I've been forecasting this heat for weeks(as recorded in daily weather and other posts here) and it is very impressive!
However, this is another example of exaggerating and sensationalizing an extreme current weather phenomena to blow it up into something unprecedented and of course, used by the fake climate crisis cult as fake evidence, while we continue to experience the climate optimum..............but my favorite posts/links/stories by far, are ones like these so that I can show the REAL data, in this case of past heat waves/July's that were much hotter in most locations than what we have coming up.
Here is the title of this story:
metmike: Before making eye popping headlines like this, why don't reporters(or even meteorologists) even check history?
The heat waves of the 1930's will blow away(or melt away) any heat waves we have coming up this month. It won't even be close for the Plains and Midwest, which this time will have some of the hottest temperatures.
And off the top of my head/memory, it won't be as hot as 1954, 1980, 1983, 1988 or 2012 in those locations.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
and it depends on where you are. here in southern az, we are no where near as hot as what it was in the early 90's.
and armstrong claims that areas of europe had been behind on planting because of more wet/cool weather. but i have not verified that.
maybe some of you that follow farming in europe can let us know.
warm in one area often means cool in some other spot.
Sometimes seeing graphs/data doesn't help you to envision the reality.
How about this article from your state of Ohio about 1934:
The summer of 1934 was a hot one all around the United States, but the focus of the heat was the Ohio Valley around Cincinnati.
"On July 20, Cincinnati meteorologists put 104.8 degrees into the record book. For the next seven days, Cincinnati’s official temperature topped 100 degrees every single day, setting records never since exceeded.
In those pre-air-conditioned days, the city was totally unprepared. Cincinnatians began dying at an alarming rate, some succumbing to the heat as they slept. Not only was the daytime heat unbearable, the night time offered no relief. On July 21, 22, and 23, the highest low temperatures for each of those days were recorded at around 80 degrees
Indoor temperatures remained in the 90s, and, between fitful snatches of sleep, most people spent the night in search of a breath of air. Many tried to sleep on porches. Walking through the streets of the congested residential areas downtown late at night one could hear muffled voices of sleepless inhabitants coming from darkened windows.
On Sunday, July 22, the Enquirer announced that Cincinnati, while setting an all-time highest temperature of 108.5 degrees the day before, had been the hottest location east of the Mississippi River. On Sunday, Cincinnati would reach its second-highest recorded temperature at 107.7 degrees. Those two days remain the hottest in Cincinnati history.
In addition to the temperature, Cincinnati set records in heat-related deaths, with as many as 40 fatalities recorded on some days. People died at work, at home, or just standing on the street."
metmike: This sounds like weather that we constantly hear about that is in our future from the fake climate crisis...........but its the PAST. It's not from computer simulations of the future weather from a speculative theory using busted equations.......it really happened already before CO2 went up and because of natural weather/climate.
Imagine if we had a heat wave like this today? It would be totally blamed on humans burning fossil fuels. The hot July coming up will be used.
It's July and the hottest time of year again so, like every Summer, we will be bombarded with all sorts of fake climate change heat stories. It's Summer for crying out loud and its always really hot in many places and at any point in time, going back forever, there are usually locations/regions on this planet having extreme weather and often records.
Yes, the beneficial warming causes it to be a tad warmer in July overall in many places(and less cold in the coldest places at the coldest time of year) but next time you read about the extreme/deadly heat coming up..........pretend that you lived here in the Summers during the 1930's based on the actual accounts above....... and compare it to that.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Imagine a drought monitor map in 2020 like the one below it from 1934 and the explanations that we would be reading about for what supposedly caused it.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/Soilmst_Monitoring/US/Soilmst/Soilmst.shtml#
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/conus_palmerindex_june_1934.png?resize=550%2C500
https://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/summer-scorchers-americas-9-worst-heat-waves-ever-recorded/
In the last 20 years, how many US states have set all time hottest temps?
Just 3, Colorado-2019 , South Carolina-2012 and South Dakota-2006.
August 17, 2020 Note: This is a correction from my erroneous statement of just 1 state, Colorado from 2 months ago a month ago. Sorry about that and thanks to my great brother, Gary for causing me to review the accuracy of this information.
Half of the states set their all time hottest temperature during the hottest decade for Summer heat.......the 1930's.
Despite the modest, mostly beneficial global warming recently we have not topped those historic highs in 47 out of the 50 states and we will not be topping any of them this July.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes
For one thing, the soils are too moist. Under these conditions, much of the heat from the sun is used to evaporate moisture out of the soil. It's only after you completely dry down the moisture profile with drought conditions, when you can maximize the suns heating of the near surface air.
There is a 0% chance of that happening this July in most places, even if it completely stops raining.
We will, however have some very warm nights, especially considering how humid it might be(with the moist soils) and could have near record warm nights in some places.
While I haven't posted much lately, I still come to read posts. I have been following your posts on La Nina from almost the beginning Mike. That's why I shared the story, thought you might find it interesting and if nothing else validating your prediction somewhat.
Yes Jim, I did find it very interesting and was not judging you for posting it but liking it very much and appreciating it even more!
Thanks much!
It does validate my forecast for the last few weeks but in all that time I would never have referred to it as historic like the MSM likes to do for every extreme weather event.
Your post actually gave me a good opportunity to compare the going forecast/heat with historical heat...........since this will seem really hot when its here and we will hear about how hot it is from everywhere.
I know just from interacting with non meteorologists all day that when we have some sort of extreme weather that hasn't happened in several years and it is making the headlines, they will ask what could have caused such crazy weather?
Then, I try to explain why it happened a dozen times before and they just forgot because it was so long ago or didn't know because they don't have weather records.
In the longest continuous instrumental dataset in the world -- the Central England Temperature -- the new 1991-2020 climate period for the first 6 months of the year is the warmest standard 30-year climate period on record. Wow. The very definition of #ClimateChange.
You like may other irrational skeptics confuse media coverage and sensationalism with actual climate science
the fact that Al Gore is full of shit doesnt mean climate science is shit 
Dave,
You are very confused on my position. I've studied climate SCIENCE for over 2 decades and shared the data/authentic science and climate politics here with over 2 dozen discussions/articles.
Read it and tell me, specifically things that I have wrong. As a meteorologist, you should be able to find some wrong things since your views apparently are so different than mine on this.
Climate Reality discussions-new article 5-2020
13 responses |
Started by metmike - April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
Since you mischaracterized my views without actually knowing them, let me correct you.
I have always known that there is climate change/global warming. I post an update every single month to show that warming. The rate of warming in the REAL world has been around 1.4 degrees/century.
Like the previous warmings(Medieval/Roman/Minoan) the benefits have outweighed the negatives by a factor of around 10 to 1.
Then, there was the WARMEST of all for the high latitudes, the Holocence climate OPTIMUM, that lasted from 9,000to 5,000 years ago.We have another 2 degrees C to go before getting that warm. There was less Arctic sea ice during that period too.
Every field of science defines CO2 as a beneficial gas.......biology, agronomy, zoology, meteorology/climate. We are barely half of the optimal level and life on this greening planet is telling us that more would be better.
Only in politics is CO2 defined as "pollution"
In 2030 if we continue on this path, the global temperature will be around .14 degrees warmer, the planet will be greener..........with extraordinarily high confidence and the oceans will be just over an inch higher(and most life will be doing even better, which is exactly why conditions like this in the past have always been referred to as climate optimums.)
The warmer atmosphere from climate change, allows it to hold around 6% more moisture right now, so there will continue to be more heavy/excessive rains events, which is one of the negatives with climate change. Heat waves in the Summer will be slightly hotter in some places.
With regards to temperatures in Central England being the warmest since records have been kept................dugh. We are having a slow and mostly beneficial increase in global temperatures. By definition, if the temperatures are going up with an uptrend, it means the last data points should be the warmest/highest on a graph of temperatures.
When the last data points stop going higher.................than we will be having a pause in the warming. I doubt that we will see global cooling as long as beneficial CO2 continues to go up but we may see pauses that can last a decade or so because of natural cooling cycles offsetting the warming
Since the irrefutable physics/science of CO2 tell us that its a greenhouse gas that keeps more warmth in, as long as CO2 continues to go up, we should expect the slight, mostly beneficial(to life) warming to continue.
So... just to be sure about this C02 .... according to YOU ....is NOT a greenhouse gas ?
also this .... sorry that just wrong
Every field of science defines CO2 as a beneficial gas.......biology, agronomy, zoology, meteorology/climate. We are barely half of the optimal level and life on this greening planet is telling us that more would be better.
Only in politics is CO2 defined as "pollution"
Perhaps I am bothered by the term beneficial gas. I don't believe that atmospheric gases are either beneficial or harmful per se. In his particular case while it is true that are benefits to increased CO2 for biology and plant life.. increased CO2 for the human body causes ya know like um DEATH. So I am not really sure why you state categorically that CO2 IN ANY AMOUNT is always beneficial to everything across the entire planet and entire spectrum of life.
I think that is a ridiculous assertion.
Of course there are aspects of CO2 which are beneficial to Earth's environment and ecology but as you stay there is also a downside to it. So again I cannot accept such a categorical statement that ANY amount of CO2 is always beneficial in all aspects of Earth's atmosphere ecology and biology.
The other issue I have here is the reasoning that you have employed. Again it's an argument I see from many conservatives but one which fails of critical thinking test.
Yes the Earth was significantly warmer in the medieval era.
Absolutely. Without a doubt.
So what? How does that in itself prove anything one way or the other that the warning going on now is not anthropologically driven?
It doesn't. So WHAT? Why make that point ?.
Talking about the fact that the Earth was warm in the past is a distraction and a logical fallacy which is used to convince people who don't have adequate critical thinking skills that the current warming has to be natural variability because the Earth was warmer in the past.
It's like saying well 80 million people died in World War II and we are still having Wars today where people are
dying so I guess World War II is still continuing.
It is same kind of thinking. And it is flawed. Deeply.
One last Point. Yes the Earth was warmer in the 9000 years ago. we also did not have a highly Advanced technologically driven fragile Society which does not handle events at the end of the bell curve very well
This must be to good to be true!
A debate with a meteorologist that thinks that we are having a climate crisis! A rare opportunity granted to this climate denier(because the other side says the science is settled and us non believers just can't catch on and aren't worthy of their valuable time)
I'm almost exited enough to pee my pants.......oh, wait, that's just overactive bladder/old age(-:
Seriously Dave, I greatly appreciate you sharing your views on this with us/me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dave,
Let me address each of your points, one at a time.
1. Dave: "So... just to be sure about this C02 .... according to YOU ....is NOT a greenhouse gas ?also this .... sorry that just wrong"
metmike: I made a point to say the exact opposite to provide clarity to you at the end of my previos response to you. Let me put the quote in bold this time so that you can't miss it. "Since the irrefutable physics/science of CO2 tell us that its a greenhouse gas that keeps more warmth in, as long as CO2 continues to go up, we should expect the slight, mostly beneficial(to life) warming to continue."
2. Dave: "Perhaps I am bothered by the term beneficial gas. I don't believe that atmospheric gases are either beneficial or harmful per se. In his particular case while it is true that are benefits to increased CO2 for biology and plant life.. increased CO2 for the human body causes ya know like um DEATH. So I am not really sure why you state categorically that CO2 IN ANY AMOUNT is always beneficial to everything across the entire planet and entire spectrum of life.
I think that is a ridiculous assertion. "
metmike: We are talking about AMBIENT ATMOSPHERIC levels of CO2..............you know, the level that matters with regards to climate change and the amount that effects all life on this planet and is currently around 415 parts per million concentration. As I thought was made clear from my statement: We are barely half of the optimal level and life on this greening planet is telling us that more would be better.
With regards to it being a beneficial gas. Life starts on earth with the proven law of photosynthesis
Sunshine +H2O +Minerals +CO2 = O2 +Food(sugars)
Not Sunshine +H2O +Minerals +Pollution =O2 +Food(sugars)
All animals either eat plants or something that ate plants........all crops and food production happens because of CO2. In that equation above, when you add MORE CO2......up to double the current ambient atmospheric amount.............most plants grow faster and bigger. The planet greens up, other creatures have more food. If you don't want to call it beneficial, that's ok with me but I will continue to use that term.
Is it possible, to find a couple of exceptions to that rule? Sure but we are referring to the overwhelming scientific RULE as it applies to climate change and biology, not any exceptions that one could possibly find.
I challenge you me to show where this is wrong? Not by showing computer simulated projections for the next 100 years that have ALL been too warm and wrong. In the last 30 years, show me evidence that increasing CO2 caused great harm to life on this planet. I have reams of data that PROVE the agricultural benefits to humans alone, on this greening planet were in the $$$trillions. Here is one of dozens of links:
3. Dave: The other issue I have here is the reasoning that you have employed. Again it's an argument I see from many conservatives but one which fails of critical thinking test.
Yes the Earth was significantly warmer in the medieval era.
Absolutely. Without a doubt.
So what? How does that in itself prove anything one way or the other that the warning going on now is not anthropologically driven?
It doesn't. So WHAT? Why make that point ?
Talking about the fact that the Earth was warm in the past is a distraction and a logical fallacy which is used to convince people who don't have adequate critical thinking skills that the current warming has to be natural variability because the Earth was warmer in the past."
metmike: There are several reasons for this Dave.
a. Do you know what caused the warming in the Medieval/Roman/Minoan climate optimums/warm periods? I sure don't and I haven't read anybody that does in the last 2 decades. If we don't know what caused those warmings at roughly 1,000 year intervals that were similar to today's warming, 1,000 years later, how do we know that there isn't a natural cycle involved that is CONTRIBUTING to the current warming. You agree that there are natural cycles, right? How many of them are represented with the equations in the climate models? Exactly none. So we know for sure that there will be natural climate cycles and we know for sure the climate models will be wrong about them. The models are all about increasing CO2 and using increasing H2O to greatly (over)amplify the affect by a factor of 3. They can't properly model the affect of clouds either but thats another issue. On this one, I am very confident that at least half of the beneficial warming has come from the physics of greenhouse gas warming(CO2)...............but its very possible that a natural cycle.......related to the Grand Solar Maximum last century caused half of it. There is some evidence for this but not conclusive so I am just being open minded/objective and scientific......until we can RULE OUT what caused the similar beneficial warmings 1,000 years ago and 2,000 years ago........ect.
b. If it was this warm before and scientists almost universally saw it as climate OPTIMUM then.......up until climate science was hijacked for the political agenda over 3 decades ago(by the UN and IPCC), why are the same conditions now a climate CRISIS? They aren't of course. Just like it was then, these same conditions now are a climate optimum.
As I mentioned, the benefits to this warming have outweighed the negatives by 10 to 1 for the planet. This will continue, until it maxes out at around 2 deg. C warmer than this. At the current rate of warming of .14 deg. C/decade that would be around 140 years. So based on the authentic science and observations, we should be having a climate optimum FOR LIFE the next 140 years before things go the other way for life. Granted, sea levels COULD start accelerating higher at some point but they have NOT yet, despite predictions. This would threaten trillions in coastal properties/structures NOT LIFE and certainly not the planet.
c. Showing that it was this warm before means that this is not unprecedented. It also proves the fraudulence of the UN and IPCC, who, shortly after they hijacked climate science they frickin REWROTE climate history to wipe out the Medieval Warm Period to fake people into believing that THIS warming was unprecedented.............which you agree, it isn't. You are surely aware of the hockey stick graphing done by the IPCC's climate charlatan, Michael Mann using a selected tree ring study to wipe our the warming from 1,000 years ago. Again, even if all the warming this time is from the CO2 and the warmings before were from natural cycles.............we are still having a climate OPTIMUM by all objective standards of science regarding the affects on life.
4. Dave: "It's like saying well 80 million people died in World War II and we are still having Wars today where people are
dying so I guess World War II is still continuing.
It is same kind of thinking. And it is flawed. Deeply."
metmike: To play off your analogy Dave, I am not saying that the Medieval Warm Period is continuing today. We know it ended abruptly and global temperatures plunged us into The Little Ice Age, which you know from history was a rough time for life on this planet. Cold is what kills most life. Now we have warmed back to MWP levels again and I am asking, "besides the greenhouse gas warming from increasing CO2 this time, is the same natural cycle(Grand Solar Maximum or something else at play? To adjust your war analogy, it would be like me analyzing the CAUSES of WW2 and looking at current wars to see if there are any similar causes for these wars(not the same war continuing). Not saying there are or are not..........just looking at the objective data and facts and in the case of climate, the science of natural cycles included in that. Unlike what one side keeps insisting, the climate science is nowhere close to being settled. We must continue to gather data/observations and analysis and for crying out loud, we need to greatly adjust the broken models downwards to match reality not upwards to scare and motivate political actions.
5. Dave: "One last Point. Yes the Earth was warmer in the 9000 years ago. we also did not have a highly Advanced technologically driven fragile Society which does not handle events at the end of the bell curve very well"
metmike: You make a strong point here Dave. This is why I mention the main potential threat would be if sea levels were to accelerate higher(which they haven't). Trillions in property losses would occur along the coastlines. The rest of life could be doing fabulous for the next 100 years but if the seas went up by, let's say 5+ feet, it would be a MAJOR, very costly problem. It's POSSIBLE(based on broken models) they could go up by that much but the science right now tells us it won't happen. Using hand picked and flawed mathematical equations to represent the potential extreme scenario(s) of a speculative theory in the form of computer simulations is not science. What is science are observations, empirical data, facts and measurements of the REAL world, not the simulated world. We hear projections of sea levels going up 20+ feet to scare us to get us to act. This is junk science, anti science. It's politics. Tell us the truth please is all I ask of the gatekeepers, not what you want us to hear to get us to act because the truth won't do it.
The truth is this. The sea levels have been going up around 1 inch/decade for the past 100 years. Currently, that rate is still just a bit over 1 inch/decade. We are being told that all sorts of apocalyptic type things will be happening by 2030 if we don't act immediately. The truth is that in 2030, sea levels will have increased by just over an inch. By the year 2100, sea levels could be around 1 foot higher if they continue at this current rate. This is why we don't hear the truth...........because it's not scary enough to get political results.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another item that you did not mention is that warmer air holds more moisture and so we have more high end flooding events with global warming. I know some skeptics don't believe this but its basic meteorology. All things held the same, if you increase the moisture by 6%(from our 1 deg C of global warming) then rain making systems will dump out more rain and this will ADD to extreme, local/isolated flooding events but again, the benefits to LIFE are 10 times greater and we are dealing with a 6% increase in available water vapor NOT a 600% or even a 60% increase. When we had recent rainfall records of more than 30 inches from a couple of hurricanes, we heard that it was from climate change. Well, the first 28 inches would probably have fallen with the old climate but yes, another 2 inches likely came from climate change.
I'm sure all the residents that had flooding from 30 inches of rain were screaming "Dang climate change! If not for the climate crisis, we would have only received 28 inches of rain!"
Let me finish by reminding you of what still happens to life every Winter in the mid and high latitudes. Plants/trees all go dormant(or die) for almost half the year to survive the KILLING cold. Many creatures can hibernate(bury themselves deep into the ground or shut down their bodies to survive the KILLING cold and LACK OF FOOD because plants can't survive when its cold. Some creatures migrate thousands of miles south, so they can benefit from the additional warmth. Some creatures tough it out thru the harsh Winter months with losses from cold AND lack of food pretty high in colder Winters.
If those creatures could speak for themselves and we asked 100 of them if they would like the planet to be warmer or colder or to stay the same, what do you think the poll would say..............keep in mind that the polar bear population has increased 30% since 2005.........so even the global warming mascot that was supposed to be threatened by melting Arctic SEA ice just told us their species has enjoyed massively procreating with abundant food the past 15 years.
Also, we are led to believe that conditions on this planet were optimal, around a century ago when the atmospheric CO2 was under 300 PPM(vs 415 PPM now) and the global temp was around 1 deg cooler.........because that is when the evil humans began burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate.
So lets imagine what would happen to the humans if we could magically revert back to the levels of when humans could not have had an affect on the climate yet........go back in an atmospheric time machine to the OLD climate?
Crops yields and food production would drop more than 30% immediately. The current great surplus that we have in every food stock would rapidly be depleted, with widespread shortages and price rationing of the short supply.
Within 3 years, close to 1 billion people would starve to death and prices for all crops would more than triple.
This is why the last 40 years has featured the best weather/climate since the Medieval Warm Period and is an irrefutable climate OPTIMUM.....again, like it was then.
So with this new and improved climate, for humans, if we had the choice to take it or leave it today we might have this to decide.
Have 6% more moisture that adds to rains in flooding events and feed 1 billion more people with the new climate? Or, with the old climate, have 6% less rains in flooding events and have 1 billion people on the planet starve within 3 years. What would be your choice?
For the rest of the animal kingdom and plants, we know from observations, that they almost all like this new climate much more.
MM, It's fun to watch you work. I rarely, if ever, enter these discussions. I know when I am outgunned :-)
Tim,
thank you for the kind words.
Strange as it might sound I much prefer to have critics of my work, not cheerleaders.
Pj is one of the best at asking challenging, questions that force me to effectively prove points with solid scientific evidence and reasoning. I usually learn more from being challenged this way than just doing it independently using my brains cognitive bias which sees things subjectively.
Science is not about stating something that sounds convincing or scary or not scary, then looking for approval from those that already agreed with the points........it’s exactly about inviting those that disagree with your view to state why, show why they disagree so that you can:
1. Look at the science from their point and
2. Either refute their position using authentic science, reasoning and data......or learn something and acquire useful knowledge that causes an appropriate adjustment in your position that just keeps getting closer to the truth/reality.
I am nowhere as smart about the theories as some of these PhD climate scientists that tell us the science is settled and they already know what is needed to know and have stopped learning from new data.
However, all day long, that’s all i do is look at new data, observing and analyzing the atmosphere....comparing it to the old atmosphere .....noting the effects on life....and learning constantly and knowing there is much more to learn.
Leaving the really smart climate phds who are stuck in their 1990s era preconceived notion of settled climate science..........in the acquired authentic knowledge and understanding dust.
I am all for questions in areas where I feel comfortable with my knowledge. I either affirm my thoughts or adjust them accordingly. Climate science is not one of those areas and I am happy to defer to you.
130 degrees at Death Valley!
Started by metmike - Aug. 17, 2020, 3:34 p.m.
