Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

The problem is probably not human caused. The planets axial tilt has drifted some and I am clueless how the average person has not noticed the change in sunset location.

You must have a good (bionic) eye! The tilt changes around 3% every 40 thousands years. Are you suggesting in your lifetime, you have actually noticed a change, and are clueless how other mere humans have not noticed it? No wonder there is such a sad state of awareness of climate change.

You try to point out that they can't get to their conclusions without a completely contrived fudging of the raw data with their manipulated models that seem to change every few years when results don't match up with their expectations.

What contrived fudging are you referring to? The majority of our hottest years on record for over 100 years are in the last 10 years (as in almost all of them). That isn't "fudging," that is fact. Glacial ice has receded very steadily for neigh on 20 years. It is vastly reduced. Oceans are warming. Not a "fudge," it's a fact. The ONLY thing deniers can cling to is that we are oddly in a global climate change.. with coincidentally coincided with the industrial revolution. That's it. What a reach to try and justify their position.

Humans are not perhaps fully responsible for the current climate changes, but I think they are greatly contributing, and accelerating the change. Ignoring the problem won't fix it.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
Here in Cali we are breaking just about every record by 10 degrees...

I don't know what part of Cali you are in but Sacramento had over 30 days of 100 degree temps last year, including 107 on June 22nd last year...this year has been extremely mild so far with just a few 100 degree days and it has been significantly cooler at night

a reply to: Gargoyle91

So banning fireplaces hasn't worked... I mean no it's that little fish y'all sacked your local
Farmers to save ....

a reply to: elysiumfire

Climate Disruption ... is that the new catchphrase? I'm gonna bust a seam laughing.

The post is BS and the title should be changed. There is not one place in California that broke a heat record by 10 degrees! I doubt it happened anywhere in the country. Please produce some simple evidence to back your claim.

originally posted by: JimboSliceLV
The post is BS and the title should be changed. There is not one place in California that broke a heat record by 10 degrees! I doubt it happened anywhere in the country. Please produce some simple evidence to back your claim.

That was easy, even from the other side of the world:

On Friday, Burbank and Van Nuys set new daily records and recorded their highest temperatures for any date, with respective highs of 114 and 117 degrees Fahrenheit.

Ramona and Santa Ana are among the other cities that set new all-time record highs.

For comparison:

Two California Locations Tied the U.S. Record for the Hottest Temperature So Late in the Year Tuesday
By Brian DoneganOctober 26 2017 06:15 AM EDTweather.com

Two locations in Southern California reached a high of 108 degrees Tuesday.This tied the U.S. record for the hottest temperature so late in the year.Triple-digit temperatures were also recorded in a number of other locations, including Los Angeles.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: JimboSliceLV
The post is BS and the title should be changed. There is not one place in California that broke a heat record by 10 degrees! I doubt it happened anywhere in the country. Please produce some simple evidence to back your claim.

That was easy, even from the other side of the world:

On Friday, Burbank and Van Nuys set new daily records and recorded their highest temperatures for any date, with respective highs of 114 and 117 degrees Fahrenheit.

Ramona and Santa Ana are among the other cities that set new all-time record highs.

For comparison:

Two California Locations Tied the U.S. Record for the Hottest Temperature So Late in the Year Tuesday
By Brian DoneganOctober 26 2017 06:15 AM EDTweather.com

Two locations in Southern California reached a high of 108 degrees Tuesday.This tied the U.S. record for the hottest temperature so late in the year.Triple-digit temperatures were also recorded in a number of other locations, including Los Angeles.

Something is not adding up for me. That article has the old downtown LA record at 94 degrees. That can't possibly be correct. I've personally been in downtown LA multiple times during summer when it was much hotter than 100 degrees.

The temperature at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) soared to 111 degrees, the hottest temperature ever recorded at the location. The scorching temperature surpassed the previous record of 109 set September 20, 1939, the National Weather Service reported. Records at UCLA date back to 1933.

While the temperature at UCLA set an all-time record, the temperature in downtown Los Angeles, which hit 108 degrees, feel short of its all-time mark of 113 from September 2010.

UCLA broke the record by 2 degrees. Downtown LA didn't even break the record this year!?

originally posted by: fleabit

The problem is probably not human caused. The planets axial tilt has drifted some and I am clueless how the average person has not noticed the change in sunset location.

You must have a good (bionic) eye! The tilt changes around 3% every 40 thousands years. Are you suggesting in your lifetime, you have actually noticed a change, and are clueless how other mere humans have not noticed it? No wonder there is such a sad state of awareness of climate change.

You try to point out that they can't get to their conclusions without a completely contrived fudging of the raw data with their manipulated models that seem to change every few years when results don't match up with their expectations.

What contrived fudging are you referring to? The majority of our hottest years on record for over 100 years are in the last 10 years (as in almost all of them). That isn't "fudging," that is fact. Glacial ice has receded very steadily for neigh on 20 years. It is vastly reduced. Oceans are warming. Not a "fudge," it's a fact. The ONLY thing deniers can cling to is that we are oddly in a global climate change.. with coincidentally coincided with the industrial revolution. That's it. What a reach to try and justify their position.

Humans are not perhaps fully responsible for the current climate changes, but I think they are greatly contributing, and accelerating the change. Ignoring the problem won't fix it.

Yet at the same time we have record coldest temperatures being reported at multiple locations around the world over the last decade.




weather.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...

www.mirror.co.uk...

The key word here is “local”, since temperature is not even defined for a system - such as the globe is - not in thermal equilibrium, and it’s obvious enough to anyone with a smidgeon of analytical aptitude that a body cannot as a whole be “warming” given any conventional meaning of that word if parts of it are both warming and cooling, not just at different locations but also at different times at the same location. Taking numerous time avearages of local temperatures and then looking at a “trend” in a moving average drawn through these to infer that the “globe” has somehow become”hotter” over time by a few degrees “again, not degrees of an actual temperature but of an average of averages of samples) is physically meaningless sophistry. Let’s not even get into computer models in which multiple parameters of parts of a complex system with feedback that are poorly understood are simply fitted to match a curve to past data and then presented as sensible predictive models for this “global average temperature” ... but ... but ... “science”.

So, if you insist these data confirm “global warming”, please provide a definition of “global warming” and explain what physical significance it has beyond its operational sense.

Let me see if I can gather some info up...

Record highs...
Downtown Los Angeles 113 degrees. Not broken in 2018.
UCLA campus 111. Broken in 2018 by 2 degrees. Previous record of 109
Van Nuys 117. Broken in 2018 by 3 degrees. Previous record of 114
Riverside 118. Tide in 2018
Burbank 114. Broken in 2018 by 1 degrees. Previous record of 113
Death valley 121 (hottest place in California). Not broken in 2018

Las Vegas 117. Not broken in 2018
Phoenix 122. Not broken in 2018

No summer highs where broken by 10 degrees. Not that I can find. Am I missing something here?

originally posted by: fleabit

The problem is probably not human caused. The planets axial tilt has drifted some and I am clueless how the average person has not noticed the change in sunset location.

You must have a good (bionic) eye! The tilt changes around 3% every 40 thousands years. Are you suggesting in your lifetime, you have actually noticed a change, and are clueless how other mere humans have not noticed it? No wonder there is such a sad state of awareness of climate change.

You try to point out that they can't get to their conclusions without a completely contrived fudging of the raw data with their manipulated models that seem to change every few years when results don't match up with their expectations.

What contrived fudging are you referring to? The majority of our hottest years on record for over 100 years are in the last 10 years (as in almost all of them). That isn't "fudging," that is fact. Glacial ice has receded very steadily for neigh on 20 years. It is vastly reduced. Oceans are warming. Not a "fudge," it's a fact. The ONLY thing deniers can cling to is that we are oddly in a global climate change.. with coincidentally coincided with the industrial revolution. That's it. What a reach to try and justify their position.

Humans are not perhaps fully responsible for the current climate changes, but I think they are greatly contributing, and accelerating the change. Ignoring the problem won't fix it.

No, the fudging is claiming that a trend line drawn through a global average of local averages of temperatures is indicative of and what it is measuring equivalent to a change in “global climate” (whatever that is).

It’s something similar, though less glaringly sophistic, with glaciers: some have in fact grown, but the “trend” is shrinkage. That very fact, however, contradicts any claim that the phenomenon is “global”.

Van Nuys broke the record high temperature on July 6, 2018 reaching 117 degrees Fahrenheit. The previous record high was 115 degrees on July 3, 1985, and July 16, 1960. Note that it actually reached 116 degree in Van Nuys one day in August 1985.
That is breaking the record by 1 degrees not 10!

Name any city or area in California, and I will show that no all time high temperature was broken this year by 10 degrees. Just name the area and or the new high temperature, and I will show you the old high temperature and date. Nothing was beaten by more than 2 or 3 degrees this year.

a reply to: Greven

UMMMM, what about every single prediction made by their modeling has been wrong didn't you understand. You described a theory of AGW.

1) You don't even mention how much of atmospheric CO2 is man made.
2) You don't mention the fact that raw data is manipulated with predictive models to "adjust" for things like heat sinking, which for some reason they adjust raw data upwards? when heat sinking should actually RAISE raw temps and they should adjust them downward? How does THAT work?
3) These same predictive models have consistently been wrong in moderate length predictions yet we're supposed to trust them extrapolated out to the nth degree, because DOOM PORN.
4) As I said, only in AGW have failed predictions been hailed as accomplishments that necessitate even MORE drastic measures to be taken to adjust for what they predict.?.?.

Jaden

a reply to: AnonymousMoose

Exactly... Down here in Temecula, being in the hundreds was par for the course, but the last ten summers or so have been relatively mild and rarely has it gotten above 100...

This last week was hot but now it's cooling back down again.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Greven

UMMMM, what about every single prediction made by their modeling has been wrong didn't you understand. You described a theory of AGW.

1) You don't even mention how much of atmospheric CO2 is man made.
2) You don't mention the fact that raw data is manipulated with predictive models to "adjust" for things like heat sinking, which for some reason they adjust raw data upwards? when heat sinking should actually RAISE raw temps and they should adjust them downward? How does THAT work?
3) These same predictive models have consistently been wrong in moderate length predictions yet we're supposed to trust them extrapolated out to the nth degree, because DOOM PORN.
4) As I said, only in AGW have failed predictions been hailed as accomplishments that necessitate even MORE drastic measures to be taken to adjust for what they predict.?.?.

Jaden

Supposed wrong predictions are irrelevant. Indeed, I did describe a theory.

1) Quantity does not matter to the theory, only the magnitude of change; greenhouse gases are gases that alter the energy (heat) distribution in the atmosphere, and we wouldn't be here without such gases. However, simple reasoning says that, if the CO2 in the atmosphere rises by 2 ppm per year, and we emit enough CO2 to raise it by more than 2 ppm per year, then we're kinda the ones making it rise. It is the change - the increase that matters.
2) Raw data and predictive models being wrong or right does not impact the physical reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something established more than a hundred years ago.
3) Models are attempts to describe the magnitude of change; the fact that over 20 Gigatonnes of CO2 is being emitted by humans annually can be calculated just by knowing the amount of fossil fuels we consume and their average emissions - which are far more than the annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere. AGW is a slowly-unfolding calamity compared to say the Spanish Flu, which killed about 5% of the entire world's population within a year.
4) I'm not sure what failed predictions you refer to, nor why you think they matter to the theory of AGW.

originally posted by: JimboSliceLV
No summer highs where broken by 10 degrees. Not that I can find. Am I missing something here?

I think they're talking about temperatures on specific days, and not in general. In Southern California, a lot of the hottest days are in September. The recent heat wave was really the first real hot one of the year. It had mostly been mild and even downright chilly before that.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JimboSliceLV
No summer highs where broken by 10 degrees. Not that I can find. Am I missing something here?

I think they're talking about temperatures on specific days, and not in general. In Southern California, a lot of the hottest days are in September. The recent heat wave was really the first real hot one of the year. It had mostly been mild and even downright chilly before that.

That is the impression I have as well.

For a given location, an historical high for that date was eclipsed by up to 10 degrees.

Apparently the uniqueness of this event consists of the wide geographic distribution of the heatwave, the time of year, the duration, and the magnitude of the record-breaking temperature increase.

When the trend of an unusually high number of untimely and rare weather events happen within a relatively short time-period, one must accept that something is amiss in the environment.

-dex

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Greven

UMMMM, what about every single prediction made by their modeling has been wrong didn't you understand. You described a theory of AGW.

1) You don't even mention how much of atmospheric CO2 is man made.
2) You don't mention the fact that raw data is manipulated with predictive models to "adjust" for things like heat sinking, which for some reason they adjust raw data upwards? when heat sinking should actually RAISE raw temps and they should adjust them downward? How does THAT work?
3) These same predictive models have consistently been wrong in moderate length predictions yet we're supposed to trust them extrapolated out to the nth degree, because DOOM PORN.
4) As I said, only in AGW have failed predictions been hailed as accomplishments that necessitate even MORE drastic measures to be taken to adjust for what they predict.?.?.

Jaden

Supposed wrong predictions are irrelevant. Indeed, I did describe a theory.

1) Quantity does not matter to the theory, only the magnitude of change; greenhouse gases are gases that alter the energy (heat) distribution in the atmosphere, and we wouldn't be here without such gases. However, simple reasoning says that, if the CO2 in the atmosphere rises by 2 ppm per year, and we emit enough CO2 to raise it by more than 2 ppm per year, then we're kinda the ones making it rise. It is the change - the increase that matters.
2) Raw data and predictive models being wrong or right does not impact the physical reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something established more than a hundred years ago.
3) Models are attempts to describe the magnitude of change; the fact that over 20 Gigatonnes of CO2 is being emitted by humans annually can be calculated just by knowing the amount of fossil fuels we consume and their average emissions - which are far more than the annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere. AGW is a slowly-unfolding calamity compared to say the Spanish Flu, which killed about 5% of the entire world's population within a year.
4) I'm not sure what failed predictions you refer to, nor why you think they matter to the theory of AGW.

A small upward trend in a moving average plotted through the “global average temperature” is not a “calamity” but a mathemstical contrivance that has next to no physical meaning. And that is all that your “global warming” is, by its operational definition.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Greven

UMMMM, what about every single prediction made by their modeling has been wrong didn't you understand. You described a theory of AGW.

1) You don't even mention how much of atmospheric CO2 is man made.
2) You don't mention the fact that raw data is manipulated with predictive models to "adjust" for things like heat sinking, which for some reason they adjust raw data upwards? when heat sinking should actually RAISE raw temps and they should adjust them downward? How does THAT work?
3) These same predictive models have consistently been wrong in moderate length predictions yet we're supposed to trust them extrapolated out to the nth degree, because DOOM PORN.
4) As I said, only in AGW have failed predictions been hailed as accomplishments that necessitate even MORE drastic measures to be taken to adjust for what they predict.?.?.

Jaden

Supposed wrong predictions are irrelevant. Indeed, I did describe a theory.

1) Quantity does not matter to the theory, only the magnitude of change; greenhouse gases are gases that alter the energy (heat) distribution in the atmosphere, and we wouldn't be here without such gases. However, simple reasoning says that, if the CO2 in the atmosphere rises by 2 ppm per year, and we emit enough CO2 to raise it by more than 2 ppm per year, then we're kinda the ones making it rise. It is the change - the increase that matters.
2) Raw data and predictive models being wrong or right does not impact the physical reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something established more than a hundred years ago.
3) Models are attempts to describe the magnitude of change; the fact that over 20 Gigatonnes of CO2 is being emitted by humans annually can be calculated just by knowing the amount of fossil fuels we consume and their average emissions - which are far more than the annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere. AGW is a slowly-unfolding calamity compared to say the Spanish Flu, which killed about 5% of the entire world's population within a year.
4) I'm not sure what failed predictions you refer to, nor why you think they matter to the theory of AGW.

Models don’t matter?

Because you have nothing even close to a sound model, you have no idea how changes in CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever their source, affect the “global average temperature” and no idea of how changes in the “global average temperature” affect local climates across the world. In other words, you have no idea of how and to what degree human carbon emissions affect the complex system of the Earth’s climates, yet here you are calling it a “calamity”. That’s idiocy or dishonesty or a mix of both.

This is fraud at the most basic level of science, so that one doesn’t need a degree in climate physics to understand this but only a sound grounding in logic and the philosophy of science by which to recognise when a “science” has grossly overstepped its epistemological bounds in its baseless speculative inferences. The Earth’s “climate” is not even well-defined let alone well-understood, so that climatology does not even possess the means to tell us what the theorists of AGW are proposing as though it were “settled science” - but people hold anything with the moniker of “science” is such quasi-mystical esteem that they think the claims of climatologists are akin to propositions of Newtonian mechanics, electronics, or basic biology - because “science”.