Global Warming Update: Phoenix (AZ) cancels flights as it's over 118 degrees for American Airlines regional planes

Notassmartasyouthink wrote:

History repeats wrote:

Your not very inciteful, are you?

You're.

Insightful, not inciteful - unless you mean inciting a riot, in which case carry on.

If they just load enough fuel to get to the destination plus required fudge factor then they would be able to take off. Bit the airlines are too cheap to spend the labor to refuel more often.

Citizen Runner wrote:

History repeats wrote:

So it's almost as warm as it was in 1990, the last time this happened. Are you saying global warming has been paused for 28 years now?

http://i64.tinypic.com/9ubr55.pnghttp://i67.tinypic.com/312gxgg.png

1st chart - What happened in the mid-1930s other than the New Deal?

2nd chart- I doubt the accuracy of this chart, that Princeton Nobel prize winner claims that they added sea temperature in with land temperature in recent times and naturally the sum temperature has shot up.

Polluting corporations too wrote:

This is a DIRECT effect of Trump's rejection of Paris.

CNN climate expert Jill Filipovic wrote:

“If you’re stranded in Phoenix right now, or worried about an elderly acquaintance in California, or are without power in the Bay Area, or nervous about a wildfire taking your home, you can thank the long list of politicians who do the bidding of polluting corporations instead of their constituents and protect profit over the environment,” CNN’s Jill Filipovic wrote. “You can thank the President who tore up the Paris climate agreement.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/opinions/southwest-extreme-heat-climate-change-filipovic/index.html

Thanks Mr. Trump for getting us out of that ridiculous scheme to redistribute wealth!!

Good heavens the left have gone completely wacko.

Citizen Runner wrote:

History repeats wrote:

So it's almost as warm as it was in 1990, the last time this happened. Are you saying global warming has been paused for 28 years now?

http://i64.tinypic.com/9ubr55.pnghttp://i67.tinypic.com/312gxgg.png

Rather than look at the daytime high temperature, look at the overnight low temperature. That has skyrocketed in Phoenix.

Man made localized global warming.

stephen snell wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:http://i64.tinypic.com/9ubr55.pnghttp://i67.tinypic.com/312gxgg.png

Rather than look at the daytime high temperature, look at the overnight low temperature. That has skyrocketed in Phoenix.

Man made localized global warming.

So many clever responses. Just such clever people here.

Not that I would expect the folks on here to appreciate actual knowledge and insight but Citizen Runner is pretty much the only one who supplies either in these global warming "debates".

The rest of you clowns . . . well, you do provide cute one-liners. And that's really all that matters in those little brains of yours.

What makes you think you can just "average" temperature? Isn't energy the fourth power? And doesn't heat capacity (humidity) matter too? You have a bogus statistic ("average temperature") and tout it as if it meant something.

Mann just admitted in Nature Geo paper that the models are wrong. However, it seems the fudged data needs to keep up with them anyway.

https://twitter.com/RogerAPielkeSr/status/876868371664576514

Nope, no warming wrote:

But then we look at the raw data, rather than the doctoring...

Through the magic of adjustments, USHCN has created a strong warming trend (red) in Chandler, Arizona – where the thermometer data (blue) shows none.

They did this by subtracting four degrees from temperatures prior to 1910, and two degrees for temperatures prior to 1989. As you can see above, this creates a nice consistent warming trend.

Heh, con them anyway you can.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

1st chart - What happened in the mid-1930s other than the New Deal?

I'm looking at the same plot as you, but it looks like a rather cold 12 month period from mid 1932 to mid 1933, followed by an exceptionally warm 12 month period into mid 1934. That it doesn't show up in the global plot is relevant in the context of global warming.

2nd chart- I doubt the accuracy of this chart, that Princeton Nobel prize winner claims that they added sea temperature in with land temperature in recent times and naturally the sum temperature has shot up.

This is confused. Land-only temperature rise is significantly faster than land+ocean because land has less thermal inertia coupled to the atmosphere. Also neither of the prominent Princeton climate contrarians, William Happer and Freeman Dyson, have a Nobel prize.

Nope, no warming wrote:

But then we look at the raw data, rather than the doctoring...

There are various reasons for adjustments as documented in the literature. Step changes like this are generally instrumentation changes or station moves. The station metadata for the Chandler Heights (021514-6) shows this for the two most recent steps*, but I only found metadata back to 1948. The gaps suggest that there were station changes in the earlier periods. 021514-6 isn't used in the composite temperature anomoly product because of quality issues like this.

* - For whatever reason the contrarian blogger "Steven Goddard" has shown raw and adjusted for one station and difference data for a distinctly different station (021511-6 I think) in the link above.

So Manly wrote:

The rest of you clowns . . . well, you do provide cute one-liners. And that's really all that matters in those little brains of yours.

Okay...and you have all the answers big shot? Please do impress us with your imperiously keen knowledge of the subject.

Polluting corporations too wrote:

This is a DIRECT effect of Trump's rejection of Paris.

CNN climate expert Jill Filipovic wrote:

“If you’re stranded in Phoenix right now, or worried about an elderly acquaintance in California, or are without power in the Bay Area, or nervous about a wildfire taking your home, you can thank the long list of politicians who do the bidding of polluting corporations instead of their constituents and protect profit over the environment,” CNN’s Jill Filipovic wrote. “You can thank the President who tore up the Paris climate agreement.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/opinions/southwest-extreme-heat-climate-change-filipovic/index.html

Oh, so if Trump had not rejected the Paris climate agreement, it would not have reached 118 in Phoenix? Exactly what did the Paris climate agreement compel us to do that would have prevented the local temperature heat spike?

There's always a wise guy wrote:

So Manly wrote:

The rest of you clowns . . . well, you do provide cute one-liners. And that's really all that matters in those little brains of yours.

Okay...and you have all the answers big shot? Please do impress us with your imperiously keen knowledge of the subject.

1) I don't have all the answers.

2) Nobody has all the answers.

3) Citizen Runner is the only one on here who consistently provides good answers.

Anything else that your little brain would like answers for?

Current heat wave regards a small land area and a small period of time.

Global warming regards a somewhat larger land area and a somewhat larger period of time.

Glad I could clear that up for the OP.

King of the Hill put it best:

Phoenix should not exist. It is a monument to man's arrogance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PYt0SDnrBE

trumps are cold-hearted. they do not feel heat.

History repeats wrote:

I'm so confused.

Finally, a nugget of logic in your post.

Santer too wrote:

Mann just admitted in Nature Geo paper that the models are wrong. However, it seems the fudged data needs to keep up with them anyway.

https://twitter.com/RogerAPielkeSr/status/876868371664576514

Nobody in their right mind who develops models or utilizes their output thinks they are "right." This is a common misconception.

We use them for a number of reasons. When we use climate models for forecasting, we tend to use multi-model ensembles (30+ individual climate models from different development centers) to average out the biases that each individual contributes. The average projection of a model ensemble is always much more accurate than any individual model. This is common knowledge in *any* forecasting field.

We're well aware of what each model is biased in. Some have Pacific sea surface temperature biases. Some have seasonal arctic ice volume biases. Some don't resolve the ocean mixed layer too well. Some don't place the ITCZ in the right place, etc. etc.

It's not as if we treat them as truth.