Phoenix Records its Hottest Summer on Record

[rclab]

15 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I'm angry because these guys give a pass to the fossil fuel cartel, which is the single most corrupt industry on the planet right now.  And that's saying a lot because pharma is right behind them.

 

No argument on either LB. The Pharmaceuticals industry needs adult supervision on the severe side. As always ...... 

[blizzard1024]

18 hours ago, bluewave said:

 

 

 

This data is seriously cherry-picked. It was cool in 1971 and a warm summer in 2020. How come this gets a pass? Here is the summer average temperatures JJA for several states that are showing warming in this graph. You can see there is virtually no trend since 1893 in summer temperatures except the western States which recently have been warmer.  How come you don't call out these folks? Clearly anything that conforms is not questioned. I say question everything. That is what a good scientist does IMO. 

 

 

 

 

[bluewave]

22 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

This data is seriously cherry-picked. It was cool in 1971 and a warm summer in 2020. How come this gets a pass? Here is the summer average temperatures JJA for several states that are showing warming in this graph. You can see there is virtually no trend since 1893 in summer temperatures except the western States which recently have been warmer.  How come you don't call out these folks? Clearly anything that conforms is not questioned. I say question everything. That is what a good scientist does IMO. 

50 years is not cherry picking. It represents the time of most rapid global warming as emissions have increased. The actual charts with trend lines are available at the NCDC site. New Jersey is one of the sates that you posted and summers have  been warming at 0.3° F decade since 1895. This year was the 2nd warmest summer on record in NJ. Notice how many of the top 10 warmest summers have occurred in recent years.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/28/tavg/3/8/1895-2020?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2020

201006 - 201008	75.7°F	126
202006 - 202008	75.3°F	125
201606 - 201608	74.9°F	124
200506 - 200508	74.8°F	123
201106 - 201108	74.6°F	122
201806 - 201808	74.4°F	121
201906 - 201908	74.4°F	121
199906 - 199908	74.3°F	119
201206 - 201208	74.2°F	118
200206 - 200208	74.0°F	117

 

[blizzard1024]

18 minutes ago, bluewave said:

50 years is not cherry picking. It represents the time of most rapid global warming as emissions have increased. The actual charts with trend lines are available at the NCDC site. New Jersey is one of the sates that you posted and summers have  been warming at 0.3° F decade since 1895. This year was the 2nd warmest summer on record in NJ. Notice how many of the top 10 warmest summers have occurred in recent years.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/28/tavg/3/8/1895-2020?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2020

201006 - 201008	75.7°F	126
202006 - 202008	75.3°F	125
201606 - 201608	74.9°F	124
200506 - 200508	74.8°F	123
201106 - 201108	74.6°F	122
201806 - 201808	74.4°F	121
201906 - 201908	74.4°F	121
199906 - 199908	74.3°F	119
201206 - 201208	74.2°F	118
200206 - 200208	74.0°F	117

 

Here is the data for NJ 

	avg-temp
1893	71.9
1894	72.4
1895	72.4
1896	72.4
1897	70.6
1898	73.6
1899	72.6
1900	74.2
1901	73.8
1902	70.4
1903	68.7
1904	70.6
1905	71.4
1906	73.3
1907	69.8
1908	72.6
1909	71.0
1910	71.3
1911	72.7
1912	70.8
1913	72.4
1914	71.4
1915	70.5
1916	71.1
1917	72.4
1918	71.3
1919	71.3
1920	71.5
1921	72.4
1922	71.8
1923	71.9
1924	70.3
1925	72.4
1926	70.4
1927	68.5
1928	72.1
1929	71.0
1930	72.3
1931	73.1
1932	72.3
1933	72.5
1934	73.1
1935	72.8
1936	73.0
1937	73.7
1938	73.2
1939	73.4
1940	71.0
1941	71.8
1942	72.4
1943	74.5
1944	73.9
1945	71.8
1946	70.4
1947	72.2
1948	72.5
1949	75.0
1950	71.2
1951	72.0
1952	74.1
1953	72.8
1954	72.2
1955	74.7
1956	71.6
1957	73.0
1958	71.5
1959	73.7
1960	72.1
1961	72.7
1962	71.2
1963	71.6
1964	71.6
1965	71.2
1966	73.6
1967	72.1
1968	72.9
1969	72.6
1970	72.7
1971	72.2
1972	71.3
1973	74.1
1974	71.6
1975	72.6
1976	72.1
1977	72.2
1978	72.2
1979	71.2
1980	73.5
1981	72.6
1982	70.5
1983	73.9
1984	72.9
1985	71.3
1986	72.1
1987	73.5
1988	74.3
1989	72.6
1990	72.3
1991	73.9
1992	70.2
1993	73.8
1994	73.8
1995	73.9
1996	71.9
1997	71.6
1998	73.0
1999	74.8
2000	71.2
2001	73.0
2002	74.6
2003	72.8
2004	71.9
2005	75.5
2006	74.1
2007	73.0
2008	73.6
2009	71.7
2010	75.5
2011	74.5
2012	73.7
2013	73.2
2014	71.5
2015	72.7
2016	74.5
2017	72.1
2018	74.2
2019	73.9
2020	74.6

That added .7 degrees to 2020 and subtracted .9 degrees from 1983.  What? Look at the data. What NCEI is NOT what is being measured. They have manipulated the data. They show a 3F rise in temperature in NJ. Here is an excel graph of the data I got from IEMCOW climodat.  Is indeed shows a warming trend of 1.5-2F but before 1940. From 1940-2020 there is virtually no trend. 

 

 

 

 

[blizzard1024]

31 minutes ago, bluewave said:

50 years is not cherry picking.

Yes it is when you pick a cold decade starting point. Look before that. It was warmer. That is cherry picking IMO. 

[blizzard1024]

Also if you look globally you can see the warmth of Asia but Antarctica has been very cold and even North American has been a little cool except the west. Global anomalies have been running .2C to .4C daily for a while and this is using the 1979-2000 normal period before the supposed rapid Arctic warming.  There really isn't anything terribly unusual and it is in line with UAH .43C anomaly. Modest warming from increasing GHGs on top of unknown natural variability.  Nothing to see here that suggests we are doomed or our climate is spinning out of control. 

[blizzard1024]

Here's NCAR/NCEP reanalysis graph of daily/monthly anomalies based on a 1994-2013 average period. It also confirms UAH .43C and modest warming. August was about .175 or so above the 1994-2013 average period which is lower because UAH uses 1981-2010 which has a lower mean. In the end, not much going on that suggests extreme warming. Two different datasets. 

[bluewave]

51 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Here is the data for NJ 

 

That added .7 degrees to 2020 and subtracted .9 degrees from 1983.  What? Look at the data. What NCEI is NOT what is being measured. They have manipulated the data. They show a 3F rise in temperature in NJ. Here is an excel graph of the data I got from IEMCOW climodat.  Is indeed shows a warming trend of 1.5-2F but before 1940. From 1940-2020 there is virtually no trend. 

https://www.njherald.com/news/20200909/summer-2020-was-second-hottest-on-record-in-new-jersey

New Jersey experienced its second-hottest summer on record, continuing a long-term warming trend in the Garden State and across the planet that has seen sea levels rise and extreme weather become more common.

The average temperature statewide soared to 75.3 degrees from June through August, ranking only behind 2010′s record-setting heat, according to a report released Tuesday by Rutgers University.

Climate change is being felt increasingly in New Jersey, with the 10 hottest summers having all occurred since 1999, including seven since 2010, said David Robinson, the state climatologist and author of the report. A full list is below.

“It’s indicative of what we’re seeing in other seasons in New Jersey, what we’re seeing nationally and what we’re seeing globally,” Robinson said. “It’s just another sign that climate change is here.”

This summer’s milestone was not much of a surprise considering that July was the hottest month ever recorded in New Jersey. August 2020 was tied for the sixth-warmest August on record, and June was the 10th-warmest it’s been since record-keeping began in 1895.

 

 

 

[chubbs]

38 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Yes it is when you pick a cold decade starting point. Look before that. It was warmer. That is cherry picking IMO. 

1970 is when the big forcing ramp started as aerosol's stabilized while GHG took off. So you are saying that GHG do control climate

 

21 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Here's NCAR/NCEP reanalysis graph of daily/monthly anomalies based on a 1994-2013 average period. It also confirms UAH .43C and modest warming. August was about .175 or so above the 1994-2013 average period which is lower because UAH uses 1981-2010 which has a lower mean. In the end, not much going on that suggests extreme warming. Two different datasets. 

NCEP had a roughly 0.2C cooling bias vs other re-analysis products between Nov+Mar this year. CFS below shows we are running about the same as last year despite the developing La Nina. The 0.2C bias in NCEP is about the same as the warming that uah missed due to dropping NOAA-14.

 

[donsutherland1]

32 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Also if you look globally you can see the warmth of Asia but Antarctica has been very cold and even North American has been a little cool except the west. Global anomalies have been running .2C to .4C daily for a while and this is using the 1979-2000 normal period before the supposed rapid Arctic warming.  There really isn't anything terribly unusual and it is in line with UAH .43C anomaly. Modest warming from increasing GHGs on top of unknown natural variability.  Nothing to see here that suggests we are doomed or our climate is spinning out of control. 

Those are 1 day anomalies. They are not year-to-date anomalies. 2020 is running very warm and could well wind up the 2nd warmest year on record on the major data sets (GISS, HadCru, NOAA, Berkeley).

Below are the year-to-date anomalies:

 

[chubbs]

Here is UAH vs RSS+Hadcrut for land temperatures. UAH missed more than 0.2C of warming between 1998 and 2008, mainly due to dropping NOAA14. Land temperatures chosen because that is where satellite diurnal drift errors are most noticeable.

https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6-land/mean:12/plot/crutem4vgl/last:480/mean:12/offset:-0.3/plot/rss-land/mean:12

[Bhs1975]

Those are 1 day anomalies. They are not year-to-date anomalies. 2020 is running very warm and could well wind up the 2nd warmest year on record on the major data sets (GISS, HadCru, NOAA, Berkeley).

Below are the year-to-date anomalies:

 

Oh look the poles are warmest to due Arctic amplification which fits perfectly with GHG forcing.

[donsutherland1]

Mean Summer Temperature (Contiguous United States):

30-Year Period Ending:

1950 71.7
1960 71.8
1970 71.3
1980 71.4
1990 71.4
2000 71.5
2010 71.9
2020 72.3 (highest on record)

Source: NCEI Data

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, blizzard1024 said:

Here is the data for NJ 

	avg-temp
1893	71.9
1894	72.4
1895	72.4
1896	72.4
1897	70.6
1898	73.6
1899	72.6
1900	74.2
1901	73.8
1902	70.4
1903	68.7
1904	70.6
1905	71.4
1906	73.3
1907	69.8
1908	72.6
1909	71.0
1910	71.3
1911	72.7
1912	70.8
1913	72.4
1914	71.4
1915	70.5
1916	71.1
1917	72.4
1918	71.3
1919	71.3
1920	71.5
1921	72.4
1922	71.8
1923	71.9
1924	70.3
1925	72.4
1926	70.4
1927	68.5
1928	72.1
1929	71.0
1930	72.3
1931	73.1
1932	72.3
1933	72.5
1934	73.1
1935	72.8
1936	73.0
1937	73.7
1938	73.2
1939	73.4
1940	71.0
1941	71.8
1942	72.4
1943	74.5
1944	73.9
1945	71.8
1946	70.4
1947	72.2
1948	72.5
1949	75.0
1950	71.2
1951	72.0
1952	74.1
1953	72.8
1954	72.2
1955	74.7
1956	71.6
1957	73.0
1958	71.5
1959	73.7
1960	72.1
1961	72.7
1962	71.2
1963	71.6
1964	71.6
1965	71.2
1966	73.6
1967	72.1
1968	72.9
1969	72.6
1970	72.7
1971	72.2
1972	71.3
1973	74.1
1974	71.6
1975	72.6
1976	72.1
1977	72.2
1978	72.2
1979	71.2
1980	73.5
1981	72.6
1982	70.5
1983	73.9
1984	72.9
1985	71.3
1986	72.1
1987	73.5
1988	74.3
1989	72.6
1990	72.3
1991	73.9
1992	70.2
1993	73.8
1994	73.8
1995	73.9
1996	71.9
1997	71.6
1998	73.0
1999	74.8
2000	71.2
2001	73.0
2002	74.6
2003	72.8
2004	71.9
2005	75.5
2006	74.1
2007	73.0
2008	73.6
2009	71.7
2010	75.5
2011	74.5
2012	73.7
2013	73.2
2014	71.5
2015	72.7
2016	74.5
2017	72.1
2018	74.2
2019	73.9
2020	74.6

That added .7 degrees to 2020 and subtracted .9 degrees from 1983.  What? Look at the data. What NCEI is NOT what is being measured. They have manipulated the data. They show a 3F rise in temperature in NJ. Here is an excel graph of the data I got from IEMCOW climodat.  Is indeed shows a warming trend of 1.5-2F but before 1940. From 1940-2020 there is virtually no trend. 

 

 

 

 

 

From the IEM site:

While we use care to provide accurate weather/climatic information, errors may occur because of equipment or other failure. We therefore provide this information without any warranty of accuracy. Users of this weather/climate data do so at their own risk, and are advised to use independent judgement as to whether to verify the data presented.

The IEM is a volunteer effort and receives no funds for facilities or staff from Iowa State University or the State of Iowa. Users of the IEM must therefore recognize that the IEM may be discontinued at any time with little or no notice.

Errors exist. For example, during Phoenix's recent September heat, I looked up Phoenix's highest hourly readings for September. Several hours listed 117 degrees on September 1, 1950. In fact, the high temperature that day was the September record figure of 116. The August record is 117.

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

50 years is not cherry picking. It represents the time of most rapid global warming as emissions have increased. The actual charts with trend lines are available at the NCDC site. New Jersey is one of the sates that you posted and summers have  been warming at 0.3° F decade since 1895. This year was the 2nd warmest summer on record in NJ. Notice how many of the top 10 warmest summers have occurred in recent years.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/28/tavg/3/8/1895-2020?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2020

201006 - 201008	75.7°F	126
202006 - 202008	75.3°F	125
201606 - 201608	74.9°F	124
200506 - 200508	74.8°F	123
201106 - 201108	74.6°F	122
201806 - 201808	74.4°F	121
201906 - 201908	74.4°F	121
199906 - 199908	74.3°F	119
201206 - 201208	74.2°F	118
200206 - 200208	74.0°F	117

 

Great points, Bluewave.

The science is clear about the warming and its causes. It is no random occurrence that a disproportionate share of warm years and warm summers has occurred 2000 and later or 2010 or later. This is exactly what one would expect statistically in a climate where greenhouse gas forcing is increasing and, in turn, the world is warming.

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

From the IEM site:

While we use care to provide accurate weather/climatic information, errors may occur because of equipment or other failure. We therefore provide this information without any warranty of accuracy. Users of this weather/climate data do so at their own risk, and are advised to use independent judgement as to whether to verify the data presented.

The IEM is a volunteer effort and receives no funds for facilities or staff from Iowa State University or the State of Iowa. Users of the IEM must therefore recognize that the IEM may be discontinued at any time with little or no notice.

Errors exist. For example, during Phoenix's recent September heat, I looked up Phoenix's highest hourly readings for September. Several hours listed 117 degrees on September 1, 1950. In fact, the high temperature that day was the September record figure of 116. The August record is 117.

I have no idea what IEM is, and as you state they explicitly warn that the data is of unknown accuracy. 

I don't know if anybody else noticed but the NOAA graph bluewave posted shows 2X more warming in NJ than the IEM graph does. I suspect the results would be similar for other states as well. If you look closely, IEM warms from 71.5 to 73, while NOAA warms from 70 to 73.

This is typical dishonest behavior from the anti-science side. They pick whatever sources makes their point without any regard for its accuracy. Even when the source they are citing explicitely states there is no warranty of accuracy and to use at your own risk! 

 

EDIT: it looks like blizzard already noticed this but predictably sided with the graph that says data may be inaccurate and use at your own risk! I suspect he chose the IEM graph knowing full well that the data was unverified and uncorrected for things such as change in instrumentation and time of observation. It's like saying it was hotter in 1940 at 2pm than in 1980 at 6pm!

As Karl et al. 1986 epxlained, climate stations in the U.S. have changed their time of observations many times over the years. Back in 1986 adjusting temperatures to reflect a consistent time of observation was just good science. It wasn't until the mid-2000s when the wave of right wing denier websites suddenly discovered (or pretended to discover) what everybody else knew all along that this became controversial.

[donsutherland1]

31 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I have no idea what IEM is, and as you state they explicitly warn that the data is of unknown accuracy. 

I don't know if anybody else noticed but the NOAA graph bluewave posted shows 2X more warming in NJ than the IEM graph does. I suspect the results would be similar for other states as well. If you look closely, IEM warms from 71.5 to 73, while NOAA warms from 70 to 73.

This is typical dishonest behavior from the anti-science side. They pick whatever sources makes their point without any regard for its accuracy. Even when the source they are citing explicitely states their is no warranty of accuracy and to use at your own risk! 

 

EDIT: it looks like blizzard already noticed this but predictably sided with the graph that says data may be inaccurate and use at your own risk! I suspect he chose the IEM graph knowing full well that the data was unverified and uncorrected for things such as change in instrumentation.

The point about unknown accuracy is crucial. IEM is the Iowa Environmental Mesonet, which  “collects environmental data from cooperating members with observing networks.” One is dealing with raw data in many cases.

Quality control is vital. No researcher would use data that has not been quality controlled in their work. Homogenization is also important.

This paper explains, among other things, what it is and why it is necessary (pp.5-6):

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical Report GHCNM No15-01.pdf

The reality is that the quality-controlled data makes clear the extent of the warming that is underway. Such warming is extraordinary in how rapid and dramatic it has been when compared against geological time scales. Thus, efforts have been made to cast doubt on the high quality data.

If there were a coherent alternative explanation, papers would already have been written, submitted for peer review and published. But no such alternative case exists. 

[skierinvermont]

This is at least the 2nd time Blizzard has used data sources where the actual authors of the data say the data is unverified, inaccurate, and/or unsuitable for climate studies.

Given the pattern I have to assume that this is intentional rather than accidental.

[blizzard1024]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

1970 is when the big forcing ramp started as aerosol's stabilized while GHG took off. So you are saying that GHG do control climate

 

NCEP had a roughly 0.2C cooling bias vs other re-analysis products between Nov+Mar this year. CFS below shows we are running about the same as last year despite the developing La Nina. The 0.2C bias in NCEP is about the same as the warming that uah missed due to dropping NOAA-14.

 

NOAA-14 has a known warming bias. which is it? I believe spencer and christy who pioneered these measurements. Why don't you? They are the experts at satellite retrievals. 

[blizzard1024]

13 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

This is at least the 2nd time Blizzard has used data sources where the actual authors of the data say the data is unverified, inaccurate, and/or unsuitable for climate studies.

Given the pattern I have to assume that this is intentional rather than accidental.

You fail to see what is really going on. Not much. Some mild warming. You rely on peer reviewed adjusted upward, retain warm biased data.  Warm the present, cool the past! These folks are exaggerating the data. You know it too. 

[donsutherland1]

4 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

NOAA-14 has a known warming bias. which is it? I believe spencer and christy who pioneered these measurements. Why don't you? They are the experts at satellite retrievals. 

As noted earlier in this thread, here is a published paper showing that the UAH dataset may be flawed:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-Data-Derived-from

[blizzard1024]

27 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Quality control is vital. No researcher would use data that has not been quality controlled in their work. Homogenization is also important.

Yeah, because it doesn't support their theories which would threaten their funding and credibility.  You need to homogenize it to get it to conform 

[blizzard1024]

3 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

As noted earlier in this thread, here is a published paper showing that the UAH dataset may be flawed:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jtech/article/34/1/225/342433/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-Data-Derived-from

This paper was not reviewed by Spencer or Christy who are the EXPERTS at satellite retrievals.  They don't match up with the inflated surface temperatures records so they are not warm enough to conform.  they don't RETAIN the warm bias of NOAA-14.  That is your answer.   Its is a WARM bias. How many times do I have to tell all of you this. 

[skierinvermont]

9 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You fail to see what is really going on. Not much. Some mild warming. You rely on peer reviewed adjusted upward, retain warm biased data.  Warm the present, cool the past! These folks are exaggerating the data. You know it too. 

I think it is important that temperature measurements over time be taken at the same time of day for consistency's sake. Apparently you'd rather compare temperatures taken at 2pm in 1920 to temperatures taken at 6pm today. In the U.S. this results in an upward adjustment. Adjustments in the rest of the world are actually negative.

[blizzard1024]

The IEM data source has unadjusted measured data which is the best. It should no warming AT ALL in my climate division. NONE. BUT NCEI reports 3F warming since 1893. It is MADE UP. It is NOT measured. How can you trust this MADE UP DATA. This is beyond silliness and common sense.  

[blizzard1024]

Just now, skierinvermont said:

I think it is important that temperature measurements over time be taken at the same time of day for consistency's sake. Apparently you'd rather compare temperatures taken at 2pm in 1920 to temperatures taken at 6pm today.

Its the highs and lows that matter. how can you stitch data together if they didn't do highs and lows before 1920?  come on. that is vodoo statistics. 

[skierinvermont]

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

The IEM data source has unadjusted measured data which is the best. It should no warming AT ALL in my climate division. NONE. BUT NCEI reports 3F warming since 1893. It is MADE UP. It is NOT measured. How can you trust this MADE UP DATA. This is beyond silliness and common sense.  

Yeah temperature measurements taken at 2pm in 1920 are the BEST for comparing to temperature measurements taken at 6pm today!!! Are you trying to be a joke?

[skierinvermont]

2 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Its the highs and lows that matter. how can you stitch data together if they didn't do highs and lows before 1920?  come on. that is vodoo statistics. 

Maybe actually read the paper. They explain all of this in extreme detail. I look forward to your equally detailed critique.

[blizzard1024]

Just now, skierinvermont said:

Yeah temperature measurements taken at 2pm in 1920 are the BEST for comparing to temperature measurements taken at 6pm today!!!

You are losing your mind my friend.... Its the highs and lows that matter. If they didn't do highs or lows prior to 1920 which I believe is true how can you stitch that together.

[blizzard1024]

1 minute ago, skierinvermont said:

Maybe actually read the paper. They explain all of this.

I have and don't agree with the methods. Others feel the same way. But of course they don't agree with the consensus so they are shunned. This is not science. This is shutting down the scientific process. people like you and others do this. Many of us folks who believe there is moderate warming not catastrophic warming are getting lumped in with the Alex Jones types, Trumpers etc.  That is so wrong.