Global warming to take a 10 year vacation?

[Aslkahuna]

Just to let everyone know that two after PHX hit 110F they failed to make to 80F as an extremely cold and intense storm system for late May May hit AZ. Pressures dropped below 990mb in places which is an extremely low pressure for AZ even in the Winter. Friday Tucson failed to make 70 degrees which is over 25 degrees below average while the 3 inches of snow on Mount Lemmon and the snow in the Huachucas was the latest measureable snow on record breaking a record set in 1919 so I wouldn't be too hasty in trying to make something of the daily record set at Phoenix last Tuesday.

Steve

[Sanibel]

Just to let everyone know that two after PHX hit 110F they failed to make to 80F as an extremely cold and intense storm system for late May May hit AZ. Pressures dropped below 990mb in places which is an extremely low pressure for AZ even in the Winter. Friday Tucson failed to make 70 degrees which is over 25 degrees below average while the 3 inches of snow on Mount Lemmon and the snow in the Huachucas was the latest measureable snow on record breaking a record set in 1919 so I wouldn't be too hasty in trying to make something of the daily record set at Phoenix last Tuesday.

Bingo. This is exactly why I keep posting about "amplitude". I think you don't realize that what you wrote actually speaks for global warming in great emphasis rather than refutes it. Amplitude is an atmospheric effect caused by adding more energy to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a closed system. Like any closed system when energy is added (in the form of global warming heat) it has to go somewhere so it goes into stronger weather patterns. Like when strong energy is added to the ocean in the form of wind waves form and get big. Atmospheric troughs work the same way. The "bigger" they get the more they can shift temperatures in big swings. Warm air is drawn further from the south and cool air is drawn further from the north as the troughs have more energy and are therefore able to pull airmasses further. We have cool breezy weather right now in south Florida because a deep trough was able to bring cool air unseasonably far south. A few days ago record highs were being set. This is all happening while the average global temperature rises.

[shibumi]

Just to let everyone know that two after PHX hit 110F they failed to make to 80F as an extremely cold and intense storm system for late May May hit AZ. Pressures dropped below 990mb in places which is an extremely low pressure for AZ even in the Winter. Friday Tucson failed to make 70 degrees which is over 25 degrees below average while the 3 inches of snow on Mount Lemmon and the snow in the Huachucas was the latest measureable snow on record breaking a record set in 1919 so I wouldn't be too hasty in trying to make something of the daily record set at Phoenix last Tuesday.

Bingo. This is exactly why I keep posting about "amplitude". I think you don't realize that what you wrote actually speaks for global warming in great emphasis rather than refutes it. Amplitude is an atmospheric effect caused by adding more energy to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a closed system. Like any closed system when energy is added (in the form of global warming heat) it has to go somewhere so it goes into stronger weather patterns. Like when strong energy is added to the ocean in the form of wind waves form and get big. Atmospheric troughs work the same way. The "bigger" they get the more they can shift temperatures in big swings. Warm air is drawn further from the south and cool air is drawn further from the north as the troughs have more energy and are therefore able to pull airmasses further. We have cool breezy weather right now in south Florida because a deep trough was able to bring cool air unseasonably far south. A few days ago record highs were being set. This is all happening while the average global temperature rises.

This argument is about like blaming Kartina on global warming.....ANY event WELL within the normal perview of the weather being used to further a view is really baseless....be it hot, cold, wet, dry....the amount of standard deviation in weather is quite large....every day there will be some extreme event somewhere on the globe...there should be...it is normal....all within the normal variation of the weather. The effect of climate change (whatever you may think is driving it) can only be seen over much larger spans of time than a single day...or a single year...or, in my opinion, decades....I believe this because we have clear evidence from what has already occurred that natural climate change cycles occur over decades to centuries....and no single event or short term event(s) IMO can be used to further any thinking on the driving force behind it

[Extremeweatherguy]

This week:

Seattle smashes record high by 5 degrees with 90*

Phoenix breaks record with 110*.

Palm Beach sets 4 May highs in upper 90's* (Never has May had such a cluster)


If GW predictions come true that economy is going to be seriously interrupted anyway...

Over the last few days:

-Chicago hits a high temperature of only 50-degrees today (24-degrees below the normal high of 74).

-Late season frost and freeze warnings have been issued for most of the upper Great Lakes region tonight.

-Flagstaff, AZ receives a record snowfall on May 24th ( http://www.azcentral.com/i/sized/3/5/F/ ... 65F5F3.jpg )

-Phoenix, AZ sets a record cold high of 72F on May 24th.

-Fort Valley, AZ sets a record cold high of 43F on May 24th (beating the old record for the day by 6-degrees).

-Sacramento, CA sets a record cold high of 62F on May 24th.

-Porterville, CA sets a record cold high of 55F on May 25th.

-Williams, AZ sets a record low of 29F on May 23rd.

-Snowbird, UT receives 17" of snow on May 23rd.

As you can clearly see, these short-term weather fluctuations cannot be used to *solely* promote or deny global warming. It is the longer-term data that really counts the most.

[Sanibel]

and no single event or short term event(s) IMO can be used to further any thinking on the driving force behind it

I've been seeing people say this for many years now. My personal opinion is there is a scientific phenomena manifesting in the extreme temperature/pressure swings in Phoenix that has more scientific validity than generalized statements about long-term trends. So in this case it could be more appropriate to say "no general statement about long term trends can be used to determine away valid examples of amplitude currently happening". Perhaps with all these record lows and record highs it would be more appropriate to connect the dots and see it as the sign of amplitude it very well may be. It's not like this isn't happening at the same time as major ice retreats globally. What worries me most about this is seeing no one attempt to relate their answer to amplitude - which was my point.

[shibumi]

and no single event or short term event(s) IMO can be used to further any thinking on the driving force behind it

I've been seeing people say this for many years now. My personal opinion is there is a scientific phenomena manifesting in the extreme temperature/pressure swings in Phoenix that has more scientific validity than generalized statements about long-term trends. So in this case it could be more appropriate to say "no general statement about long term trends can be used to determine away valid examples of amplitude currently happening". Perhaps with all these record lows and record highs it would be more appropriate to connect the dots and see it as the sign of amplitude it very well may be. It's not like this isn't happening at the same time as major ice retreats globally. What worries me most about this is seeing no one attempt to relate their answer to amplitude - which was my point.

Respectfully, I think that is a bit myopic to look at it that way.....you are looking too hard for a sign so to speak.

Amplitude at this time of year is normal....it is how the seasons change...how the earth redistributes heat as the northern hemisphere warms from the higher sun angle....for that matter, except for the dead of summer in much of the USA, the weather regularly goes through amplification and deamplification...it is what the weather does...

In my mind (which is the ultimate subjective reality of course) I just can't see really ever holding any particular weather event as evidence of any long term trend......again it is simply within the average realm of deviation for the weather....if we weren't continually setting records of all sorts, I would think something has drastically changed about the climate....

[Sanibel]

you are looking too hard for a sign so to speak

That's too general. Unprecedented low pressures can't be shrugged off as "normal". They are by definition "abnormal". Abnormal snow events in close proximity to record high temperatures is a sign of the wider oscillations seen in the amplitude effect. Bigger waves equals higher highs and lower lows. Having them occur in close proximity is the sure sign of the deeper, stronger weather patterns that define amplitude. You don't have to look too hard to see that.

[shibumi]

you are looking too hard for a sign so to speak

That's too general. Unprecedented low pressures can't be shrugged off as "normal". They are by definition "abnormal". Abnormal snow events in close proximity to record high temperatures is a sign of the wider oscillations seen in the amplitude effect. Bigger waves equals higher highs and lower lows. Having them occur in close proximity is the sure sign of the deeper, stronger weather patterns that define amplitude. You don't have to look too hard to see that.

The word "unprecedented" is a bit misleading.....like calling something an "all time record 'fill in the blank'". My point is that there is no "normal" in weather, only averages...and the averages we have are over a very finite set of data....I'd almost wish that the word normal never be used in reference to the weather...unless you are living on an island somewhere and your seasonal and dinural temp ranges are very small....then you may be able to see an extreme and call it unprecedented...but even then it would only be evidence of a specific setup that is outside the realm of observed data....

The standard deviation for weather so large that in my opinion seeing records is no indication of overall climate change...even over a prolonged period of a season or even a few years. In the bigger picture it may or may not be part and parcel to a longer term trend....but individual events cannot be used to make any argument, be it hot., old, dry, wet, windy, etc....

IMO....

[Sanibel]

Well, my point wasn't over the exactly specific definition of normal, it was over the signs of amplitude exhibited in those patterns. I think they are there. This is accompanied by forest and species changes on Mt Lemon and the mountaintop island environments in the southwest. Those changes represent proven global warming influences. When they are accompanied by opposite extremes in the form of late snows on those same warming mountaintops that is the sure sign of the fluctuations of amplitude. So the point that individual readings can't be used as evidence is correct, but, just the same, not considering the totality of those individual readings in relation to the scenario in which they are happening is also not correct.

[Aslkahuna]

Actually, if one goes back a LONG way in my discussions of GW (which began when I first started going online back in 1989), you would find that I have often said that GW did NOT of necessity rule out extremes of heat OR COLD specifically because of the increased amplitude mentioned by Sanibel caused by the increased energy in the atmosphere brought about by the warming.

Steve

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Yes I agree Sanibel. More energy heat means more extreme trough
amplitudes, and more extreme temperatures with rising global heat.

[wbug1]

Global warming isn't going to take any holiday until the cause of it stops. Since it can't be stopped (for obvious reasons) the best that can be done is to slow it down.

[Jim Hughes]

Global warming isn't going to take any holiday until the cause of it stops. Since it can't be stopped (for obvious reasons) the best that can be done is to slow it down.

Yeah it's not like the sun is just going to go away.There's more to climate swings then just CO2-GHG levels .

[wbug1]

Global warming isn't going to take any holiday until the cause of it stops. Since it can't be stopped (for obvious reasons) the best that can be done is to slow it down.

Yeah it's not like the sun is just going to go away.There's more to climate swings then just CO2-GHG levels .

Care to be more explicit?

[Jim Hughes]

Global warming isn't going to take any holiday until the cause of it stops. Since it can't be stopped (for obvious reasons) the best that can be done is to slow it down.

Yeah it's not like the sun is just going to go away.There's more to climate swings then just CO2-GHG levels .

Care to be more explicit?

You made it sound like the earth is going to continually warm. I disagree. There are other important factors. I Even forecasted 2008 to be cooler, even before the La Nina got real strong.

http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php ... pic=146523

[wbug1]

I think it's a possible future, where the added heat finds it's way into melted icecaps and water lifted from oceans and dumped inland. The icecaps melting rapidly would be a worst case scenario, and if I'm seeing things correctly is occurring much faster than the worst case IPCC forecast. We have a 10 year window now, to avert major coastal flooding. Water at zero degrees has the same temperature as ice at zero degrees, the added energy goes into melting it. Increased storm activity ironically acts as a heat exchanger, ejecting some excess into space, decreasing the incoming radiation and having some cooling effect but dumping water wherever the storms happen to go.

[Jim Hughes]

I think it's a possible future, where the added heat finds it's way into melted icecaps and water lifted from oceans and dumped inland. The icecaps melting rapidly would be a worst case scenario, and if I'm seeing things correctly is occurring much faster than the worst case IPCC forecast. We have a 10 year window now, to avert major coastal flooding. Water at zero degrees has the same temperature as ice at zero degrees, the added energy goes into melting it. Increased storm activity ironically acts as a heat exchanger, ejecting some excess into space, decreasing the incoming radiation and having some cooling effect but dumping water wherever the storms happen to go.

I guess you think that the icecap levels are the most important thing now since the temperatures are most likely not going to be where the IPCC thought they would.

BTW do you know anything about solar-space weather? Or what it possibly might mean, weather-climate wise, to the earth's system?

[xironman]

Jim,

You can't see the graph of your prediction without becoming a member of your site.

[Jim Hughes]

Jim,

You can't see the graph of your prediction without becoming a member of your site.

If you scroll down a little on the first page (12:30pm quote) , you can see where I mention a drop of at least .10, and possibly even as much as .20. And 2008 has easily averaged this, so far.

You can see where we were back then with this temperature graph, and where we've headed since......

[wbug1]

If you scroll down a little on the first page (12:30pm quote) , you can see where I mention a drop of at least .10, and possibly even as much as .20. And 2008 has easily averaged this, so far.

You can see where we were back then with this temperature graph, and where we've headed since......

Jim, you are trying my patience. Is this average of yours a reliable source of information? I want to see the data source(s), the locations the temperature readings were taken from and the organization for which the employees or automated stations are collecting data for. In addition, you may not understand the significance of the down arrow in your last post. How's the average air temperature over Greenland figure in that diagram you just posted?