Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    15,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    kgottwald
    Newest Member
    kgottwald
    Joined
donsutherland1

Attribution Report for the July 2019 Heat in Europe

Recommended Posts

This is called weather, not climate.  We get heat waves, it rains, it gets dry, there are tornadoes and even hurricanes at times. In the winter, it snows and gets cold too. Why does climate change have to be blamed for everything? The climate is always changing and has been for the existence of the earth.  The records broken could be related more to UHI which has a profound effect on surface records.  I highly doubt CO2 concentrations ( which is a weak GHG  )had anything to do with this. I looked at the observations the day Paris broke its all time high and dewpoints were in the 50s so it was pretty dry. There is no water vapor feedback going on here locally. It was related to downsloping off mountains and UHI.  CO2 absorbs and emits radiation centered around 15 microns which by Wien's Law affects temperatures between -50C and -110C (centered around -80C). CO2 had little to do with the temperatures related to this heat wave.  This is basic physics.  And for scientists to already be writing papers about this is disingenuous or just plain ignorant. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is called weather, not climate.  We get heat waves, it rains, it gets dry, there are tornadoes and even hurricanes at times. In the winter, it snows and gets cold too. Why does climate change have to be blamed for everything? The climate is always changing and has been for the existence of the earth.  The records broken could be related more to UHI which has a profound effect on surface records.  I highly doubt CO2 concentrations ( which is a weak GHG  )had anything to do with this. I looked at the observations the day Paris broke its all time high and dewpoints were in the 50s so it was pretty dry. There is no water vapor feedback going on here locally. It was related to downsloping off mountains and UHI.  CO2 absorbs and emits radiation centered around 15 microns which by Wien's Law affects temperatures between -50C and -110C (centered around -80C). CO2 had little to do with the temperatures related to this heat wave.  This is basic physics.  And for scientists to already be writing papers about this is disingenuous or just plain ignorant. 
 

These papers are peer reviewed. You argument is nonsense.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is called weather, not climate.  We get heat waves, it rains, it gets dry, there are tornadoes and even hurricanes at times. In the winter, it snows and gets cold too. Why does climate change have to be blamed for everything? The climate is always changing and has been for the existence of the earth.  The records broken could be related more to UHI which has a profound effect on surface records.  I highly doubt CO2 concentrations ( which is a weak GHG  )had anything to do with this. I looked at the observations the day Paris broke its all time high and dewpoints were in the 50s so it was pretty dry. There is no water vapor feedback going on here locally. It was related to downsloping off mountains and UHI.  CO2 absorbs and emits radiation centered around 15 microns which by Wien's Law affects temperatures between -50C and -110C (centered around -80C). CO2 had little to do with the temperatures related to this heat wave.  This is basic physics.  And for scientists to already be writing papers about this is disingenuous or just plain ignorant. 

 

The paper describes the synoptic pattern involved. It was a warm one. Such patterns do not disappear in the context of climate change. The probability of their occurrence can change and their impact can change. The best estimate is that the given pattern resulted in an outcome that was 1.5C - 3.0C warmer than otherwise would have been the case due to climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a synergistic feedback where they positively re-enforce the others effect/affect - ...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

This is called weather, not climate.  We get heat waves, it rains, it gets dry, there are tornadoes and even hurricanes at times. In the winter, it snows and gets cold too. Why does climate change have to be blamed for everything? The climate is always changing and has been for the existence of the earth.  The records broken could be related more to UHI which has a profound effect on surface records.  I highly doubt CO2 concentrations ( which is a weak GHG  )had anything to do with this. I looked at the observations the day Paris broke its all time high and dewpoints were in the 50s so it was pretty dry. There is no water vapor feedback going on here locally. It was related to downsloping off mountains and UHI.  CO2 absorbs and emits radiation centered around 15 microns which by Wien's Law affects temperatures between -50C and -110C (centered around -80C). CO2 had little to do with the temperatures related to this heat wave.  This is basic physics.  And for scientists to already be writing papers about this is disingenuous or just plain ignorant. 

 

There’s no violation of Wien’s Law. The temperature at 7 km-10 km in the atmosphere where the trapping has been observed (cooling above/warming below) falls within those parameters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way that CO2 can be blamed for the magnitude of this heat wave. Peer reviewed means squat in this political era of climate science. The heat wave just occurred and there is already a peer reviewed paper out?  Really?  That speaks volumes on the quality of peer review! And yes CO2 does affect the very high altitudes but only a small amount due to the low concentration.  Temperatures in the higher troposphere have shown some limited warming but this could be related to natural causes as we rebound out of mid 20th century cool period. Additionally, there is some contribution from CO2 but it is small.  Additionally, if the Earth warms , regardless of cause ,then yes there will be a a higher chance for more heat but how can you attribute it to CO2? How do we know the climate was in stasis in 1900 or even 1950?  The earth's temperatures go up and down varying on different time periods  There is no science anymore in this field. It is all computer simulations that scientists think model the climate system extremely well. This is a joke. There is no way a climate model can predict changes in climate unless it has cloud cover correct and tropical convection which are major sources of the earth's energy balance. Even with these correct there are loads of other feedbacks too. These are all parameterized which means there could be massive errors in time.   The UHI is no doubt a major contribution to this record heat.  Why is this so hard to see?   It is so obvious.  Climate science is dead and a whole generation of younger scientists have been mislead. This is going to go down as one of the biggest scientific blunders in history. Mark my words.  Progress in climate science has been set back at least 30 years from all this nonsense as scientists feed at the global warming funding trough....    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

There is no way that CO2 can be blamed for the magnitude of this heat wave. Peer reviewed means squat in this political era of climate science. The heat wave just occurred and there is already a peer reviewed paper out?  Really?  That speaks volumes on the quality of peer review! And yes CO2 does affect the very high altitudes but only a small amount due to the low concentration.  Temperatures in the higher troposphere have shown some limited warming but this could be related to natural causes as we rebound out of mid 20th century cool period. Additionally, there is some contribution from CO2 but it is small.  Additionally, if the Earth warms , regardless of cause ,then yes there will be a a higher chance for more heat but how can you attribute it to CO2? How do we know the climate was in stasis in 1900 or even 1950?  The earth's temperatures go up and down varying on different time periods  There is no science anymore in this field. It is all computer simulations that scientists think model the climate system extremely well. This is a joke. There is no way a climate model can predict changes in climate unless it has cloud cover correct and tropical convection which are major sources of the earth's energy balance. Even with these correct there are loads of other feedbacks too. These are all parameterized which means there could be massive errors in time.   The UHI is no doubt a major contribution to this record heat.  Why is this so hard to see?   It is so obvious.  Climate science is dead and a whole generation of younger scientists have been mislead. This is going to go down as one of the biggest scientific blunders in history. Mark my words.  Progress in climate science has been set back at least 30 years from all this nonsense as scientists feed at the global warming funding trough....    

Well ... if nothing else you certainly come across deeply passionate as a de... wait, you didn't actually deny climate change - unless I glossed over that particular declarative. Haha 

Which otherwise your contribution is rife with declaratives ... which unfortunately, fall well short of substantive refutation. 

But think what you're getting at is that a particular weather event can not be causally linked to climate change ... mathematically that's the proper conclusion, because the arithmetic goes in the other direction - climate is N-weather terms divided by the number of events ... yada yada we know this just saying

however the frequency of these kinds of intense heat waves is increasing globally - that should be noted. It should also be noted that that, among many other realizations, were also predicted by these climate models which are currently under fire by this discussion.  

At the end of the day the climate is warming. The numbers bear that out. And if your point is that this single heat wave cannot be blamed on climate change I agree ... but I would caution not using that as some kind of escape from acceptance.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the data to support your assertion that heat wave occurrences are going up globally? Certainly that is not the case in the U.S. The 1930s had the most heat based on the data. If anything extreme maximums have been declining in the U.S. Winter temps have warmed up a bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Where is the data to support your assertion that heat wave occurrences are going up globally? Certainly that is not the case in the U.S. The 1930s had the most heat based on the data. If anything extreme maximums have been declining in the U.S. Winter temps have warmed up a bit.

The United States is a relatively small part of the world. A map illustrating the increasing global frequency of heat waves can be found here:

https://maps.esri.com/globalriskofdeadlyheat/#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The United States is a relatively small part of the world. A map illustrating the increasing global frequency of heat waves can be found here:

https://maps.esri.com/globalriskofdeadlyheat/#

Nice map! My professor did climate models and almost all of them had the amazon burning. This map supports this with the massive increase in heatwaves in the amazon. I expect the Amazon to burn in my lifetime due to global warming. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AGW is real....I do not deny that. I deny a lot of this nonsense. A freaking per reviewed paper on attribution of a heatwave that just occurred? That's pure BS & it reeks agenda driven going through peer review that quickly. Gotta strike while it's hot. :mellow:

This is why there is so much distrust in the science community. And in the end all the agenda driven BS creates deniers by default. Way too much subjectivity in this area of science.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

Screenshot_20190804-215841_Twitter.jpg

That’s a false analogy.  To “know everything” about climate is not the required level of knowledge to possess an understanding of some major elements of the climate and its evolution. In fact, the notion that science must understand 100% about something to reach conclusions is a rationalization for refusing to accept what science does understand.

Indeed, a lot is not well understood when it comes to the processes that drive tropical cyclone intensification, yet enough is known for some really solid forecasting. As more knowledge is developed, forecasting will improve further.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

AGW is real....I do not deny that. I deny a lot of this nonsense. A freaking per reviewed paper on attribution of a heatwave that just occurred? That's pure BS & it reeks agenda driven going through peer review that quickly. Gotta strike while it's hot. :mellow:

This is why there is so much distrust in the science community. And in the end all the agenda driven BS creates deniers by default. Way too much subjectivity in this area of science.

Among serious scientists, there’s very little “distrust.” The papers being published show remarkable consensus on the overall reality of climate change and the leading role anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have played in driving it. Areas of uncertainty exist, especially as they relate to potential feedbacks.

Finally, rapid attribution has become necessary for the science to transcend the claims of those who seek to confuse or mislead the public over what’s happening. These papers aren’t perfect, but mathematics and the current climate models provide reasonable insight, even if it isn’t precise.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

The blogger misses at least three important points:

1. While record highs can occur at anytime, the ratio of record highs to record lows has been increasing. The former is now consistently more numerous than the latter. That’s what one would expect to see in a warming climate.

2. The cold air mass in Russia did not even begin to compare with the historic heat that toppled national records in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, along with widespread all-time and monthly record highs. The cold air mass generated some daily record low readings but no monthly record lows (at least none had been reported as of August 4).

Globally, there was no balance between the heat and cold during July. The just released climate bulletin from Copernicus revealed:

Global average temperatures for July 2019 were on par with, and possibly marginally higher than, those for July 2016, the warmest previous July and warmest of all months on record.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/another-exceptional-month-global-average-temperatures and https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-july-2019

3. Temperature homogenization for the GHCN v4 dataset deals with, among other things, UHI. The modifications from v3 were peer reviewed. That review did not sustain the blogger’s hypothesis concerning its treatment of UHI.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Climate Signals and Brian Brettschneider:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateSignals/status/1156929127414403074

In a stable climate, record high and low temps are about even. Globally, in July 2019, there were 132 all-time high temp records and only 2 all-time lows. Human-caused warming is driving this imbalance.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1158129812738699265

July 2019 temperatures mapped as percentile of all July temperatures (min 50 years). 134 stations with warmest July. 2 stations with coldest July. Spatial average of 71st percentile good for either 1st or 2nd warmest July on record globally.
 
 

Image

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The United States is a relatively small part of the world. A map illustrating the increasing global frequency of heat waves can be found here:

https://maps.esri.com/globalriskofdeadlyheat/#

Brian Brettschneider has a great series of posts on this. But a recent study finds that this local irrigation effect will be overcome with continued global warming.

https://news.wisc.edu/irrigated-farming-in-wisconsins-central-sands-cools-the-regions-climate/

While the cooling effect of irrigation mitigates global climate change on the regional scale, climate models suggest that regional warming attributed to the global trend will eventually overcome the magnitude of mitigation offered by irrigated agriculture. Farmers, who are partially buffered for now from more extreme heat, would quickly face increasing stress in that scenario.

“Farmers in irrigated regions may experience more abrupt temperature increases that will cause them to have to adapt more quickly than other groups who are already coping with a warming climate,” says Kucharik. “It’s that timeframe in which people have time to adapt that concerns me.”

The current study is the first to definitively link irrigation in the Midwest U.S. to an altered regional climate. These results could improve weather and climate forecasts, help farmers plan better, and, the researchers hope, better prepare agricultural areas to deal with a warming climate when the irrigation effect is washed out.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1139633305958014976

Map animation showing the 100-year change in monthly temperatures using NCEI county-level temperature data. In the summer months, the central U.S. is the only region on Earth showing a notable temperature decline. Likely related to irrigation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140048246477168640

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140059426847461376

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140057959973572609

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140059253857640448

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1126293596909367301

4FECDFE8-3639-490A-8431-4EFD4B2D0D4F.jpeg.058a55308cb98f18f63deca9e2145c7f.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

That’s a false analogy.  To “know everything” about climate is not the required level of knowledge to possess an understanding of some major elements of the climate and its evolution. In fact, the notion that science must understand 100% about something to reach conclusions is a rationalization for refusing to accept what science does understand.

Indeed, a lot is not well understood when it comes to the processes that drive tropical cyclone intensification, yet enough is known for some really solid forecasting. As more knowledge is developed, forecasting will improve further.

 

Don...science has always made new discoveries that changes the way we understand things. So...not understanding all forcing mechanisms totally for sure affects the "real outcome". Cranky is correct in saying we're in infancy & any Climatologist worth their salt will agree with such. That's science! It's ok to admit that.

Good grief...I know why less in the science community like to admit that because we want our confidence in our understanding of AGW to be with zero unknowns, but that's not the case & saying so is a flat out lie. It's 100% fact that percentages of attribution are not really known. We "think" this & "think" that for what appears to be solid reasons, but there is an element of uncertainty which should keep us humble & diligently researching for the truth. We should avoid bogus studies that seek to only validate the narrative. And yes there are those. And those doing that really believe they're justified in doing so for a good cause.

The peer review process is usually, painfully slow. To conclude research of a recent heat wave & submit those findings for peer review & the peer review process finished (all of this in just a couple of weeks, including the heatwave) should make any objective scientist question why. You know as well as I do that's NOT how this normally works.

Can there be good points from a paper? Sure! But to say we understand "attribution" of this heatwave just a few weeks ago is laughable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Among serious scientists, there’s very little “distrust.” The papers being published show remarkable consensus on the overall reality of climate change and the leading role anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have played in driving it. Areas of uncertainty exist, especially as they relate to potential feedbacks.

Finally, rapid attribution has become necessary for the science to transcend the claims of those who seek to confuse or mislead the public over what’s happening. These papers aren’t perfect, but mathematics and the current climate models provide reasonable insight, even if it isn’t precise.

 

Yea...the "serious scientists" are those who stay true to the narrative never questioning our understanding of anything, which is what a "serious scientist" should do. And scientist that does not stay 100% true to the consensus narrative is labeled a "fruit cake" paid for by big oil companies. You do not have to be a denier to humbly admit lots of real, objective research needs to continue. 

But some of these "real scientists" as you call them, seek to burn at the stake any scientist who applies critical objective thinking & research. Amazing, some of these "fruit cake", paid for by big oil companies scientists, are not even deniers. They merely make humble statements of questioning our understanding of the processes & future implications, while all the while affirming AGW as a fact. But because they do NOT stick to the "damnation" narrative they are sought to be burned at the stake. 

Yes...there are the few real "deniers" that most folks ignore & rightfully so. But we should not ignore other scientists that are objective enough & brave enough to say while we can affirm an overarching fact, our total understanding of the processes underneath that fact still needs MUCH progress. And the progress of understanding the processes better may impact our understanding of the future. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... There'll be hand wavers as they are going over the cliff ... It is possible to 'deny to death' - it's happened throughout history over lesser specters than GW-based environmental apocalypse, and will happen again.  Gee-wiz, any time some geezer stances against a pleading EM official, prior to a big hurricane, or a volcano's impending doom...  citing past this that  through a matter of irrelevant heritage ... that is death.  

It's not making it easier if/when environmental lobby groups tailor up "official looking" studies and foist 'pseudoscience' for the general consumption of an ill-prepared populous. At no fault of their own, a population that likely isn't critically evaluating these things the right way ( putting it diplomatically). 

Then, those who are ... or common sense kicks in, and render's whatever content and circumstance as suspect ... ( and this is the part that scratches my head ) that for some reason impugns the entire theoretical framework of GW ? 

That is just as logically flawed.   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

Don...science has always made new discoveries that changes the way we understand things. So...not understanding all forcing mechanisms totally for sure affects the "real outcome". Cranky is correct in saying we're in infancy & any Climatologist worth their salt will agree with such. That's science! It's ok to admit that.

Good grief...I know why less in the science community like to admit that because we want our confidence in our understanding of AGW to be with zero unknowns, but that's not the case & saying so is a flat out lie. It's 100% fact that percentages of attribution are not really known. We "think" this & "think" that for what appears to be solid reasons, but there is an element of uncertainty which should keep us humble & diligently researching for the truth. We should avoid bogus studies that seek to only validate the narrative. And yes there are those. And those doing that really believe they're justified in doing so for a good cause.

The peer review process is usually, painfully slow. To conclude research of a recent heat wave & submit those findings for peer review & the peer review process finished (all of this in just a couple of weeks, including the heatwave) should make any objective scientist question why. You know as well as I do that's NOT how this normally works.

Can there be good points from a paper? Sure! But to say we understand "attribution" of this heatwave just a few weeks ago is laughable.

There’s little doubt that science is a field of continual discovery/knowledge acquisition. In practically all areas more can be learned, including in the area of climate. Nevertheless, the two big ideas on the climate—1. That the climate is warming globally and 2. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the principal reason—are largely settled. More precision remains possible. Greater understanding of feedbacks can be obtained. All of this knowledge can lead to still better forecasts of multiple related variables and outcomes.

Crankywxguy’s argument was not a good faith assertion that more remains to be learned: the climate papers are filled with expressions of such a need. It was an attempt to wield the claim to undermine what is known without having to provide a compelling plausible alternative.

Finally, with regard to the paper, it notes that climate change contributed to the outcome. It provides a range of probabilities. It leverages the climate models for insight. Even with simple mathematics, alone, one could reach a reasonable judgement based on what is known from the data concerning mean temperatures and standard deviations. In a world where the mean temperature is higher than it was and variability is constant, the probability of a high temperature is increased. If variability is increasing—as has been shown to be occurring on a modest basis in many areas—the probability of that warm outcome is further increased.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

Yea...the "serious scientists" are those who stay true to the narrative never questioning our understanding of anything, which is what a "serious scientist" should do. And scientist that does not stay 100% true to the consensus narrative is labeled a "fruit cake" paid for by big oil companies. You do not have to be a denier to humbly admit lots of real, objective research needs to continue. 

But some of these "real scientists" as you call them, seek to burn at the stake any scientist who applies critical objective thinking & research. Amazing, some of these "fruit cake", paid for by big oil companies scientists, are not even deniers. They merely make humble statements of questioning our understanding of the processes & future implications, while all the while affirming AGW as a fact. But because they do NOT stick to the "damnation" narrative they are sought to be burned at the stake. 

Yes...there are the few real "deniers" that most folks ignore & rightfully so. But we should not ignore other scientists that are objective enough & brave enough to say while we can affirm an overarching fact, our total understanding of the processes underneath that fact still needs MUCH progress. And the progress of understanding the processes better may impact our understanding of the future. 

Differences of opinion over nuance or degree of magnitude are not a big issue. The big issue is those who reject the basic areas that are supported by what is an overwhelming body of evidence/absence of any compelling alternative explanation in combination with a rigid refusal to bring their ideas to peer review for scrutiny. If they have something of value, they should bring it before the scientific community for examination. Instead, they are little different from those who chose to stick with the idea of an earth-centric solar system long after Copernicus and later Galileo demonstrated that it is solar-centric. In the end, when one dismisses scientific understanding out of hand despite the evidence for it and also refuses to submit one’s own ideas for peer review, one ceases to engage in science. When one rationalizes the latter (refusal to seek publication) with unfounded and unsustainable fears of bias, etc., one merely engages in conspiracy theories. The true denier often satisfies both those conditions.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bluewave said:

Brian Brettschneider has a great series of posts on this. But a recent study finds that this local irrigation effect will be overcome with continued global warming.

https://news.wisc.edu/irrigated-farming-in-wisconsins-central-sands-cools-the-regions-climate/

While the cooling effect of irrigation mitigates global climate change on the regional scale, climate models suggest that regional warming attributed to the global trend will eventually overcome the magnitude of mitigation offered by irrigated agriculture. Farmers, who are partially buffered for now from more extreme heat, would quickly face increasing stress in that scenario.

“Farmers in irrigated regions may experience more abrupt temperature increases that will cause them to have to adapt more quickly than other groups who are already coping with a warming climate,” says Kucharik. “It’s that timeframe in which people have time to adapt that concerns me.”

The current study is the first to definitively link irrigation in the Midwest U.S. to an altered regional climate. These results could improve weather and climate forecasts, help farmers plan better, and, the researchers hope, better prepare agricultural areas to deal with a warming climate when the irrigation effect is washed out.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1139633305958014976

Map animation showing the 100-year change in monthly temperatures using NCEI county-level temperature data. In the summer months, the central U.S. is the only region on Earth showing a notable temperature decline. Likely related to irrigation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140048246477168640

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140059426847461376

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140057959973572609

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140059253857640448

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1126293596909367301

4FECDFE8-3639-490A-8431-4EFD4B2D0D4F.jpeg.058a55308cb98f18f63deca9e2145c7f.jpeg

 I picked the states that had the most red signalling significantly above normal by your data. I ran the raw data for each states for July, August and September (which the program only allows seasons) for the entire span of the record for all climate stations in each state from 1893-2018. This is the average high for each summer for all climo stations in the "reddest" states. take a look. Not much to see here....

 

 

texas.png

florida.png

idaho.png

wyoming.png

washington.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bluewave said:

Brian Brettschneider has a great series of posts on this. But a recent study finds that this local irrigation effect will be overcome with continued global warming.

https://news.wisc.edu/irrigated-farming-in-wisconsins-central-sands-cools-the-regions-climate/

While the cooling effect of irrigation mitigates global climate change on the regional scale, climate models suggest that regional warming attributed to the global trend will eventually overcome the magnitude of mitigation offered by irrigated agriculture. Farmers, who are partially buffered for now from more extreme heat, would quickly face increasing stress in that scenario.

“Farmers in irrigated regions may experience more abrupt temperature increases that will cause them to have to adapt more quickly than other groups who are already coping with a warming climate,” says Kucharik. “It’s that timeframe in which people have time to adapt that concerns me.”

The current study is the first to definitively link irrigation in the Midwest U.S. to an altered regional climate. These results could improve weather and climate forecasts, help farmers plan better, and, the researchers hope, better prepare agricultural areas to deal with a warming climate when the irrigation effect is washed out.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1139633305958014976

Map animation showing the 100-year change in monthly temperatures using NCEI county-level temperature data. In the summer months, the central U.S. is the only region on Earth showing a notable temperature decline. Likely related to irrigation.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140048246477168640

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140059426847461376

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140057959973572609

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1140059253857640448

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1126293596909367301

4FECDFE8-3639-490A-8431-4EFD4B2D0D4F.jpeg.058a55308cb98f18f63deca9e2145c7f.jpeg

I found some ever more damning evidence that extreme heat is just not happening. These are plots of the maximum annual high temperature averaged for entire states going back to 1893 using climate stations. Take  look. Even with some minimal warming, there is no trend to extreme heat. The data does not lie. Sorry. Your argument just does not hold up to the data. The warming is primarily at night which points to local land use patterns when the atmosphere is not well mixed. Heat is well mixed so it dampens the UHI.   Again I tried to pick the states that had the most red on your map. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

maxT_Texas_annual.png

maxT_wyoming.png

maxT_washingon.png

maxT_idaho.png

maxtT_florida.png

maxT_california.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bluewave said:

From Climate Signals and Brian Brettschneider:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateSignals/status/1156929127414403074

In a stable climate, record high and low temps are about even. Globally, in July 2019, there were 132 all-time high temp records and only 2 all-time lows. Human-caused warming is driving this imbalance.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1158129812738699265

July 2019 temperatures mapped as percentile of all July temperatures (min 50 years). 134 stations with warmest July. 2 stations with coldest July. Spatial average of 71st percentile good for either 1st or 2nd warmest July on record globally.
 
 

Image

The UAH Satellite record had +.38C for July which is minimal.  The CFSV2 reanalysis data shows +.305C for July....hardly anything to go nuts over. The record lows are skewed because of UHI. Plain and simple. 

 

CFSv2-global-July-2019.jpg

UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2019_v6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UAH Satellite record had +.38C for July which is minimal.  The CFSV2 reanalysis data shows +.305C for July....hardly anything to go nuts over. The record lows are skewed because of UHI. Plain and simple. 
 
CFSv2-global-July-2019.thumb.jpg.c2932d863c0bcdb797ad8e9da0bd9ede.jpg
UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2019_v6.thumb.jpg.4fbc3dc849b42d9b383b46f2b7acd300.jpg


Instead of trying to make it not look as bad by taking the difference of the whole average and the latest 13 month average look at the warming that has taken place since 1979 which is twice as much at 0.6C.



.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Differences of opinion over nuance or degree of magnitude are not a big issue. The big issue is those who reject the basic areas that are supported by what is an overwhelming body of evidence/absence of any compelling alternative explanation in combination with a rigid refusal to bring their ideas to peer review for scrutiny. If they have something of value, they should bring it before the scientific community for examination. Instead, they are little different from those who chose to stick with the idea of an earth-centric solar system long after Copernicus and later Galileo demonstrated that it is solar-centric. In the end, when one dismisses scientific understanding out of hand despite the evidence for it and also refuses to submit one’s own ideas for peer review, one ceases to engage in science. When one rationalizes the latter (refusal to seek publication) with unfounded and unsustainable fears of bias, etc., one merely engages in conspiracy theories. The true denier often satisfies both those conditions.

 

It's the crap like this pointed out today by Dr. Judith Curry. Using info for convenience is just bologna. 

 

BTW, while we're on the 1930's...the new bullcrap of trying to say it was only regional warming is not impressive when plain evidence is there it was global...at least in the N. Hemisphere. Also the trying to minimize the 1930's with crappy educated explanations are not impressive either. Those heatwaves were certainly not C02 & the land argument is laughable.

With all of that said...I'm not saying AGW is not a fact, it obviously is. And yes I believe its AGW, not just GW. But honest objective discussions & not history revision is needed. And certainly we need responsible realistic action. I'm all for that to. My posts are not about any of that. My posts are about the exaggeration, fearmongering, lack of objectivity, flat out lying about history to cause action really is & will hurt science in the long run. 

It does not take a very smart objective person to admit there is some truth to what I'm saying.

EDIT: And I'm certainly not saying any of this about Don. He is one of the best, respected posters on the forum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×