Record Hot Rain in California

[ORH_wxman]

Its pretty much a double standard overall if people are going to complain about the snow in South Africa thread. The probability of both events are miniscule.

We can talk about how a warming world might increase the probability over the next couple decades from miniscule to slightly less than miniscule, but its a trivial point overall. I guess that's fine to do in here, but then it should also be fine to discuss how rare snow in South Africa is in our modern world climate as well. In other words, don't complain about one and not the other.

[ben4vols]

You are asking to be placed on ignore if your not there already.

Do you have any idea how long it would take for an ice age to develop? Try thousands of years. There will be no ice age in the next century or two.

Little Ice Age conditions don't count, as in that case we are only talking less than one full degree Celsius. A full blown ice age would be -5-6C globally.

The orbital cycles which promote NH glaciation are not aligned such as to produce an ice age for many thousands of years.

Obviously I was speaking more of a LIA type event which would have much more dire consequence than a little extra heating from extra CO2 added by humans.

[aslkahuna]

I was in Bullhead City the day that Havasu hit that 128. I wonder if it was warmer or cooler in BHC that day as I never heard an official temperature report for them.

Don't know but Laughlin across the river hit 125F for a new NV state record.

Steve

[tacoman25]

Your pearl clutching is noted. Now do you have anything of substance to offer?

I think there is plenty of substance in demonstrating the double standard that exists based on the biases on this forum.

In all fairness, I have no problem with you or this thread. You didn't complain about the S. Africa thread, and showed a fair/evenhanded approach in your comments about that event. So your creation of this thread was consistent and logical.

[tacoman25]

As there has been so much discussion about this event, I’ll provide my own thoughts.

To the extent that climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme heat, it is creating more opportunities for the kind of event discussed in this thread. The atmospheric processes that created the rain are not new nor is there any evidence that they are unnatural. The overall synoptic pattern is also a familiar one in terms of being a hot one.

Where climate change can enter the discussion concerns whether (1) the synoptic pattern responsible is growing more common due to the impact of warming on complex ocean-atmospheric coupling; (2) whether increased evaporation resulting from rising average temperatures (very likely driven by AGW) is leading to drier soil, which, in turn, could feed back to provide a further boost to temperatures; and (3) that the continuing positive energy imbalance is leaving more heat in the earth’s climate system to be shifted via the synoptic processes and oceanic cycles.

At present, the answer to the first factor is uncertain. The second relates to an established feedback and there is scientific literature that discusses the dry soil-temperature relationship (including the impact of climate change e.g., Dai's just published "Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models"). The third is related to basic physics. Net additions of energy lead to heating (oceans, land/melting ice, and atmosphere). That extra heat is distributed via synoptic processes (weather events) and oceanic cycles.

Needless to say, the event by itself says little or nothing about climate change. However, should such events occur more frequently, their increased incidence could be a consequence of the growing opportunities for rain to fall in extreme heat (due to the rising probability of extreme heat). The rising probability of extreme heat can be demonstrated through statistics.

The statistical changes can largely be explained by AGW. That the ocean, land masses, and atmosphere are all warming indicates that energy is being added to the earth’s climate system . Otherwise, warming would be balanced by cooling. Instead, the globe is warming as a whole.

As the sun has not radically increased its irradiance or otherwise fundamentally changed its behavior and volcanic activity has not materially changed, something else is responsible. Given the properties of anthropogenic gases and the ability to estimate the energy related to each of those forcings, the positive energy imbalance can mainly be explained by those anthropogenic gases. It is that link that connects the recent event to AGW (synoptic event occurring in the context of a rising probability of extreme heat on account of AGW).

The recent widespread snowfall in South Africa also says little or nothing about climate change. Moreover, it is far more difficult to attribute that event to climate change, as one cannot discern whether the cold was the result of a transfer of heat (leaving South Africa unseasonably cold) or some other factor that might have been influenced by climate change (e.g., the uncertainty related to altered synoptic patterns).

Exactly. This thread wasn't about any overall climate trend documented by increasingly hotter rain events. It was about a freak observation that some would like to link to climate change, regardless of the fact that the single event itself cannot be used as such evidence.

[QVectorman]

Desert southwest temps/precip. are closely tied to the AMO so it's no surprise that that there is a warming trend since the AMO is the highest it has been over the past 112 years. Especially after 1995 when it switched and the temp data seems to jump right above the 71 degree line and hasn't dropped below since.

[tacoman25]

Its pretty much a double standard overall if people are going to complain about the snow in South Africa thread. The probability of both events are miniscule.

We can talk about how a warming world might increase the probability over the next couple decades from miniscule to slightly less than miniscule, but its a trivial point overall. I guess that's fine to do in here, but then it should also be fine to discuss how rare snow in South Africa is in our modern world climate as well. In other words, don't complain about one and not the other.

Thank you.

The double standard when evaluating weather events in the context of climate change is as clear as day, and posters that are otherwise logical/fairly objective make themselves look silly by trying to deny it or justify it.

[Mallow]

From the Snow and Record Cold in S. Africa thread....

Regardless, the above point is all that needs to be said in this thread. Individual weather events cannot prove or disprove a climate trend.

- Vandy

Because a single isolated weather event says virtually nothing about climate change. This applies to any event.

- Msgaldo

If it's just a weather story then he should have posted it in the weather forum. What was the reason for posting it in the Climate Change forum?

- Sundog

It would be at least more justifiable than a single weather event. (In response to what would have justified the thread, like maybe a record cold winter - which actually was mentioned as a possibility for one African nation)

- Mallow

No comment from any of these posters in this thread.

I haven't posted in any climate thread in several days (a week?)... been quite busy. Sorry I'm not on here 100% of the time. Not very happy with you "calling me out" as hypocritical here when I simply am not online all the time.

But yes, I think this is a silly thread for the climate change forum. It should be on the general weather side.

[tacoman25]

I haven't posted in any climate thread in several days (a week?)... been quite busy. Sorry I'm not on here 100% of the time. Not very happy with you "calling me out" as hypocritical here when I simply am not online all the time.

But yes, I think this is a silly thread for the climate change forum. It should be on the general weather side.

I didn't call you hypocritical, I'm sorry if it came across that way. What I said was that this thread was an example of hypocrisy and double standards because NO ONE was complaining about this being a weather thread, after a bunch of posters had complained about the other thread being posted here.

I cited your comment as evidence as to why this thread belongs in the weather forum just as much as that one did. Which is why I said in the very next post: This is a thread dedicated to a single weather event in Needles, CA where rain apparently fell briefly at 115F. To say that it belongs in a climate change forum more than the other thread just because it was a HOT weather event is completely ludicrous and illogical.

See the statements I quoted from the snow thread. They speak for themselves.

[Msalgado]

Its pretty much a double standard overall if people are going to complain about the snow in South Africa thread. The probability of both events are miniscule.

We can talk about how a warming world might increase the probability over the next couple decades from miniscule to slightly less than miniscule, but its a trivial point overall. I guess that's fine to do in here, but then it should also be fine to discuss how rare snow in South Africa is in our modern world climate as well. In other words, don't complain about one and not the other.

Agree with this 100%. This thread is just as bad as the snow in SA thread.

[Msalgado]

I didn't call you hypocritical, I'm sorry if it came across that way. What I said was that this thread was an example of hypocrisy and double standards because NO ONE was complaining about this being a weather thread, after a bunch of posters had complained about the other thread being posted here.

I cited your comment as evidence as to why this thread belongs in the weather forum just as much as that one did. Which is why I said in the very next post: This is a thread dedicated to a single weather event in Needles, CA where rain apparently fell briefly at 115F. To say that it belongs in a climate change forum more than the other thread just because it was a HOT weather event is completely ludicrous and illogical.

See the statements I quoted from the snow thread. They speak for themselves.

There's a drastic difference in the starter of each thread, as well. I personally don't open every thread in here on every day. This is the first time I've been in here and I feel exactly the same way about this thread as I do about the other with the exception of that I feel the thread starter in the other thread should definitely have known better.

[tacoman25]

tacoman25, on 16 August 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Why aren't the same people who were complaining about the snow in Africa thread being in this forum complaining about this weather thread?

Probably because it's tied in with a rare stretch of hot weather in that region.

As it turns out, that was incorrect. Mallow and Msgaldo both said they believe this also doesn't belong in this forum.

[Mallow]

Why are you so worried about what forum something gets posted in? Can you find any complaints from me in the

African snow thread about where it belongs or not?

Because the event should be discussed in the context of what it means--that is, not as it relates to climate change (since, as a single event, it simply doesn't). If we want to talk about extreme events on the warm side becoming more common in a warming climate, that's fine, make a thread about it. But don't pretend that a single, specific event like this can be attached to climate change. It can't.

Threads like this are pointless in this forum. It should be in the general weather discussion forum... it's an interesting event and discussion should happen, but to focus on the climate change aspect of it is silly, since there's really no way to show one way or the other whether it has anything to do with CC.

[Mallow]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. You are correct that you can't tie this single event to climate change.

But it's not inconsistent with the type of events which may occur more often in a warming climate. You should

probably cut the thread starter some slack since maybe they thought that it was part of a larger pattern of record

heat globally. It follows an earlier post by Dr Masters this summer.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2114

If the climate continues to warm as expected, we should see an increasing number of cases where it rains at temperatures well above 100°F.

But this is what I was saying. If this is your point, make a thread about the idea that these kinds of extreme events could become more common in a warmer climate, and maybe mention this event in passing as a possible example. Don't make a thread dedicated to this one sole event under the banner of "climate change". It's meaningless, and only serves to give a sense of credibility to people who, say, shout during a la nina year that the globe is cooling again and AGW is fake, or those who see the 2007 summer sea ice melt and say we'll be ice free in a decade. That's a sense of credibility that is not deserved.

[tacoman25]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. You are correct that you can't tie this single event to climate change. But it's not inconsistent with the type of events which may occur more often in a warming climate. You should probably cut the thread starter some slack since maybe they thought that it was part of a larger pattern of record heat globally. It follows an earlier post by Dr Masters this summer.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2114

Don't you see the pointlessness of these statements though? This forum is about climate change, and if we are fine with threads about weather events being posted here, then we have to be fine with any weather threads that may or may not be consistent with a warming climate. And of course, what exact events are "consistent with a warming climate" is very much up for debate most of the time.

For this particular example, it is extremely difficult to make any connection between a freak, isolated weather event where a little bit of rain (not even measurable) fell at very warm temperatures (which still cooled all the way from 118 to 102 in the event), to climate change.

[tacoman25]

You must have a reason for wanting to continue this thread then since you bumped it after it had been quiet for a while.

Because several of the posters from the S. Africa snow thread had chimed in? It had only been quiet since yesterday.

You must have a reason for not having responded to anything I actually said in that post.

[tacoman25]

That's fair enough. I guess you would have to ask the thread starter if that was their intention or not.

And what he said has been my point all along. Glad you agree.

As to why I "kept this thread going", even if I think it is ill-conceived, it still has provided valuable discussion/insight as to how different people interpret different weather events in the context of climate change - often based on their own preset notions. I think it is important that we stay logically consistent on how we evaluate weather in a climate context.

[Msalgado]

Because the event should be discussed in the context of what it means--that is, not as it relates to climate change (since, as a single event, it simply doesn't). If we want to talk about extreme events on the warm side becoming more common in a warming climate, that's fine, make a thread about it. But don't pretend that a single, specific event like this can be attached to climate change. It can't.

Threads like this are pointless in this forum. It should be in the general weather discussion forum... it's an interesting event and discussion should happen, but to focus on the climate change aspect of it is silly, since there's really no way to show one way or the other whether it has anything to do with CC.

Fantastic post.

[Msalgado]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. You are correct that you can't tie this single event to climate change.

But it's not inconsistent with the type of events which may occur more often in a warming climate. You should

probably cut the thread starter some slack since maybe they thought that it was part of a larger pattern of record

heat globally. It follows an earlier post by Dr Masters this summer.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2114

If the climate continues to warm as expected, we should see an increasing number of cases where it rains at temperatures well above 100°F.

So then when you have a pattern. Once you have a pattern, post about the pattern and not a single event. Its a fairly simple standard.

I could easily turn your standard a full 180 and apply it to the snow thread. In a cooling climate more snow would be expected in places like South Africa. So can I argue that the climate is cooling based on that thread? Of course not. Do not expect rational people to apply a double standard.

[famartin]

Curiously, the temp. only dropped to 102F as a result of the Th (presumably from evap. cooling and or downdrafts), before rising again.

http://www.wundergro...eq_statename=NA

Not that curious, remember this is a very hot lower atmosphere and only limited amounts of moisture reached it... except that it didn't drop at all during the period the ASOS reported rain. It was 115 before, during and after. Only later, when the downburst winds reached them, was there a significant drop.

[PhillipS]

Don't you see the pointlessness of these statements though? This forum is about climate change, and if we are fine with threads about weather events being posted here, then we have to be fine with any weather threads that may or may not be consistent with a warming climate. And of course, what exact events are "consistent with a warming climate" is very much up for debate most of the time.

For this particular example, it is extremely difficult to make any connection between a freak, isolated weather event where a little bit of rain (not even measurable) fell at very warm temperatures (which still cooled all the way from 118 to 102 in the event), to climate change.

As the one who started this thread I would like to offer my opinions.

I see a fundamental difference between unusual weather events and unprecedented weather events. The snowfall in South Africa was unusual, but because it has been seen on occasion in the past it was not unprecedented. Furthermore, the snowfall took place over a relatively small region during the middle of winter. Isn't that when snow usually occurs?

The 115 F rain, on the other hand, was a record - by definition that means it was unprecedented. And it wasn't just a US record - that was the hottest rain recorded anywhere on Earth at any time since record keeping began. (Yes, I've read the posts about how that was a typical summer shower for Lake Havasu or Death Valley - but I don't buy that) Just to put that 115 F rainfall into perspective, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends a maximum temperature of 104 F for hot tubs. And the CPSC recommends a maximum temperature of 120 F for residential hot water heaters. Temps higher than that can be lethal.

Since it was a record breaking event I feel it is appropriate to to ask - why are we seeing this now? What conditions are different than in the past? Climate scientists have predicted that more extreme weather will occur with climate change - was this a preview of what we can expect to see more often? If so, then let's discuss ramifications. And if not, then share your knowledge and explain to us laypeople why it's not. But don't just brush it off with handwaving about it being just weather or just an isolated event.

Weather is certainly influenced by climatic conditions - and the conditions today are far different than they were a century ago. So why is it wrong to discuss extreme weather in the climate forum? Isn't the gist of the arctic sea Ice extent thread (with over 200K views and almost 7K posts) a discussion of the weather during the annual summer sea ice melt? How many weather maps are on the 198 pages of that thread? Both transient and protracted weather events can illuminate aspects of climate change and serve as a basis for discussions. Isn't discussion of climate change the purpose of this forum?

[aslkahuna]

Are you implying that the temperature for the raindrops was 115F/ Because in all likelihood they were not. As fare as unprecedented, doubtful- in June when Sierra Vista hit a record 108F (at 4500 feet elevation) thunderstorms developed and began to rain followed very closely by a vicious downburst in the Walmart parking lot that cause considerable damage. Since it's the evaporative cooling from the falling rain that sets the microburst in motion, it can very easily occur that first drops of rain will hit before the wind does with little or no cooling effect-especially if the rain started out as hail which melted. I've lived in the desert for 30 years and have seen a number of unusual circumstances (one of my favorite video shots would be my annual rain in full sunlight shot) and I consider the Needles event as unusual to be sure but considering the area not unprecedented-this time it just happened to occur over an ASOS site with just enough rain to be observable. Probably one reason why such events are not reported more often is that most people aren't insane enough to be outside when it's 115F or hotter.

Steve

[famartin]

Are you implying that the temperature for the raindrops was 115F/ Because in all likelihood they were not. As fare as unprecedented, doubtful- in June when Sierra Vista hit a record 108F (at 4500 feet elevation) thunderstorms developed and began to rain followed very closely by a vicious downburst in the Walmart parking lot that cause considerable damage. Since it's the evaporative cooling from the falling rain that sets the microburst in motion, it can very easily occur that first drops of rain will hit before the wind does with little or no cooling effect-especially if the rain started out as hail which melted. I've lived in the desert for 30 years and have seen a number of unusual circumstances (one of my favorite video shots would be my annual rain in full sunlight shot) and I consider the Needles event as unusual to be sure but considering the area not unprecedented-this time it just happened to occur over an ASOS site with just enough rain to be observable. Probably one reason why such events are not reported more often is that most people aren't insane enough to be outside when it's 115F or hotter.

Steve

Who are you responding to? Usually it helps to include their quote so that others know.

[PhillipS]

Are you implying that the temperature for the raindrops was 115F/ Because in all likelihood they were not. As fare as unprecedented, doubtful- in June when Sierra Vista hit a record 108F (at 4500 feet elevation) thunderstorms developed and began to rain followed very closely by a vicious downburst in the Walmart parking lot that cause considerable damage. Since it's the evaporative cooling from the falling rain that sets the microburst in motion, it can very easily occur that first drops of rain will hit before the wind does with little or no cooling effect-especially if the rain started out as hail which melted. I've lived in the desert for 30 years and have seen a number of unusual circumstances (one of my favorite video shots would be my annual rain in full sunlight shot) and I consider the Needles event as unusual to be sure but considering the area not unprecedented-this time it just happened to occur over an ASOS site with just enough rain to be observable. Probably one reason why such events are not reported more often is that most people aren't insane enough to be outside when it's 115F or hotter.

Steve

Unless you can share dates, locations and temperatures your comment doesn't even rise to the level of anecdote. I'll grant that hotter rains may have occured - but since they weren't observed, measured and recorded in the weather records they are like the proverbial tree falling in the forest without a sound.

Science, including climate science, works from data and observations, not vague recollections or opinions. According to the available records, the 115 F rainfall was unprecedented. Which, in my opinion, makes it thread-worthy in this climate change forum. Anybody is fully entitled to disagree - in which case they should ignore the thread and let it slide off the screen due to inactivity.

[tacoman25]

Unless you can share dates, locations and temperatures your comment doesn't even rise to the level of anecdote. I'll grant that hotter rains may have occured - but since they weren't observed, measured and recorded in the weather records they are like the proverbial tree falling in the forest without a sound.

Science, including climate science, works from data and observations, not vague recollections or opinions. According to the available records, the 115 F rainfall was unprecedented. Which, in my opinion, makes it thread-worthy in this climate change forum. Anybody is fully entitled to disagree - in which case they should ignore the thread and let it slide off the screen due to inactivity.

All other points aside, I guess I would be more impressed if it had actually rained enough to be measurable. I know I've seen plenty of times here where it will be a hot summer afternoon, some monsoonal moisture will kick up some very light rainfall, and the temperature barely drops at first. It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening in a much hotter location that gets monsoonal t-storms, which is probably why alksahuna made the comments he did.

Regardless, a legit record and unprecedented or not, it's just a random/isolated event. I don't think we need to worry about hot-tub temperature rain boiling people alive at this point.

[PhillipS]

All other points aside, I guess I would be more impressed if it had actually rained enough to be measurable. I know I've seen plenty of times here where it will be a hot summer afternoon, some monsoonal moisture will kick up some very light rainfall, and the temperature barely drops at first. It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening in a much hotter location that gets monsoonal t-storms, which is probably why alksahuna made the comments he did.

Regardless, a legit record and unprecedented or not, it's just a random/isolated event. I don't think we need to worry about hot-tub temperature rain boiling people alive at this point.

Let's hope you're right.

[tacoman25]

Let's hope you're right.

Well, as others have pointed out, the little rain that did fall in this instance was almost certainly much cooler than the air temp. It would be virtually impossible for rain to warm to that temperature while falling through an airmass and not evaporate.

[ORH_wxman]

Unless you can share dates, locations and temperatures your comment doesn't even rise to the level of anecdote. I'll grant that hotter rains may have occured - but since they weren't observed, measured and recorded in the weather records they are like the proverbial tree falling in the forest without a sound.

Science, including climate science, works from data and observations, not vague recollections or opinions. According to the available records, the 115 F rainfall was unprecedented. Which, in my opinion, makes it thread-worthy in this climate change forum. Anybody is fully entitled to disagree - in which case they should ignore the thread and let it slide off the screen due to inactivity.

Just because it wasn't officially recorded before, doesn't mean its worthy of climate change discussion. Whether this applies is a matter of subjective reasoning.

A couple winters ago, the Mid-Atlantic United States saw unprecedented snowfall...more than they had ever recorded. However, while the winter was quite note-worthy, to me personally, it didn't start setting off climate change alarm bells. In the context of past winters, there had been other winters close to that winter, but breaking the records was a matter of trvial significance. I think this is what Steve's point was. (and that it also likely happened before, just not at an ASOS site)

I know the argument is obviously going to be "well in a warming world, we expect more rain at 115F"...yes, while that might be true, the chances of it happening increase from what...miniscule to slightly less than miniscule? Again, that would be a trivial point and something that wouldn't qualify as striking fear into a lot of people about climate change.

[TerryM]

Just because it wasn't officially recorded before, doesn't mean its worthy of climate change discussion. Whether this applies is a matter of subjective reasoning.

A couple winters ago, the Mid-Atlantic United States saw unprecedented snowfall...more than they had ever recorded. However, while the winter was quite note-worthy, to me personally, it didn't start setting off climate change alarm bells. In the context of past winters, there had been other winters close to that winter, but breaking the records was a matter of trvial significance. I think this is what Steve's point was. (and that it also likely happened before, just not at an ASOS site)

I know the argument is obviously going to be "well in a warming world, we expect more rain at 115F"...yes, while that might be true, the chances of it happening increase from what...miniscule to slightly less than miniscule? Again, that would be a trivial point and something that wouldn't qualify as striking fear into a lot of people about climate change.

The obvious difference between this and the events that it's being compared to is that this was a world record holder - not a localized event.

When world records are broken - they deserve mention on a climate forum.

Terry

[Entropy]

The obvious difference between this and the events that it's being compared to is that this was a world record holder - not a localized event.

When world records are broken - they deserve mention on a climate forum.

Terry

It's noteworthy as a record value, but I don't see how this as evidence of climate change. It's probably more a product of the fact that we have many more real-time observational sites than we did in the past. One hundred years ago, we wouldn't even have had the capability of detecting these types of anomalies. We don't really know whether it's ever happened before, just that it hasn't been observed in the past.