Years of Living Dangerously

[AvantHiatus]

Fargo, ND having a top 5 coldest winter has nothing to do with future climate, nice post tho. This would be year-to-year variability. What about the top 5 warmth in Australia and Siberia.

[ORH_wxman]

Fargo, ND having a top 5 coldest winter has nothing to do with future climate, nice post tho. This would be year-to-year variability. What about the top 5 warmth in Austrailia and Siberia.

 

 

You completely missed the point...2011-2012's warm winter also had nothing to due with climate change, yet when we get media stories blaming it on climate change, a frigid winter confuses the general public. Of course natural variability completely overwhelms climate change in any given location and year. But you don't hear much about natural variability in mainstream media....only in the peer reviewed literature.

 

 

The Phoenix climate reference was an example of the most extreme/alamrist type scenario being showcased in a film...yet one that is overwhelmingly unlikely. But you wouldn't come away feeling that way after being presented those extreme scenarios.

[StudentOfClimatology]

So if you any of the innumerable Eurekalert press releases, or actual papers, that variously deal with evidence of pre-industrial rapid and severe climate changes, horrific droughts, and severe weather events, such as the evidence of much higher hurricane landfall rates in some locations in studies ranging back millenia, almost all of these articles have what is in many cases a non-sequitur paragraph shoe-horned in at the end sermonizing that this study shows how dangerous AGW will be. It almost seems to be out of embarassment that the study might be used to counter "attribution abuse."

So yes, there's a valid point in discovering that climate shifts can happen rapidly and that there clearly may be very sharp and fine climatic tipping points, but you're also discovering that there can be wild shifts in temperature, rainfall, extreme weather events, etc. that can't possibly be linked to human CO2 emissions.

And regardless of one's stance I think we can all admit that in terms of messaging to the public there's a certain degree of "attribution abuse" going on out of the recognition that the only way to scare people into action is to link AGW to specific meterological disasters. In doing so you have to build on the implied fiction that meteorological "normal" is some sort of steady, benign, peaceful climate which we all know doesn't exist. I don't think there's a central secret cabal of warmists cackling with glee sending out propaganda marching orders to do this, but I think it is going on with a "wink and nod" and a sense of the "ends justify the means." The same is going on with the shouting down of anyone that makes the obvious point that certain regions are likely going to benefit agriculturally or economically from global warming.

My problem is the rhetoric and messaging is beginning to mirror the rhetoric and messaging of religious apocalpytikook "End Times" nutters, that seize on things like perfectly normal earthquake and volcanic activity to try to convince people that it's "abnormal" and that they are sign of the imminent End Times or "punishment" for specific things like gay rights, abortion, being Muslim, etc., with the ultimate goal being the selling of their crappy books and novels. Of course, perfectly normal earthquake and volcanic activity as seen from a geologic time frame includes earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes that kill hundreds of thousands of people. People desperately want some sort of anthrocentric agency or deeper meaning to these disasters to combat their fear of the uncaring randomness of the Earth; it makes them feel better to think it's a specific punishment, or a sign of Christ's coming, not as a sign that the Earth wasn't designed for humans and geologically mostly doesn't give a crap that we are here.

At some point if the perfectly normal (Southwest mega-droughts; heck, there was a horrific East coast mega-drought ongoing when John Smith arrived at Jamestown) is always presented as "abnormal" and evidence of the negative effects of AGW, you're going to lose credibility. I think this is already happening.

In terms PURELY of attribution (I'm not talking about global temperature averages) AGW is already reaching the point of being unfalsifiable - there's now a corpus of studies linking absolutely every weather event or any change above and below a long-term average of any secondary weather parameter anywhere in the world to AGW.

I prefer to think about it this way... given the fact that extreme climate swings have occurred in the past with relatively minor external stimuli, what will happen in the future as a result of extreme anthropogenic perturbation to the energy budget? We're essentially asking for big trouble. If the climate of the past was stable, we would have less to worry about. Unfortunately, as we've gotten better at reconstructing past climate, we can see that the climate system is anything but stable, and can go haywire at any time.

At the end of the last interglacial (the Eemian), for example, high resolution proxies reveal that it took only 150 years at most to complete the initial transition into the ice age that followed, and that the remainder of the cooling took place in 7 abrupt "step downs" over 5000yrs, rather than a gradual decline. That's scary.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/299/5615/2005.short

[AvantHiatus]

You completely missed the point...2011-2012's warm winter also had nothing to due with climate change, yet when we get media stories blaming it on climate change, a frigid winter confuses the general public. Of course natural variability completely overwhelms climate change in any given location and year. But you don't hear much about natural variability in mainstream media....only in the peer reviewed literature.

 

 

The Phoenix climate reference was an example of the most extreme/alamrist type scenario being showcased in a film...yet one that is overwhelmingly unlikely. But you wouldn't come away feeling that way after being presented those extreme scenarios.

Unlikely, at least in a time-frame that people alive today care about.

[chubbs]

Taking out the paragraph about religious nutjobs...much of what you say I believe has some kernal of truth, but I don't agree with all of it.

 

 

Climate change requires some sort of action...but there is obviously debate on exactly what that is (this is a whole seperate debate not really applicable to this thread). I think "the ends justify the means" certainly applies to more alarmist groups. However, I do believe a significant portion of that group is not doing the "eye wink"....I think many of them actually believe most of the worst case scenarios.

 

Much of lay-person's exposure to climate science is only what they read in media print or sensationalized filmography like Al Gore's "Inconveneint Truth" and now this new piece of Hollywood's take on climate science...so it is very easy to actually believe the worst case scenarios if that is the focal point of every source of your information. Most people do not start follwing climate change by picking up a piece of peer reviewed literature...unfortunately, this makes most people who start following climate change already saddled with preconceived notions, often politically influenced.

 

 

There's often a disconnect between "future projections" and past weather trends...especially when it comes to extreme weather. A good example is the drought attribution and another poster child is hurricanes/TCs. Future model projections show drought may worsen and become more widespread....however, to date, that has not happened or at least cannot be detected. Tropical cyclones aren't even expected to increase (though you will hear otherwise from unscientific sources), but may become marginally stronger in a future warmer world. Almost the entire increase in TC frequency in the Atlantic basin is due to observation improvement and not because there actually has been an increase over the period of record. I believe many become confused by the difference in the two.

 

 

 

I do think the extreme weather attribution actually hurts the ability to take action against climate change more than it helps it. You eventually start desensitizing people when every single weather event starts getting blamed on climate change. You hear things such as climate change being responsible for the warm winter of 2011-2012, but then the public gets confused when a 2013-2014 winter happens. Climate science needs to be communicated to people in a more honest manner if we're ever going to get most of the public behind any type of mitigation policies. Blaming a hurricane on climate change....or telling people that Fargo, ND is might have a Phoenix climate right after they had a top 5 coldest winter on record is probably not the way to convince the public to get behind reducing fossil fuel consumption.

 Agree . Also think the public assumes that a hyped problem requires an unpleasant solution. A less threatening approach emphasing the long-tern nature of the problem with a positive message on the long-term benefits of solutions would be an easier sell. 

[SVT450R]

After watching about 30min i agree with others it seems to lean towards hype and worst case scenarios.  I feel that one of the downsides of getting the message out to the public is that nowadays almost everything is attempted to be tied to AGW as if natural variability doesn't still play a major role.

[Jonger]

The Phoenix/Fargo prediction was called "conservative" too.

 

You can find that around 9:40 to 10:10.

[ORH_wxman]

The Phoenix/Fargo prediction was called "conservative" too.

 

You can find that around 9:40 to 10:10.

 

 

Did they say the entire annual climate would be like Phoenix by the end of the 21st century? I don't remember the context and can't check it until I get home....but the whole Fargo/Phoenix comparison doesn't even pass the smell test on any reasonable level.

 

The difference in average temperature for those two regions is something like 18C. There are no credible scientific papers that predict that type of warming. The Fargo region has been warming at just over 0.1C per decade based on observations since the late 1800s.

[Jonger]

Did they say the entire annual climate would be like Phoenix by the end of the 21st century? I don't remember the context and can't check it until I get home....but the whole Fargo/Phoenix comparison doesn't even pass the smell test on any reasonable level.

 

The difference in average temperature for those two regions is something like 18C. There are no credible scientific papers that predict that type of warming. The Fargo region has been warming at just over 0.1C per decade based on observations since the late 1800s.

 

They were addressing the month of July specifically.

 

The average high in Phoenix for the month of July is 41.2C.

The average high in Fargo for the month of July is 28.1C.

 

So that would be 13C of warming by the end of the century. This would be a complete catastrophe. 

[TerryM]

Did they say the entire annual climate would be like Phoenix by the end of the 21st century? I don't remember the context and can't check it until I get home....but the whole Fargo/Phoenix comparison doesn't even pass the smell test on any reasonable level.

 

The difference in average temperature for those two regions is something like 18C. There are no credible scientific papers that predict that type of warming. The Fargo region has been warming at just over 0.1C per decade based on observations since the late 1800s.

Perhaps the Fargo region is anomalous as the NOAA reports that North Dakota's average temperature increased by .26F per decade over the past 130 years, the fastest increase in the nation.

 

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/publications/files/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-4-Climate_of_the_U.S.%20Great_Plains.pdf

page 27.

 

They also point out that the increase since 1960 has been at a much higher rate.

 

Terry

[Jonger]

Perhaps the Fargo region is anomalous as the NOAA reports that North Dakota's average temperature increased by .26F per decade over the past 130 years, the fastest increase in the nation.

 

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/publications/files/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-4-Climate_of_the_U.S.%20Great_Plains.pdf

page 27.

 

They also point out that the increase since 1960 has been at a much higher rate.

 

Terry

 

1F.... only about 22F more to go!

 

I'll take that wager and spot you 10 degrees, I'll contract a line of succession to pay toward your future heirs.

 

[TerryM]

Jong

 

Had you even clicked on the link I posted?

 

It's from Jan 2013 and specifically addresses climate change in the U.S. Great Plains. In the summary they state that future warming will be much larger than the observed in the 20th century, that A2 scenarios indicate warming of 8F for the whole of the Great Plains and of course that the northern portion of the plains will be more severely affected.

 

Back to the subject of the post.

 

While some may have taken Years of Living Dangerously to be showing only the most extreme outcomes predicted I think that  they've presented a fairly moderate viewpoint. The folks keeping the BAU train running seem to be doing an excellent job & I've seen no evidence of a global lowering of GHG. If we somehow manage to curb our FF addiction we may indeed succeed in postponing the worst effects of global warming, but adding a decade or so before the roof caves in won't really change the outcome.

 

Terry

[Jonger]

Jong

 

Had you even clicked on the link I posted?

 

It's from Jan 2013 and specifically addresses climate change in the U.S. Great Plains. In the summary they state that future warming will be much larger than the observed in the 20th century, that A2 scenarios indicate warming of 8F for the whole of the Great Plains and of course that the northern portion of the plains will be more severely affected.

 

Back to the subject of the post.

 

While some may have taken Years of Living Dangerously to be showing only the most extreme outcomes predicted I think that  they've presented a fairly moderate viewpoint. The folks keeping the BAU train running seem to be doing an excellent job & I've seen no evidence of a global lowering of GHG. If we somehow manage to curb our FF addiction we may indeed succeed in postponing the worst effects of global warming, but adding a decade or so before the roof caves in won't really change the outcome.

 

Terry

 

That Rebecca woman said an increase of nearly 23F, that would be the required change to move the Fargo's average high to match Phoenix, she followed it up by saying thats a conservative estimate.

 

I don't consider 3 times more than 8F conservative. Haven't we realized over the past 15 years that most higher warming scenarios are unlikely? We are running at the bottom 95% confidence interval right now.

 

This still all hinges on whether this whole ordeal is natural variability or not, considering how badly the models performed, its not that clear. 

 

Some of you almost act upset that warming has been overestimated, its a good thing it has been.

[skierinvermont]

So if you any of the innumerable Eurekalert press releases, or actual papers, that variously deal with evidence of pre-industrial rapid and severe climate changes, horrific droughts, and severe weather events, such as the evidence of much higher hurricane landfall rates in some locations in studies ranging back millenia, almost all of these articles have what is in many cases a non-sequitur paragraph shoe-horned in at the end sermonizing that this study shows how dangerous AGW will be. It almost seems to be out of embarassment that the study might be used to counter  "attribution abuse."

 

So yes, there's a valid point in discovering that climate shifts can happen rapidly and that there clearly may be very sharp and fine climatic tipping points, but you're also discovering that there can be wild shifts in temperature, rainfall, extreme weather events, etc. that can't possibly be linked to human CO2 emissions.

 

And regardless of one's stance I think we can all admit that in terms of messaging to the public there's a certain degree of "attribution abuse" going on out of the recognition that the only way to scare people into action is to link AGW to specific meterological disasters. In doing so you have to build on the implied fiction that meteorological "normal" is some sort of steady, benign, peaceful climate which we all know doesn't exist.   I don't think there's a central secret cabal of warmists cackling with glee sending out propaganda marching orders to do this, but I think it is going on with a "wink and nod" and a sense of the "ends justify the means." The same is going on with the shouting down of anyone that makes the obvious point that certain regions are likely going to benefit agriculturally or economically from global warming. 

 

My problem is the rhetoric and messaging is beginning to mirror the rhetoric and messaging of religious apocalpytikook "End Times" nutters, that seize on things like perfectly normal earthquake and volcanic activity to try to convince people that it's "abnormal" and that they are sign of the imminent End Times or  "punishment" for specific things like gay rights, abortion, being Muslim, etc., with the ultimate goal being the selling of their crappy books and novels.  Of course, perfectly normal earthquake and volcanic activity as seen from a geologic time frame  includes earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes that kill hundreds of thousands of people. People desperately want some sort of anthrocentric agency or deeper meaning to these disasters to combat their fear of the uncaring randomness of the Earth; it makes them feel better to think it's a specific punishment, or a sign of Christ's coming, not as a sign that the Earth wasn't designed for humans and geologically mostly doesn't give a crap that we are here.

 

At some point if the perfectly normal (Southwest mega-droughts; heck, there was a horrific East coast mega-drought ongoing when John Smith arrived at Jamestown) is always presented as "abnormal" and evidence of the negative effects of AGW, you're going to lose credibility. I think this is already happening.

 

In terms PURELY of attribution (I'm not talking about global temperature averages) AGW is already reaching the point of being unfalsifiable - there's now a corpus of studies linking absolutely every weather event or any change above and below a long-term average of any secondary weather parameter anywhere in the world to AGW.

 

I can agree with the general statement that attribution in the media and public discussion is often un-scientific. Public discussion of science is very rarely any good and it can be very frustrating for those with a critical mind.

But you also seem to be going so far as to say that because a climate event happened in the past, if it happens today it can't be attributed to AGW. That's an obvious logical fallacy.

Specifically, when talking about SW droughts, the mega-droughts we see in paleo-climate data occurred in periods of high global temperature (such as the early holocene). This is a strong piece of supporting evidence that our current warm period, especially as we continue to warm, will likely lead to similar droughts. And that droughts in the SW are probably already being made more likely by AGW. This is also supported by models of how weather will change in a warmer world. 

[skierinvermont]

8F in A2. And A2 assumes rapid fossil fuel intensive global economic growth (pretty unlikely given how cost-effective some low-carbon technologies are becoming). On the other hand, A2 does show a bit more than 8F in Fargo for the 2090s.Probably more like 10F.

 

VS

 

23F in the film. Which they said was conservative. Where did they even get that from?

[StudentOfClimatology]

I can agree with the general statement that attribution in the media and public discussion is often un-scientific. Public discussion of science is very rarely any good and it can be very frustrating for those with a critical mind.

But you also seem to be going so far as to say that because a climate event happened in the past, if it happens today it can't be attributed to AGW. That's an obvious logical fallacy.

Specifically, when talking about SW droughts, the mega-droughts we see in paleo-climate data occurred in periods of high global temperature (such as the early holocene). This is a strong piece of supporting evidence that our current warm period, especially as we continue to warm, will likely lead to similar droughts. And that droughts in the SW are probably already being made more likely by AGW. This is also supported by models of how weather will change in a warmer world.

Exactly. During warm periods, the Hadley Cells will obviously be large and poleward oriented. This promotes a northward expansion of the horse latitudes/sinking air into the SW USA.

Precipitation in the SW USA is actually a fantastic NH temperature proxy, because the mechanisms that regulate precipitation there are directly governed by SSTs over the tropics and NH...and nothing else really, save maybe MJO periodicity, which correlates mainly to stratospheric phenomenon like the Brewer-Dobson circulation, O^3 gradient, and QBO.

[Msalgado]

Precipitation actually increases across the SW in most modeled simulations.  It won't matter because evaporation increases far more and the P-E change is negative. 

 

Looking past simulations we're actually seeing this occur in observations of the southwest.   

[skierinvermont]

Precipitation actually increases across the SW in most modeled simulations.  It won't matter because evaporation increases far more and the P-E change is negative. 

 

Looking past simulations we're actually seeing this occur in observations of the southwest.   

 

Not from what I see.. looks like less precip and higher T to me. Although the decline in precip is stronger and better agreed upon only in the far SW and Mexico. It looks like CA, NV, UT, NM, AZ, CO all see an annual decline in precip though. More noticeable in NM and AZ. 

Either way, soil moisture experiences a big decline in all the west.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Precipitation actually increases across the SW in most modeled simulations. It won't matter because evaporation increases far more and the P-E change is negative.

Looking past simulations we're actually seeing this occur in observations of the southwest.

Almost every credible study will disagree with your claim. The consensus on this matter is a decrease in precip over the SW USA, especially in winter, as the Hadley Cells expand and shift poleward as a result of the reduced equator-to-pole thermal gradient. It's common sense really..

This is why past warm periods always featured drought over the SW USA. This is real world evidence that corroborates the modeling predicting an increase in drought over the SW as the world warms. There are no exceptions to this rule through the Holocene.

[ORH_wxman]

Perhaps the Fargo region is anomalous as the NOAA reports that North Dakota's average temperature increased by .26F per decade over the past 130 years, the fastest increase in the nation.

 

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/publications/files/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-4-Climate_of_the_U.S.%20Great_Plains.pdf

page 27.

 

They also point out that the increase since 1960 has been at a much higher rate.

 

Terry

 

 

You do realize that 0.26F per decade is the same as 0.14C per decade right?

 

 

And of course the increase since 1960 would be higher since 1960 was the center of one of the coldest periods last century. They've also been cooling since the late 1990s. So you can do it both ways.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I didnt watch.

 

Def not going to watch.

 

what is the point of it?

 

People don't care about global warming.

 

They don't care about a billion people going without food everyday.

 

They sure as hell won't care what happens in the year 2100

[TerryM]

I am aware that .26F ~ .144C, but rounding this down to .1C, then extrapolating this over a century gives rather large error bars. 

The fact that NOAA has found North Dakota to be the fastest warming area in the US coupled with the fact that summer warming outpaces all other seasons is probably why this particular region was featured. Cherry picking if you will,

 

The segment that apparently has come under fire starts 9:18 min. and begins with high temperatures given in July 1950. The final image shows America in the year 2100.

They say specifically that high temperature in July in Fargo ND will be in excess of 100F. They are not saying average temperature nor median temperature but rather high temperature. If some find this difficult to fathom so be it.

 

The average maximum high temperature in July of 1950 was 101.3F or 38.5C in Phoenix (Weather Warehouse)

The average maximum high temperature in July of 2012 was 88F or 31.1C in Fargo ND (Weatherspark)

 

Apparently we need a 13.3F or 7.4C increase to reach their projected temperatures by 2100

These don't seem impossible or even unlikely, especially if we continue on the BAU path we're on.

 

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am aware that .26F ~ .144C, but rounding this down to .1C, then extrapolating this over a century gives rather large error bars. 

The fact that NOAA has found North Dakota to be the fastest warming area in the US coupled with the fact that summer warming outpaces all other seasons is probably why this particular region was featured. Cherry picking if you will,

 

The segment that apparently has come under fire starts 9:18 min. and begins with high temperatures given in July 1950. The final image shows America in the year 2100.

They say specifically that high temperature in July in Fargo ND will be in excess of 100F. They are not saying average temperature nor median temperature but rather high temperature. If some find this difficult to fathom so be it.

 

The average maximum high temperature in July of 1950 was 101.3F or 38.5C in Phoenix (Weather Warehouse)

The average maximum high temperature in July of 2012 was 88F or 31.1C in Fargo ND (Weatherspark)

 

Apparently we need a 13.3F or 7.4C increase to reach their projected temperatures by 2100

These don't seem impossible or even unlikely, especially if we continue on the BAU path we're on.

 

Terry

 

 

I dunno Terry.

 

7.4C increase for Fargo ND seems way to high.

[AvantHiatus]

I dunno Terry.

 

7.4C increase for Fargo ND seems way to high.

Warming/Extremes in temperature is greater over land, 7.4C is a massive rise for the ocean and coastal areas tho.

[Jonger]

I am aware that .26F ~ .144C, but rounding this down to .1C, then extrapolating this over a century gives rather large error bars. 

The fact that NOAA has found North Dakota to be the fastest warming area in the US coupled with the fact that summer warming outpaces all other seasons is probably why this particular region was featured. Cherry picking if you will,

 

The segment that apparently has come under fire starts 9:18 min. and begins with high temperatures given in July 1950. The final image shows America in the year 2100.

They say specifically that high temperature in July in Fargo ND will be in excess of 100F. They are not saying average temperature nor median temperature but rather high temperature. If some find this difficult to fathom so be it.

 

The average maximum high temperature in July of 1950 was 101.3F or 38.5C in Phoenix (Weather Warehouse)

The average maximum high temperature in July of 2012 was 88F or 31.1C in Fargo ND (Weatherspark)

 

Apparently we need a 13.3F or 7.4C increase to reach their projected temperatures by 2100

These don't seem impossible or even unlikely, especially if we continue on the BAU path we're on.

 

Terry

 

Using July of 2012 is the worst cherry pick possible. Can I use winter 2013-2014 as representative of an average Fargo winter?

 

Fargo can hit 100F now, so it has to be average high. What other metric would they be referring to as a comparison to 2014 Phoenix?

 

Fargo's record high is 114F in 1936.

 

Phoenix has a record high of 122F in June of 1990, if they are trying (which they weren't) to say Fargo will have the same record high of Phoenix in 2100 as Phoenix does in 2014, that's more believable, since its so close now.

[LocoAko]

Much of lay-person's exposure to climate science is only what they read in media print or sensationalized filmography like Al Gore's "Inconveneint Truth" and now this new piece of Hollywood's take on climate science...so it is very easy to actually believe the worst case scenarios if that is the focal point of every source of your information. Most people do not start follwing climate change by picking up a piece of peer reviewed literature...unfortunately, this makes most people who start following climate change already saddled with preconceived notions, often politically influenced.

 

I definitely agree with this, but you present a picture where the media only reports hype, the worst-case scenario, etc. I think the "blame" goes both ways -- and I think the worst offender is the "balanced" reporting of the issue as if there were two equally valid sides. Very often the other side isn't even a climate scientist but an economist, political scientist, etc. If the way you painted it were true, the public would believe in climate change in higher numbers than even climate scientists, and we know that to not be true. A strikingly large amount of Americans don't seem to believe in climate change at all, and that I'd blame directly on the media's "de-sensationalized", if you will, reporting. 

 

That being said, good post and I admittedly haven't watched the documentary in question, so I'm speaking in generalities. 

[Jonger]

I definitely agree with this, but you present a picture where the media only reports hype, the worst-case scenario, etc. I think the "blame" goes both ways -- and I think the worst offender is the "balanced" reporting of the issue as if there were two equally valid sides. Very often the other side isn't even a climate scientist but an economist, political scientist, etc. If the way you painted it were true, the public would believe in climate change in higher numbers than even climate scientists, and we know that to not be true. A strikingly large amount of Americans don't seem to believe in climate change at all, and that I'd blame directly on the media's "de-sensationalized", if you will, reporting. 

 

That being said, good post and I admittedly haven't watched the documentary in question, so I'm speaking in generalities. 

 

I really see very little of the skeptic side being reported anymore. Although, the only time I hear anything about AGW is during IPCC reports, September sea ice minimums and the few Obama speeches. I really wish alternative energy was pushed more as a result of running out of cheap energy and the crushing effect it has on the poor and middle class.

 

High diesel prices can be traced to much of our countries economic doldrums.

[ORH_wxman]

I am aware that .26F ~ .144C, but rounding this down to .1C, then extrapolating this over a century gives rather large error bars. 

The fact that NOAA has found North Dakota to be the fastest warming area in the US coupled with the fact that summer warming outpaces all other seasons is probably why this particular region was featured. Cherry picking if you will,

 

The segment that apparently has come under fire starts 9:18 min. and begins with high temperatures given in July 1950. The final image shows America in the year 2100.

They say specifically that high temperature in July in Fargo ND will be in excess of 100F. They are not saying average temperature nor median temperature but rather high temperature. If some find this difficult to fathom so be it.

 

The average maximum high temperature in July of 1950 was 101.3F or 38.5C in Phoenix (Weather Warehouse)

The average maximum high temperature in July of 2012 was 88F or 31.1C in Fargo ND (Weatherspark)

 

Apparently we need a 13.3F or 7.4C increase to reach their projected temperatures by 2100

These don't seem impossible or even unlikely, especially if we continue on the BAU path we're on.

 

Terry

 

 

 

First of all...I said "the Fargo region has warmed at just over 0.1C per decade" and somehow you find 0.144C per decade not consistent with that statement...I think most would disagree with you, but fine if you want to nitpick. Secondly, you actually used the entire state of North Dakota when I specifically used the region Fargo was in based on the NCDC climate zone divisions which came out to 0.126C per decade. I wasn't using your 0.144C per decade figure anyway when I made my statement.

 

 

 

As for the bolded, it doesn't seem unlikely? I'll disagree with that. But even that 7.4C is nowhere near enough to equal the two climates...you are comparing Fargo's summer of 2012 to Phoenix in 1950? Maybe we should compare the winter of 1877-1878 to this winter and conclude that Fargo's winters are 20F colder now.

[TerryM]

Using July of 2012 is the worst cherry pick possible. Can I use winter 2013-2014 as representative of an average Fargo winter?

 

Fargo can hit 100F now, so it has to be average high. What other metric would they be referring to as a comparison to 2014 Phoenix?

 

Fargo's record high is 114F in 1936.

 

Phoenix has a record high of 122F in June of 1990, if they are trying (which they weren't) to say Fargo will have the same record high of Phoenix in 2100 as Phoenix does in 2014, that's more believable, since its so close now.

IIRC they compare average July maximum in 1950 Phoenix to average July maximum in Fargo ND. It starts just after minute 9 on the tape so we don't really have to guess what metric is being used.

 

Friv

If we consider that Arctic Amplification is happening, that Fargo is far from moderating influences & that thus far summer temperatures in North Dakota are leading at least the contiguous states the numbers don't seem too much of a stretch. Fargo may  suffer more from rising water levels well before that time though.

 

Terry

[TerryM]

First of all...I said "the Fargo region has warmed at just over 0.1C per decade" and somehow you find 0.144C per decade not consistent with that statement...I think most would disagree with you, but fine if you want to nitpick. Secondly, you actually used the entire state of North Dakota when I specifically used the region Fargo was in based on the NCDC climate zone divisions which came out to 0.126C per decade. I wasn't using your 0.144C per decade figure anyway when I made my statement.

 

 

 

As for the bolded, it doesn't seem unlikely? I'll disagree with that. But even that 7.4C is nowhere near enough to equal the two climates...you are comparing Fargo's summer of 2012 to Phoenix in 1950? Maybe we should compare the winter of 1877-1878 to this winter and conclude that Fargo's winters are 20F colder now.

But we were discussing what the film was comparing - specifically Phoenix average July maximum in 1050 with the same in 2100 for Fargo. Discussing 1877 to todays temperatures might be a nice diversion, but it's not what the film addressed.

 

Terry