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?

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, GaWx said:

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?

That statement about a near zero impact is wrong. The impact is smaller but not near zero. Water vapor saturation does not mean that additional CO2 won't have an impact. Water vapor has a maximum impact in the lower atmosphere. The upper atmosphere is drier. Increased CO2 reduces outgoing longwave radiation, leading to additional warming.

[chubbs]

15 hours ago, GaWx said:

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?

A couple of points to add to Don's. The absorption bands of CO2 and H2O are different. There's overlap in some regions, but CO2 also absorbs in regions where H2O doesn't. More importantly H20 has a much higher boiling point than CO2 and is a liquid at atmospheric temperatures while CO2 is a gas. Because of the higher boiling point, the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. As Don points out, CO2 is more important relative to H2O  in the upper atmosphere where heat is radiated to space and it is too cold to hold much water vapor.

Per paper below, CO2 is the earth's thermostat. CO2 controls the amount of H2O in the atmosphere.  If there was less CO2 there would be less water vapor and vice versa. As the paper states: Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO₂ and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190653

[Typhoon Tip]

C02 (and other green house gases) warms initially.  This improves water evaporation ...

Once in water vapor (H2O gas), it absorbs 8+ magnitudes more outgoing LWR than does C02.  This secondarily triggers the system into a thermal state acceleration.  Not sure what the C02 vs WV discussion y'all engagin' in, but that is the critical relationship. 

It's interesting as it has been calculated/shown that the oceans have absorbed ~ 90% of the d(T)/attributable heat of the total GW...   Generate excerpt from Climate.gov and United Nations, "The oceans have absorbed about 90% of the excess heat generated by global warming, which is equivalent to approximately 23 zettajoules of heat energy in 2025 alone" (there are numerous other sources for the ocean absorption quotient in the GW total) 

It's a crucial machinery that frankly has saved ours, and countless other species, from an acceleration toward tipping points ( to put it nicely...).  The ocean is the great climate regulator in the sense that because the atmosphere's in a perpetual quasi coupled state to the ocean, en masse it is held in check. Thus, the atmosphere can't really modulate too far way from the background thermal state of the oceans.

This relationship may have been exemplified in 2023  https://phys.org/news/2025-09-ocean-carbon-ailing-absorption-marine.html. 

While the article doesn't directly discuss a plausible factor in the atmospheric temperature bounce phenomenon that happened at global scales that spring, but prudent scientific awareness begs the question.  Apparently, there occurred a 10% reduction in carbon sink --> the oceanic temperature rises that year, with furthering physical concepts discussing why. 

Later in the article, this paraphrased article ( actual study here:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02380-4   ), cite, "This sudden warming of the ocean to new record temperatures is challenging for climate research—because to date it was unclear how the marine carbon sink would respond," says Nicolas Gruber, Professor of Environmental Physics at ETH Zurich." 

I bring this citation to attention because my biggest peeve in the ongoing observation of climate change, is that there is either lacking, or too hidden, a sense of urgency that relates to the fact that the whole planet's atmospheric thermal state surged, completely and utterly unpredictably, the way it did.  

Are we connecting the dots here? 

So to bring it home.  The question/suspicions stems from fairly rudimentary logic;  if the oceans absorb the lion's share of the GW total ( over time...), I don't like coincidences. Dynamics processes failed to absorb carbon into the oceans, hence a thermal sphere response: the atmosphere heat burst in the spring of 2023 should be explored/connectable to that. 

If carbon absorption isn't monitored, it should be, because oh by the way ... the oceans are critically approaching the 2024 curve...  It makes one wonder if an atmospheric heat surge is mere month(s) away.    

Interestingly, the article also describes El Ninos as being 'carbon capture' periods, because the warm water caps the rising CO2, which defaults the system to negative for the atmosphere.   It's basically as thought the Earth has built in regulators in all dimensions of consideration- probably what makes life abound on this world... digression. 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Today was the most brutal day during the ongoing epic heatwave in the West. A new U.S. national temperature record for March was set at four locations.

[SnoSki14]

4 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Records are going to be smashed so fast everywhere when the Super Nino comes. 

Summer looks brutal with deadly fire season 

[TheClimateChanger]

Early April looks like it could be insane. Not a forecast, but just a glance at what could happen.  This is literally nuts for a 6-day mean. 

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Today was the most brutal day during the ongoing epic heatwave in the West. A new U.S. national temperature record for March was set at four locations.

 The new hottest in CA in March as shown above is 112. That’s only 1 short of the April hottest!

[GaWx]

Yuma’s hottest on record in March prior to 2026 was 102. Yesterday was 106 and today was 109!! The earliest 109+ prior to today was May 2nd (1947) when it hit 111!!

[Stormchaserchuck1]

24 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Yuma’s hottest on record in March prior to 2026 was 102. Yesterday was 106 and today was 109!! The earliest 109+ prior to today was May 2nd (1947) when it hit 111!!

Flagstaff is the biggest crushing records in the area. 

Sedona, AZ is nearly 5000' and look at their forecast!

7-Day Forecast 34.87N 111.77W

[GaWx]

-Phoenix has set new (or tied) daily records highs 28 times during the last 365 days. 

-94 of the 366 days have record highs there set in 2023-6 due mainly to CC but with UHI also being a factor although UHI is normally more of a factor for warm lows.

-There are a mere 3 record lows set since 1980!

[GaWx]

 Some of this is due to UHI at Phoenix with them at 78 

ARIZONA HOURLY REGIONAL WEATHER ROUNDUP  
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PHOENIX AZ  
400 AM MST SAT MAR 21 2026  
  
NOTE: FAIR INDICATES FEW OR NO CLOUDS BELOW 12,000 FEET WITH NO  
SIGNIFICANT WEATHER AND/OR S TO VISIBILITY.  
  
AZZ001>003-036-211200-  
NORTHWEST ARIZONA  
    
CITY           SKY/WX    TMP DP  RH WIND       PRES   REMARKS  
BULLHEAD CITY  CLEAR     72  27  18 CALM      29.83S TC  22             
KINGMAN        CLEAR     63  21  20 CALM      30.02F TC  17             
  
  
AZZ004>008-015-016-018-211200-  
NORTH CENTRAL ARIZONA  
    
CITY           SKY/WX    TMP DP  RH WIND       PRES   REMARKS  
GRAND CANYON   CLEAR     29  17  61 CALM      30.26F TC  -2             
WILLIAMS       CLEAR     39  18  41 S12       30.26F WCI  32 TC   4     
PRESCOTT       CLEAR     51  21  30 S7        30.15F TC  11             
FLAGSTAFF      CLEAR     36  19  50 CALM      30.28F TC   2             
PAYSON         CLEAR     57  21  24 N3        30.16F TC  14             
PAGE           CLEAR     57  18  21 CALM      30.08F TC  14             
  
  
AZZ009>014-017-211200-  
NORTHEAST ARIZONA  
    
CITY           SKY/WX    TMP DP  RH WIND       PRES   REMARKS  
WINSLOW        CLEAR     43  12  28 E6        30.16F TC   6             
SAINT JOHNS    CLEAR     46   7  20 S3        30.20F TC   8             
WINDOW ROCK    CLEAR     32   9  38 CALM      30.28F TC   0             
SHOW LOW       CLEAR     43   7  22 SE6       30.26S TC   6             
  
  
AZZ540-542>544-546-548-211200-  
GREATER PHOENIX AREA  
    
CITY           SKY/WX    TMP DP  RH WIND       PRES   REMARKS  
PHOENIX        CLEAR     78  33  19 E13       29.84F TC  26             
BUCKEYE        CLEAR     66  16  14 N5        29.85F TC  19             
LUKE AFB       CLEAR     70  26  19 N6        29.83F TC  21             
DEER VALLEY    CLEAR     71  25  17 NE3       29.87F TC  22             
SCOTTSDALE     CLEAR     68  40  35 CALM      29.87F TC  20             
MESA-FALCON    CLEAR     75  25  15 N3        29.86F TC  24             
MESA-GATEWAY   CLEAR     67  26  20 E8        29.89S TC  20             
CHANDLER       CLEAR     67  34  29 CALM      29.87S TC  20             
  
  
AZZ539-553-211200-  
SOUTHWEST MARICOPA COUNTY AND PINAL COUNTY  
    
CITY           SKY/WX    TMP DP  RH WIND       PRES   REMARKS  
CASA GRANDE    CLEAR     64  19  17 CALM      29.89F TC  18             
GILA BEND      CLEAR     73  19  13 CALM      29.83F TC  23             
  
  
AZZ503-504-507>509-211200-  
SOUTHEAST ARIZONA  
    
CITY           SKY/WX    TMP DP  RH WIND       PRES   REMARKS  
TUCSON         CLEAR     64  20  18 SE7       29.98F TC  18             
DAVIS-MONTHAN  CLEAR     64  17  16 E5        29.98F TC  18             
NOGALES        CLEAR     61  20  20 CALM      30.07F TC  16             
SIERRA VISTA   CLEAR     70  13  11 W10       30.12F TC  21             
DOUGLAS        CLEAR     55  22  27 CALM      30.08F TC  13             
SAFFORD        CLEAR     58  17  20 E8        30.00S TC  14             
  
  
AZZ532-211200-  
SOUTHWEST ARIZONA  
    
CITY           SKY/WX    TMP DP  RH WIND       PRES   REMARKS  
YUMA           CLEAR     73  35  25 S5        29.78F TC  23             
  

[ChescoWx]

Chilling our past will always helps support climate alarmism....

[ChescoWx]

Updated through 2025 - who knows why PHL is warming so much faster than non-UHI spots at airports?? In fact the PHL warming slope is now growing at 6 times the rate of Chester County Pa!

 

[forkyfork]

because you fucked around with the data to make it look that way

[GaWx]

 Today was the 3rd day in a row of Phoenix hitting 105, which not only obliterates another daily record but also again ties with the hottest on record in April. The day prior to the 105 string was 102. Prior to this string, the hottest on record in all of March was only 100, set on March 26th in 1988.

 More 100+ days are quite possible next week! Crazy!

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Today was the 3rd day in a row of Phoenix hitting 105, which not only obliterates another daily record but also again ties with the hottest on record in April. The day prior to the 105 string was 102. Prior to this string, the hottest on record in all of March was only 100, set on March 26th in 1988.

 More 100+ days are quite possible next week! Crazy!

The previous earliest 3 consecutive day stretch of 105 days was May 2-4, 1947.

[donsutherland1]

As was the case last year when Phoenix reached an August monthly record high of 118°, an ignorant handful are attempting to dismiss the magnitude of the ongoing unprecedented March heatwave. In this case, the effort is to transform what was very likely a localized heat event in southern California due to possible offshore winds into an epic regionwide heat event that surpassed the ongoing heat event that has toppled March and April records in many locations in the West.

The above post also applies projection, accusing the news media, of not doing "much digging." In fact, the post demonstrates dismal research skills. 

The question concerns whether Phoenix ever reached 112° in March during 1879. That heatwave was likely referenced, because Phoenix's daily records go back to August 1895. Thus, the underlying assumption was that one could not credibly question the claim. 

That's not true.  Several approaches apply.

1) Is there any credible data for Phoenix from March 1879?

Yes. Monthly Weather Review published monthly maximum and minimum temperatures for select locations. Below is the Monthly Weather Review report for March 1879.

I highlighted Phoenix and Tucson, as one can make a comparison to the current heatwave. The monthly high temperatures for Phoenix and Tucson during the current heatwave are 105° and 102° respectively, vs. the 94° and 90° in March 1879. 

2) If there were no credible data (not the case here), are there any reliable records from this period in the relevant area? 

Yes. Yuma's climate record goes back to January 1878. Yuma's monthly maximum temperature for March 1879 was 100° on March 29, 1879. Yuma's highs are typically above those of Phoenix. For example in the current heatwave, Yuma had a peak high of 109° vs. Phoenix's 105°. 

One could also construct a regression equation to estimate Phoenix's high based on Yuma's data. Since one is dealing with pre-urban Phoenix, I chose the earliest 30-year period of each site's overlapping record (March 1896-March 1935).  The regression equation was (0.908 *Yuma's Maximum) +3.152. The standard error was 3.33°. The coefficient of determination was 0.833.

So, what happens when one calculates the estimated highs for Phoenix based on the Yuma's March 3 high of 81° and its March 29 high of 100°. The end result is an expected high of 77° (76.7°) on March 3 and a high of 94° (94.0°) on March 29.  

The statistical data reveal that there was virtually no chance that Phoenix was 112° during March 1879. In fact, the statistical data matches the actual monthly high.

Major Findings:

Note: Actual data is the Monthly Weather Review monthly maximum temperatures for Phoenix and Tucson and daily data from Yuma's climate record.

What happened?

More than likely Martz was using data from a thermometer that was exposed to direct sunshine. Amateurs accept such data at face value. They have little understanding of issues that could compromise the data or little understanding about conducting research. Those with motivated reasoning embrace such data when it confirms their biases. 

Researchers ask questions concerning whether reliable data exists for the specific location, whether reliable data exists for nearby locations, etc. If reliable data is present for nearby locations, but not the specific location, they construct models based on the relationship of those nearby locations and the specific location in question. Afterward, they run those models and make estimates.

I used statistical modeling just to illustrate how such models can be quite accurate. There was actual data (Monthly Weather Review).

Overall Conclusion:

The March 2026 heatwave is the most severe heatwave Phoenix has experienced in the period where records exist (even prior to the daily period of record that begins in August 1895). There has been no remotely comparable past March heat event to the ongoing one affecting Phoenix and the Southwest.

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

As was the case last year when Phoenix reached an August monthly record high of 118°, an ignorant handful are attempting to dismiss the magnitude of the ongoing unprecedented March heatwave. In this case, the effort is to transform what was very likely a localized heat event in southern California due to possible offshore winds into an epic regionwide heat event that surpassed the ongoing heat event that has toppled March and April records in many locations in the West.

The above post also applies projection, accusing the news media, of not doing "much digging." In fact, the post demonstrates dismal research skills. 

The question concerns whether Phoenix ever reached 112° in March during 1879. That heatwave was likely referenced, because Phoenix's daily records go back to August 1895. Thus, the underlying assumption was that one could not credibly question the claim. 

That's not true.  Several approaches apply.

1) Is there any credible data for Phoenix from March 1879?

Yes. Monthly Weather Review published monthly maximum and minimum temperatures for select locations. Below is the Monthly Weather Review report for March 1879.

I highlighted Phoenix and Tucson, as one can make a comparison to the current heatwave. The monthly high temperatures for Phoenix and Tucson during the current heatwave are 105° and 102° respectively, vs. the 94° and 90° in March 1879. 

2) If there were no credible data (not the case here), are there any reliable records from this period in the relevant area? 

Yes. Yuma's climate record goes back to January 1878. Yuma's monthly maximum temperature for March 1879 was 100° on March 29, 1879. Yuma's highs are typically above those of Phoenix. For example in the current heatwave, Yuma had a peak high of 109° vs. Phoenix's 105°. 

One could also construct a regression equation to estimate Phoenix's high based on Yuma's data. Since one is dealing with pre-urban Phoenix, I chose the earliest 30-year period of each site's overlapping record (March 1896-March 1935).  The regression equation was (0.908 *Yuma's Maximum) +3.152. The standard error was 3.33°. The coefficient of determination was 0.833.

So, what happens when one calculates the estimated highs for Phoenix based on the Yuma's March 3 high of 81° and its March 29 high of 100°. The end result is an expected high of 77° (76.7°) on March 3 and a high of 94° (94.0°) on March 29.  

The statistical data reveal that there was virtually no chance that Phoenix was 112° during March 1879. In fact, the statistical data matches the actual monthly high.

Major Findings:

Note: Actual data is the Monthly Weather Review monthly maximum temperatures for Phoenix and Tucson and daily data from Yuma's climate record.

What happened?

More than likely Martz was using data from a thermometer that was exposed to direct sunshine. Amateurs accept such data at face value. They have little understanding of issues that could compromise the data or little understanding about conducting research. Those with motivated reasoning embrace such data when it confirms their biases. 

Researchers ask questions concerning whether reliable data exists for the specific location, whether reliable data exists for nearby locations, etc. If reliable data is present for nearby locations, but not the specific location, they construct models based on the relationship of those nearby locations and the specific location in question. Afterward, they run those models and make estimates.

I used statistical modeling just to illustrate how such models can be quite accurate. There was actual data (Monthly Weather Review).

Overall Conclusion:

The March 2026 heatwave is the most severe heatwave Phoenix has experienced in the period where records exist (even prior to the daily period of record that begins in August 1895). There has been no remotely comparable past March heat event to the ongoing one affecting Phoenix and the Southwest.

Thanks, Don. Fantastic post!

 I’ll just add that, as I assume you realize, that LA and SD did actually both hit 99 on 3/29/1879 and that those remain their hottest on record in all of March. 

 The 100 of 3/29/1879 remained at least tied for the hottest in all of March in Yuma til it hit 102 in 2004. And the current heatwave obliterated these as you know with 109 for the hottest (3/20/2026).

 So, I agree that the tweeter is taking what was largely a localized historic heat event for S CA and making it seem as if it were in a much larger region and more historic in the SW US overall than the current one. 

Aside: Meteorology related Q: I wonder why this official map shows onshore (SW) winds in LA and a temp. of 97 at 1:35PM PST on 3/29/1879? The 97 is consistent with the 99 high, but the SW winds aren’t. Anyone know? My guess is that the winds had been offshore til just before 1:35PM and that the 99 high occurred a little before 1:35PM. If so, the temps were just starting to fall with the SW winds.

 Note that SD, also shown with SW winds then, had already fallen way down to 79 then. Thus, I’m guessing their winds shifted sooner:

https://library.oarcloud.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/dwm/1879/18790329.pdf

*Edited for correction: I meant SW winds, not SE winds. Brain fart!

[donsutherland1]

2 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Thanks, Don. Fantastic post!

 I’ll just add that, as I assume you realize, that LA and SD did actually both hit 99 on 3/29/1879 and that those remain their hottest on record in all of March. 

 The 100 of 3/29/1879 remained at least tied for the hottest in all of March in Yuma til it hit 102 in 2004. And the current heatwave obliterated these as you know with 109 for the hottest (3/20/2026).

 So, I agree that the tweeter is taking what was largely a localized historic heat event for S CA and making it seem as if it were in a much larger region and more historic in the SW US overall than the current one. 

Aside: Meteorology related Q: I wonder why this official map shows onshore (SE) winds in LA and a temp. of 97 at 1:35PM PST on 3/29/1879? The 97 is consistent with the 99 high, but the SE winds aren’t. Anyone know?

https://library.oarcloud.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/dwm/1879/18790329.pdf

Yes. that's correct regarding San Diego and Los Angeles. That's why I referred to it as a "localized heat event in southern California." Some heat came eastward into a portion of Arizona (Yuma's 100° reading), but this wasn't the kind of widespread heatwave like the ongoing on. It was nowhere near as intense as the ongoing one.

Unfortunately, the maps have a a nine-hour gap between observations and there isn't a larger set of observations. I suspect that the offshore winds winds seen north of Los Angeles at the 4:35 am PDT observation sank south after that observation. The wind then turned onshore shortly before the 1:35 pm PDT observation, as the temperature was still 97° in the Los Angeles area. 

 

[GaWx]

31 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Yes. that's correct regarding San Diego and Los Angeles. That's why I referred to it as a "localized heat event in southern California." Some heat came eastward into a portion of Arizona (Yuma's 100° reading), but this wasn't the kind of widespread heatwave like the ongoing on. It was nowhere near as intense as the ongoing one.

Unfortunately, the maps have a a nine-hour gap between observations and there isn't a larger set of observations. I suspect that the offshore winds winds seen north of Los Angeles at the 4:35 am PDT observation sank south after that observation. The wind then turned onshore shortly before the 1:35 pm PDT observation, as the temperature was still 97° in the Los Angeles area. 

 

 Thank you, Don. I corrected my mentions of SE winds to the correct SW winds.

 I agree with you on all of this.
 

 Have you by chance replied to Chris Martz? I can’t tell because I’m not a registered X user.
 In case you haven’t seen these followup tweets, here are two he did:

and he then posted this saying his posting of “facts” “makes people angry”: 

 

[donsutherland1]

9 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Have you by chance replied to Chris Martz? I can’t tell because I’m not a registered X user.
 In case you haven’t seen these followup tweets, here are two he did:

and he then posted this saying his posting of “facts” “makes people angry”: 

 

No. He blocked me when I corrected him in the past for misrepresenting data and provided links to the actual data. I did post the correct MWR data on Twitter/X in a thread in which he's copied.

[GaWx]

10 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

No. He blocked me when I corrected him in the past for misrepresenting data and provided links to the actual data. I did post the correct MWR data on Twitter/X in a thread in which he's copied.

 So, would he have seen your corrections regarding the current heatwave? If so, does that mean he no longer could be ignorant of the facts about it? Could he instead be outrightly lying and intentionally trying to deceive?

[GaWx]

I just realized Chris Martz is a meteorologist, which you must know. I had assumed he wasn’t. Now I’m more surprised he made those errors about 1879! A pro met doing that? Shouldn’t he have known better?
 

 He’s not an AGW denier, however, per the following link. Instead he seems to be in the category of non-alarmist AGW believer. His beef doesn’t seem to be with AGW, itself, but instead it seems to be with AGW alarmists.

@donsutherland1is my assessment correct in your opinion?

 Quoted from link below: do you think he’s being sincere here? Is it possible he’s possibly making a fact based case?

The magnitude of warming and the rate at which it occurs make all the difference in

whether global warming is cause for alarm that requires economic decarbonization

and/or large-scale interventions like SRM, or is largely unimportant in terms of

environment and public health.

Just how much warming will occur is dependent on “equilibrium climate sensitivity”

(ECS), which is the amount of warming that results from doubling atmospheric CO2

levels plus any feedbacks that amplify or dampen the slight increase in temperature

caused directly by CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs).

• If ECS is ≥3°C, then the climate system is highly sensitive to GHGs, and climate

warming is therefore a concern.

• If ECS is <3°C, then the climate system is largely insensitive to GHGs, and

warming impacts are exaggerated. This seems to be the likely case given that

we have not seen increases in most types of extreme events, climate models

overestimate warming (U.S. DOE CWG, 2025)[30] and the state of human welfare

has never been better than it is today by nearly every measurable metric.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Martz-Written-Testimony.pdf

[donsutherland1]

14 minutes ago, GaWx said:

I just realized Chris Martz is a meteorologist, which you must know. I had assumed he wasn’t. Now I’m more surprised he made those errors about 1879! A pro met doing that? Shouldn’t he have known better?
 

 He’s not an AGW denier, however, per the following link. Instead he seems to be in the category of non-alarmist AGW believer. His beef doesn’t seem to be with AGW, itself, but instead it seems to be with AGW alarmists.

@donsutherland1is my assessment correct in your opinion?

 Quoted from link below: do you think he’s being sincere here? Is it possible he’s possibly making a fact based case?

The magnitude of warming and the rate at which it occurs make all the difference in

whether global warming is cause for alarm that requires economic decarbonization

and/or large-scale interventions like SRM, or is largely unimportant in terms of

environment and public health.

Just how much warming will occur is dependent on “equilibrium climate sensitivity”

(ECS), which is the amount of warming that results from doubling atmospheric CO2

levels plus any feedbacks that amplify or dampen the slight increase in temperature

caused directly by CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs).

• If ECS is ≥3°C, then the climate system is highly sensitive to GHGs, and climate

warming is therefore a concern.

• If ECS is <3°C, then the climate system is largely insensitive to GHGs, and

warming impacts are exaggerated. This seems to be the likely case given that

we have not seen increases in most types of extreme events, climate models

overestimate warming (U.S. DOE CWG, 2025)[30] and the state of human welfare

has never been better than it is today by nearly every measurable metric.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Martz-Written-Testimony.pdf

He's not a practicing meteorologist. He works for an organization that largely rejects AGW.

Regardless of his position and employer, he should post accurate data. It's difficult to know why he would post information regarding Phoenix that is so obviously wrong (112° in March, 100° on March 3, and 7 100° days in March during 1879), especially as Phoenix is a high-profile city and, by its nature, has resources that can be found through research.

[ChescoWx]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

He's not a practicing meteorologist. He works for an organization that largely rejects AGW.

Regardless of his position and employer, he should post accurate data. It's difficult to know why he would post information regarding Phoenix that is so obviously wrong (112° in March, 100° on March 3, and 7 100° days in March during 1879), especially as Phoenix is a high-profile city and, by its nature, has resources that can be found through research.

Chris simply does not see the current warming as an existential threat or anything to lose sleep over....as you know I agree with his view! This makes alarmists upset we all understand this!

[donsutherland1]

24 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Chris simply does not see the current warming as an existential threat or anything to lose sleep over....as you know I agree with his view! This makes alarmists upset we all understand this!

That's not the issue. His inaccurate claims concerning Phoenix in 1879 is the issue.