donsutherland1

Washington Post feature on climate change: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-america/

Today saw New York City reach 90°. As a result, August now has a positive monthly anomaly near 0.4°. Overall, August remains on course to be warmer than normal in the Middle Atlantic and southern New England regions. Anchorage, which came off its warmest month on record, remains on track to record its warmest summer on record. There is also a chance that 2019 could set a new August record for highest mean temperature on record. If so, that would be the third consecutive monthly record set this year. The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was -0.6°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was +0.4°C for the week centered around August 7. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.35°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged +0.42°C. Neutral-warm ENSO conditions are in place in Region 3.4 with neutral-cool conditions in place in Region 1+2. There is considerable uncertainty about the ENSO evolution later this summer into the fall. Some of the guidance continues to show the development of neutral-cool ENSO conditions. The SOI was +7.46 today. Today, the preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was -0.676. A general tendency for blocking could persist into the last week of August. By that time, the AO could move toward neutral to positive values. This evolution of blocking will promote a generally warm or perhaps very warm remainder of summer. Since 1950, there was only a single year that saw the AO average -1.000 or below in May and -0.500 or below in June (the preliminary June 2019 average was -0.665): 1993. 1993 featured much above normal readings in the East during the late summer (August 15-September 15 period) and predominantly cooler than normal readings across the western third of the nation during much of the summer. In addition, since 1950, there have been four prior cases when the AO averaged -0.500 or below in both June and July: 1957, 1958, 1993, and 2009. In three (75%) of those cases, August wound up warmer than normal. August 1993 was the warmest case. The mean anomaly from those cases suggests that the Middle Atlantic and southern New England areas could be approximately 0.5° to 1.5° above normal overall during August. On August 17, the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 0.754 (RMM). The August 16-adjusted amplitude was 0.348. Finally, based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, New York City has an implied 64% probability of having a warmer than normal August.

On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 4.635 million square kilometers (JAXA). Arctic sea ice extent remains on track of the second lowest figure on record. If Arctic sea ice extent declines at the 2010-18 mean rate, it would achieve a minimum figure of 3.695 million square kilometers. The median rate would produce a minimum extent of 3.672 square kilometers. Implied probabilities based on sensitivity analysis: 4.000 million square kilometers or below: 84% 3.750 million square kilometers or below: 57% 3.500 million square kilometers or below: 26% Highest 25th percentile: 3.905 million square kilometers Lowest 25th percentile: 3.486 million square kilometers In sum, Arctic sea ice extent will very likely fall below 4.0 million square kilometers for only the second time on record.

Very good piece, Tip. I’m really not focused on those who reject climate science and the overwhelming body of evidence that supports its fundamental conclusions. An anti-science rigidity and motivated reasoning preclude meaningful prospects of evidence-based reconsideration of their conclusions. There is a distinct difference between honest skepticism where one seeks additional evidence and then refines one’s thoughts based on that evidence and denialism where one seeks or contrives all rationalizations necessary to reject the conclusions drawn from the evidence. I do think this subforum has the potential to become a useful source of information on climate change and its realities. Others have been providing some good information. I have decided that I should also participate to a greater extent than I have.

This paper can be found at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0420-9.epdf

The GISS dataset also showed July 2019 as the warmest July on record (+0.93 degrees C anomaly).

My hypothesis is that the idea was floated with the hope that a purchase could be secured and an achievement registered just in time for Campaign 2020. Of course, my guess could be wrong, especially as I might lack some details on account of still being abroad.

Today, Kodak had an 86-degree reading. That tied the all-time record high, which was set on June 28, 1953.

Yes, but Denmark would have to agree to any purchase. Fortunately, things won’t reach that stage. Greenland has now weighed in. It rejected Trump’s idea.

The scientific understanding of AGW is based on far more than models (which are also widely used in scientific fields). Some uncertainties exist, but the fundamental understanding (the reality of ongoing warming, the role anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have played in raising the atmospheric concentration of such gases, and that rising concentration’s being the principal driver of recent warming) is essentially settled in the climate science field. No credible alternative has been advanced, much less withstood robust scientific scrutiny. Finally, the ongoing warming is indisputable. The NOAA observed in its July 2019 climate summary: Last month was also the 43rd consecutive July and 415th consecutive month with above-average global temperatures. In a relatively stable climate regime, the statistical probability of 415 consecutive months with warm anomalies is vanishingly small. Such streaks are almost certainly only possible during climate change, in this case toward a warmer state.

Back in late July, both the average statistical decline (2010-18 period) and sensitivity analysis indicated that it was likely that Arctic sea ice extent would fall below 4.000 million square kilometers at its minimum for only the second time on record. Since then, things have remained on track for such an outcome.

I doubt that Denmark will “sell” Greenland for any price. Greenland’s small population lives in freedom. U.S. military access does not require U.S. possession of Greenland. Such a purchase would serve few, if any, American interests, even if the President seeks to be immortalized as a 21st Century William Seward (who was instrumental in the nation’s purchase of Alaska). Exploitation of its raw minerals would be incompatible with trying to arrest the erosion of its ice sheet and preservation of its environment.

From the NOAA: The average global temperature in July was 1.71 degrees F above the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, making it the hottest July in the 140-year record, according to scientists at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. The previous hottest month on record was July 2016. Nine of the 10 hottest Julys have occurred since 2005 -- with the last five years ranking as the five hottest. Last month was also the 43rd consecutive July and 415th consecutive month with above-average global temperatures. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201907

This portal addresses many issues over which the public has received inaccurate or worse information from sources whose aim is to undercut public understanding, often to serve political, ideological, or other non-scientific ends. This portal can be found at: https://climate.nasa.gov/ The shortcut for facts about climate change is here: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Dr. Hansen has made a deliberate choice to become an activist. He believes that despite the strength of climate science understanding, humanity is doing too little to address the challenge. He sees a rising opportunity cost from that course. https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript

A few quick things: First, I just looked into how Pielke, Jr., wound up being grouped as a “contrarian.” He showed up on one of the authors’ key sources for identifying contrarians. Second, a quick look at some of the cited items for his being listed by that source revealed a gap between Pielke, Jr.’s thinking and the IPCC consensus. The gap was more than about his expressing uncertainty. Using the authors’ language, to describe types of skepticism, that would make him an ‘impact skeptic.’ Based on both reasons, the authors likely included him as a contrarian. For what it’s worth, Curry doesn’t appear on any of the sources referenced to identify contrarians. I make no personal judgment about the issue, as I haven’t seen enough of his work, including his blog that he ended, to reach a conclusion with confidence. I offered explanation about the grouping in which he found himself.

This is probably the reason. DeSmog was among the sources used to compile a list of climate change contrarians for a comparison group study. https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-pielke-jr Pielke, Jr. has repeatedly downplayed the climate change link to extreme weather. Perhaps, as attribution techniques are relatively young, his understanding is dated. But even before attribution techniques became robust, the IPCC position about the link between climate change and extreme weather events was stronger than Pielke’s. Finally, the paper in question concerns contrarians, not all of whom are “deniers.” The paper explained: In particular, by contrarians we refer to individuals frequently sourced by institutions denying the documented realities of CC and its consequences and/or individuals who have personally expressed inaccurate statements. As such, we selected CCC using open registries that clearly document their contrarian positions. There are several limitations to our data-driven analysis worth first discussing. First, we do not account for the range of professional backgrounds, nor do we account for the different types of skepticism promoted by different CCC. By way of example, recent work comparing fundamental skepticism (relating to sources and existence of CC) to impact skepticism (relating to potential impacts of CC) reveals that the frequency of the fundamental skepticism has decreased over time, whereas the frequency of impact skepticism has increased over time, possibly signaling a strategic shift within the contrarian movement. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4 Almost certainly, the “impact skepticism” description fits Pielke, Jr.’s work related to climate change and extreme weather events. He does not come across as being in the “fundamental skepticism” category.

The mechanism that has made the marginal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions that tipped the system out of balance, leading to a steady rise in the atmospheric concentration of such gases, did not exist then. The physical properties of such gases are well-established. No serious scientist has argued that the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has no meaningful impact. The consensus in the scientific literature is strong: such gases contribute to warming and the anthropogenic contribution is the largest basis for the ongoing warming. No credible alternative explanation is present in the literature.

Yesterday, Anchorage tied its all-time highest minimum temperature for the second consecutive day.

New research highlights the role “new media” is playing in promoting climate disinformation. That role underpins the importance of assuring the public a reliable and continuing source of climate science information. From Nature: We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

Yesterday’s 63 degree low temperature in Anchorage set a new August mark and tied that city’s warmest minimum temperature on record, which was set on July 10, 2005. Such exceptional warmth during what could be that city’s warmest summer on record is very likely linked to climate change.

The Great Wall of China at Badaling. Notice the smog due to an inversion in the distant right of the image.

Outliers, both low and high, are rarely the most likely scenario. It is extremely rare that the most extreme ensemble member verifies. That’s the nature of scenarios that lie in the tails.

Forbidden City on an infrequent day with little haze in Beijing:

The IPCC’s existence predates the Trump Administration. Its work predates it. The report was not prepared specifically for the Trump Administration. It was prepared for all global policy makers and relevant stakeholders. It is very likely that the IPCC will also continue to exist long after the Trump Administration has ended, as much of the world accepts the findings of climate science and finds the body, which summarizes and draws upon that large and growing body of work, to be useful.