Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[BillT]

18 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The rate of warming has been unprecedented for the Holocene. For a graph that goes well beyond the Holocene for even greater perspective:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity

the graph shows far more dramatic warming and cooling in the past....much larger swings and almost straight up and down compared to the last 70 years, being born in 1951 i have been alive for most all of this time period and have not seen any dramatic warming at all, the largest single snowfall i have seen was in 1993 in pelham alabama.....biggest hurricane i experienced was Camille in 1969, biggest tornado outbreak i saw was in the early 70's that reached from bama way up into ohio

[donsutherland1]

12 minutes ago, BillT said:

the graph shows far more dramatic warming and cooling in the past....much larger swings and almost straight up and down compared to the last 70 years

Yes, but that’s well before the Holocene. Nevertheless, what one is witnessing today is highly unusual.

 

[BillT]

5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Yes, but that’s well before the Holocene. Nevertheless, what one is witnessing today is highly unusual.

 

not unusual when looking at the graph you supplied, wild swings up and down are the USUAL according to that graph what is NOT on the graph is any extended period of stability........i must mention at least you have been civil and that is appreciated.

[donsutherland1]

2 minutes ago, BillT said:

not unusual when looking at the graph you supplied, wild swings up and down are the USUAL according to that graph what is NOT on the graph is any extended period of stability........i must mention at least you have been civil and that is appreciated.

Those are over millions of years not hundreds of years.

[BillT]

8 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Those are over millions of years not hundreds of years.

agreed that is a millions of years graph but the swings then and now have very similar slopes......and the point remains intact there has always been wild swings in the climate even before humans were here, i submit those forces that caused those wild swings still exist today and humans do NOT have the power to overpower such forces.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

agreed that is a millions of years graph but the swings then and now have very similar slopes......and the point remains intact there has always been wild swings in the climate even before humans were here, i submit those forces that caused those wild swings still exist today and humans do NOT have the power to overpower such forces.

The issue isn’t whether humans can “overpower” such past events, but whether humans can have a significant impact on the climate. The science is unambiguous. Human greenhouse gas emissions are now the main driver of the rapid observed warming. Moreover, humans are releasing CO2 at a rate 10 times faster than has occurred at any other time over the past 66 million years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160321123656.htm

[psv88]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The rate of warming has been unprecedented for the Holocene. For a graph that goes well beyond the Holocene for even greater perspective:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity

Sea levels are rising as ice caps and glaciers are melting. 

Finally, the scientists have already demonstrated that anthropogenic factors are responsible for most of the recent warming.

 

dont waste your time Don, its useless.

[Bhs1975]

dont waste your time Don, its useless.

He’s just a stubborn old man who won’t change. It’s time to move on stop repeating yourself.

[SnoSki14]

10 hours ago, BillT said:

agreed that is a millions of years graph but the swings then and now have very similar slopes......and the point remains intact there has always been wild swings in the climate even before humans were here, i submit those forces that caused those wild swings still exist today and humans do NOT have the power to overpower such forces.

Humans developed nuclear weapons that could literally destroy the atmosphere. We're responsible for mass ecological extinctions.

You have to be a complete fool to think humans can't overpower natural forces but please stay ignorant.

[rclab]

11 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The issue isn’t whether humans can “overpower” such past events, but whether humans can have a significant impact on the climate. The science is unambiguous. Human greenhouse gas emissions are now the main driver of the rapid observed warming. Moreover, humans are releasing CO2 at a rate 10 times faster than has occurred at any other time over the past 66 million years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160321123656.htm

I remember as a very young man trying to reconcile the spiritual with the scientific. Two powerful “S” words. When did we become human? One scenario that stuck with me was a piece that described a living creature standing on a moonless dark plain or savannah, looking up at a sky filled with stars and wondering. At that moment the selection stated humanity began. Ironically, some time later I came upon an illustration by a spiritual publication and it showed a similar scene with a person staring at the stars. The caption read. “The fool says in his heart, there is no God”. The phrase, albeit, the first nine words resonates with me today and can be applied to many of our collective secular or non situations. I remain with the sad truth that still, “ The fool says in his heart there is no ............”. As always .......

[buckeyefan1]

12 hours ago, BillT said:

you are dismissed for lying about me as a person and refusing to take part in the discussion of science.

You are now in timeout until next week, so you can work on your posting habits. 

[bluewave]

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/3/2020 at 10:15 AM, buckeyefan1 said:

You are now in timeout until next week, so you can work on your posting habits. 

I'm amazed people like him devote so much time and energy to something that is so awful.

[LibertyBell]

On 9/2/2020 at 10:44 PM, donsutherland1 said:

The issue isn’t whether humans can “overpower” such past events, but whether humans can have a significant impact on the climate. The science is unambiguous. Human greenhouse gas emissions are now the main driver of the rapid observed warming. Moreover, humans are releasing CO2 at a rate 10 times faster than has occurred at any other time over the past 66 million years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160321123656.htm

I think the biggest proof is that anthropogenic climate change has occurred much faster than any "natural" climate change occurred in the past and the current mass extinction.....

and here's something more philosophical and even more sobering.....

Scientists are puzzled about why we haven't found any signs of life elsewhere in the universe (we should now be able to detect inadvertent signals sent out from technology).  I have a scary thought that I've had for years but seems to be becoming more and more likely......what if technological life almost always goes down the same road....to destruction?  Billions of possible earthlike planets out there and what if 99.999999999999% of them have the same sad outcome, technological evolution almost inevitably leading to self destruction?  I see us heading down that way too, I have for years, but with even more certainty now.  The Great Filter isn't behind us, it's staring us right in the face and if we are like most, we will suffer the same sad result.  In the end that result may be for the best though, as the planet would almost certainly recover from we've been doing to it since the industrial age began.

[LibertyBell]

On 9/2/2020 at 10:01 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Yes, but that’s well before the Holocene. Nevertheless, what one is witnessing today is highly unusual.

 

and mass extinctions happened back then too, just like we are having now.

[LibertyBell]

On 9/2/2020 at 2:50 PM, blizzard1024 said:

The oceans are a store house for energy and damp any forcings. So a quieter sun would take a while to get into the climate system.

yes and the oceans are getting hotter also.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/2/2020 at 7:14 PM, blizzard1024 said:

BillT,

CO2 and H20 redirect photons back to the Earth and also to space.  Alone they wouldn't lead to a positive feedback and scorch the Earth. It is natural. It cools above the troposphere and warms the troposphere. Balance is maintained by convection and weather which redirect enormous amounts of heat to space. So in effect, the greenhouse warming is offset from thunderstorms and weather. The amount of outgoing long wave radiation(OLR)  is around 239 W/m2 or so averaged over the globe.  That keeps us from frying since we get roughly the same amount of energy from the sun. If greenhouse gases increase (mainly H20), the effective radiating level of the planet increase to colder temperatures leading to less OLR and this will warm the planet until OLR increases back to 239 w/m2. CO2 is a weak GHG. Doubling only leads to a theoretical increase in temperature around 1.2-1.5C or so. Not much. Its the so called runaway positive feedbacks employed by the climate models that lead to the amplification of this modest warming which I thing are way overdone. You have to believe in the climate models to believe in these extreme scenarios. I don't. 

when you look at climate models and predicted sea level rise and compare it vs whats actually occurring, the actual sea level rise is near the more extreme scenarios....we've already had a 1 ft sea level rise and if we continue to stay near the values predicted by the more extreme scenarios we'll add 3 more feet to that by 2070 and up to 8 feet by 2100.  Some areas are experiencing sea level rise quicker than others (most notably the US east coast and the gulf coast.)  Sunny day flooding has become a reality here on the south shore of Long Island.....

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/2/2020 at 9:25 PM, psv88 said:

Don has laid out a coherent argument supported by data and facts. You choose to ignore it. There is no reasoning with people like yourself. Wasted time and air. I could present a solid case and you will still argue that man made climate change is fake. Time for the millennials to take the helm.

Hey I'm a Gen Xer (but do identify more with Millenials)......maybe it's my/our Long Island/NY education that has us ahead of the field?  You look at what the fossil fuel industry and how it controls the education system and political system in some parts of the country- and it's positively criminal (or should be.)  F it, we knew about climate change even back in the 80s, and I remember writing a sci fi story back in the 1980s about saying good bye to Long Island as we boarded the last ship off the island as it went underwater and we were the last people left.

 

[LibertyBell]

On 8/31/2020 at 9:13 PM, donsutherland1 said:

If the idea that Phoenix’s climate will resemble that of Baghdad is reasonably accurate, then there could be some nights with lows at or above 100 (Phoenix’s lows are higher than those in Baghdad) and highs in the lower and middle 120s during periods of extreme heat. 

when do you think we'll have the majority of summers in NYC reaching 100 degrees?

[LibertyBell]

On 9/2/2020 at 7:47 AM, blizzard1024 said:

It is the development, UHI that is leading to warmer conditions in Phoenix. Come on. Its not "climate change". Globally this summer had anomalies ranging from .43 to .44C worldwide which is pretty small. Yes this is using the UAH satellite temperature record which is the most accurate by far. RSS artificially inflated their temperatures around 2015 to get in line with the flawed and adjusted (upward) surface records. The Earth has warmed since the late 1970s, a known cool period in the 20th century when the satellite record began. We are back to where we were in the 1930s, 40s and 50s globally. Before that we have no idea since temperatures were taken differently with respect to time, and instrumentation. Also SSTs back then were terrible.  Let's hype everything up. That is what the world does these days!  

how do you explain what's been going on in Siberia?  UHI there too eh?

 

[donsutherland1]

20 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

when do you think we'll have the majority of summers in NYC reaching 100 degrees?

It’s tough to know. But some of the studies suggest that New York City will have a climate similar to Virginia Beach by 2050.

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

It’s tough to know. But some of the studies suggest that New York City will have a climate similar to Virginia Beach by 2050.

we see signs of it already at JFK.....it became only the second location (besides Norfolk I think) to have an 40 degree avg winter temp and 40 inches of snowfall in the same winter (most of it came in that 30+ inch snowfall in January) in 2015-16.

[donsutherland1]

26 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

how do you explain what's been going on in Siberia?  UHI there too eh?

 

Actually, the UAH has had documented issues. RSS, RATPAC, etc., are better tools. That UAH is an outlier highlights its issues.

One paper:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433

[blizzard1024]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

how do you explain what's been going on in Siberia?  UHI there too eh?

 

There are parts of the world that had a very warm above normal summer, I am no doubting that. Parts of Siberia this year have had exceptional warmth. That has been measured. But what does that prove? The Earth has warmed since the 1970s. What does that prove? The Earth has warmed since the 1800s the end of the LIA. Natural warming cycles with some CO2 induced warming is likely what is going on. UHI no doubt is part of why records are being smashed in the southwest. That is pretty well known. But this has been a warm summer in many parts including the northeast U.S and others. It likely has to do with the transition from El Nino to a strong La Nina...ala 1988, 1999 both warm summers. Look I am not saying that CO2 increases are not causing the Earth to warm some, I am skeptical of the doomsday hyped-up scenarios that's all. I am very skeptical of the extreme weather arguments. A little warmer Earth is not going to cause extreme cold outbreaks in the mid-latitudes because of an "erratic" jet stream. People are getting PhDs on this stuff.  Its called the negative AO/NAO. 

[blizzard1024]

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Actually, the UAH has had documented issues. RSS, RATPAC, etc., are better tools. That UAH is an outlier highlights its issues.

One paper:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433

see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323644914_Examination_of_space-based_bulk_atmospheric_temperatures_used_in_climate_research

 

Also UAH agrees with radiosondes and reanalysis temperatures much better. Hmmm. Totally different datasets, especially the radiosondes. RSS retains NOAA-14 which is warming compared to NOAA-15, for some reason RSS, NOAA and UW use it. HMMM I wonder why. This led to the major change in RSS data to much warmer in 2015. RSS probably was feeling the pressure to make its data conform to the flawed and adjusted(upward) surface temperature data or they would be ostracized. So they caved. Spencer/Christy are already ostracized and considered fringe but ironically they are the real scientists IMO. They stick to the science and question the consensus GCM model based view. Dr. Curry is another hero. I knew her when I was in grad school. Brilliant women.    

Here is an excerpt from Dr Spencer's blog...

"From late 1998 through 2004, there were two satellites operating: NOAA-14 with the last of the old MSU series of instruments on it, and NOAA-15 with the first new AMSU instrument on it. In the latter half of this overlap period there was considerable disagreement that developed between the two satellites. Since the older MSU was known to have a substantial measurement dependence on the physical temperature of the instrument (a problem fixed on the AMSU), and the NOAA-14 satellite carrying that MSU had drifted much farther in local observation time than any of the previous satellites, we chose to cut off the NOAA-14 processing when it started disagreeing substantially with AMSU. (Engineer James Shiue at NASA/Goddard once described the new AMSU as the “Cadillac” of well-calibrated microwave temperature sounders).

Despite the most obvious explanation that the NOAA-14 MSU was no longer usable, RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime and treat it as just as accurate as NOAA-15 AMSU data. Since NOAA-14 was warming significantly relative to NOAA-15, this puts a stronger warming trend into their satellite datasets, raising the temperature of all subsequent satellites’ measurements after about 2000.

But rather than just asserting the new AMSU should be believed over the old (drifting) MSU, let’s look at some data. Since Scott Denning mentions weather balloon (radiosonde) data, let’s look at our published comparisons between the 4 satellite datasets and radiosondes (as well as global reanalysis datasets) and see who agrees with independent data the best:

 

 

 

[blizzard1024]

10 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

yes and the oceans are getting hotter also.

 

IR back radiation doesn't warm the ocean below the first micrometer. It is the sun. 

Ref: The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation,  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

"gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean"

The sun's radiation in the UV penetrates the oceans to several meters.  That is what has caused the warmth of the oceans. We are still feeling the effects of the 20th century grand solar maximum, largest in the last 1000 years. Ocean currents can take a long time to recycle energy through the Earth and stabilize shocks to the system.  The oceans will begin to cool in the next several decades. 

 

 

[SnoSki14]

14 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

how do you explain what's been going on in Siberia?  UHI there too eh?

 

Also if we are back to the 30s-50s does that mean the Arctic was as warm and sea ice as low back then as it is now? 

[bdgwx]

17 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323644914_Examination_of_space-based_bulk_atmospheric_temperatures_used_in_climate_research

Yep. I'm well aware of that publication. It is authored by Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer.

First...they are the maintainers of the UAH satellite dataset so this is not an independent assessment.

Second...they use the IGRA radiosonde dataset for the assessment. This dataset is NOT to be used for climate research. Let me just post the text as it appears exactly on the IGRA website.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon/integrated-global-radiosonde-archive

Quote

IGRA is useful as input to air pollution models, for studies of the detailed vertical structure of the troposphere and lower stratosphere, for assessing the atmospheric conditions during a particular meteorological event, and for many other analyses and operational applications. NCEI scientists have applied a comprehensive set of quality control procedures to the data to remove gross errors. However, they did not attempt to remove jumps and other discontinuities caused by changes in instrumentation, observing practice, or station location. Users studying long-term trends may wish to use the NOAA Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC) or one of the available non-NOAA IGRA-derived, homogeneity-adjusted radiosonde datasets.

Third...notice what they've done in that graphic. This is not a global assessment of differences. It is a narrowly focused assessment centered on the tropical region in the mid troposphere. And only up to 2005 even though the paper was published in 2018. 

Fourth...look at the UW entry on the graph. That is the University of Washington which attempts to remove the stratospheric cooling contamination from both RSS and UAH. They come to a different conclusion than what this paper is advertising.

[bdgwx]

14 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

IR back radiation doesn't warm the ocean below the first micrometer. It is the sun. 

Ref: The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation,  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351

"gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities. At the ocean surface, most of the incoming infrared (IR) radiation is absorbed within the top micrometers of the ocean's surface where the thermal skin layer (TSL) exists. Thus, the incident IR radiation does not directly heat the upper few meters of the ocean"

The sun's radiation in the UV penetrates the oceans to several meters.  That is what has caused the warmth of the oceans. We are still feeling the effects of the 20th century grand solar maximum, largest in the last 1000 years. Ocean currents can take a long time to recycle energy through the Earth and stabilize shocks to the system.  The oceans will begin to cool in the next several decades. 

 

 

That's right. Water so greedily absorbs IR radiation that it is completely absorbed in the skin layer. It is an effect that is exploited by IR lamps to keep our food warmer for longer than it would be otherwise in restaurants.

I think this publication has been misinterpreted. This publication does NOT claim or even imply that IR radiation does not warm the ocean. 

It is quite the opposite actually. What it does do is present a hypothesis for the exact mechanism by which increased downwelling IR radiation causes the oceans to warm.

In a nutshell the hypothesis is that a temperature gradient in the skin is reduced thus reducing the conductivity of heat from the subsurface to the ocean-air interface. Read what they conclude.

Quote

The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air‐sea interface is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content. This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea‐surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. 

and

Quote

Our findings provide an explanation of the mechanism for retaining upper ocean heat content as the incident IR radiation increases. The absorption of increased longwave has been deduced to compress vertically the curvature of the TSL, with a higher gradient forming close to the interface and a lower gradient at subskin depths. The smaller vertical gradient at subskin depths impedes the transfer of heat from the mixed layer into the TSL. Because the heat sink at the interface does not change measurably on the scales of our individual measurements, this means that less heat from the mixed layer contributes to the loss of heat at the interface. This analysis was based on the immediate changes of the TSL to the heat fluxes due to the instantaneous response of the TSL. Greater downwelling infrared forcing would alter the upper ocean heat budget by adjusting the TSL such that more heat beneath the TSL, resulting from the absorption of solar radiation, is retained. This thus provides an explanation for the indirect heating of the ocean by increasing levels of incident infrared radiation and the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

This publication is all-in that an increase in downwelling IR is consistent with broad depth oceanic heat content increases.

Quote

Thus the heat (which is a product of the absorption of solar radiation during the previous days) within the uppermost few meters of the ocean is unable to escape into the atmosphere, resulting in the retention of heat in the upper ocean.

and

Quote

Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.

IR radiation is a mechanism by which the depths of the ocean warm. The paper even provides us with a microphysical mechanism by which the heat is "trapped" below the skin layer.

[blizzard1024]

When looking at the ice core data, any unbiased scientist would easily conclude the CO2 doesn't drive climate. There are many instances where temperatures fall in the ice core record for centuries with rising CO2 and vice versa. Since the long wave absorption effects of CO2 are logarithmic in nature it is these lower values of CO2 concentration, theoretically should have more of an effect than the rapid rises we see today. Even so, you see the ice core records CO2 level passively follows the temperature curves. The oceans outgas CO2 when it is warmer and suck CO2 in when the oceans are colder. CO2 didn't drive the climate in the past. So what changed? Why now? Changes in insolation around 65N is generally thought to kick off a glaciation. The insolation gets too weak up there to melt the winter's snow in the summer and there is sufficient land mass in the NH to lead to the building of glaciers. Once this begins, the albedo feedback likely becomes important further cooling the land. The oceans will lag  due to thermal inertia. This explains the lag in CO2 levels. CO2 will remain the same as the temperatures plunge. As the glaciers build they pull out water vapor from the atmosphere which is the primary GHG. The Earth gets very dry and cold. The dryness means less of a Greenhouse effect so that is a feedback too. CO2 just follows along and eventually drops as the oceans finally cool. That should end the debate on whether CO2 drives the climate. Its doesn't. There is such a close correlation of CO2 and temperature with in these ice cores with a ~ 800-1000 year lag, that it is close to a linear relationship. The climate system is highly non-linear. This is because Henry's law is pretty much a linear temperature vs solubility.  So if you believe CO2 is a control knob on the climate system you are basically believing the climate system is linear. We all know this is wrong.