Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[WolfStock1]

10 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

50 states x 12 months = 600 records for "highest temperature for state X during month Y".

To be honest - breaking one of those every now and then seems like not so much of a big deal, and would be expected regardless of whether the planet is warming or not.

Point being - perhaps showing trendlines of more broad data would be a lot more meaningful and poignant that touting a given broken single-state record for a given month.   As it is these posts with their desert graphics, and the obvious troll phrasing, seem very... tabloidish (or perhaps clickbait-ish being the modern equivalent), especially on a forum that thrives on deep data analysis.

 

[GaWx]

2 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

50 states x 12 months = 600 records for "highest temperature for state X during month Y".

To be honest - breaking one of those every now and then seems like not so much of a big deal, and would be expected regardless of whether the planet is warming or not.

Point being - perhaps showing trendlines of more broad data would be a lot more meaningful and poignant that touting a given broken single-state record for a given month.   As it is these posts with their desert graphics, and the obvious troll phrasing, seem very... tabloidish (or perhaps clickbait-ish being the modern equivalent), especially on a forum that thrives on deep data analysis.

 

Good point although the good possibility of Phoenix approaching if not reaching 105, the hottest on record in April, during some point within the next 3 days is amazing. But Don, myself, and others realize that their rapid growth’s caused increasing UHI has also been a notable factor.

 Speaking of UHI though, isn’t that more of a factor for warm lows than hot highs? 

[GaWx]

I read this today from a pro-met. @donsutherland1and others, I’m curious about your thoughts about this:

“Many of the radiation absorption bands for CO2 OVERLAP with H2O. H2O is 95% of the planet's greenhouse gas effect(we would be a frozen wasteland without the BENEFICIAL greenhouse effect).  Turns out that in areas with higher dew points, those overlapping absorption bands ARE ALREADY SATURATED by H2O!! In those cases and in those bands, it doesn't matter how much CO2 that you add. When they are already absorbing 100% of the long wave, heat radiation of what they are capable of because of water vapor/H2O, adding CO2 in those bands will have near 0 impact.

Now the kicker. Cold places lack water vapor in the dry air so CO2 will be impacting bands that are NOT saturated from H2O absorbing. We can see that on the graph above. However, DESERTS also lack water vapor, so they too are seeing a greater impact from CO2 than the rest of the planet at the same latitude. Even DESERTS located in already hot places, like Phoenix.

Turns out that DESERTS are warming at a similar, elevated rated to the Arctic.”

Opinions?