• Member Statistics

    16,016
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    georgefernandis
    Newest Member
    georgefernandis
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
donsutherland1

Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

Recommended Posts

Just looking at the temperature rise in the past 200 years compared to changes in climate we've observed over thousands of years, the warming now is faster by orders of magnitude. I've suspected our climate might be somewhat more moderating than we expect, but I see no other reason besides human emissions of some kind that the temperature has risen so suddenly and consistently, despite a few "dips" 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Just looking at the temperature rise in the past 200 years compared to changes in climate we've observed over thousands of years, the warming now is faster by orders of magnitude. I've suspected our climate might be somewhat more moderating than we expect, but I see no other reason besides human emissions of some kind that the temperature has risen so suddenly and consistently, despite a few "dips" 

Well the anti-science people will tell you all about how hot the medieval warm period was and how the current temperature record is being fudged to show more warming. So yeah you've presented a very simple very solid argument, but it still rests on a couple of points that some people manage to dispute

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

tip of iceberg.. all published in major journals and cited by IPCC.. there is no widespread effort to suppress contrarian views or views that play down the effect of climate change. These papers are taken seriously in the field. Internet drivel is not.

 

A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series           ECS ~ 1.8K

https://zenodo.org/record/918270#.    ECS ~ 1.0 to 4.1 K   just slightly lower than the IPCC 1.5C to 4.5K last assessment 

 

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ClDy...45.1009L/abstract  - published by Judith Curry and widely cited by climate science - good example of how using actual evidence and logic gets you published and respected      ~  1.64K

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76064/7/ngeo1836(1)_with_coversheet.pdf    ~ 2.0K

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/737/2020/esd-11-737-2020.pdf  -  demonstrates that models with high estimates of climate sensitivity are likely wrong     ~ 1.9 to 3.4K

I have read the abstracts and conclusions so far. I knew about the Norway papers from Oslo and of course I read the Lewis and Curry paper a while ago. These papers both are around 1.64 to 1.8K ECS.  

So most of these papers seem to converge on roughly 1.5 to 2.0K, again I read the Oslo one and Curry's before. And you state there are many more. OK, that is fine. But these folks don't get the splashy news headlines and hype. It is the researchers who promote their work to the media hype machine that get all the attention. These papers (except for the second and last one) don't really suggest much reason for alarm. Curry has been banished which is a big loss, the Oslo folks I saw years ago get crushed. I am not familiar with the other papers. I do thank you for your patience and providing these.  

The first paper uses the highly uncertain OHC and surface record back to preindustrial times which also is very uncertain as a metric. The second paper uses data from HadCRU, GISS and MSU TMT and this is probably why there is such a big range. GISS is an outlier in having too much warming. This paper doesn't really add much to the oft quoted 1.5 to 4.5K ECS for doubled CO2. It is just a little lower. 

Lewis and Curry talk about base periods in the 1800s, I can't remember what they used for temperature record since I don't have access right now to the full paper. But it has to be the very unreliable earlier datasets. 

The 4th paper uses HadCrut4 which again has a lot of uncertainties in the early predindustrial era. 

The last one constraints the ECS to above 1.5K but lowers the top more to 3.4K.  They use CMIP models since 1975 a known global cool period. Natural processes were a part of the 1960s and 70s cool period and to assume all the warming since 1975 is from CO2 is erroneous. They also mention the uncertainties with aerosol forcing which I agree. There is a lot of uncertainties there. 

The biggest issues I see with all of this is 1) we really don't know what the global average temperature was in the late 1800s. 2) None of these papers account for natural processes that would affect the climate that are not understood, i.e clouds, convective overturning etc   and 3) feedbacks and forcings can get messy in untangling see spencer and christy's work on this. The problem is extremely complex and to make policy decisions based on higher sensitivity or even 1.5K (the so-called danger mark) is nuts IMO. Plus we have warmed about .6C to .7C from both surface data and UAH since just before the El Chichon eruption in 1982. (RSS has too much warming compared to these datasets having .8 to .9C)  Again the 1970s was globally a cool period so much of this warming could be related to interdecadal variability. To blame fires, heat waves, intensifying hurricanes, winter storms, arctic outbreaks, floods and individual weather events on climate change or a "climate crisis" right now on a small amount of warming is absurd and basically part of the ever worsening media-hype campaign. This hype is because the competition for news is extreme now with all the different sources. Climate change has become part of this hype and even weather forecasting too. The NHC is naming everything now and continues to overdo wind estimates of storms/hurricanes before landfall. I have seen this first hand. They want to get people to take action so they overdo the intensity of the storm as it approaches land to make sure people take the storm seriously and don't let their guard down. I have seen this on several occasions, but not all.  So even weather forecasting has become part of this media-hype machine. This plays back into a university researcher trying to make a name for themselves or their institutions with research especially climate research. There is bias. 

I question everything that is my nature. If that offends people on this forum I apologize.  But I do agree with all of you that we should stop polluting the atmosphere and environment (this includes pesticides herbicides too), help 3rd world countries have a decent quality of life and respect everyone no matter what your race, color, or creed is. If we can do this, it would solve many environmental problems and help calm down the insanity the world is going through right now. The media needs to STOP hyping everything and politicians need to start representing US.  This utopian view unfortunately probably will never happen.... 

Thank you skier for a nice discord. Stay safe.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I have read the abstracts and conclusions so far. I knew about the Norway papers from Oslo and of course I read the Lewis and Curry paper a while ago. These papers both are around 1.64 to 1.8K ECS.  

So most of these papers seem to converge on roughly 1.5 to 2.0K, again I read the Oslo one and Curry's before. And you state there are many more. OK, that is fine. But these folks don't get the splashy news headlines and hype. It is the researchers who promote their work to the media hype machine that get all the attention. These papers (except for the second and last one) don't really suggest much reason for alarm. Curry has been banished which is a big loss, the Oslo folks I saw years ago get crushed. I am not familiar with the other papers. I do thank you for your patience and providing these.  

The first paper uses the highly uncertain OHC and surface record back to preindustrial times which also is very uncertain as a metric. The second paper uses data from HadCRU, GISS and MSU TMT and this is probably why there is such a big range. GISS is an outlier in having too much warming. This paper doesn't really add much to the oft quoted 1.5 to 4.5K ECS for doubled CO2. It is just a little lower. 

Lewis and Curry talk about base periods in the 1800s, I can't remember what they used for temperature record since I don't have access right now to the full paper. But it has to be the very unreliable earlier datasets. 

The 4th paper uses HadCrut4 which again has a lot of uncertainties in the early predindustrial era. 

The last one constraints the ECS to above 1.5K but lowers the top more to 3.4K.  They use CMIP models since 1975 a known global cool period. Natural processes were a part of the 1960s and 70s cool period and to assume all the warming since 1975 is from CO2 is erroneous. They also mention the uncertainties with aerosol forcing which I agree. There is a lot of uncertainties there. 

The biggest issues I see with all of this is 1) we really don't know what the global average temperature was in the late 1800s. 2) None of these papers account for natural processes that would affect the climate that are not understood, i.e clouds, convective overturning etc   and 3) feedbacks and forcings can get messy in untangling see spencer and christy's work on this. The problem is extremely complex and to make policy decisions based on higher sensitivity or even 1.5K (the so-called danger mark) is nuts IMO. Plus we have warmed about .6C to .7C from both surface data and UAH since just before the El Chichon eruption in 1982. (RSS has too much warming compared to these datasets having .8 to .9C)  Again the 1970s was globally a cool period so much of this warming could be related to interdecadal variability. To blame fires, heat waves, intensifying hurricanes, winter storms, arctic outbreaks, floods and individual weather events on climate change or a "climate crisis" right now on a small amount of warming is absurd and basically part of the ever worsening media-hype campaign. This hype is because the competition for news is extreme now with all the different sources. Climate change has become part of this hype and even weather forecasting too. The NHC is naming everything now and continues to overdo wind estimates of storms/hurricanes before landfall. I have seen this first hand. They want to get people to take action so they overdo the intensity of the storm as it approaches land to make sure people take the storm seriously and don't let their guard down. I have seen this on several occasions, but not all.  So even weather forecasting has become part of this media-hype machine. This plays back into a university researcher trying to make a name for themselves or their institutions with research especially climate research. There is bias. 

I question everything that is my nature. If that offends people on this forum I apologize.  But I do agree with all of you that we should stop polluting the atmosphere and environment (this includes pesticides herbicides too), help 3rd world countries have a decent quality of life and respect everyone no matter what your race, color, or creed is. If we can do this, it would solve many environmental problems and help calm down the insanity the world is going through right now. The media needs to STOP hyping everything and politicians need to start representing US.  This utopian view unfortunately probably will never happen.... 

Thank you skier for a nice discord. Stay safe.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

  I respect your opinion, but I flagrantly disagree, especially with the NHC part. As far as I can tell the NHC has only named systems that have definite tropical charicteristics, and aside from an early subtropical storm, all the systems we have had have pretty clearly been warm core systems with winds above 40 miles per hour and a closed surface low, which is all that is needed for naming. The NHC's job is hard enough without people shitting on them for political reasons

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

  I respect your opinion, but I flagrantly disagree, especially with the NHC part. As far as I can tell the NHC has only named systems that have definite tropical charicteristics, and aside from an early subtropical storm, all the systems we have had have pretty clearly been warm core systems with winds above 40 miles per hour and a closed surface low, which is all that is needed for naming. The NHC's job is hard enough without people shitting on them for political reasons

I agree. The NHC is very clear what a tropical cyclone is: " A warm-core non-frontal synoptic-scale cyclone, originating over tropical or subtropical waters, with organized deep convection and a closed surface wind circulation about a well-defined center."

This is a very active season on account of developing La Nina conditions, wet conditions in Africa, and abnormally warm Atlantic waters. Prior to the season, NOAA, Colorado State, and Penn State forecasters all called near-record to possible record tropical activity.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Because the peer review process is corrupted. Scientists rely on the government for funding. If there are no serious problems, there is no funding. So climate scientists have to have a problem to get funding. The problem has to be more and more significant to keep getting funding. Since the climate is changing slowly and most Americans don't notice much change, they are trying to prove that weather events are now supercharged by CO2 and the media catches on and calls it a climate crisis and so on. Politicians now are worried and bingo more funding. 
Plus the folks that have all the power are of course biased to where the money is and referee the peer review process and won't let skeptical viewpoints publish. We saw that in the climategate emails and it continues more than a decade later. Follow the money, influence and power. Peer review doesn't mean much anymore. I have seen terrible papers get through when I was a reviewer. It depends on what the problem is. If it fits an agenda it gets published easier. This is just the truth and it unfortunately occurs outside climate science too. With blogs and open internet, peer review isn't what is was 20 years ago.

 

hold on a sec though, do you at least acknowledge that research performed by the fossil fuel cartel back in the 70s was covered up by them?  And if so, why do you think they covered it up?  We see this across several industries.  I dont understand why some call out scientists that rely on government funding when scientists who work for industry have proven to be way more biased.  You see this across several industries- from tobacco to pharma to fossil fuels to the sugar and food industries.  If you want to call out funding dependent scientists you must even more vociferously call out industry scientists.

 

Share this post


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

I have read the abstracts and conclusions so far. I knew about the Norway papers from Oslo and of course I read the Lewis and Curry paper a while ago. These papers both are around 1.64 to 1.8K ECS.  

So most of these papers seem to converge on roughly 1.5 to 2.0K, again I read the Oslo one and Curry's before. And you state there are many more. OK, that is fine. But these folks don't get the splashy news headlines and hype. It is the researchers who promote their work to the media hype machine that get all the attention. These papers (except for the second and last one) don't really suggest much reason for alarm. Curry has been banished which is a big loss, the Oslo folks I saw years ago get crushed. I am not familiar with the other papers. I do thank you for your patience and providing these.  

The first paper uses the highly uncertain OHC and surface record back to preindustrial times which also is very uncertain as a metric. The second paper uses data from HadCRU, GISS and MSU TMT and this is probably why there is such a big range. GISS is an outlier in having too much warming. This paper doesn't really add much to the oft quoted 1.5 to 4.5K ECS for doubled CO2. It is just a little lower. 

Lewis and Curry talk about base periods in the 1800s, I can't remember what they used for temperature record since I don't have access right now to the full paper. But it has to be the very unreliable earlier datasets. 

The 4th paper uses HadCrut4 which again has a lot of uncertainties in the early predindustrial era. 

The last one constraints the ECS to above 1.5K but lowers the top more to 3.4K.  They use CMIP models since 1975 a known global cool period. Natural processes were a part of the 1960s and 70s cool period and to assume all the warming since 1975 is from CO2 is erroneous. They also mention the uncertainties with aerosol forcing which I agree. There is a lot of uncertainties there. 

The biggest issues I see with all of this is 1) we really don't know what the global average temperature was in the late 1800s. 2) None of these papers account for natural processes that would affect the climate that are not understood, i.e clouds, convective overturning etc   and 3) feedbacks and forcings can get messy in untangling see spencer and christy's work on this. The problem is extremely complex and to make policy decisions based on higher sensitivity or even 1.5K (the so-called danger mark) is nuts IMO. Plus we have warmed about .6C to .7C from both surface data and UAH since just before the El Chichon eruption in 1982. (RSS has too much warming compared to these datasets having .8 to .9C)  Again the 1970s was globally a cool period so much of this warming could be related to interdecadal variability. To blame fires, heat waves, intensifying hurricanes, winter storms, arctic outbreaks, floods and individual weather events on climate change or a "climate crisis" right now on a small amount of warming is absurd and basically part of the ever worsening media-hype campaign. This hype is because the competition for news is extreme now with all the different sources. Climate change has become part of this hype and even weather forecasting too. The NHC is naming everything now and continues to overdo wind estimates of storms/hurricanes before landfall. I have seen this first hand. They want to get people to take action so they overdo the intensity of the storm as it approaches land to make sure people take the storm seriously and don't let their guard down. I have seen this on several occasions, but not all.  So even weather forecasting has become part of this media-hype machine. This plays back into a university researcher trying to make a name for themselves or their institutions with research especially climate research. There is bias. 

I question everything that is my nature. If that offends people on this forum I apologize.  But I do agree with all of you that we should stop polluting the atmosphere and environment (this includes pesticides herbicides too), help 3rd world countries have a decent quality of life and respect everyone no matter what your race, color, or creed is. If we can do this, it would solve many environmental problems and help calm down the insanity the world is going through right now. The media needs to STOP hyping everything and politicians need to start representing US.  This utopian view unfortunately probably will never happen.... 

Thank you skier for a nice discord. Stay safe.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

1. Giss is not an outlier or biased high. If I recall Hadley shows a hair more warming in the long run. They essentially agree and I have reviewed and even used to believe all of the skeptic claims of flaws in these sources. Once I learned more I understood that these sources are accurate within their published uncertainty estimates. This is a huge claim and requires major evidence of which you’ve provided none.

 

2. Long term ohc data  is not that unreliable because we have sea level rise to corroborate it. Sea level rise is primarily due to ohc increase so it simply becomes a math equation using the expansion property of water. You’ve provided no evidence to make this tremendous claim.

 

3. The last paper included natural forcings I believe so your assertion that it assumes all warming since the 70s is man made is false. 
 

4. others already covered the nhc

 

5. There had been a measured increase in droughts and heatwaves globally over the long term, so the California is wildfires are partially attributed to agw. Even curry says this although she used the word fractionally. Again you have provided no evidence that the global increase is attributable to something else.
 

6. The only part of what you said with which I agree is that the media is a hype machine. The fires and hurricanes are not 100% agw. Especially not the hurricanes. 
 

7. The whole point of my post wasn’t to get into it on your unproven anti-science claims. The point was that contrarian views are frequently published and cited in the field when there is actual evidence and sound reasoning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have read the abstracts and conclusions so far. I knew about the Norway papers from Oslo and of course I read the Lewis and Curry paper a while ago. These papers both are around 1.64 to 1.8K ECS.  

So most of these papers seem to converge on roughly 1.5 to 2.0K, again I read the Oslo one and Curry's before. And you state there are many more. OK, that is fine. But these folks don't get the splashy news headlines and hype. It is the researchers who promote their work to the media hype machine that get all the attention. These papers (except for the second and last one) don't really suggest much reason for alarm. Curry has been banished which is a big loss, the Oslo folks I saw years ago get crushed. I am not familiar with the other papers. I do thank you for your patience and providing these.  

The first paper uses the highly uncertain OHC and surface record back to preindustrial times which also is very uncertain as a metric. The second paper uses data from HadCRU, GISS and MSU TMT and this is probably why there is such a big range. GISS is an outlier in having too much warming. This paper doesn't really add much to the oft quoted 1.5 to 4.5K ECS for doubled CO2. It is just a little lower. 

Lewis and Curry talk about base periods in the 1800s, I can't remember what they used for temperature record since I don't have access right now to the full paper. But it has to be the very unreliable earlier datasets. 

The 4th paper uses HadCrut4 which again has a lot of uncertainties in the early predindustrial era. 

The last one constraints the ECS to above 1.5K but lowers the top more to 3.4K.  They use CMIP models since 1975 a known global cool period. Natural processes were a part of the 1960s and 70s cool period and to assume all the warming since 1975 is from CO2 is erroneous. They also mention the uncertainties with aerosol forcing which I agree. There is a lot of uncertainties there. 

The biggest issues I see with all of this is 1) we really don't know what the global average temperature was in the late 1800s. 2) None of these papers account for natural processes that would affect the climate that are not understood, i.e clouds, convective overturning etc   and 3) feedbacks and forcings can get messy in untangling see spencer and christy's work on this. The problem is extremely complex and to make policy decisions based on higher sensitivity or even 1.5K (the so-called danger mark) is nuts IMO. Plus we have warmed about .6C to .7C from both surface data and UAH since just before the El Chichon eruption in 1982. (RSS has too much warming compared to these datasets having .8 to .9C)  Again the 1970s was globally a cool period so much of this warming could be related to interdecadal variability. To blame fires, heat waves, intensifying hurricanes, winter storms, arctic outbreaks, floods and individual weather events on climate change or a "climate crisis" right now on a small amount of warming is absurd and basically part of the ever worsening media-hype campaign. This hype is because the competition for news is extreme now with all the different sources. Climate change has become part of this hype and even weather forecasting too. The NHC is naming everything now and continues to overdo wind estimates of storms/hurricanes before landfall. I have seen this first hand. They want to get people to take action so they overdo the intensity of the storm as it approaches land to make sure people take the storm seriously and don't let their guard down. I have seen this on several occasions, but not all.  So even weather forecasting has become part of this media-hype machine. This plays back into a university researcher trying to make a name for themselves or their institutions with research especially climate research. There is bias. 

I question everything that is my nature. If that offends people on this forum I apologize.  But I do agree with all of you that we should stop polluting the atmosphere and environment (this includes pesticides herbicides too), help 3rd world countries have a decent quality of life and respect everyone no matter what your race, color, or creed is. If we can do this, it would solve many environmental problems and help calm down the insanity the world is going through right now. The media needs to STOP hyping everything and politicians need to start representing US.  This utopian view unfortunately probably will never happen.... 

Thank you skier for a nice discord. Stay safe.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Questioning everything is a nice trait to have, but if you are going to do that, you must question industry scientists even more- they have a long track record of deceit, across multiple fields.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree. The NHC is very clear what a tropical cyclone is: " A warm-core non-frontal synoptic-scale cyclone, originating over tropical or subtropical waters, with organized deep convection and a closed surface wind circulation about a well-defined center."

This is a very active season on account of developing La Nina conditions, wet conditions in Africa, and abnormally warm Atlantic waters. Prior to the season, NOAA, Colorado State, and Penn State forecasters all called near-record to possible record tropical activity.

TCs rapidly strengthening as they approach land (and slowing down) in the Gulf has been a pretty strong signal over the last 5 years or so, and can be connected to the abnormally warm waters there.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Phoenix was recording its hottest month on record in August, after having set the mark in July, the United Kingdom experienced a severe heat wave in August. Here’s a link to a post written by two UK Met Office authors:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-the-uks-august-2020-heatwave

Excerpt:

During August 2020, temperatures exceeding 34C were recorded somewhere in the UK for six consecutive days. 

34C has been recorded in the UK during seven out of the last 10 years, compared to seven out of the previous 50 years from 1961 to 2010. This suggests that temperatures of 34C or higher occurring at some point during the summer are becoming a more common occurrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.