tacoman25

Are there not any long term, reliable stations in the area that haven't moved or seen major changes around them?

The "right"? The source of that article isn't right-leaning. But if you just said media in general, sure, I agree that they often use language with a bias and intent other than objective reporting.

About .7" here yesterday afternoon through overnight. Fifth time in the past month and a half that I've seen at least .5" in 24 hours...fairly unusual.

You said a lot but very little related to my point. I said there haven't been MAJOR impacts to agriculture or large numbers of people losing their homes by the ocean. Meaning in this country. Neither has occurred. By major, I mean massive price spikes (not inflation-driven) or shortages of food due to climate change. Things people would really notice and care about. That has not occurred. And thus there is not the widespread public outrage for change.

I think if large numbers of people actually start losing their homes by the ocean, or if we start seeing major negative impacts to agriculture, that will spark action. So far with the warming we've seen that hasn't been the case, and it's one of those things where most people have to see it to believe it.

Also can vary quite a bit locally. According to that, CO just had our 11th warmest summer on record, but here on the Front Range, it was only slightly warmer than the 30 year average. Including September and May, it was one of the coolest warm seasons of the past 15 years, so it really did feel mild...even if it would have qualified as a very warm summer 40 years ago.

Looks like it was a pretty wet month overall for much of AZ, CA, and NV. Second wettest September for Phoenix since 1984, and I'm sure even more impressive some other places.

DEN finished September almost exactly normal, with a -.1 departure. Precip was also above normal for the second month in a row, though nowhere as anomalous as August.

Are there examples of large, advanced technology countries that have transitioned almost completely away from fossil fuels?

Climate change is real, and there are certainly risks that come along with it. That being said, fear-mongering and politicization of climate change is also very real. Both things can be true - and don't trust anyone from either "side" who speaks in certainties.

These maps tend to skew dry, but still shows it's been a fairly wet last month for CO.

Fantastic fall soaking. 1.2" of light to moderate rain over the past 36 hours.

Picked up .3" this afternoon and evening from a couple rounds of showers. Been a pretty nice mid August to mid September.

Looking at the stats, Septembers have definitely been running warm recently. Since 2010, only 2011 and 2020 have been below normal. October has been more of a mixed bag. 2023, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2013, 2012, 2011 were all below normal.

There was no mention of the site change in your initial post about DEN 90+ days "exploding", which is why I pointed it out. No one has said the frequency of hot days hasn't increased here and elsewhere in CO. It's important to make that distinction, because you keep coming back to it as if that was challenged.

I wasn't arguing. Just adding context to the DEN 90+ stats.

1) Both things can be true. Yes, it has gotten hotter in the summer. But you specifically highlighted 90+ days at Denver, which for the reasons I gave have absolutely been influenced to an extent by the location change. It's ok to acknowledge this. 2) Of course. This was not my point, though. 3) Correct. Still in the same general microclimate, though, which is significantly different in some ways from the current DEN. You really can't ignore the difference in siting in relation to distance from the mountains, as I explained.

Inverse to the warming summer effect, the airport location move has had a cooling effect in the winter, especially on mins. I'll do a more detailed post at some point about this.

So let me understand the logic here: the move of about 15 mi primarily east to an entirely new location for the airport records is not important and totally comparable to historical records, but the the new ASOS environment in the same general location as the old airport is not comparable? As someone who lives here, let me explain why you're wrong. In the summer, most late mornings/early afternoons see clouds/storms build up over the mountains and then drift east over the plains. Locations that are further west get the cloud cover sooner, and therefore tend to have a bit less sunshine warming in the afternoon. When the clouds produce cooling rains, that also reaches western areas sooner. This is the primary reason that moving the airport significantly east of its previous location has resulted in a bit higher afternoon temps at DIA, compared to the old Stapleton airport. It's also the main reason why, if you look at Boulder's long term records, the average summer highs are about 2 degrees cooler than Denver's. The Boulder airport is at almost the exact same elevation as Denver, but is located about 15 mi closer to the mountains. Mean temps are one thing, but there's no doubt that the location change has had a small, 1-2 degree (I'm happy to provide the data) warming effect on the airport's highs, which then results in more 90+ days. We have a ton of days here that top out in the 88-92 range, so you can see how the numbers would get bumped. No one said this makes the warming summers since the 1990s an "artifact" of the airport move. In fact, I did say we have warmed and see more 90+ days regardless.

One factor to keep in mind with DEN is that the airport and primary station data for the city moved locations (further north and east of the city) in the mid 1990s. But the old Stapleton airport location has continued keeping records, and what that data shows is that the new location averages about 1-2 degrees warmer for highs most summers compared to the old one. So yeah, we do see more 90+ days than decades ago, but the "explosion" since the 1990s you reference has been also been enhanced by the airport location change.

Exactly. But not everyone follows that when attributing cause and effect.

64/47 day at DEN yesterday, -13 below average day. Still haven't been warmer than 86 since 8/21. We're a day away from the 5 year anniversary of one of the most dynamic weather events I've seen. After hitting a record 101 a few days earlier, a strong cold front pushed down the Front Range on 9/7. First it produced high winds and blowing dust, with temps falling from the low 90s in the early afternoon to the 50s a few hours later. Then came rain, turning to snow in the early am hours. High of 93 on 9/7, followed by 43 on 9/8. DEN officially picked up an inch, but many parts of the metro area (including my house) saw 2-3". It was one of the earliest snows on record for the city.

Of course climate change is having an effect on certain things. Did anyone say it isn't? We can still acknowledge that and also acknowledge that directly attributing disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc to climate change is not a scientific endeavor. Now, if research shows that certain events are statistically becoming more common across large regions over a significant period of time that correlates to climate change (and there is a physical reason for it that also corroborates) then you have a starting point. Give nuance a chance. Or don't. I don't have much patience for those that adopt a rigid, religious, dogmatic mindset.

I was largely agreeing with your point. But it's also fair to point out that because singular events cannot singularly be attributed to climate change, telling people that catastrophic floods are now 15% more likely in their area isn't going to move the needle. And of course, the science is still very much unsettled on exactly how climate warming is affecting natural disaster frequency, severity, etc. So it will likely take something much larger scale and non-singular to affect political/social change of mind.