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

One upper..... wrote:

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

And who the fu@# knows how many 120 degree days there were in the Valley of the Sun long before the white man showed up & the valley was the land of the Apaches.

This 2nd chart is problematic, where's the younger dryas?

The data up to the 20th century was based on tree-ring data, there might be absorption/frictions/loss functions that minimize actual temperatures observed in the tree rings from time to time. Trees might occasionally be natural Kalman filters.

It also looks like a pretty steady warming over twenty thousand years and humans over the last century have spiked things by about 1 degree Celsius.

transient wrote:

Forgot to include the plot with point one...

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

There is the odd warm year in circa 1860 and again in circa 1879. Which would indicate great year-to-year variability or climate change pre-automobile adoption. There appears to be a jump from -0.75°c in around 1875 to 0.15°c in 1879 (4 years) which mirrors the change observed between 1980 and 2010 (30 years).

I would also suggest that it if we totally accept all the data in the chart, it would appear that economic emergence of China and other formerly poor countries is the reason for the massive spike in recorded temperatures since 1980.

I am not a climate change denier, but I think we need to adapt rather than try to pretend we can instantaneously get the world's economies to suddenly decrease equivalent CO2 emissions by 80% over night as many climate scientist claim we need to (the same climate scientist who generate the equivalent of an average American's annual CO2 use in a single trip back and forth to Antarctica to conduct their blessed research). Most of the climate accords don't have developing countries like China curtailing their emissions until 2030. Unless these so-called developing countries are held to a similar standard as us, manufacturers will continue to locate their operations in non-treaty countries as there is one more factor of production shifted in the favor of those countries. I wonder if these environmentalists have ever considered the amount of diesel fuel being burned shipping goods from Asia to the US rather than from factories in the Midwest. My point is Obama's legislation didn't really stop global warming, on the contrary it shifted it to Asia along with much of our wealth.

itsbaddude wrote:

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 asked for raw data and I pointed them to the legend which listed the institutional products. It's very easy to acquire the raw global (generally 5deg x 5deg) resolution data.

The chart I posted was not adjusted for biases. It portrays the HadCRUT4 global dataset after you take an area-weighted average across the globe and smooth it with a 12-year mean and then subtract the 1961-1990 mean. No explicit bias removal and can be done with 4-5 lines of Python.

Between 11500 and 11000BC they directly discuss the Younger Dryas (where there is an arrow on the left side). During the Younger Dryas, the Earth cooled by 1C over 1000 years.

This is not true. Both papers Randall cited in this figure (where he got pre 20th century/paleo data from) came from 72 independent proxies; not just tree rings. These 72 independent records are from a number of different authors who specialize in proxy measurements of past climate. Sure they utilized tree rings, but also planktonic foramnifera, alkenones, ice cores, microfossils, etc.

[Shakun et al. 2012; Marcott et al. 2013]

Given the above mention that the Younger Dryas was -1degC over 1000 years, your point would be that humans are having a large impact. 1degC warming over 100 years is an order of magnitude quicker. Anthropogenic Climate Change is about the rate of change of this secular trend that is imposed on the low-frequency internal variability. Things oscillate on geological scales. We force abrupt change over a century.

I also wouldn't call it pretty steady warming. The climate system is remarkable stable on the order of 10s of thousands of years. It crawls up, flatlines, crawls back down, crawls back up, then exponentially increases.

I'm not at all denying these variations -- that was the point I made in posting this figure. These small bumps exist and are likely due to internal variability (a strong El Nino event or a strong positive PDO).

There is always year-to-year variability pre emissions. This variability is largely dominated by the tropical-north Pacific and occurs on 4 year to 60 year scales. It will always be oscillating in the background on top of the super low frequency scales of 40,000 years for Milankovitch cycles.

On top of that, we have freak solar events (such as Medieval Warm Period) and freak catastrophic events to alter the climate. Humans just happen to be the driving 'freak event' of change right now. We can impose a carbon/methane/land-use induced trend on top of these small oscillations. I personally study the interface between human impacts and internal variability. The two forcings (external and internal) on the climate system interact with one another. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Also, your isolating of one year and four year anomalies is akin to weather. These can be anomalies largely induced by Pacific variability. A 30 year trend is much different than a 1-4 year anomaly.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There's not enough information in this plot to directly point the nearly 40-year trend to the economic emergence of China. Even if that were directly true (although US, Europe, and other nations clearly play a role), this still points to human-induced change.

It portrays the HadCRUT4 global dataset after you take an area-weighted average across the globe

Yes, we all know of those magical temperature sites that represent millions of sqkm (often in Africa). And conversely those sites that get downgraded/deleted because they don't give the "right" data.

Humans just happen to be the driving 'freak event' of change right now

Ascribing climate change to any specific causation vector is largely pseudo-science currently.

transient wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

This 2nd chart is problematic, where's the younger dryas?

Between 11500 and 11000BC they directly discuss the Younger Dryas (where there is an arrow on the left side). During the Younger Dryas, the Earth cooled by 1C over 1000 years.

.

The Younger Dryas was massive with reports of 5°C drops in temperatures and periods of 7°c warming, certainly a 10°c range occurred in a 50-100 year period. Yet this chart ignores it. This is an altered chart for ideological purposes. If a charts shows raw spikes and troughs they should be left unaltered and it will then speak for itself.

All very interesting, but for the record, the hottest temperature ever measured on the planet was 134 degrees Fahrenheit, in Death Valley National Park.

This record was set on July 10, 1913—more than 100 years ago.

Manmade global warming?

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/10/us/death-valley-heat-anniversary/index.html

And then there was the 1936 heat wave that killed some 5,000 people in the midwestern United States and elsewhere in the nation.

http://www.sj-r.com/x1212192445/1936-heat-wave-culminated-75-years-ago-today-50-deaths-resulted

HRH wrote:

And then there was the 1936 heat wave that killed some 5,000 people in the midwestern United States and elsewhere in the nation.

http://www.sj-r.com/x1212192445/1936-heat-wave-culminated-75-years-ago-today-50-deaths-resulted

Looks like he's enjoying the heat in that spiffy suit 😁

History repeats wrote:

Your not very inciteful, are you?

Maybe, but at a guess I'm thinking s/he probably has a better education than you do.

Okay, I have to go 6/10 here. The OP gave you every possible clue that it's trolling--but you guys bit anyway.

hahahahahaha wrote:

"Get up early to get in your run" - why, that's.....BRILLIANT! Why didn't I think of that? (says the Phoenix resident who got his run in at 5:00 a.m.)

LilyWhite wrote:

No sympathy for the Valley of the Sun. You moved there cuz its warm and sunny there's no snow to shovel in the winter, didn't you?

Only suggestion: get up early to get in your run.

Add: stumbled across NPR "news" cycle about this unprecedented hot air and they said to "hydrate."

I think that means drink water. You're welcome.

I love these climate change threads and I especially like Citizen Runner's comments, although we're on opposite sides of the debate. Here are my thoughts.

The climate change movement is being driven by grant troughers, a few well placed arrogant scientists whose reputation (and grant money) is on the line, and politics.

Scientists don't yet have a full understanding of...

1. The long term effects of gradual warming (which is occurring) on cloud formation. Will it be negative forcing or positive forcing? Truth be told, it's all theory. We don't have accurate global cloud readings going back more than a few decades. Some scientists would argue we still don't have accurate readings at night and over wide swaths of the southern hemisphere. A 1% change in cloud cover (for example, 30% to 29%) could account for all the warming we have seen since 1850.

2. The long term effects of ocean oscillation cycles on temperature. Theories exist, but it is always problematic when you force a theory to fit the data.

3. As a result, attempting to forecast the change in a chaotic system (climate) out 100 years in the future is futile.

The Paris Agreement is laughable. The world's largest polluter (China) gets a FREE PASS until 2032. It sets up a global fund of $10 billion to "fight" climate change and Obama pledges $3 billion of that fund! Where will that money go? Short answer... politicians, kleptocrats, and their cronies. Some will go to the grant troughers to put out more biased studies on climate change.

AND.....

Even if I'm wrong, mitigation is 1000x more effective than attempts to control the temperature of the entire planet!!!! This is where money could be focused right now to save lives right now regardless of whether climate change occurs. This is not a priority of the Paris agreement. Where is the outcry to drill water wells, to purify water, and to bring electricity to remote areas for refrigeration, lighting, and so on? It doesn't exist because there is no big money in it for the kleptocrats. Sure, they could skim tens of thousands of dollars here and there, but to skim millions, they need the Paris Agreement and that $10 billion fund.

Not mature enough yet wrote:

Humans just happen to be the driving 'freak event' of change right now

Ascribing climate change to any specific causation vector is largely pseudo-science currently.

That's a pretty bold claim. There are multiple lines of evidence to support that humans are forcing the secular trend that we're observing on the climate system.

We're obviously aware of how much CO2 we are emitting through fossil fuel combustion. We've also maintained a meticulous time series of atmospheric CO2 levels and have observed a large increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can directly ascribe this increase to our fossil fuel burning, as a proportional amount of O2 in the atmosphere has decreased (which would only happen as a result of combustion, not of the natural carbon cycle). We know from ice cores and other proxy records that CO2 concentrations and temperatures are closely linked. We can detect anomalous tropospheric warming (the lowest layer off the atmosphere) that would only happen if the system were heated from the bottom up. If the observed warming were largely the result of natural variations, we'd see whole-atmosphere warming.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

transient wrote:

Between 11500 and 11000BC they directly discuss the Younger Dryas (where there is an arrow on the left side). During the Younger Dryas, the Earth cooled by 1C over 1000 years.

.

The Younger Dryas was massive with reports of 5°C drops in temperatures and periods of 7°c warming, certainly a 10°c range occurred in a 50-100 year period. Yet this chart ignores it. This is an altered chart for ideological purposes. If a charts shows raw spikes and troughs they should be left unaltered and it will then speak for itself.

The Younger Dryas occurred almost exclusively north of 30N, as it was largely influenced by changes to Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which is the formation of deep water in the North Atlantic.

Most of the tropics were likely stable during this period, and there was potential warming on the South Pole. When you area-weight a global average, everything north off 30N only contributes to 1/4 of the total global mean. This combines to ~0.6C of global cooling during the Younger Dryas. Sure, there were stark regional changes, but the point of the graphic and our discussion is on global changes.

Otherwise, you'll note in the papers he cited that proxy data only has a time resolution of 100-200 years, so some things get smoothed out just by the sampling period. Again, this furthers the point of the natural multi-centennial changes we might observe in the system, not the rapid warming humans are contributing.

Also, I don't know why folks are so quick to jump to the conclusion that charts are altered, data is doctored, and the government is lying. Thinking a little bit about how the data are sampled and what spatial coverage the Younger Dryas had will solve the conspiracy.