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

John Cocktosten wrote:

The policies to eliminate global warming have simply moved wealth from the US to Asia.

True dat.

John Cocktosten wrote:

So, Trumps rejection of Paris 19 days ago has suddenly caused the temperature in Arizona to spike? Boy this global warming goes a lot faster than I thought. The really funny thing is that nothing Trump has done has really had any real effect at this point. Through the Bush administration and through the Obama administration the US retired hundreds of US coal plants and only built a handful of others. During that same period China was building one every ten days, and their economy was soaring while ours was bumping along. The policies to eliminate global warming have simply moved wealth from the US to Asia.

It's weather modification wars. The 3 big superpowers are hitting each other pretty hard now. Where do you think all those trillions of dollars going to the DOD are used for? 🤔

Conspiracy Theory Tom wrote:

The 3 big superpowers are hitting each other pretty hard now. Where do you think all those trillions of dollars going to the DOD are used for? 🤔

Your "big 3" better include us, because we invented the concept of weather manipulation.

John Cocktosten wrote:

So, Trumps rejection of Paris 19 days ago has suddenly caused the temperature in Arizona to spike? Boy this global warming goes a lot faster than I thought. The really funny thing is that nothing Trump has done has really had any real effect at this point. Through the Bush administration and through the Obama administration the US retired hundreds of US coal plants and only built a handful of others. During that same period China was building one every ten days, and their economy was soaring while ours was bumping along. The policies to eliminate global warming have simply moved wealth from the US to Asia.

I blame that pederast Hanrahan. Always buckin' for a promotion.

The small planes can't take off or land (safely) in weather around 118, while the big planes can't do it when it gets around 126-128.

From NASA's own website:

"Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The 'temperature spiral' is a great visual:

http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2016/06/spiral_2017_large.gif

1. Another idiot misunderstanding the difference between weather and climate.

2. This is not that uncommon of an issue in PHX. (Sky Harbor is the best airport name in the US).

xcvxvxcvx wrote:

From NASA's own website:

"Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

All a bunch of BS! Come this winter, I'll bet you this site will be littered with people complaining about record cold temps, raging blizzards, impending ice age, and the like (they complained on this site ad nauseum about the NE winter storms just this past spring!). It's all seasonal; summer = hot & winter = cold...who would have thought? People complain too much about the weather...and many of you sound like a bunch of unemployed meteorologists 😁.

xcvxvxcvx wrote:

From NASA's own website:

.

Stop quoting a government-funded source, which incidentally has nothing to do with NASA's original mission in the first place, and maybe "deniers" will take you seriously.

elviejo wrote:

118 in Phoenix ain't something new. Flew through there 40 years ago when it was over 120.

I was there on a family trip in the early 70s when I was little and it was 123 one day.

transient wrote:

The 'temperature spiral' is a great visual:

http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2016/06/spiral_2017_large.gif

There are 2 problems with this visual.

The first can be observed about 18/19 minutes into Gore's Inconvenient Truth, there was a massive inconvenient spike in temperatures around the late 1850s through the 1860s before temperatures plunged. This would suggest a link between nominal incomes and the temperature. So in order for temperatures to be stabilized standards of living will have to fall. Especially if the Paris Accord allows Asian (ex Japan) living standards to rise.

The other problem with this visual is the late 1840s-early 1850, 1870s-1900s were one of the coldest periods of the last 2,000 years. A better chart would start about the time Charlemagne was crowned and move forwards from there.

"Massive" is probably relative. Here's a plot for instance which uses a number of independent data sources for global temperatures. Note that it is an anomaly plot, but you're just subtracting a constant baseline value. You could shift the plot anywhere up and down the Y-Axis and the peaks would maintain their magnitude.

This chart starts in 1850 and moves on through the 1860s. There's a ten year smoothing filter, but that should still reflect the 'massive inconvenient spike' you discuss. At any rate, a decadal peak was likely indicative of a positive mode of Pacific inter-decadal variability (El Nino Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc.) in which the ocean fluxes heat into the atmosphere, and the warm pool is spread across the equator.

Natural modes of variability exist as noise behind the (anthropogenic) secular trend.. Having a ten year warm blip says nothing about the long-term trend.

I'm not sure at all what you're getting on about with nominal incomes. I'd appreciate another way of explaining that. Maybe I'm missing the point.

That's fair. I have just the visual for you then:

Forgot to include the plot with point one...

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/graph-1-600x404.jpg

transient wrote:

Forgot to include the plot with point one...

Do you have the raw data, rather than the "processed" version?

transient wrote:

Forgot to include the plot with point one...

Do you have the raw data, rather than the "processed" version?[/quote]

The legend shows the sources of raw data from various institutions. A rolling average/running mean/smoothing does nothing to hide the legitimacy of my claim. It reflects the centered average of +/- 5 years, so a 10-year plus long peak in the 1850s - 1860s would be glaringly obvious relative to the persistent upward trend going into the 2000s.

I can gladly pull down the raw data, run a global average over Python, not apply smoothing, and post the results. Just won't have time to do so likely until tomorrow evening.[quote]"Earth Institute" , heh wrote:

I might not even have to do the work. For instance, here's the air temperature anomalies from CRUTEM4 with unsmoothed bars in the background and smoothing in the foreground.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/CRUTEM4.pdf

Annual smoothing, rather than decadal smoothing here (+/- 6 months):

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_12monrunning_global.png

transient wrote:

Annual smoothing, rather than decadal smoothing here (+/- 6 months):

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_12monrunning_global.png

I believe the poster asked for raw data. None of this data is raw. It is all adjusted for biases.

Notice: I'm not making a claim on the meaning of the data, nor do I claim data should not be adjusted.

They could take off if you put them on a treadmill running backwards