Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[tiger_deF]

Just looking at the temperature rise in the past 200 years compared to changes in climate we've observed over thousands of years, the warming now is faster by orders of magnitude. I've suspected our climate might be somewhat more moderating than we expect, but I see no other reason besides human emissions of some kind that the temperature has risen so suddenly and consistently, despite a few "dips" 

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, tiger_deF said:

Just looking at the temperature rise in the past 200 years compared to changes in climate we've observed over thousands of years, the warming now is faster by orders of magnitude. I've suspected our climate might be somewhat more moderating than we expect, but I see no other reason besides human emissions of some kind that the temperature has risen so suddenly and consistently, despite a few "dips" 

Well the anti-science people will tell you all about how hot the medieval warm period was and how the current temperature record is being fudged to show more warming. So yeah you've presented a very simple very solid argument, but it still rests on a couple of points that some people manage to dispute

[blizzard1024]

9 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

tip of iceberg.. all published in major journals and cited by IPCC.. there is no widespread effort to suppress contrarian views or views that play down the effect of climate change. These papers are taken seriously in the field. Internet drivel is not.

 

A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series           ECS ~ 1.8K

https://zenodo.org/record/918270#.    ECS ~ 1.0 to 4.1 K   just slightly lower than the IPCC 1.5C to 4.5K last assessment 

 

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ClDy...45.1009L/abstract  - published by Judith Curry and widely cited by climate science - good example of how using actual evidence and logic gets you published and respected      ~  1.64K

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76064/7/ngeo1836(1)_with_coversheet.pdf    ~ 2.0K

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/737/2020/esd-11-737-2020.pdf  -  demonstrates that models with high estimates of climate sensitivity are likely wrong     ~ 1.9 to 3.4K

I have read the abstracts and conclusions so far. I knew about the Norway papers from Oslo and of course I read the Lewis and Curry paper a while ago. These papers both are around 1.64 to 1.8K ECS.  

So most of these papers seem to converge on roughly 1.5 to 2.0K, again I read the Oslo one and Curry's before. And you state there are many more. OK, that is fine. But these folks don't get the splashy news headlines and hype. It is the researchers who promote their work to the media hype machine that get all the attention. These papers (except for the second and last one) don't really suggest much reason for alarm. Curry has been banished which is a big loss, the Oslo folks I saw years ago get crushed. I am not familiar with the other papers. I do thank you for your patience and providing these.  

The first paper uses the highly uncertain OHC and surface record back to preindustrial times which also is very uncertain as a metric. The second paper uses data from HadCRU, GISS and MSU TMT and this is probably why there is such a big range. GISS is an outlier in having too much warming. This paper doesn't really add much to the oft quoted 1.5 to 4.5K ECS for doubled CO2. It is just a little lower. 

Lewis and Curry talk about base periods in the 1800s, I can't remember what they used for temperature record since I don't have access right now to the full paper. But it has to be the very unreliable earlier datasets. 

The 4th paper uses HadCrut4 which again has a lot of uncertainties in the early predindustrial era. 

The last one constraints the ECS to above 1.5K but lowers the top more to 3.4K.  They use CMIP models since 1975 a known global cool period. Natural processes were a part of the 1960s and 70s cool period and to assume all the warming since 1975 is from CO2 is erroneous. They also mention the uncertainties with aerosol forcing which I agree. There is a lot of uncertainties there. 

The biggest issues I see with all of this is 1) we really don't know what the global average temperature was in the late 1800s. 2) None of these papers account for natural processes that would affect the climate that are not understood, i.e clouds, convective overturning etc   and 3) feedbacks and forcings can get messy in untangling see spencer and christy's work on this. The problem is extremely complex and to make policy decisions based on higher sensitivity or even 1.5K (the so-called danger mark) is nuts IMO. Plus we have warmed about .6C to .7C from both surface data and UAH since just before the El Chichon eruption in 1982. (RSS has too much warming compared to these datasets having .8 to .9C)  Again the 1970s was globally a cool period so much of this warming could be related to interdecadal variability. To blame fires, heat waves, intensifying hurricanes, winter storms, arctic outbreaks, floods and individual weather events on climate change or a "climate crisis" right now on a small amount of warming is absurd and basically part of the ever worsening media-hype campaign. This hype is because the competition for news is extreme now with all the different sources. Climate change has become part of this hype and even weather forecasting too. The NHC is naming everything now and continues to overdo wind estimates of storms/hurricanes before landfall. I have seen this first hand. They want to get people to take action so they overdo the intensity of the storm as it approaches land to make sure people take the storm seriously and don't let their guard down. I have seen this on several occasions, but not all.  So even weather forecasting has become part of this media-hype machine. This plays back into a university researcher trying to make a name for themselves or their institutions with research especially climate research. There is bias. 

I question everything that is my nature. If that offends people on this forum I apologize.  But I do agree with all of you that we should stop polluting the atmosphere and environment (this includes pesticides herbicides too), help 3rd world countries have a decent quality of life and respect everyone no matter what your race, color, or creed is. If we can do this, it would solve many environmental problems and help calm down the insanity the world is going through right now. The media needs to STOP hyping everything and politicians need to start representing US.  This utopian view unfortunately probably will never happen.... 

Thank you skier for a nice discord. Stay safe.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tiger_deF]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I have read the abstracts and conclusions so far. I knew about the Norway papers from Oslo and of course I read the Lewis and Curry paper a while ago. These papers both are around 1.64 to 1.8K ECS.  

So most of these papers seem to converge on roughly 1.5 to 2.0K, again I read the Oslo one and Curry's before. And you state there are many more. OK, that is fine. But these folks don't get the splashy news headlines and hype. It is the researchers who promote their work to the media hype machine that get all the attention. These papers (except for the second and last one) don't really suggest much reason for alarm. Curry has been banished which is a big loss, the Oslo folks I saw years ago get crushed. I am not familiar with the other papers. I do thank you for your patience and providing these.  

The first paper uses the highly uncertain OHC and surface record back to preindustrial times which also is very uncertain as a metric. The second paper uses data from HadCRU, GISS and MSU TMT and this is probably why there is such a big range. GISS is an outlier in having too much warming. This paper doesn't really add much to the oft quoted 1.5 to 4.5K ECS for doubled CO2. It is just a little lower. 

Lewis and Curry talk about base periods in the 1800s, I can't remember what they used for temperature record since I don't have access right now to the full paper. But it has to be the very unreliable earlier datasets. 

The 4th paper uses HadCrut4 which again has a lot of uncertainties in the early predindustrial era. 

The last one constraints the ECS to above 1.5K but lowers the top more to 3.4K.  They use CMIP models since 1975 a known global cool period. Natural processes were a part of the 1960s and 70s cool period and to assume all the warming since 1975 is from CO2 is erroneous. They also mention the uncertainties with aerosol forcing which I agree. There is a lot of uncertainties there. 

The biggest issues I see with all of this is 1) we really don't know what the global average temperature was in the late 1800s. 2) None of these papers account for natural processes that would affect the climate that are not understood, i.e clouds, convective overturning etc   and 3) feedbacks and forcings can get messy in untangling see spencer and christy's work on this. The problem is extremely complex and to make policy decisions based on higher sensitivity or even 1.5K (the so-called danger mark) is nuts IMO. Plus we have warmed about .6C to .7C from both surface data and UAH since just before the El Chichon eruption in 1982. (RSS has too much warming compared to these datasets having .8 to .9C)  Again the 1970s was globally a cool period so much of this warming could be related to interdecadal variability. To blame fires, heat waves, intensifying hurricanes, winter storms, arctic outbreaks, floods and individual weather events on climate change or a "climate crisis" right now on a small amount of warming is absurd and basically part of the ever worsening media-hype campaign. This hype is because the competition for news is extreme now with all the different sources. Climate change has become part of this hype and even weather forecasting too. The NHC is naming everything now and continues to overdo wind estimates of storms/hurricanes before landfall. I have seen this first hand. They want to get people to take action so they overdo the intensity of the storm as it approaches land to make sure people take the storm seriously and don't let their guard down. I have seen this on several occasions, but not all.  So even weather forecasting has become part of this media-hype machine. This plays back into a university researcher trying to make a name for themselves or their institutions with research especially climate research. There is bias. 

I question everything that is my nature. If that offends people on this forum I apologize.  But I do agree with all of you that we should stop polluting the atmosphere and environment (this includes pesticides herbicides too), help 3rd world countries have a decent quality of life and respect everyone no matter what your race, color, or creed is. If we can do this, it would solve many environmental problems and help calm down the insanity the world is going through right now. The media needs to STOP hyping everything and politicians need to start representing US.  This utopian view unfortunately probably will never happen.... 

Thank you skier for a nice discord. Stay safe.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  I respect your opinion, but I flagrantly disagree, especially with the NHC part. As far as I can tell the NHC has only named systems that have definite tropical charicteristics, and aside from an early subtropical storm, all the systems we have had have pretty clearly been warm core systems with winds above 40 miles per hour and a closed surface low, which is all that is needed for naming. The NHC's job is hard enough without people shitting on them for political reasons

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, tiger_deF said:

  I respect your opinion, but I flagrantly disagree, especially with the NHC part. As far as I can tell the NHC has only named systems that have definite tropical charicteristics, and aside from an early subtropical storm, all the systems we have had have pretty clearly been warm core systems with winds above 40 miles per hour and a closed surface low, which is all that is needed for naming. The NHC's job is hard enough without people shitting on them for political reasons

I agree. The NHC is very clear what a tropical cyclone is: " A warm-core non-frontal synoptic-scale cyclone, originating over tropical or subtropical waters, with organized deep convection and a closed surface wind circulation about a well-defined center."

This is a very active season on account of developing La Nina conditions, wet conditions in Africa, and abnormally warm Atlantic waters. Prior to the season, NOAA, Colorado State, and Penn State forecasters all called near-record to possible record tropical activity.

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Because the peer review process is corrupted. Scientists rely on the government for funding. If there are no serious problems, there is no funding. So climate scientists have to have a problem to get funding. The problem has to be more and more significant to keep getting funding. Since the climate is changing slowly and most Americans don't notice much change, they are trying to prove that weather events are now supercharged by CO2 and the media catches on and calls it a climate crisis and so on. Politicians now are worried and bingo more funding. 
Plus the folks that have all the power are of course biased to where the money is and referee the peer review process and won't let skeptical viewpoints publish. We saw that in the climategate emails and it continues more than a decade later. Follow the money, influence and power. Peer review doesn't mean much anymore. I have seen terrible papers get through when I was a reviewer. It depends on what the problem is. If it fits an agenda it gets published easier. This is just the truth and it unfortunately occurs outside climate science too. With blogs and open internet, peer review isn't what is was 20 years ago.

 

hold on a sec though, do you at least acknowledge that research performed by the fossil fuel cartel back in the 70s was covered up by them?  And if so, why do you think they covered it up?  We see this across several industries.  I dont understand why some call out scientists that rely on government funding when scientists who work for industry have proven to be way more biased.  You see this across several industries- from tobacco to pharma to fossil fuels to the sugar and food industries.  If you want to call out funding dependent scientists you must even more vociferously call out industry scientists.

 

[skierinvermont]

12 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I have read the abstracts and conclusions so far. I knew about the Norway papers from Oslo and of course I read the Lewis and Curry paper a while ago. These papers both are around 1.64 to 1.8K ECS.  

So most of these papers seem to converge on roughly 1.5 to 2.0K, again I read the Oslo one and Curry's before. And you state there are many more. OK, that is fine. But these folks don't get the splashy news headlines and hype. It is the researchers who promote their work to the media hype machine that get all the attention. These papers (except for the second and last one) don't really suggest much reason for alarm. Curry has been banished which is a big loss, the Oslo folks I saw years ago get crushed. I am not familiar with the other papers. I do thank you for your patience and providing these.  

The first paper uses the highly uncertain OHC and surface record back to preindustrial times which also is very uncertain as a metric. The second paper uses data from HadCRU, GISS and MSU TMT and this is probably why there is such a big range. GISS is an outlier in having too much warming. This paper doesn't really add much to the oft quoted 1.5 to 4.5K ECS for doubled CO2. It is just a little lower. 

Lewis and Curry talk about base periods in the 1800s, I can't remember what they used for temperature record since I don't have access right now to the full paper. But it has to be the very unreliable earlier datasets. 

The 4th paper uses HadCrut4 which again has a lot of uncertainties in the early predindustrial era. 

The last one constraints the ECS to above 1.5K but lowers the top more to 3.4K.  They use CMIP models since 1975 a known global cool period. Natural processes were a part of the 1960s and 70s cool period and to assume all the warming since 1975 is from CO2 is erroneous. They also mention the uncertainties with aerosol forcing which I agree. There is a lot of uncertainties there. 

The biggest issues I see with all of this is 1) we really don't know what the global average temperature was in the late 1800s. 2) None of these papers account for natural processes that would affect the climate that are not understood, i.e clouds, convective overturning etc   and 3) feedbacks and forcings can get messy in untangling see spencer and christy's work on this. The problem is extremely complex and to make policy decisions based on higher sensitivity or even 1.5K (the so-called danger mark) is nuts IMO. Plus we have warmed about .6C to .7C from both surface data and UAH since just before the El Chichon eruption in 1982. (RSS has too much warming compared to these datasets having .8 to .9C)  Again the 1970s was globally a cool period so much of this warming could be related to interdecadal variability. To blame fires, heat waves, intensifying hurricanes, winter storms, arctic outbreaks, floods and individual weather events on climate change or a "climate crisis" right now on a small amount of warming is absurd and basically part of the ever worsening media-hype campaign. This hype is because the competition for news is extreme now with all the different sources. Climate change has become part of this hype and even weather forecasting too. The NHC is naming everything now and continues to overdo wind estimates of storms/hurricanes before landfall. I have seen this first hand. They want to get people to take action so they overdo the intensity of the storm as it approaches land to make sure people take the storm seriously and don't let their guard down. I have seen this on several occasions, but not all.  So even weather forecasting has become part of this media-hype machine. This plays back into a university researcher trying to make a name for themselves or their institutions with research especially climate research. There is bias. 

I question everything that is my nature. If that offends people on this forum I apologize.  But I do agree with all of you that we should stop polluting the atmosphere and environment (this includes pesticides herbicides too), help 3rd world countries have a decent quality of life and respect everyone no matter what your race, color, or creed is. If we can do this, it would solve many environmental problems and help calm down the insanity the world is going through right now. The media needs to STOP hyping everything and politicians need to start representing US.  This utopian view unfortunately probably will never happen.... 

Thank you skier for a nice discord. Stay safe.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Giss is not an outlier or biased high. If I recall Hadley shows a hair more warming in the long run. They essentially agree and I have reviewed and even used to believe all of the skeptic claims of flaws in these sources. Once I learned more I understood that these sources are accurate within their published uncertainty estimates. This is a huge claim and requires major evidence of which you’ve provided none.

 

2. Long term ohc data  is not that unreliable because we have sea level rise to corroborate it. Sea level rise is primarily due to ohc increase so it simply becomes a math equation using the expansion property of water. You’ve provided no evidence to make this tremendous claim.

 

3. The last paper included natural forcings I believe so your assertion that it assumes all warming since the 70s is man made is false. 
 

4. others already covered the nhc

 

5. There had been a measured increase in droughts and heatwaves globally over the long term, so the California is wildfires are partially attributed to agw. Even curry says this although she used the word fractionally. Again you have provided no evidence that the global increase is attributable to something else.
 

6. The only part of what you said with which I agree is that the media is a hype machine. The fires and hurricanes are not 100% agw. Especially not the hurricanes. 
 

7. The whole point of my post wasn’t to get into it on your unproven anti-science claims. The point was that contrarian views are frequently published and cited in the field when there is actual evidence and sound reasoning.

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

I have read the abstracts and conclusions so far. I knew about the Norway papers from Oslo and of course I read the Lewis and Curry paper a while ago. These papers both are around 1.64 to 1.8K ECS.  

So most of these papers seem to converge on roughly 1.5 to 2.0K, again I read the Oslo one and Curry's before. And you state there are many more. OK, that is fine. But these folks don't get the splashy news headlines and hype. It is the researchers who promote their work to the media hype machine that get all the attention. These papers (except for the second and last one) don't really suggest much reason for alarm. Curry has been banished which is a big loss, the Oslo folks I saw years ago get crushed. I am not familiar with the other papers. I do thank you for your patience and providing these.  

The first paper uses the highly uncertain OHC and surface record back to preindustrial times which also is very uncertain as a metric. The second paper uses data from HadCRU, GISS and MSU TMT and this is probably why there is such a big range. GISS is an outlier in having too much warming. This paper doesn't really add much to the oft quoted 1.5 to 4.5K ECS for doubled CO2. It is just a little lower. 

Lewis and Curry talk about base periods in the 1800s, I can't remember what they used for temperature record since I don't have access right now to the full paper. But it has to be the very unreliable earlier datasets. 

The 4th paper uses HadCrut4 which again has a lot of uncertainties in the early predindustrial era. 

The last one constraints the ECS to above 1.5K but lowers the top more to 3.4K.  They use CMIP models since 1975 a known global cool period. Natural processes were a part of the 1960s and 70s cool period and to assume all the warming since 1975 is from CO2 is erroneous. They also mention the uncertainties with aerosol forcing which I agree. There is a lot of uncertainties there. 

The biggest issues I see with all of this is 1) we really don't know what the global average temperature was in the late 1800s. 2) None of these papers account for natural processes that would affect the climate that are not understood, i.e clouds, convective overturning etc   and 3) feedbacks and forcings can get messy in untangling see spencer and christy's work on this. The problem is extremely complex and to make policy decisions based on higher sensitivity or even 1.5K (the so-called danger mark) is nuts IMO. Plus we have warmed about .6C to .7C from both surface data and UAH since just before the El Chichon eruption in 1982. (RSS has too much warming compared to these datasets having .8 to .9C)  Again the 1970s was globally a cool period so much of this warming could be related to interdecadal variability. To blame fires, heat waves, intensifying hurricanes, winter storms, arctic outbreaks, floods and individual weather events on climate change or a "climate crisis" right now on a small amount of warming is absurd and basically part of the ever worsening media-hype campaign. This hype is because the competition for news is extreme now with all the different sources. Climate change has become part of this hype and even weather forecasting too. The NHC is naming everything now and continues to overdo wind estimates of storms/hurricanes before landfall. I have seen this first hand. They want to get people to take action so they overdo the intensity of the storm as it approaches land to make sure people take the storm seriously and don't let their guard down. I have seen this on several occasions, but not all.  So even weather forecasting has become part of this media-hype machine. This plays back into a university researcher trying to make a name for themselves or their institutions with research especially climate research. There is bias. 

I question everything that is my nature. If that offends people on this forum I apologize.  But I do agree with all of you that we should stop polluting the atmosphere and environment (this includes pesticides herbicides too), help 3rd world countries have a decent quality of life and respect everyone no matter what your race, color, or creed is. If we can do this, it would solve many environmental problems and help calm down the insanity the world is going through right now. The media needs to STOP hyping everything and politicians need to start representing US.  This utopian view unfortunately probably will never happen.... 

Thank you skier for a nice discord. Stay safe.  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questioning everything is a nice trait to have, but if you are going to do that, you must question industry scientists even more- they have a long track record of deceit, across multiple fields.

 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

I agree. The NHC is very clear what a tropical cyclone is: " A warm-core non-frontal synoptic-scale cyclone, originating over tropical or subtropical waters, with organized deep convection and a closed surface wind circulation about a well-defined center."

This is a very active season on account of developing La Nina conditions, wet conditions in Africa, and abnormally warm Atlantic waters. Prior to the season, NOAA, Colorado State, and Penn State forecasters all called near-record to possible record tropical activity.

TCs rapidly strengthening as they approach land (and slowing down) in the Gulf has been a pretty strong signal over the last 5 years or so, and can be connected to the abnormally warm waters there.

 

[donsutherland1]

While Phoenix was recording its hottest month on record in August, after having set the mark in July, the United Kingdom experienced a severe heat wave in August. Here’s a link to a post written by two UK Met Office authors:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-the-uks-august-2020-heatwave

Excerpt:

During August 2020, temperatures exceeding 34C were recorded somewhere in the UK for six consecutive days. 

34C has been recorded in the UK during seven out of the last 10 years, compared to seven out of the previous 50 years from 1961 to 2010. This suggests that temperatures of 34C or higher occurring at some point during the summer are becoming a more common occurrence.

[LibertyBell]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/04/16/southwest-megadrought-climate-change/

A vast region of the western United States, extending from California, Arizona and New Mexico north to Oregon and Idaho, is in the grips of the first climate change-induced megadrought observed in the past 1,200 years, a study shows. The finding means the phenomenon is no longer a threat for millions to worry about in the future, but is already here.

 

....

 

The study, published in the journal Science on Thursday, compares modern soil moisture data with historical records gleaned from tree rings, and finds that when compared with all droughts seen since the year 800 across western North America, the 19-year drought that began in 2000 and continued through 2018 (this drought is still ongoing, though the study’s data is analyzed through 2018) was worse than almost all other megadroughts in this region.
The researchers, who painstakingly reconstructed soil moisture records from 1,586 tree-ring chronologies to determine drought severity, found only one megadrought that occurred in the late 1500s was more intense.

 

....

 

“The megadrought era seems to be reemerging, but for a different reason than the [past] megadroughts,” said Park Williams, the study’s lead author and a researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University.
Although many areas in the West had a productive wet season in 2019 and some this year, “you can’t go anywhere in the West without having suffered drought on a millennial scale,” Williams said, noting that megadroughts contain relatively wet periods interspersed between parched years.
“I think the important lesson that comes out of this is that climate change is not a future problem,” said Benjamin I. Cook, a NASA climate scientist and co-author of the study. “Climate change is a problem today. The more we look, the more we find this event was worse because of climate change.”

 

from Journal Science:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6488/314

A trend of warming and drying
Global warming has pushed what would have been a moderate drought in southwestern North America into megadrought territory. Williams et al. used a combination of hydrological modeling and tree-ring reconstructions of summer soil moisture to show that the period from 2000 to 2018 was the driest 19-year span since the late 1500s and the second driest since 800 CE (see the Perspective by Stahle). This appears to be just the beginning of a more extreme trend toward megadrought as global warming continues.

Science, this issue p. 314; see also p. 238

 

Abstract

Severe and persistent 21st-century drought in southwestern North America (SWNA) motivates comparisons to medieval megadroughts and questions about the role of anthropogenic climate change. We use hydrological modeling and new 1200-year tree-ring reconstructions of summer soil moisture to demonstrate that the 2000–2018 SWNA drought was the second driest 19-year period since 800 CE, exceeded only by a late-1500s megadrought. The megadrought-like trajectory of 2000–2018 soil moisture was driven by natural variability superimposed on drying due to anthropogenic warming. Anthropogenic trends in temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation estimated from 31 climate models account for 47% (model interquartiles of 35 to 105%) of the 2000–2018 drought severity, pushing an otherwise moderate drought onto a trajectory comparable to the worst SWNA megadroughts since 800 CE.

 

also see this:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6488/261

 

Abstract

Trees are the living foundations on which most terrestrial biodiversity is built. Central to the success of trees are their woody bodies, which connect their elevated photosynthetic canopies with the essential belowground activities of water and nutrient acquisition. The slow construction of these carbon-dense, woody skeletons leads to a slow generation time, leaving trees and forests highly susceptible to rapid changes in climate. Other long-lived, sessile organisms such as corals appear to be poorly equipped to survive rapid changes, which raises questions about the vulnerability of contemporary forests to future climate change. The emerging view that, similar to corals, tree species have rather inflexible damage thresholds, particularly in terms of water stress, is especially concerning. This Review examines recent progress in our understanding of how the future looks for forests growing in a hotter and drier atmosphere.

[donsutherland1]

Phoenix recorded its hottest summer (June 1-August 31) on record. Anthropogentic climate change has been driving an observed global warming. Within that global climate context, Phoenix has experienced both a warming of its summers and a lengthening of its summer-like temperatures.

If one looks back at the climate model projections for the RCP 4.5 scenario, one finds that the climate model projections run in 2005 were very accurate in depicting what the summer 2011-2020 period would be like. Looking ahead, the summer 2021-2030 period will likely be even warmer under the RCP 4.5 scenario.
 
Phoenix: Summer 2011-20 High Temperatures and Projected 2021-30 High Temperatures:

[donsutherland1]

During the summer and early fall (early spring in the Southern Hemisphere), numerous daily and monthly high temperature records, including some all-time high temperature records, along with monthly mean temperature records were broken. A number of locations experienced their hottest summer on record. July 2020 was Phoenix’s hottest month on record. August 2020 was even hotter. Summer 2020 was, by far, Phoenix’s hottest summer on record. Parts of South America and Southern Africa are currently experiencing their most intense early spring heat on record.

Research demonstrates that climate change has led to an increase in summertime high temperature records, which are tied to prolonged heat waves, by more than a factor of ten. There is approximately an 80% probability that the new records have been made possible by anthropogenic climate change. Further increases in such records are likely in coming decades as the world’s climate continues to warm.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234114398_Global_increase_in_record-breaking_monthly-mean_temperatures

 

[donsutherland1]

Phoenix Records a 90° Mean Temperature for September:

Following its hottest summer on record, Phoenix experienced its 3rd warmest September on record with a mean temperature of 91.5° and warmest June-September period on record with an average temperature of 95.4°.

2020 was the 13th year on record where Phoenix recorded a mean temperature of 90.0° or above in September. 9/13 (69%) of those years have occurred 2000 or later and 4/13 (31%) have occurred 2010 or later. September 2020 is the most recent example demonstrating that anthropogenic climate change is producing what amounts to a lengthening summer.

September 2020 Summary:
Average high temperature: 104.1° (2nd highest)
Average low temperature: 79.0° (9th highest)
Average temperature: 91.5° (3rd highest)

In addition, all five September cases with a monthly mean temperature of 91.0° or above occurred 2000 or later. Four (80%) of those cases occurred 2010 or later.

During the 1980s, the 30-year moving average mean temperature for September broke out of the multi-decade range 84.0° - 85.0° that had held since 1950. The September mean temperature now exceeds 89.0°. The average high temperature now stands at 100° or above. The number of days on which the temperature reaches 100° or above has increased by 2.3 days since 2000. The number of days on which the temperature reaches 105° or above has increased by 2.0 days. The frequency of low temperatures at or above 80° has increased by 3.6 days since 2000. Such elevated minimum temperatures now account for nearly 3 out of every 8 days in September.

Table 1: Select September Data (30-Year Moving Average)

Table 2: Record High Maximum Temperatures

Table 3: Record High Minimum Temperature

June-September 2020 was, by far, the warmest June-September period on record for Phoenix. The four-month mean temperature was 95.4°. The old record was 93.9°, which was set in 2011. That four-month average exceeds the hottest summer temperature prior to 2020, which was 95.1°. That prior record was set in 2013 and tied in 2015.

All 9 June-September periods with a mean temperature of 93.5° or above have occurred in 2000 or later. 6/9 (67%) have occurred during 2010 or later.

The average June-September period is now as warm as the average summer was during the 30-year period ending in 2000. The last time Phoenix had a June-September mean temperature below 90° was 1984 when the four-month mean temperature was 89.8°.

Table 4: Average Summer and June-September Temperatures (30-Year Moving Average)

Just as summer 2020 provided a foretaste of the kind of summers that are expected to become routine by 2050 on account of climate change, September 2020 and the June-September 2020 period offered a glimpse into the future of longer summers that will continue to emerge from the evolving climate regime.

 

[blizzard1024]

Its UHI... see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924271620302082#!

[donsutherland1]

32 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Its UHI... see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924271620302082#!

UHI plays a role, but one can’t exclude climate change. 

From the Phoenix NWS:

https://twitter.com/NWSPhoenix/status/1300628556762939392?s=20

[donsutherland1]

Phoenix Experiences its Hottest Week in October:

Following its hottest summer on record, Phoenix experienced its warmest first week of October and warmest seven-day period in October with a mean temperature of 89.0°. The previous seven-day record in October was 88.8°, during October 5-11, 1991.

October 1-7, 2020 Summary:
Average high temperature: 105.0° (old record: 103.7°, 1980)
Average low temperature: 73.0° (13th highest)
Average temperature: 89.0° (old record: 88.7°, 1991)

The average high temperature of 105.0° would rank as the 33rd highest summer average.

During the first week of October, Phoenix registered 5 temperatures of 105° or above:

October 1: 107° (tied October record high)
October 2: 106°
October 3: 105°
October 4: 105°
October 5: 105°

That number surpassed the previous monthly record of 2, which was set in 1980. Since 1895, Phoenix has had 12 days in October when the temperature reached 105° or above in October. 6 (50%) have occurred since 2000, 5 (42%), of which have occurred 2010 or later.

There remains large year-to-year variability during the first week in October with very warm Septembers and/or very wrm last weeks of September often followed by unseasonable warmth during the first week in October. During the 1895-2019 period, in cases when September had a mean temperature of 87.0° or above, October 1-7 had a mean temperature of 82.0° with 71% of cases seeing a mean temperature of 80° or above during the first week of October. In cases when the September 24-30 mean temperature was 84.0° or above, October 1-7 had a mean temperature of 82.2° with 70% of cases having a mean temperature of 80° or above during the first week of October. In cases where September had a mean temperature of 87.0° or above and the last week of September had a mean temperature of 84.0° or above, the mean temperature during October 1-7 was 82.9° and 81% of cases saw mean temperature of 80° or above during the first week of October.

Overall, the first week of October has seen an increase in temperatures. High temperatures have increased modestly since the 30-year periods ending as recently as 1970. Low temperatures have increased notably since the 30-year period ending in 1970. There has been a modest increase in the average number of days on which the temperature reaches 100° or above.

Table 1: Select October 1-7 Data (30-Year Moving Average)

Table 2: Record High Maximum Temperatures

 

[bluewave]

 

[donsutherland1]

17 minutes ago, bluewave said:

 

Heat and drought have been feeding off one another. Such situations are expected to become increasingly common as the climate continues to warm. Through yesterday, Las Vegas had seen no measurable rainfall for 170 consecutive days (the old record was 150 days).

[Fantom X]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Heat and drought have been feeding off one another. Such situations are expected to become increasingly common as the climate continues to warm. Through yesterday, Las Vegas had seen no measurable rainfall for 170 consecutive days (the old record was 150 days).

that's just crazy. People are migrating from areas of high taxes , or recently, covid related economic reasons. Soon enough people are going to be migrating to safer climate zones

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, Fantom X said:

that's just crazy. People are migrating from areas of high taxes , or recently, covid related economic reasons. Soon enough people are going to be migrating to safer climate zones

it's already happening with sea level rise.  People from island nations in the Pacific are migrating to Australia and for example in the US, people have been forced to relocate from LA coastal areas which are no longer habitable because of sea level rise.

 

[donsutherland1]

At 5 pm EDT (2 pm PDT), Phoenix had reached 100 degrees. That tied the record of 143 days on which the temperature reached 100 degrees or above, which was set in 1989.

[blizzard1024]

On 10/8/2020 at 8:58 PM, Fantom X said:

Soon enough people are going to be migrating to safer climate zones

well as the once great Sam Kinison said   "you live in a desert, nothing grows here, nothing gonna grow here..."  why do people live in desert areas like the west?  This is not climate change this is natural variability. It tends to be dry on average out west, some years or even decades are drier than others. So now people are realizing that "hey, it's too dry here" I better move." Also building your house on the beach is never a good proposition....   you can't blame climate change on that. 

[donsutherland1]

Phoenix has now reached 100 degrees for a record 144th day. In addition, today’s 100 degree reading ties the daily record high set in 1973 and tied in 2010 and 2015.

[donsutherland1]

Phoenix Sets New Annual Record for 100° Days

Today, the temperature rose to 100° at Phoenix, making today the the 144th time this year that the temperature has risen to at least 100°. In addition to tying the daily record of 100° set in 1973 and tied in 2010 and 2015, that established a new record for most days with high temperatures of 100° or higher during a calendar year.

Since 1896, Phoenix has had only 7 years during which the temperature reached 100° or above on 120 or more days.

Table 1: Most 100° or Above Days during a Calendar Year

However, on account of anthropogenic climate change and, to a lesser extent, urbanization, the number of annual 100° days has been increasing.

Table 2: 30-Year Moving Average of 100° or Above Days

Through October 14, the monthly counts for 100° days are:

April: 5 days
May: 16 days
June: 26 days
July: 30 days
August: 31 days
September: 25 days
October: 11 days

Total: 144 days

Earliest 100° temperature: April 26, 2020 102°

Highest temperature: 118°, July 30, 2020

Table 3: Progression of the Records for 100°+, 105°+, 110°+, and 115°+ Days

Of those 100° or above temperatures, 27 either tied or broke daily records: 12 set new daily records and 15 tied daily records. Among those records, were August-tying and October-tying monthly records.

Table 4: 100° or Above Temperatures that Tied or Set Daily Records:

 

[donsutherland1]

Today, Phoenix reached 102°. That extended 2020's record of 100°+ days to 145. The old record was 143 days, which was set in 1989. In addition, today's temperature surpassed the daily record for October 16. That record was 101°, which was set in 1991.

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Today, Phoenix reached 102°. That extended 2020's record of 100°+ days to 145. The old record was 143 days, which was set in 1989. In addition, today's temperature surpassed the daily record for October 16. That record was 101°, which was set in 1991.

Do you think Phoenix can have half their days reach 100 degrees this year, Don?  They have to get to 183.  What's the latest they've hit it?

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Do you think Phoenix can have half their days reach 100 degrees this year, Don?  They have to get to 183.  What's the latest they've hit it?

 

No. The latest 100 degree reading was October 27, 2016.

[donsutherland1]

A Very Warm October Concludes in Phoenix

Today, the temperature rose to 86° at Phoenix. That concluded an abnormally warm October and, by far, the warmest June-October period on record in Phoenix.

October Averages:
Mean Temperature: 80.9° (4th warmest)
High Temperature: 95.0° (3rd warmest)
Low Temperature: 66.8° (14th warmest)

Days 100° or Above: 12 (2nd most)
Days 105° or Above: 5 (old record: 2, 1980)

June-October Averages:
Mean Temperature: 92.5° (Old record: 91.5°, 2003)
High Temperature: 104.9° (Old record: 103.0°, 2003)
Low Temperature: 80.1° (Old record: Tie 80.0°, 2003 and 2015)

As a result of October's 12 100° or above days, 2020 set a new record of 145 such days. The old record was 143 days, which was set in 1989.

Table 1: Most 100° or Above Days during a Calendar Year

Table 2: 30-Year Moving Average of 100° or Above Days

Table 3: Progression of the Records for 100°+, 105°+, 110°+, and 115°+ Days

Table 4: 100° or Above Temperatures that Tied or Set Daily Records:

 

[donsutherland1]

Phoenix Experiences its Warmest 5-Day November Period on Record

Today, the temperature rose to 99° at Phoenix. That surpassed the previous November record by 3°. It also contributed to both the warmest November 1-5 on record and warmest 5-day November period on record.

November 1-5 Averages:
High Temperature: 95.2° (1st Warmest: old record: 92.2°, 1924)
Low Temperature: 65.2° (2nd Warmest)
Mean Temperature: 80.2° (1st Warmest; old record: 77.7°, 2001)

Days 95° or Above: 3 (old record: 2, 1924)

Since 1895, Phoenix has had just 7 November days on which the temperature reached 95° or above. Those days are:

November 1, 1924: 96°
November 2, 1924: 96°
November 4, 2001: 95°
November 3, 2009: 96°
November 1, 2020: 96°
November 2, 2020: 95°
November 5, 2020: 99°

As a result, Phoenix has now had 172 days on which the temperature has reached 95° or above during 2020. The old record was 166 days, which was set in 1989.

In terms of the warmest 5-day November period on record, the average high temperature surpassed the old record of 93.0°, which was set during November 3-7, 2007. The average mean temperature eclipsed the previous mark of 78.9°, which was set during November 4-8, 2007.

The previous latest 5-day period with an average high temperature of 95.0° or above was October 26-30, 2016 when the average high temperature was 95.6°. The previous latest 5-day period with an average temperature of 80.0° or above was October 29-November 2, 1988 when the temperature averaged 80.1°.

Table 1: Daily Record High Maximum Temperatures:

Table 2: Daily Record High Minimum Temperatures: