Record Hot Rain in California

[tacoman25]

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

So any weather world record deserves mention on a climate change forum? Hmm.

[ORH_wxman]

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

Do they? If Mt. Baker sets their world snowfall record again from a few years back this winter, we should post it in here?

Why do we discuss the arctic sea ice? It didn't even set a world record low for extent. That record belongs to Anatarctica with 1.30 million sq km in 1993.

That last example was hyperbole, but I don't see how its really meaningful to the climate change debate when an obscure record like a few drops of rain occur at a high temperature.

[TerryM]

Do they? If Mt. Baker sets their world snowfall record again from a few years back this winter, we should post it in here?

Why do we discuss the arctic sea ice? It didn't even set a world record low for extent. That record belongs to Anatarctica with 1.30 million sq km in 1993.

That last example was hyperbole, but I don't see how its really meaningful to the climate change debate when an obscure record like a few drops of rain occur at a high temperature.

If Mt Baker set a record for the largest snowfall ever recorded worldwide. I'd think it noteworthy on a climate forum.

I agree it's an obscure world record. but a world record none the less.

You're the hall monitor, if it doesn't belong here by all means move it rather than complaining.

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

If Mt Baker set a record for the largest snowfall ever recorded worldwide. I'd think it noteworthy on a climate forum.

I agree it's an obscure world record. but a world record none the less.

You're the hall monitor, if it doesn't belong here by all means move it rather than complaining.

Terry

I never complained about either thread. I originally said it was hypocritical to complain about one and not the other since several here did that. I made a point that if people don't think the extremely rare snow in south Africa meant anything, than this shouldn't mean much of anything either. I personally don't think either of them mean a whole lot, but I'm okay with people discussing both.

I'm okay with a lot of stuff in this forum as long as it is discussed relevantly.

[TerryM]

I never complained about either thread. I originally said it was hypocritical to complain about one and not the other since several here did that. I made a point that if people don't think the extremely rare snow in south Africa meant anything, than this shouldn't mean much of anything either. I personally don't think either of them mean a whole lot, but I'm okay with people discussing both.

I'm okay with a lot of stuff in this forum as long as it is discussed relevantly.

You still conflate a regional event - snow in South Africa, with a global event, but in general I agree & think both are noteworthy.

I've been chided for mentioning the fact that the local river system has failed to freeze over for the first time in the 200 year period of occupation by Europeans - again probably not a matter of huge consequence to any living outside the valley, but none the less in lock step with climate changes being experienced regionally.

Terry

[QVectorman]

Living in the desert as Steve said this is a rare but not abnormal occurrence except it happened over an ASOS site. As mentioned in any given summer if you look at radar over the Mojave desert near 29 Palms and look at obs you will see ~110-118 temps and a thunderstorm or two co-existing...especially in the ~ 24 -36 hours leading up to a strong monsoonal flow developing over the desert SW that ends up lasting for several days...when moisture is first limited but temps are ridiculously hot...as monsoonal flow takes over moisture rises and temps come down. You can look out across the desert and see TC with a rain curtain that magically disappears just before the horizon. But it's the DESERT...obs stations are 80-100 miles or more apart. You can see it happening a couple times a summer but as far as catching it on an obs. it's rare bc there are so few obs sites. Most ppl don't even catch it on radar because again it's the DESERT!!! No one cares to look at radar over the desert where there isn't a single person and no obs sites. Plus, if you are not in visual range of the desert you have no way of verifying if it's virga or not.

[PhillipS]

Living in the desert as Steve said this is a rare but not abnormal occurrence except it happened over an ASOS site. As mentioned in any given summer if you look at radar over the Mojave desert near 29 Palms and look at obs you will see ~110-118 temps and a thunderstorm or two co-existing...especially in the ~ 24 -36 hours leading up to a strong monsoonal flow developing over the desert SW that ends up lasting for several days...when moisture is first limited but temps are ridiculously hot...as monsoonal flow takes over moisture rises and temps come down. You can look out across the desert and see TC with a rain curtain that magically disappears just before the horizon. But it's the DESERT...obs stations are 80-100 miles or more apart. You can see it happening a couple times a summer but as far as catching it on an obs. it's rare bc there are so few obs sites. Most ppl don't even catch it on radar because again it's the DESERT!!! No one cares to look at radar over the desert where there isn't a single person and no obs sites. Plus, if you are not in visual range of the desert you have no way of verifying if it's virga or not.

Thank you for pointing out that rain is rare in the DESERT - I'm sure we all learned something new from that. But as I pointed out before, science works from data and observations, not from vague recollections and opinions. So unless you can supply at least date, location and temperature info - you aren't even sharing anecdotes, much less data. The 115 F rainfall in Needles is the hottest rainfal ever recorded on Earth.

At some level it is entertaining to watch the logical and rhetorical contortions that pseudo-skeptics go through to avoid attributing any influence on weather to AGW.

[rygar]

Thank you for pointing out that rain is rare in the DESERT - I'm sure we all learned something new from that. But as I pointed out before, science works from data and observations, not from vague recollections and opinions. So unless you can supply at least date, location and temperature info - you aren't even sharing anecdotes, much less data. The 115 F rainfall in Needles is the hottest rainfal ever recorded on Earth.

At some level it is entertaining to watch the logical and rhetorical contortions that pseudo-skeptics go through to avoid attributing any influence on weather to AGW.

The problem with this general debate is illustrated in these past two comments. Qvectorman made an intuitive and logical statement. But PhillipS totally disregarded it because there is no proof. This is even though it is not possible for anyone to scientifically refute Qvector - the data isn't recorded.

[ORH_wxman]

Thank you for pointing out that rain is rare in the DESERT - I'm sure we all learned something new from that. But as I pointed out before, science works from data and observations, not from vague recollections and opinions. So unless you can supply at least date, location and temperature info - you aren't even sharing anecdotes, much less data. The 115 F rainfall in Needles is the hottest rainfal ever recorded on Earth.

At some level it is entertaining to watch the logical and rhetorical contortions that pseudo-skeptics go through to avoid attributing any influence on weather to AGW.

This is almost exactly what can be said in the opposite direction. Trying to attribute increased hurricane activity, tornado outbreaks, winter storms, extreme blocking, etc to AGW when there is little or no scientific proof.

It is as if we should believe that the concept of natural variability never existed...or that it used to and now has magically gone away.

[PhillipS]

The problem with this general debate is illustrated in these past two comments. Qvectorman made an intuitive and logical statement. But PhillipS totally disregarded it because there is no proof. This is even though it is not possible for anyone to scientifically refute Qvector - the data isn't recorded.

Your comment illustrates the problem with technical discussions on climate change. This is not a rhetorical debate where style matters more than substance - this is a technical discussion where evidence matters far more than eloquence. QV offered his personal opinion - without a shred of evidence to support it. As for scientifically refuting QV - he hasn't offered any data or theory to refute. Just the noise of his opinion. Okay - he is certainly entitled to his opinion, and even entitled to express it in this forum. But why should his opinion matter on this topic? Why shouldn't it be disregarded when there are weather records that unambiguously show that the 115 F rainfall was the hottest ever recorded. Data trumps opinion - at least in science.

[Msalgado]

The point that is being made is that the quality of your "data" is absurdly bad to draw any conclusions from. Pointing out why data collection in the desert is poor regarding this type of an event is more than a simple opinion. How many weather collection sites do we have per square mile in the Mojave?

[bluewave]

The point that is being made is that the quality of your "data" is absurdly bad to draw any conclusions from. Pointing out why data collection in the desert is poor regarding this type of an event is more than a simple opinion. How many weather collection sites do we have per square mile in the Mojave?

Even with this beating the earlier Saudi record this summer and Morocco back in 2010, the sparsity of the measuring

stations may keep this in the weather curiosity category. But Dr. Masters says it could become more common in

the future.

http://classic.wunde...l?entrynum=2114

[PhillipS]

The problem with this general debate is illustrated in these past two comments. Qvectorman made an intuitive and logical statement. But PhillipS totally disregarded it because there is no proof. This is even though it is not possible for anyone to scientifically refute Qvector - the data isn't recorded.

The phrase "unrecorded data" is an oxymoron. Measurements and observations don't become data until they are recorded. To assert anything else is just silly - how would you analyse 'unrecorded data' in research?

[rygar]

Completely making up numbers, I freely admit I am of the least knowledgeable folks in this field.

Example:

- I have 1 reporting station in 1000 square miles, it reports X.

- But I also have solid subjective evidence that says that the surrounding areas report Y

Are you suggestion that X is the valid # and we should disregard everything else? Even though we know the sample size collected by the lone reporting station isn't robust enough to make any conclusions about the 1,000 square mile area?

Not trying to be an eek-hole, I truly want to know. Is this the scientific standard?

[FPizz]

This is almost exactly what can be said in the opposite direction. Trying to attribute increased hurricane activity, tornado outbreaks, winter storms, extreme blocking, etc to AGW when there is little or no scientific proof.

It is as if we should believe that the concept of natural variability never existed...or that it used to and now has magically gone away.

+1 This is becomming absurd now. If we go by it wasn't observed, so it has to be dismissed, then 95% of what we come up with in Science can be disregarded.

[tacoman25]

Your comment illustrates the problem with technical discussions on climate change. This is not a rhetorical debate where style matters more than substance - this is a technical discussion where evidence matters far more than eloquence. QV offered his personal opinion - without a shred of evidence to support it. As for scientifically refuting QV - he hasn't offered any data or theory to refute. Just the noise of his opinion. Okay - he is certainly entitled to his opinion, and even entitled to express it in this forum. But why should his opinion matter on this topic? Why shouldn't it be disregarded when there are weather records that unambiguously show that the 115 F rainfall was the hottest ever recorded. Data trumps opinion - at least in science.

I think what you're overlooking is that there is a reason most people who have lived in the desert don't find a trace of precip falling at 115 briefly all that remarkable. Yes, it's officially a world record (an obscure one - an somewhat ambiguous since no measurable rainfall was even recorded - it's very easy for a few drops to sprinkle and not get recorded as "trace", but then in other cases they are), but in reality, it's not that amazing. Temperatures in the summer in the desert southwest routinely get well above 115F, and monsoonal moisture can certainly occur on days that hot.

There is nothing to suggest this wouldn't have been possible 20, 40, 60 years ago. The desert still routinely had temperatures warmer than this then, as well as bouts of very warm monsoonal moisture. As others have said, this freak event is more just about an ASOS being in the right place at the right time. Weather-wise, there is simply nothing to suggest an event like this hasn't happened many times before in other places. All it takes is a very hot day and very light rainfall for a short period of time.

[aslkahuna]

This thread and the companion one in the General Weather section detail two very similar events in two very distant locations on the planet. The only similarity between the two locations is that they are both desert locations with a monsoonal climate (in fact, the word monsoon is derived from the Arabic word mausim). This alone should show that such events are not totally unique in occurrence and that it's just a matter of observing them. I have good memory for big storms but I'm not going to be able to determine an exact date or time for when I might have encountered a sprinkle at very high temperatures while driving or standing somewhere in the western Sonoran or Mojave deserts since my mind is concerned with other details. Monsoon rainshowers can be quite small and can be right overhead while the afternoon sun is blazing in the sky. One in fact, that I have on video was only two miles across yet dumped a healthy amount of rain on my house in Sierra Vista while the temperature sat in the 90's. One day in April 1976 I was outside in the Philippines with a temperature in the high 90's when I got doused by a sudden hard rainshower-looking up I saw no cloud but just a fuzzy mass of falling rain the cloud had dissipated as it rained out and this was in the Tropics at 15N not the desert. The rain was also cold not hot. As for being a pseudoskeptic-PhilipS is way off base, I've supported the idea of AGW since it was first proposed and still support the idea-I just don't think that pointing to every unusual event that occurs or is observed very infrequently is grounds for running around saying "we're doomed". Weird weather has been happening since Man first became aware of the weather and single events a trend does not make and it's the trend that counts in Climate. As for the idea that such events as we are discussing may become more frequent, well that's a matter of opinion because it's all dependent upon what happens WRT to the monsoon in a warning climate and not the climate itself.

Steve

[TerryM]

The phrase "unrecorded data" is an oxymoron. Measurements and observations don't become data until they are recorded. To assert anything else is just silly - how would you analyse 'unrecorded data' in research?

Here in Canada we're building prisons to house criminals expected to be found guilty of unrecorded crimes (the recorded ones just keep falling). It's got to be tough being tough on crime when the criminals just don't cooperate by committing enough crimes.

Perhaps if we kept track of unrecorded weather phenomena we could launch a whole new field of meteorology that might rank right up there with demonology and ufology. The STudy of Unreported Precipitation Incidents & Downpours. STUPID practitioners could comb through the realms of unrecorded data and report on the inexplicable absence of reports on unreported events.

Terry

Desert Denizen from 1975 - 2004

[Vergent]

Terry,

Speaking of world records. What do you think is the highest wind speed recorded above 88 north is?

http://www.sailwx.in...phtml?call=SMLQ

2012-Aug-21 21:00

The Oden is having a bad trip.

[tacoman25]

While there are not too many detailed climate graphs for cites in the desert SW, the Phoenix

summer temperature has been steadily rising while the rainfall essentially remains unchanged.

http://www.wrh.noaa....ugheat_2012.php

Phoenix is a sterling example of the UHI effect. There has been a lot of development there in the past 40-50 years. I would maybe compare to a more unchanged location.

[PhillipS]

Completely making up numbers, I freely admit I am of the least knowledgeable folks in this field.

Example:

- I have 1 reporting station in 1000 square miles, it reports X.

- But I also have solid subjective evidence that says that the surrounding areas report Y

Are you suggestion that X is the valid # and we should disregard everything else? Even though we know the sample size collected by the lone reporting station isn't robust enough to make any conclusions about the 1,000 square mile area?

Not trying to be an eek-hole, I truly want to know. Is this the scientific standard?

The answer is yes - you use the measured value X in preference to your subjective value of Y. The principal reason for that is subjective values are just that - subjective. Different researchers would have different assessments of that value. Indeed, a single researcher would have different subjective assessment at different times because humans are notoriously poor at subjective measurements. Could you accurately calibrate a thermometer based solely on how hot or cold you subjectively felt the temperature was? Probably not within +- 10 F.

To expand on your example and sort of bring this back on topic, say the reporting station is a rain gauge in the center of a square region about 32 miles on a side (the 1,000 square miles).

Scenario A: If a storm cell crosses a portion of the region but not the reporting station - what rainfall value goes into the weather record for that time period? 0 - even though some of the region received rain.

Scenario B: A storm cell stalls over the reporting station giving it 3 inches of rain while parts of the region get only a trace - what rainfall value goes into the weather record? 3 inches, even though that wasn't true for the entire region.

Now, if additional records are kept, such as a journal with daily entries of weather, those entries would be anecdotal but might still have value to a researcher if they were well kept. An entry such as "On date Z 4 hours of moderate rain fell in western third of region" would give info that augments the reporting station data record. On the other hand an entry of "Rained last month" isn't useful.

My earlier posts in response to several people who said that there have probably been hotter rains in the past that weren't near enough to a weather station to be measured and recorded wasn't that they were wrong - but that without at least date, location and temperature info their comments fall into the "Rained last month" category. Okay, may it did and maybe it didn't. Who knows?

The 115 F rain that fell in Needles was measured and reported so it is a pretty solid data point. But it is only a single data point (event) and I don't recall anybody trying to inflate its importance. I find it interesting - which is why I started this thread - but unless we see a lot more rain at that temperature I would assess its importance as a record as about the same as the largest hailstone record.

[PhillipS]

Here in Canada we're building prisons to house criminals expected to be found guilty of unrecorded crimes (the recorded ones just keep falling). It's got to be tough being tough on crime when the criminals just don't cooperate by committing enough crimes.

Perhaps if we kept track of unrecorded weather phenomena we could launch a whole new field of meteorology that might rank right up there with demonology and ufology. The STudy of Unreported Precipitation Incidents & Downpours. STUPID practitioners could comb through the realms of unrecorded data and report on the inexplicable absence of reports on unreported events.

Terry

Desert Denizen from 1975 - 2004

But if you kept track it wouldn't be unrecorded. As soon as you jot it down it's recorded. I have a hard time even imagining how 'unrecorded data' could be used - even an oral record, like the Viking sagas, is still a record.

But I like your idea for STUPID - maybe the Koch brothers would give us some funding.

[tacoman25]

Then how do you explain that a state like Florida that saw a big population boom in recent decades that is lower down

on the list?

http://www.climatece...the-heat-is-on/

I don't know about Florida, it would depend on the specific location/city. The overall increase in the population of a state is not the issue.

I do know that I've seen mention of the significant UHI increase at Phoenix before, I'll see if I can dig something up. I also know for a fact that they've seen a lot more urban expansion the past 50 years than most cities.

[tacoman25]

Here you go, Bluewave:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0922greencolumn0922.html?&wired

http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/28/phoenix-and-tokyo-traditional-uhi/

http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/valley-news/201105/phoenix-s-urban-heat-island/

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/measureing-the.html

Whether or not you like some of the source sites, the overall evidence is pretty clear that Phoenix has seen a major UHI increase.

[tacoman25]

Phoenix is the only nearby station with a graph. The whole desert SW has seen rising temperatures.

http://www.washingto...G7zZV_blog.html

Sure. But that graph only shows one city, so it's important to consider the specific factors for that site when looking at the trend. That trendline certainly does not represent the entire Southwest.

[bluewave]

Sure. But that graph only shows one city, so it's important to consider the specific factors for that site when looking at the trend. That trendline certainly does not represent the entire Southwest.

Here's the whole SW summer temperatures:

[tacoman25]

So how would you explain the rise at the rural stations?

They have warmed some. Just not nearly as much as Phoenix. That graph shows a trendline rise of like 7F lol...WAY higher than the SW overall.

[tacoman25]

Here's the whole SW summer temperatures:

Yup...a little less than 2F rise the past 100 years, as opposed to 7F at Phoenix since 1950. Exactly why I pointed out using Phoenix as an example of the rising temps in the SW is totally unrepresentative. I understand it was the only city in the area the NCDC site had, that's unfortunate since it is such a poor example due to UHI.

Another study on UHI effect in Phoenix: http://www.mendeley....enix-arizona-3/

[Snow_Miser]

Then how do you explain that a state like Florida that saw a big population boom in recent decades that is lower down

on the list? Studies show warming at rural sites also.

http://www.climatece...the-heat-is-on/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

No one has denied that rural sites are warming, they are questioning whether the urban effect has led to an acceleration in warming in urbanized locations.

It's funny that you mentioned Florida, because a recent study by Martinez et al. 2012 found that minimum temperatures increased significantly in the more urban locations than in the rural locations, thus agreeing with the hypothesis that minimum temperature trends should not be used as a metric for climate change.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169412004696

The paper can be viewed above.

[tacoman25]

According to a local NWS study, the UHI effect shows up with warmer lows.

The daily high temperatures are fairly close.

http://www.wrh.noaa..../MonsoonPMA.php

Yes, UHI is mostly a night-time phenomenon.