantic blob is part of a global trend: Around the planet, enormous ocean currents are traveling to new locations. As these currents relocate, waters are growing warmer. Scientists have found similar hot spots along the western stretches of four other oceans — the North Atlantic, the North Pacific, the South Pacific, and the Indian... The fastest-warming zones include the Arctic, much of the Middle East, Europe and northern Asia, and key expanses of ocean. A large part of Canada is at 2C or higher. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-world/ Following a historically hot summer, at the time of this article's publication, parts of Europe are engulfed in their fourth bout of record-breaking heat since June. Record temperatures were set in numerous parts of Finland, Norway, and western Russia earlier today. And in a recurrent theme, the number of daily record high temperatures vastly exceeded the number of daily record low temperatures. Svolvaer and Tromso, both in Norway, even tied their highest September temperatures on record. Although the scientific evidence for climate change and its anthropogenic basis is now overwhelming, some persist, especially on Social Media such as Twitter, to deny what is now undeniable when one rationally and objectively considers the scientific evidence. While many of those on Social Media lack scientific backgrounds and/or understanding, and this critique excludes them for that reason, some are involved in science-related fields where, unless they had not kept up with the advances in the literature since the 1970s, there is no defensible scientific reason to push back against the findings related to climate change. Perhaps astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson described that phenomenon quite well when he observed, "When scientifically investigating the natural world, the only thing worse than a blind believer is a seeing denier." He continued, "When people believe a tale that conflicts with self-checkable evidence it tells me that people undervalue the role of evidence in formulating an internal belief system." That gets to the heart of the matter. The "internal belief system" of climate change denial--and it's a non-scientific belief system, as the evidence for climate change and its anthropogenic nature, even respecting residual uncertainties, is now unequivocal--is sustained by a fundamental rejection of evidence.

No. The underlying data is publicly available. That wasn’t the issue. The data can be found here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

As far as I know, the case never got to the merits of the issue.

I have no issue with the chart itself. It was likely accurate at the time it was made. Today, it is obsolete.

Earlier today, Joe Bastardi tweeted a global temperature chart that ends in 1995. It's unclear whether he recognized when the chart ended. The link to @tan123 brings one to a widely-known climate change denier. https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1171386083051016193 The chart is misleading. The world has continued to warm since then. The 2018 global temperature anomaly was 0.40°C (0.72°F) above the 1995 figure (+0.85°C/1.53°F in 2018 vs. +0.45°C/+0.81°F in 1995). Further, to remove the noise of internal variability, the 30-year moving average in 2018 had increased to +0.57°C (+1.03°F) from +0.16°C (+0.29°F) in 1995. The red line on the bottom chart depicts the 1995 global temperature to help illustrate how things have changed since then. All temperature data is from the GISTEMP data set. Finally, the linear trend line shows an annual increase of +0.021°C (+0.038°F) since 1995. The coefficient of determination is 0.75.

In his blog article, Spencer claims, "(And, no, there is no fingerprint of human-caused warming. All global warming, whether natural or human-caused, looks about the same...)" http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/the-faith-component-of-global-warming-predictions/ His understanding is badly dated. The accumulating evidence strongly suggests otherwise. 1. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has been rising steadily. 2. No natural factor to explain this outcome has been identified. It does, however, have a strong correlation with greenhouse gas emissions by humanity (not all of which are being absorbed in sinks). https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ 3. The 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere has been decreasing. CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are of the 12C isotope. That declining ratio offers overwhelming evidence that the origin of the rising atmospheric concentration in CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/iso-sio.html?pagewanted=all 4. The climate models best represent recent warming when rising greenhouse gas forcing is included. There has been a decoupling between global temperature trends and natural forcings. That the evidence demonstrates that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2 provides an unmistakable "fingerprint" of the anthropogenic cause of the ongoing warming).

There are two big issues with the above commentary: 1. A 5%-10% probability of tropical storm-force winds in the far southeast portion of Alabama is far from a "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated" scenario. 2. Had the President simply acknowledged that he misspoke (an issue that was corrected by BMX in a timely and sufficiently forceful fashion to regain control over sentiment as the Office was being bombarded by calls from worried Alabama residents) or refrained from commenting on the issue, the matter would never have spiraled to its present state. However, he took a different approach and, IMO, the worst possible one.

If politics can be permitted to supplant science when it comes to weather forecasting, it is or should be an open question whether politics will be permitted to displace unfavorable economic data at some future point in time. This is a bad and damaging precedent, not just for the scientists/meteorologists who have been adversely impacted, but for the U.S. public who relies on them.

The current estimated sea level rise is 3.7 mm per year. The full data can be found at: https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/mean-sea-level/products-images.html

The public information statement concerning Dorian's winds is not official data. Those data and other data will be subject to quality control before any data is finalized. Such quality-controlled figures will be part of the National Hurricane Center's report on Dorian. Because of the unofficial nature of the data, public information statements often carry the following disclaimer or others like it, "The following are unofficial observations taken during the past 24 hours for the storm that has been affecting our region..."

Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) has seen a dramatic increase in the number of days each year where the temperature stays above freezing. Much of the increase has come recently, as summer Arctic sea ice has declined markedly from prior levels. The change in the 30-year moving averages (to remove the noise of interannual variability) for the number of such days provides further illustration of the dramatic warming that is underway in the Arctic region. For the 1961-90 base period, the 30-year moving average was 43.9 days. For the latest 30-year period (1989-2018), the moving average has increased to 63.4 days. That's a nearly 20-day increase over a remarkably short period of time. Through September 3, Utqiagvik has had 76 days with temperatures above freezing. The last time Utqiagvik had fewer than 50 days above freezing was 2003. In 2007, the minimum Arctic sea ice extent fell below 5 million square kilometers for the first time (JAXA data set). Since then, only 2009 has had a minimum extent of 5 million square kilometers (5.054 million square kilometers). As of September 3, Arctic sea ice extent was 4.175 million square kilometers. During the "low ice" era that commenced in 2007, Utquiavik has averaged 76.8 days per year (2007-18) with above freezing temperatures. Through September 3, Utqiagvik had a record 70 consecutive days where the temperature has stayed above freezing. The old record was 68 consecutive days from July 1-September 6, 2009. Prior to 2009, there were no cases with 60 or more consecutive days above freezing.

I included a chart for AO-/EPO- summers (averages are based on all days that met both criteria). That historically warm pattern has also grown warmer.

Let me rephrase things a little. The pattern was not forecast to be especially unfavorable to ice reduction. The forecast showed fluctuations in the NAM, not a persistent anomaly. One would have needed a fairly extraordinary development to lead to an unprecedented early end to melt season. The MAN had been forecast to slide back toward neutral during the first week of September. All other things being equal, that suggested reductions in Arctic sea ice would continue probably for another week and perhaps two.

As you noted correctly, had there been an August minimum, it would have been unprecedented. Since 8/31, Arctic sea ice extent has continued to decline. That a piece of guidance would suggest an unprecedented situation, moreso when the upper air pattern had been forecast to grow more favorable for continued reductions in sea ice, raises some questions about the model itself. I'm not sure what the track record of the model in question is, but this is a high profile miss. Overall, forecasting of sea ice minimums remains a fairly low skill endeavor at present.

With Hurricane Dorian's historic intensification, it is a good time to point to an article in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate from last fall. The article noted that one can expect more intense storms on account of climate change. Abstract: As one of the first global coupled climate models to simulate and predict category 4 and 5 (Saffir–Simpson scale) tropical cyclones (TCs) and their interannual variations, the High-Resolution Forecast-Oriented Low Ocean Resolution (HiFLOR) model at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) represents a novel source of insight on how the entire TC intensification distribution could be transformed because of climate change. In this study, three 70-yr HiFLOR experiments are performed to identify the effects of climate change on TC intensity and intensification. For each of the experiments, sea surface temperature (SST) is nudged to different climatological targets and atmospheric radiative forcing is specified, allowing us to explore the sensitivity of TCs to these conditions. First, a control experiment, which uses prescribed climatological ocean and radiative forcing based on observations during the years 1986–2005, is compared to two observational records and evaluated for its ability to capture the mean TC behavior during these years. The simulated intensification distributions as well as the percentage of TCs that become major hurricanes show similarities with observations. The control experiment is then compared to two twenty-first-century experiments, in which the climatological SSTs from the control experiment are perturbed by multimodel projected SST anomalies and atmospheric radiative forcing from either 2016–35 or 2081–2100 (RCP4.5 scenario). The frequency, intensity, and intensification distribution of TCs all shift to higher values as the twenty-first century progresses. HiFLOR’s unique response to climate change and fidelity in simulating the present climate lays the groundwork for future studies involving models of this type. The article also covers the likely increase in the most extreme tropical cyclones: The increased probability of higher-intensity TCs becomes more tangible when focusing on the number of TCs that exceed 165 kt in each simulation, which is the fastest wind speed ever recorded during a TC landfall (Typhoon Haiyan; Takagi and Esteban 2016). In the 70-yr HiFLOR CTL experiment, nine TCs achieve awind speed of greater than 165 kt. The number of TCs that exceed this threshold grows to 32 for the 2016–35 simulation and 72 for the 2081–2100 simulation. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0898.1

On August 31, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,259,262 square kilometers on JAXA. Based on sensitivity analysis, the following are implied probabilities for various minimum extent figures: 4.25 million square kilometers or below: 99% 4.00 million square kilometers or below: 59% 3.75 million square kilometers or below: 0.6% 75th percentile: 4.041 million square kilometers 25th percentile: 3.916 million square kilometers Minimum extent figures based on historic 2010-2018 data: Mean decline: 3.979 million square kilometers Median decline: 4.016 million square kilometers Minimum decline: 4.078 million square kilometers Maximum decline: 3.757 million square kilometers Summary: After a pause likely due to storminess over the Polar region, Arctic sea ice extent has again begun to decline. Arctic sea ice extent will likely decline with some momentary increases over the next 1-2 weeks. A minimum extent figure below 4.000 million square kilometers still remains possible, but the probability of that outcome has declined markedly over the past week.

Notes: This post was prepared in scientific style to provide links to key points in the section on climate change. All temperature data is from the National Climatic Data Center. The EPO data is through August 29. OVERVIEW Prior to 2019, July 2016 was Anchorage, Alaska's warmest month on record. Summer 2019 was even warmer than July 2016. A warm synoptic pattern that occurred within the context of increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing resulted in exceptional and persistent record-breaking warmth this summer. During June-August 2019, Anchorage experienced its warmest summer on record by 2.0°F (1.1°C). Its summer mean temperature (62.815°F/17.119°C) exceeded that of its warmest month on record prior to 2019 (62.694°F/17.052°C in July 2016). Summer 2019 saw Anchorage record its warmest-ever June, July, and August. Anchorage tied its all-time record high minimum temperature on two consecutive days. Anchorage reached 90°F (32.2°C) for the first time on record. The duration of the excessive warmth and extreme temperatures recorded during the summer would have been very unlikely, if not improbable, without human-induced climate change. PREDOMINANT SYNOPTIC PATTERN Summer 2019 featured a remarkable coupling of atmosphere and ocean. A persistent upper air ridge that promoted warm and dry conditions was anchored over the waters with the highest sea surface temperature anomalies. These conditions promoted a synoptic pattern where the East Pacific Oscillation (EPO) was negative. The negative EPO combined with a negative Arctic Oscillation (AO) to form a negative Arctic Oscillation-negative EPO pattern (AO-/EPO-) that predominated during the summer. During summer 2019, the AO was negative on 81/92 (88%) days. The EPO was negative on 64% of days. An AO-/EPO- pattern is typically a warm one in Anchorage. For the current climate reference period (1981-2010), the average summer temperature in Anchorage was 56.9°F (13.8°C). During AO-/EPO- patterns, the average was 57.6°F (14.2°C). Climate change has led to summers becoming warmer and also warm synoptic patterns (AO-/EPO-) becoming warmer. ROLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE The observed global warming since the 1950s is unequivocal with anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions being the dominant driver of that warming (IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report 2014). The warming is a global phenomenon with 98% of the world having experienced its warmest 51 years during the current 2,000 years (Neukom, et al. 2019). Since 1880, Arctic temperatures have been increasing at more than twice the rate of global temperatures (GISTEMP Data Set). In recent decades, the rate at which the Arctic has been warming relative to worldwide temperatures has increased. From 1980 through 2018, the Arctic has warmed at a decadal rate of 1.51°F (0.84°C), which is just over 3.5 times the global rate (GISTEMP Data Set). Multiple lines of evidence corroborate the rapid warming that is taking place in the Arctic. Increases in humidity, precipitation, river discharge, glacier equilibrium line altitude and land ice wastage; warming of near-surface permafrost; and, decreases in sea ice thickness and extent, and spring snow cover extent and duration are consistent with rising temperatures (Box, et al. 2019). Consistent with the Arctic warming, Alaska has recently experienced temperatures that are warmer than they have been at any time in the past century (Thoman et al., 2019). As Alaska has warmed, Anchorage has also experienced rising temperatures. A disproportionate share of Anchorage's warmest months has occurred in 2000 or later. During the 1961-1990 base period, Anchorage had a summer (June 1-August 31) mean temperature of 56.4°F (13.6°C). During the current climate reference period (1981-2010), Anchorage's average summer temperature had risen to 56.9°F (13.8°C). For the most recent 30-year period (1989-2018), Anchorage's average summer temperature had increased further to 57.6°F (14.2°C). The last time Anchorage had a cooler than normal summer (mean temperature below the 1981-2010 reference period) was 2012 when the average summer temperature was 56.0°F (13.3°C). Without climate change, the extreme summer 2019 warmth would have been improbable. However, the combination of a rising average summer temperature and increasing variability (1961-1990: mean temperature 56.4°F/13.6°C; standard deviation: 1.4°F/0.8°C vs. 1989-2018: mean temperature: 57.6°F/14.2°C; standard deviation: 1.6°F/0.9°C) has made summers like 2019 approximately 190 times more likely than they had been. The long duration of the AO-/EPO- synoptic pattern led to the relentless persistence of above to much above normal temperatures in Anchorage that allowed monthly warm temperature records to be set in June, July, and August. Rapid Arctic warming has contributed to an increasing frequency of long-duration upper air patterns (Francis, et al. 2018). Should the world warm 3.6°F (2.0°C) above its pre-industrial temperatures, the persistence of boreal summer weather will likely increase further (Pfleiderer, et al. 2019). Based on the above evidence, human-driven climate change played a key role in bringing about Anchorage's historic summer warmth. Without anthropogenic warming, the combination of the exceptional heat and remarkable duration of the warmth in Anchorage would have been very unlikely, if not improbable. DATA AND RECORDS Summer 2019 Temperature Thresholds: Lows 60°F (15.6°C) or above: 9 days (previous summer and annual record: 4, 2016) Highs 70°F (21.1°C) or above: 49 days (previous summer record: 40, 2004; previous annual record: 42, 2013) Highs: 80°F (26.7°C) or above: 8 days (previous summer and annual record: 4 days, 2015) Highs: 90°F (32.2°C) or above: 1 day (none prior to 2019) Daily Record High Minimum Temperatures: June 8: 54°F (12.2°C) (old record: 53°F/11.7°C, 1978) June 24: 58°F (14.4°C) (tied record set in 1984) June 28: 57°F (13.9°C) (old record: 56°F/13.3°C, 2015 and 2016) June 29: 60°F (15.6°C (old record: 58°F/14.4°C, 1984 and 1990) June: 3 new records and 1 tied record July 2: 57°F (13.9°C) (tied record set in 1970) July 3: 58°F (14.4°C (tied record set in 1979 and tied in 1999 and 2014) July 5: 61°F (16.1°C) (old record: 60°F/15.6°C, 1984) July 6: 59°F (15.0°C) (tied record set in 2015) July 8: 61°F (16.1°C) (old record: 59°F/15.0°C, 1968, 2003, and 2004) July 9: 62°F (16.7°C) (old record: 59°F/15.0°C, 2003) July 12: 60°F (15.6°C) (old record: 59°F/15.0°C, 1977) July 13: 59°F (15.0°C) (tied record set in 1972 and tied in 2013) July 20: 59°F (15.0°C) (old record: 58°F/14.4°C, 1973, 1983, 2003, 2004, and 2016) July 22: 58°F (14.4°C) (tied record set in 1984 and tied in 1996, 2013, and 2016) July 24: 59°F (15.0°C) (tied record set in 1984) July: 5 new records and 6 tied records August 7: 61°F (16.1°C) (old record: 58°F/14.4°C, 1979 and 1983) August 13: 63°F (17.2°C) (old record: 57°F/13.9°C, 2003) ***tied all-time record*** August 14: 63°F (17.2°C) (old record: 58°F/14.4°C), 2001) ***tied all-time record*** August 16: 58°F (14.4°C) (tied record set in 1967) August 17: 57°F (13.9°C) (old record: 56°F/13.3°C, 1984) August: 4 new records and 1 tied record Summer: 12 new records and 8 tied records Daily Record High Maximum Temperatures: June 23: 78°F (25.6°C) (old record: 75°F/23.9°C, 1974) June 24: 75°F (23.9°C (old record: 74°F/23.3°C, 2015) June 27: 79°F (26.1°C) (old record: 78°F/25.6°C, 1997) June 28: 81°F (27.2°C) (old record: 80°F/26.7°C, 1997) June 29: 82°F (27.8°C) (old record: 77°F/25.0°C 1968, 1989, and 1990) June: 5 new records July 3: 80°F (26.7°C) (tied record set in 2018) July 4: 90°F (32.2°C) (old record: 77°F/25.0°C), 1999) ***all-time record*** July 5: 81°F (27.2°C) (old record: 77°F/25.0°C, 1999) July 6: 81°F (27.2°C) (tied record set in 2015) July 7: 85°F (29.4°C) (old record: 79°F/26.1°C, 2009) July 8: 85°F (29.4°C) (old record: 84°/28.9°C, 2003) July: 4 new records and 2 tied records August 7: 77°F (25.0°C) (tied record set in 2015) August 10: 77°F (25.0°C) (old record: 75°F/23.9°C, 1960, 1972, and 2004) August 12: 77°F (25.0°C) (tied record set in 2005) August 13: 77°F (25.0°C) (old record: 75°F/23.9°C, 1963, 1977, 2007) August 14: 75°F (23.9°C) (old record: 74°F/23.3°C, 1990) August 15: 77°F (25.0°C) (old record: 76°F/24.4°C, 1984) August: 4 new records and 2 tied records Summer: 13 new records and 4 tied records CONCLUSION Anchorage experienced a historically warm summer. The all-time record high temperature was established, the all-time record warm minimum temperature was tied on two consecutive days, and numerous daily record high maximum and minimum temperatures were set or tied. June 2019 was the warmest June on record. July 2019 was the warmest July and month on record. August 2019 was the warmest August on record. Ocean-atmosphere coupling produced a persistent pattern associated with warmer than normal temperatures. Anthropogenic climate change, that has driven global and Arctic warming and led to increasing temperature variability in the Arctic region, has dramatically increased the probability of persistent warmth and extreme high temperatures. Absent the contribution of climate change, the kind of warmth seen during summer 2019 was extremely unlikely, if not improbable. Going forward, the ongoing warming is likely to continue on account of a continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Although summer warmth equivalent to 2019 will likely remain rare over the next decade or two, the probability of such occurrences will very likely increase.

Early this morning, Joe Bastardi retweeted a twitter post noting that Moscow had an unusually cold summer and wrote, "yet not a peep from the warming weather media." The reason the warmth, not Moscow's cold, received widespread news coverage is or should be largely self-evident: 1. This summer, warmth, not cold, was the big global story 2. Cold areas were relatively localized, but areas of warmth were widespread 3. Historic heat waves affected Europe (two of which shattered widespread all-time high temperature records, including national high temperature records) 4. Alaska experienced its warmest month on record and Anchorage's summer will likely match its warmest month on record prior to 2019 On August 1, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported: Exceptional heat has been observed across the globe in recent week, with a string of European countries logging record highs temperatures that have caused disruption to transport and infrastructure and stress on people's health and the environment. As the heat dome spread northwards through Scandinavia and towards Greenland, it accelerated the already above average rate of ice melt. "July has re-written climate history, with dozens of new temperature records at local, national and global level," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. "The extraordinary heat was accompanied by dramatic ice melt in Greenland, in the Arctic and on European glaciers. Unprecedented wildfires raged in the Arctic for the second consecutive month, devastating once pristine forests which used to absorb carbon dioxide and instead turning them into fiery sources of greenhouse gases. This is not science fiction. It is the reality of climate change. It is happening now and it will worsen in the future without urgent climate action," Mr Taalas said. "WMO expects that 2019 will be in the five top warmest years on record, and that 2015-2019 will be the warmest of any equivalent five-year period on record. . https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/july-matched-and-maybe-broke-record-hottest-month-analysis-began Below are the global Temperature Anomalies (June 1-August 27, 2019): Below are the GISS temperature anomalies and rank: June: +0.92°C (1st warmest June) July: +0.93°C (1st warmest July and also 1st warmest month) August: To be available by mid-September　 In sum, in the big picture, excessive and persistent warmth was the major story of summer 2019. Widespread monthly and all-time high temperature records were set. Localized areas of cold existed, but they were the exception this summer. Only few monthly record low temperature records were set. The coverage properly focused on the major weather story of this summer, the widespread and, in places, historic warmth.

The ugly side of the climate change denial movement... Excerpts from Scientific American: The verbal and written attacks derive mostly from men. That’s probably not a coincidence. Studies show that climate skepticism is a male-dominated perspective. Men are less likely than women to accept scientific conclusions about people being responsible for rising temperatures. And they’re more likely to overestimate their knowledge of the issue... “I do see a shift toward a lack of substance sharing,” Cobb said. “So much of the flak from the climate-denial community, I think, was in the form of trying to share graphs to show their point, trying to question you on the validity of the science. And a lot of that was very misguided, of course, but it was still pretending to be substantive, on the data, on the issues themselves. But it seems much of it today has turned completely to ad hominem attacks, these stream of emotionally laden insults with no substance whatsoever behind them, just trying to land one below the belt.” ...“I can tell you that there is a very large overlap between those who harbor conspiracy theories about climate science and those who express unenlightened views when it comes to matters of ethnicity and gender,” Mann said. “In short, yeah—a surprisingly large number of climate deniers are misogynists. And so our female colleagues are at the receiving end of a particularly toxic brew of denialism, conspiratorial ideation and misogyny. It is most unfortunate and most disturbing.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-climate-scientists-speak-out-sexist-attacks-are-on-the-rise/