Attribution Report for the July 2019 Heat in Europe

[bluewave]

8 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Science?  climate science is not real science.....

You are good a parroting discredited think tank talking points.

[donsutherland1]

21 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

How can you say this so confidently?  You don't understand the non-linearlities inherent in the Earth's atmosphere.  Come on. All your argument is based in climate models. Mine are based on observations. It was warmer before and it could easily warm more. 

All known natural variables cannot adequately explain today’s global scale warming. There is an extremely close match when atmospheric carbon dioxide is added to the mix. That’s why scientists are now extremely confident about the matter with a few individual exceptions.

The unmet (and likely unattainable) challenge for those who reject the scientific understanding is to identify a new natural mechanism and demonstrate that it offers at least as strong an explanation statistically as the AGW consensus explanation.

[Typhoon Tip]

24 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Look at the data bluewave. The upper troposphere is drying. Since it doesn't fit the narrative they dismiss it. Look at the cloud data from NASA 1983-2009, when there were more clouds on the planet temps cools and vice versa. That dataset is dismissed too. Heck look at the U.S temperature record, NCDC has fudged so much data that many states which show no warming trend in the past hundred plus years after adjustments are now showing 2-3F or more rises per century. And the time of ob has nothing to do with this. High temperature data shows the same trends as low temperature data...none until they adjust the data. I could go on, but the real science deniers are the folks who buy into CAGW and won't even look at the real data or understand rad tran or even understand the earth's atmosphere.....   

What's your point?

It escapes me -

I'm not sure what you are really after....  Are you trying to convince people that:

a ... there is not global warming

b ... there is global warming, but it is not human activity attributed

c ... something else... 

what? 

 

[donsutherland1]

42 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Science?  climate science is not real science.....

By that severely stretched reasoning, biochemistry, astrophysics, etc, are not “real science.” That they are sub fields within larger fields does not render them “not real science.” Such claims amount in substance to ad hominem attacks, not against a person, but a scientific area. They are deployed, because those making such claims are unable to debunk the growing body of climate research using science, evidence, and peer review scrutiny. Finally, with its growth and increasing societal relevance, climate science could well become its own fully distinct field within earth science in a decade or two.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

The radiosonde data for Fairbanks clearly shows an above normal month but not a record. Notice how 300 mb data shows very little warming over the long term. This is where CO2 is supposed to warm the atmosphere the most.  

see below 

The issue you cite concerning 300 mb developments has already been addressed in papers. It does not, in any way, disprove the reality that the Arctic is the fastest warming region of the world. 

For example:

Another positive feedback is less well known and is based on the observation that the warming trend in the Arctic is mainly confined to the lower part of the atmosphere. This is still far below the levels where thermal radiation escapes from the atmosphere on average, which is around 5 km (3 miles) high. This implies that the radiative cooling of the warmer air near the surface is not as efficient as in lower latitudes where the trend at altitude is similar to (mid-latitudes) or higher than (tropics) near the surface. The reduction of radiative cooling due to the vertical structure of the warming trend is called the lapse-rate feedback.

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/north-pole-nov-dec-2016/

[donsutherland1]

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

Great Category 6 post:

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Baked-Alaska-State-Endures-Warmest-Month-Record

July 2019 was the warmest month on record for the state of Alaska, smashing the previous record by almost one full degree Fahrenheit and leaving numerous local records for hottest day and warmest month in the superheated dust. Records for statewide average temperatures date back to 1925 (with partial data since the late 1880s). Four of the top 10 warmest single months on record (all Julys) has been set in just the past four years. This past June was also the second warmest June on record for the state (following June 2004).

Figure 1. July 2019 was the warmest single month on record for the state of Alaska,. surpassing the previous record for such (July 2004) by the largest margin ever observed. Four out of the top 10 warmest months on record have occurred in in just the past four years (July 2019, July 2018, July 2017, and July 2016). Image credit: Brian Brettschneider, from NCEI data.

Some of the records set

Anchorage made national news on July 4 when its official temperature at the International Airport peaked at 90° for the first time on record, smashing the previous all-time record of 85° measured on June 14, 1969. The early July heat in Anchorage was unlike anything the city has ever experienced in modern records. Daily high temperature records were broken on six consecutive days from Jul 3 through July 8 (including 85° readings on July 7 and 8, which would have been a tie for the all-time record in their own right).

Just beforehand, June saw five daily record highs from June 23-29. So in the 15-day span of June 23-July 8 eleven days broke their daily heat records! July also had 11 daily high minimum records broken.

The month of July was also the warmest single month on record for the city, with an average temperature of 65.3° crushing the previous warmest month record of 62.7° set in July 2016. In addition, the previous month was the warmest June on record for the city, with an average of 60.5° (previous record 59.5° in June 2015). It should also be noted that July was the 17th consecutive month in Anchorage with an above-normal average monthly temperature. Every single day in Anchorage from May 30 to at least August 7 (as of this writing) has been above normal.

Figure 2. July 2019 was the warmest month on record for the city of Anchorage, mimicking the trend for the entire state. The 65.3° average temperature crushed the previous record of 62.7° (set in July 2016) by an astounding 2.6°F. June was also the warmest such month on record setting the stage for what is sure to be the warmest climatological summer (June-August) on record for the city. Image credit: Brian Brettschneider from NCEI data.

It wasn’t just south-central Alaska that baked in July. Other important sites that also measured their warmest single month on record—shown below with the first year of the period of record (POR)—include:

Gulkana: 62.4° (previous record 61.4° in July 2009), POR 1921-
Homer: 58.5° (previous record 58.2° in August 2016), POR 1932-
Iliamna: 63.2° (previous record 59.4° in July 2016 and August 2004), POR 1941-
—June also set a monthly record at Iliamna, with a 57.3° average temperature.
Kenai: 59.4° (previous record 59.0° in July 2016), POR 1899-1907, 1943-
King Salmon: 61.2° (previous record 59.8° in July 1997) POR, 1917- (some years missing)
Kodiak: 60.4° (previous record 60.3° in July 1936), POR 1931-
Kotzebue: 63.8° (previous record 60.0° in July 2009) POR, 1929-
—Kotzebue also observed its warmest June and warmest May on record. As of August 7, it has not had a single day averaging below normal since February 14! The last month with a below-normal temperature average was two years ago, in August 2017.
McGrath: 64.0° (previous record 63.8° in July 2017), POR 1941-
Northway: 62.4° (previous record 62.0° in July 2009), POR 1943-
Talkeetna (Mt. McKinley area): 65.2° (previous record 64.2° in July 2008), POR 1918-
Utqiagvik (Barrow): 48.3° (previous record 46.8° in August 1989), POR 1921-
Yakutat: 59.6° (previous record 57.7° in August 2016), POR 1917-

Numerous other sites with shorter POR’s also observed their warmest month on record.

Figure 3. Every significant weather station in the entire state of Alaska saw much above normal average temperatures during July 2019, a rare feat for such a vast and geographically diverse area. Image credit: Brian Brettschneider from NOAA data.

What is extraordinary about all the records is that the sites where they occurred are representative of a huge portion of what is a vast state. On July 5 the statewide absolute minimum temperature (out of 287 stations) was 42°. That is the warmest daily minimum on record for Alaska since at least 50 stations began collecting daily observations (around 1920). The average statewide temperature on July 6 was likely the highest for any day in any year since at least 1915.

Figure 4. Alaska coves a huge amount of territory with its landmass being the equivalent of 21.3% of that of the contiguous U.S. This makes it fairly rare, at least during the summer, that the entire state would see above normal temperatures. Image credit: Alaska State Archives.

Needless to say, it has been a hellish fire season for the state, with 2.4 million acres charred as of the end of July.

It’s not just Alaska

Unusual warmth has engulfed much of the world’s far northern latitudes this past month. In Greenland, the town of Narsarsuaq saw its temperature soar to 23.4°C (74.1°F) on August 1, not too far from the August monthly heat record for Greenland of 24.1°C (75.4°F) measured at Nuuk on August 26, 2003. The warmth has resulted in unprecedented ice melt, according to Danish officials (197 billion tons of ice melted in July with an additional 12.5 billion loss on August 1 alone, the greatest single-day loss on record). Reykjavik, Iceland had a July monthly average temperature of 13.5°C (56.2°F), some 2.7°C (4.8°F) above its July normal of 10.8°C (51.4°F).

An unusually hot and dry summer in Siberia has resulted in massive wildfires that have engulfed an area the size of Maryland or Belgium (about 15,000 square miles or 10 million acres). Smoke from the fires has drifted as far east as western Canada. Temperatures in the burn area averaged as much as 8°C (14°F) above normal earlier in the summer.

Figure 5. Massive wildfires continue to rage in the Krasnoyarsk Krai, Sakha Republic, and Zabaykalsky Krai regions of Siberia as of August 6. Some 2.6 million hectares (about 10 million acres or about 15,600 square miles—twice the size of Massachusetts) have been scorched so far, making it one of the largest fire complexes in modern history. Image credit: Avialesookhrana/TASS/Getty Images.

At Alert, Canada, the most northerly land-based weather station and permanently inhabited place in the world (located at 82° 30’ latitude), the temperature reached 21.0°C (69.8°) on July 14, its warmest temperature ever observed. This was followed by a nighttime (July 14-15) minimum of 15.2°C (59.4°) an extraordinary figure for a site so close to the North Pole, although the sun shines 24 hours a day here this time of the year.

And, of course, there was the extraordinary heat wave that affected Western and Northern Europe the last week of July. Portions of Scandinavia experienced their warmest temperatures on record, including the city of Helsinki, Finland, where the 33.3°C (91.9°F) measured on July 28 broke their all-time record. See the Category 6 posts for a comprehensive list of the many all-time records set on July 24-25 and July 26.

 

KUDOS: Brian Brettschneider (climate researcher at the University of Alaska's International Arctic Research Center) for the graphics and many of the temperature records noted in this blog, and partial data back to the late 1880s, and Etienne Kapikian (Météo-France) for the Greenland temperature records.

Christopher C. Burt
Weather Historian

 

 

This is a wonderful and important summary of yet another historic period of warmth in the Arctic region. I suspect an attribution study will be published some time during the fall or winter. That study will almost certainly confirm the rarity of the summer (Alaska and probably much of the Arctic region) and very large role played by climate change. 

[BillT]

the climate is just the STATISTICS derived from the previous 30 years weather for a given area.......to think the past CONTROLS the future shows a complete lack of basic sense about simple science....the past also has no control over the present, the climate is NOT a force, has no power and has never caused even one weather event.......

[donsutherland1]

24 minutes ago, BillT said:

the climate is just the STATISTICS derived from the previous 30 years weather for a given area.......to think the past CONTROLS the future shows a complete lack of basic sense about simple science....the past also has no control over the present, the climate is NOT a force, has no power and has never caused even one weather event.......

No climate scientist has stated that “the past controls the future.” If you are aware of such a claim, can you provide a link given how extraordinary it would be?

Moreover, during climate regimes different conditions are more frequent than others. The climate regimes offer useful descriptions. For example, drought does not cause weather events (setting aside feedbacks). It describes abnormally dry periods. And looking ahead, if droughts become more likely in a given area, one has some understanding of what to expect in a big picture sense, even as specific day-to-day events, magnitude, etc., cannot be forecast.

[bdgwx]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

The radiosonde data for Fairbanks clearly shows an above normal month but not a record. Notice how 300 mb data shows very little warming over the long term. This is where CO2 is supposed to warm the atmosphere the most.  

I think you may be referring to the mid troposphere tropical hotspot again. And assuming "supposed to warm" is in reference to the various lat-hgt distributions of the warming (like those of the often cited and frequently misrepresented graphic from IPCC AR3) I'll point out that at the latitude of Fairbanks the warming at 300mb is marginal compared to the global mean. Please refer to following link for an example of such a lat-hgt diagram of the forcing response.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/efficacy/

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

The bubble actually started in 2013. 

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Two key parameters were omitted:

1. The Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than today in part of the Northern Hemisphere, not globally.

2. The excess warmth over today in those regions concerned the summer months.

When everything is taken in context, a more accurate statement would read: the Holocene Climatic Optimum had warmer summers than today in part of the Northern Hemisphere.

Yes and the summer sun was 5+% stronger in the arctic in the HCO explaining the summer warmth. We are blowing past the HCO in the arctic with unfavorable orbital conditions for arctic warmth.

[donsutherland1]

11 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Yes and the summer sun was 5+% stronger in the arctic in the HCO explaining the summer warmth. We are blowing past the HCO in the arctic with unfavorable orbital conditions for arctic warmth.

Absolutely. If AGW were not underway, the Arctic would continue to be cooling today. It isn’t. It’s rapidly warming.

[blizzard1024]

On 8/10/2019 at 6:07 PM, bluewave said:

You are good a parroting discredited think tank talking points.

Ok. First of all I am not saying the scientists themselves are necessarily not into science per se, but there is no objectivity left in climate science. 30+ years of work tunnel visioned on CO2 leads to warming means massive group-think, which gets into the peer review process. They have been re-enforcing "the CO2 thermostat" hypothesis for 30+ years.  If you disagree you are banned. Censored as a scientist. Excellent award winning brilliant scientists like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Willie Soon and more recently Judith Curry have been ostracized. That is why climate science isn't real science anymore IMO. The people that are in it are smart but there is too much inertia to go against the basic "CO2 is the world's thermostat" theory. In summary this is based on computer models only which an objective scientist would question especially given the non-linearities in the atmosphere and climate system.  

[blizzard1024]

On 8/11/2019 at 7:34 AM, donsutherland1 said:

Absolutely. If AGW were not underway, the Arctic would continue to be cooling today. It isn’t. It’s rapidly warming.

How do you know that? Climate models? Really? Come on. That's lame.  Its related to the AMO cycles. It was as warm as in the 1930s and 1940s in the Arctic. Looking at the raw untouched rural data. 

[donsutherland1]

4 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

How do you know that? Climate models? Really? Come on. That's lame.  Its related to the AMO cycles. It was as warm as in the 1930s and 1940s in the Arctic. Looking at the raw untouched rural data. 

In general, there is a direct relationship between solar insolation and temperature. There is peer-reviewed literature that Arctic solar insolation is in a long-term decline. Some fluctuations for internal variability can be expected. 

Also, today’s Arctic temperatures are dramatically warmer than they were during the 1930s and 1940s.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt (64N-90N)

[bluewave]

3 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Ok. First of all I am not saying the scientists themselves are necessarily not into science per se, but there is no objectivity left in climate science. 30+ years of work tunnel visioned on CO2 leads to warming means massive group-think, which gets into the peer review process. They have been re-enforcing "the CO2 thermostat" hypothesis for 30+ years.  If you disagree you are banned. Censored as a scientist. Excellent award winning brilliant scientists like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Willie Soon and more recently Judith Curry have been ostracized. That is why climate science isn't real science anymore IMO. The people that are in it are smart but there is too much inertia to go against the basic "CO2 is the world's thermostat" theory. In summary this is based on computer models only which an objective scientist would question especially given the non-linearities in the atmosphere and climate system.  

It’s a false narrative that there is no objectivity left in climate science. Those names you mentioned have been trying to play down the influence of co2 to no avail. There have been major flaws detected in the papers that they like to cite in their arguments. Just look how poorly the global temperature forecast issued in the Curry stadium wave has performed. It’s been one new global high temperature record after another following the publication of that paper in 2013.

https://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/10/10/‘stadium-waves’-could-explain-lull-global-warming

“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

From Katharine Hayhoe:

https://m.facebook.com/katharine.hayhoe/posts/1915202578704620

https://mobile.twitter.com/khayhoe/status/1149134713648484352?lang=en

We re-analyzed 38 studies that questioned whether climate is changing and/or humans are responsible, and found an error in each that, when corrected, brought them in line with the scientific consensus. Our study's been downloaded >100k times now!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

 

 

[donsutherland1]

Yesterday’s 63 degree low temperature in Anchorage set a new August mark and tied that city’s warmest minimum temperature on record, which was set on July 10, 2005. Such exceptional warmth during what could be that city’s warmest summer on record is very likely linked to climate change.

[donsutherland1]

Yesterday, Anchorage tied its all-time highest minimum temperature for the second consecutive day.

[stadiumwave]

On 8/6/2019 at 1:16 AM, donsutherland1 said:

To be sure, Dr. Curry does not fall into the category of a “denier.” Her objections are narrower and more specific based on what I have read. There are some people in social media who have taken the anti-science route, which differs from honest skepticism. 

 

Don...here is another example of why there is distrust in the science community. Trust me there is...Dr. Curry has written much about it:

 

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, stadiumwave said:

 

Don...here is another example of why there is distrust in the science community. Trust me there is...Dr. Curry has written much about it:

 

 

This is probably the reason. DeSmog was among the sources used to compile a list of climate change contrarians for a comparison group study.

https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-pielke-jr

Pielke, Jr. has repeatedly downplayed the climate change link to extreme weather. Perhaps, as attribution techniques are relatively young, his understanding is dated. But even before attribution techniques became robust, the IPCC position about the link between climate change and extreme weather events was stronger than Pielke’s.

Finally, the paper in question concerns contrarians, not all of whom are “deniers.” The paper explained:

In particular, by contrarians we refer to individuals frequently sourced by institutions denying the documented realities of CC and its consequences and/or individuals who have personally expressed inaccurate statements. As such, we selected CCC using open registries that clearly document their contrarian positions. 

There are several limitations to our data-driven analysis worth first discussing. First, we do not account for the range of professional backgrounds, nor do we account for the different types of skepticism promoted by different CCC. By way of example, recent work comparing fundamental skepticism (relating to sources and existence of CC) to impact skepticism (relating to potential impacts of CC) reveals that the frequency of the fundamental skepticism has decreased over time, whereas the frequency of impact skepticism has increased over time, possibly signaling a strategic shift within the contrarian movement.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

Almost certainly, the “impact skepticism” description fits Pielke, Jr.’s work related to climate change and extreme weather events. He does not come across as being in the “fundamental skepticism” category.

[stadiumwave]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

This is probably the reason. DeSmog was among the sources used to compile a list of climate change contrarians for a comparison group study.

https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-pielke-jr

Pielke, Jr. has repeatedly downplayed the climate change link to extreme weather. Perhaps, as attribution techniques are relatively young, his understanding is dated. But even before attribution techniques became robust, the IPCC position about the link between climate change and extreme weather events was stronger than Pielke’s.

Finally, the paper in question concerns contrarians, not all of whom are “deniers.” The paper explained:

In particular, by contrarians we refer to individuals frequently sourced by institutions denying the documented realities of CC and its consequences and/or individuals who have personally expressed inaccurate statements. As such, we selected CCC using open registries that clearly document their contrarian positions. 

There are several limitations to our data-driven analysis worth first discussing. First, we do not account for the range of professional backgrounds, nor do we account for the different types of skepticism promoted by different CCC. By way of example, recent work comparing fundamental skepticism (relating to sources and existence of CC) to impact skepticism (relating to potential impacts of CC) reveals that the frequency of the fundamental skepticism has decreased over time, whereas the frequency of impact skepticism has increased over time, possibly signaling a strategic shift within the contrarian movement.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

Almost certainly, the “impact skepticism” description fits Pielke, Jr.’s work related to climate change and extreme weather events. He does not come across as being in the “fundamental skepticism” category.

 

He is in the same mold as Dr. Curry. Again, just because facts show that one aspect of Climate Change is not playing out as the narrative says does not equal denial. That's the point of what myself, Dr. Curry, & many others are blowing the whistle about. It's not science. 

For instance, look at the trend of strong to violent tornado trend since 1954 per NOAA records & its obvious there are issues about AGW we do not understand. The trend does not line up with the predictions.

The AMS:

(NOAA's data below)

Why can't we just be humble & say "there is much we do not understand yet"? Instead we'd rather say "we know", "we know", "we know". Just like this whole attribution joke about a heatwave that just occurred within a few weeks ago. And beyond comprehension blazes through Peer Review...lol. Its bullcrap & you know it.

 

You think that'll stop the alarmist from shouting AGW as the cause of the next EF-5? Heck no! And many of those who no better will say nothing. And the ones who do say something will be labeled as deniers of AGW although that is not true at all.

[Typhoon Tip]

4 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

Don...here is another example of why there is distrust in the science community. Trust me there is...Dr. Curry has written much about it:

 

 

 

There is another factor ... beyond using officiate processes against people, in order to smear their reputations and so forth.  What this above describes "sounds" like using the accreditation circuitry against others?  

There's a different way information is being missused...and it's a bit more insidious and multiplexing ... These types are more aptly described as wrecking balls ... and can be quite reverse -psycho in the way they go about doing it - basically.. they're "moles"  They plant themselves fraudulently into the ranks and spheres of climate protection, so that their voice will be respected, and at least heard if not revered ...Such that when they publish falsities ... their goal isn't necessarily even to smear the person per se - no .. that person is a pawn.  They could give two shits about the person they are using... They do it...because the vitriol it creates, they know... is another reason to invalidate the issue, and that's their real goal. 

Not to digress too wildly ... but, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone nowadays ...that the Internet is the greatest con-game ever orchestrated by the powers of human contrivance...ever!  The Russians did this kind of crap, against a whole nation - guess what?  Contrary to patently moronic line-toeing nimrods ...it worked!  That little sociodynamic strategy of theirs notably morphed the political zeitgeist enough to  ... well, the rest is history.  And, we can either be standing in line for a Darwin aware, or maybe consider.. gee, it's not a crazy or far fetched realization that the entire WWW is subjected to other special interest sources of malfeasance, and the ballast of the network traffic source comes from them.  Frankly .. the Internet and wiring of Humanity exploded into being so fast, furious and pervasively, it was done so sans any "appropriating" regulatory framework ...  We see it every day!  I go to CNN, I read their headlines...then, I go to some other more reputable ( or ...perhaps differently reputable, put it that way...) news source such as NPR and read theirs ... clearly one is attempting to elicit a response, while the other is attempting to convey information.   When it comes to news ... it should be up down, left right, black white...  nothing else.  Instead, the Internet reaches large masses of population that may have questionable critical thinking skills... with that same age old tactic of strategic doubt throwing lobbyist that corporations have always planted before congress ... This is the complexion, and problem of human kind, that is being/has been exposed with shimmering clarity by the immense wiring really ..  

I mean, these can be mutually exclusive objectives - what you say is shameful/sad and probably debilitating  ... all that, to the greater need to have this particular issue, climate change, taken seriously.  But yeah... it's all sowing distrust.   

I think it is important in the era of the WWW (and how the anonymity it provides is too irresistible for (those with lowering morality in information + a cause)/2 ... which is a shockingly large number of people in all walks of society actually ... ) that those objectives be delineated...  Because that's the first step in sniffing the aroma of dung. 

 

[Fantom X]

5 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

He is in the same mold as Dr. Curry. Again, just because facts show that one aspect of Climate Change is not playing out as the narrative says does not equal denial. That's the point of what myself, Dr. Curry, & many others are blowing the whistle about. It's not science. 

For instance, look at the trend of strong to violent tornado trend since 1954 per NOAA records & its obvious there are issues about AGW we do not understand. The trend does not line up with the predictions.

The AMS:

(NOAA's data below)

Why can't we just be humble & say "there is much we do not understand yet"? Instead we'd rather say "we know", "we know", "we know". Just like this whole attribution joke about a heatwave that just occurred within a few weeks ago. And beyond comprehension blazes through Peer Review...lol. Its bullcrap & you know it.

 

You think that'll stop the alarmist from shouting AGW as the cause of the next EF-5? Heck no! And many of those who no better will say nothing. And the ones who do say something will be labeled as deniers of AGW although that is not true at all.

That feeds into the skepticism. Quick to label an extreme weather event as a result of AGW. Take the NYC record of straight 90 degree days from August 24th to Sept 4th 1953. That is an astonishing record for the area - and - time of year. If that record TIED today, I have a feeling the science community will be quick to label it as a result of AGW. 

[ORH_wxman]

5 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

He is in the same mold as Dr. Curry. Again, just because facts show that one aspect of Climate Change is not playing out as the narrative says does not equal denial. That's the point of what myself, Dr. Curry, & many others are blowing the whistle about. It's not science. 

For instance, look at the trend of strong to violent tornado trend since 1954 per NOAA records & its obvious there are issues about AGW we do not understand. The trend does not line up with the predictions.

The AMS:

(NOAA's data below)

Why can't we just be humble & say "there is much we do not understand yet"? Instead we'd rather say "we know", "we know", "we know". Just like this whole attribution joke about a heatwave that just occurred within a few weeks ago. And beyond comprehension blazes through Peer Review...lol. Its bullcrap & you know it.

 

You think that'll stop the alarmist from shouting AGW as the cause of the next EF-5? Heck no! And many of those who no better will say nothing. And the ones who do say something will be labeled as deniers of AGW although that is not true at all.

Pielke has definitely been the subject of smears. It's pretty embarrassing for the scientific community actually given that a lot of his stuff is legit. Chris Landsea is another who got smeared a bit when he published important literature on hurricanes that proved the increase in the Atlantic was almost all due to observational limitations in the early/mid 20th century. 

Desmog blog ranks as a far leftward bias news site even though the factual reporting is high. So it is no surprise they would try and discredit or downplay anyone who has a milder view of climate change attribution studies like Pielke jr. 

[ORH_wxman]

On 8/12/2019 at 2:14 PM, blizzard1024 said:

How do you know that? Climate models? Really? Come on. That's lame.  Its related to the AMO cycles. It was as warm as in the 1930s and 1940s in the Arctic. Looking at the raw untouched rural data. 

You cant look at raw data when it comes to temps...the data has problems that need to be adjusted to make the dataset homogenous. 

Biggest problem is TOBs (time of observation) adjustment. These are real...TOBs produces about a 0.3 to 0.5C warm bias on temps in the US (and some other sites in North America) in the early/mid 20th century...depending on exact dataset...it might be as low as 0.1 or 0.2 if you use a regional dataset like the southeast US. That's why if you look at the raw data, you'll find that the Arctic temps look similar to the 1930s and 1940s. 

There are other adjustments too like the change from the older Liquid MMTs to digital thermos. 

[donsutherland1]

6 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

He is in the same mold as Dr. Curry. Again, just because facts show that one aspect of Climate Change is not playing out as the narrative says does not equal denial. That's the point of what myself, Dr. Curry, & many others are blowing the whistle about. It's not science. 

For instance, look at the trend of strong to violent tornado trend since 1954 per NOAA records & its obvious there are issues about AGW we do not understand. The trend does not line up with the predictions.

The AMS:

(NOAA's data below)

Why can't we just be humble & say "there is much we do not understand yet"? Instead we'd rather say "we know", "we know", "we know". Just like this whole attribution joke about a heatwave that just occurred within a few weeks ago. And beyond comprehension blazes through Peer Review...lol. Its bullcrap & you know it.

 

You think that'll stop the alarmist from shouting AGW as the cause of the next EF-5? Heck no! And many of those who no better will say nothing. And the ones who do say something will be labeled as deniers of AGW although that is not true at all.

A few quick things:

First, I just looked into how Pielke, Jr., wound up being grouped as a “contrarian.” He showed up on one of the authors’ key sources for identifying contrarians.

Second, a quick look at some of the cited items for his being listed by that source revealed a gap between Pielke, Jr.’s thinking and the IPCC consensus. The gap was more than about his expressing uncertainty. Using the authors’ language, to describe types of skepticism, that would make him an ‘impact skeptic.’

Based on both reasons, the authors likely included him as a contrarian. For what it’s worth, Curry doesn’t appear on any of the sources referenced to identify contrarians.

I make no personal judgment about the issue, as I haven’t seen enough of his work, including his blog that he ended, to reach a conclusion with confidence. I offered explanation about the grouping in which he found himself. 

[ORH_wxman]

13 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

A few quick things:

First, I just looked into how Pielke, Jr., wound up being grouped as a “contrarian.” He showed up on one of the authors’ key sources for identifying contrarians.

Second, a quick look at some of the cited items for his being listed by that source revealed a gap between Pielke, Jr.’s thinking and the IPCC consensus. The gap was more than about his expressing uncertainty. Using the authors’ language, to describe types of skepticism, that would make him an ‘impact skeptic.’

Based on both reasons, the authors likely included him as a contrarian. For what it’s worth, Curry doesn’t appear on any of the sources referenced to identify contrarians.

I make no personal judgment about the issue, as I haven’t seen enough of his work, including his blog that he ended, to reach a conclusion with confidence. I offered explanation about the grouping in which he found himself. 

Pielke jr's rhetoric is probably fair to be called "impact skeptic"...but it obviously shouldn't be confused with his peer review literature. We could probably make a similar comparison to former head of GISS Dr James Hansen in the opposite direction...he often had very alarmist rhetoric that was fair game for subjective criticism but the literature he published was frequently more subdued than that.

It seems to be an increasing issue in the science these days. Separating the twitter feeds, blogs, and press release articles from the actual literature is getting harder and harder to illustrate to the lesser informed public.   

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

Pielke jr's rhetoric is probably fair to be called "impact skeptic"...but it obviously shouldn't be confused with his peer review literature. We could probably make a similar comparison to former head of GISS Dr James Hansen in the opposite direction...he often had very alarmist rhetoric that was fair game for subjective criticism but the literature he published was frequently more subdued than that.

It seems to be an increasing issue in the science these days. Separating the twitter feeds, blogs, and press release articles from the actual literature is getting harder and harder to illustrate to the lesser informed public.   

Dr. Hansen has made a deliberate choice to become an activist. He believes that despite the strength of climate science understanding, humanity is doing too little to address the challenge. He sees a rising opportunity cost from that course.

https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript

 

[ORH_wxman]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Dr. Hansen has made a deliberate choice to become an activist. He believes that despite the strength of climate science understanding, humanity is doing too little to address the challenge. He sees a rising opportunity cost from that course.

https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript

 

Oh I know why he's doing it. That was mostly irrelevant to my overall point though. I was actually talking about him doing that kind of stuff when he was still head of GISS and publishing papers. I was comparing him to Pielke jr in that often the rhetoric didn't match their peer reviewed literature.

A lot of the climate science debate has become not very scientific at all and centers around blogs and also interwoven into politics about what "should be done" about it versus the actual numbers. It's understandable at times, but it also hurts the integrity of the science in those times the literature takes a back seat. 

Btw, I'm not in here to dispute the claim of heat wave attribution. Increased heat waves is one of the few attribution studies that have very high confidence in the science. 

[stadiumwave]

Dr. Judith Curry retweeted this yesterday

 

 

This kind of...again...is making the point I've been pointing out in this thread: distrust is growing in science community