• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

record heat wave,... related to global dimming???

Germinator

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
446
Reaction score
210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Phoenix Has Record-Breaking Heat Wave with 50 Days of 110-Degree Weather

Phoenix, Arizona is in the midst of an unprecedented heat wave, hitting its 50th day this year with temperatures reaching 110 degrees or higher on Friday.

Although scorchingly hot summer temperatures are common in the desert city, the current year has broken earlier records for consistently high temperatures by some distance. The previous record for the most days at 110 degrees or higher in one year was 33, which occurred in 2011.

"It's not like we barely broke this record," National Weather Service meteorologist Matthew Hirsch told The Arizona Republic. "We sort of obliterated it."

newsweek.com

then there is the death valley record temp


as for the old death valley record, pretty sure that was inaccurate because old instruments were not shielded (so measurements read higher)


just an educated guess but given the pandemic and less traffic, hence less pollution and greater solar radiation is a likely contributing factor to the record heat wave


5b9bc8ae22141bbe08d7ea3802a406acdc404c82.jpeg
 
highest temperatue in 107 years

meaning it went full circle

nothing to note really
 
Last edited:
then there is the death valley record temp


as for the old death valley record, pretty sure that was inaccurate because old instruments were not shielded (so measurements read higher)


just an educated guess but given the pandemic and less traffic, hence less pollution and greater solar radiation is a likely contributing factor to the record heat wave


5b9bc8ae22141bbe08d7ea3802a406acdc404c82.jpeg

Unprecedented? Geologically speaking, we just got here. You might ask the Indians around there about their history I they don’t punch you out!
 
highest temperatue in 107 years

meaning it went full circle

nothing to note really

back in the day there was no standard for setting up weather stations,... so thermometers could be exposed to direct sunlight and mounted on a big hunk of metal (like a steel beam that was painted black),... get the picture now, with various kinds of device set ups there would be all kinds of factors that would boost temp readings (FYI this is how known climate deniers try and say there is a cover up by the climate-experts in collusion w/ the deep state)

Hiding The Decline In Australia

screenhunter_3249-oct-02-07-31.gif


Climate experts now pretend that the Australian temperature record began in 1910. They do this to hide all of the record hot years before 1910.

Hiding The Decline In Australia | Real Science

simple truth is older records should be considered worth a grain of salt simply because measurements were made on sloppy unstandardized setups (so old readings are often times ignored)

(PDF) Radiation Shields for Air Temperature Thermometers
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering how buggered the climate has to get before some people begin to accept that human actions have had an impact on climate.
 
back in the day there was no standard for setting up weather stations,... so thermometers could be exposed to direct sunlight and mounted on a big hunk of metal (like a steel beam that was painted black),... get the picture now, with various kinds of device set ups there would be all kinds of factors that would boost temp readings (FYI this is how known climate deniers try and say there is a cover up by the climate-experts in collusion w/ the deep state)



simple truth is older records should be considered worth a grain of salt simply because measurements were made on sloppy unstandardized setups (so old readings are often times ignored)

(PDF) Radiation Shields for Air Temperature Thermometers

we should have the same amount of skepticism today
 
we should have the same amount of skepticism today

They do. And there have actually been studies run on the "station citing" to see if there is a systemic bias induced into the data. So far the studies have found little worrisome impact to the overall data from things like poor station siting or even urban heat island effect.

Peterson et al found: "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures." (SOURCE)

This stands to some reason since the overall data that is noted is actually the anomaly or the difference vs a baseline temperature set. Measuring the difference in something is often far more powerful than measuring the number directly.

There was a denialist group that started a webpage for rating station sitings and when a bunch of stations were identified the folks who run the USHCN (NOAA) ran some comparisons based on the denialist group's ratings and found: "Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites in the unadjusted USHCN version 2 data; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years Menne et al. (2009) . Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative ("cool") bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive ("warm") bias in minimum temperatures."
SOURCE
 
They do. And there have actually been studies run on the "station citing" to see if there is a systemic bias induced into the data. So far the studies have found little worrisome impact to the overall data from things like poor station siting or even urban heat island effect.

Peterson et al found: "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures." (SOURCE)

This stands to some reason since the overall data that is noted is actually the anomaly or the difference vs a baseline temperature set. Measuring the difference in something is often far more powerful than measuring the number directly.

There was a denialist group that started a webpage for rating station sitings and when a bunch of stations were identified the folks who run the USHCN (NOAA) ran some comparisons based on the denialist group's ratings and found: "Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites in the unadjusted USHCN version 2 data; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years Menne et al. (2009) . Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative ("cool") bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive ("warm") bias in minimum temperatures."
SOURCE

what about urban heat islands and urbanization,aka where the stations are increased so it looks like global warming
 
what about urban heat islands and urbanization,aka where the stations are increased so it looks like global warming

THe article by Peterson that I noted in the post addresses that issue. There is no statistical signal in the overall dataset induced by Urban Heat Islands.

Urban Heat Islands are, indeed, quite real, but they have no significant effect in the overall data. Remember the data is grid averaged and processed to take into account a lot of site differentiation. But also Peterson et al state:

Peterson et al said:
Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.
 
THe article by Peterson that I noted in the post addresses that issue. There is no statistical signal in the overall dataset induced by Urban Heat Islands.

Urban Heat Islands are, indeed, quite real, but they have no significant effect in the overall data. Remember the data is grid averaged and processed to take into account a lot of site differentiation. But also Peterson et al state:

they do have a significant affect espeically when the station numbers are down
 
I see nothing there that finds a bias in the overall data imposed by the existence of Urban heat Islands. In fact the word "urban" doesn't even show up in that article. or "heat island".

Perhaps you can point me to the relevant part of the paper you posted.

the fact that icland used this wrong method
 
the fact that icland used this wrong method

Ummm, I'm still waiting for you to support your claim of Urban Heat Islands inducing a systemic bias in the overall dataset.

I can wait I guess.
 
I'm wondering how buggered the climate has to get before some people begin to accept that human actions have had an impact on climate.

What would you point to as the clearest example of the climate being bad now?
 
back in the day there was no standard for setting up weather stations,... so thermometers could be exposed to direct sunlight and mounted on a big hunk of metal (like a steel beam that was painted black),... get the picture now, with various kinds of device set ups there would be all kinds of factors that would boost temp readings (FYI this is how known climate deniers try and say there is a cover up by the climate-experts in collusion w/ the deep state)



simple truth is older records should be considered worth a grain of salt simply because measurements were made on sloppy unstandardized setups (so old readings are often times ignored)

(PDF) Radiation Shields for Air Temperature Thermometers
I am not sure that is correct, the Stevenson screens date back to the late 1800's and were widely used.
The screens used well made calibrated high-low memory thermometers.
Much research has been done on the screen data, but they are generally considered to be accurate to within a half of a degree C.
Stevenson screen - Wikipedia
 
What would you point to as the clearest example of the climate being bad now?

From personal experience the bloody horrible rise in the UK summer temperature.

British people just aren't built for hot weather! We love cold and drizzle and fog not endless sun and 30+ for weeks at a time. The sun is the real enemy of the people and it must be destroyed!
 
Ummm, I'm still waiting for you to support your claim of Urban Heat Islands inducing a systemic bias in the overall dataset.

I can wait I guess.

i did.
 

You mentioned something about "icland" (which one assumes is "Iceland") and how they used some method of measurement. But again, your citation mentioned nothing that I could find related to urban heat islands so I have no idea how "icland" was abusing anything. But also I realize the earth is a bit larger than just "icland".
 
From personal experience the bloody horrible rise in the UK summer temperature.

British people just aren't built for hot weather! We love cold and drizzle and fog not endless sun and 30+ for weeks at a time. The sun is the real enemy of the people and it must be destroyed!

So why do lots of people retire to Spain?
 
back in the day there was no standard for setting up weather stations,... so thermometers could be exposed to direct sunlight and mounted on a big hunk of metal (like a steel beam that was painted black),... get the picture now, with various kinds of device set ups there would be all kinds of factors that would boost temp readings (FYI this is how known climate deniers try and say there is a cover up by the climate-experts in collusion w/ the deep state)



simple truth is older records should be considered worth a grain of salt simply because measurements were made on sloppy unstandardized setups (so old readings are often times ignored)

(PDF) Radiation Shields for Air Temperature Thermometers

BS excuse making.
 
[h=2]Yawn…Central Europe Sees Near Normal Summer As Earlier Predictions Of Record Heat, Drought Fail[/h]By P Gosselin on 5. September 2020
Share this...


Earlier this year in spring, the WMO and others warned of another record hot summer and drought. The German media went bonkers in response warning that 2020 could even be hotter and drier than the 2018 and 2019 summers.
But now that the meteorological summer (June 1 – August 31) has ended, the data show that these earlier predictions were WRONG.
Germany’s DWD national weather service, having tabulated data from some 2000 stations nationwide, has issued its preliminary report for the summer of 2020. The results: a near normal summer. . . .
 
Back
Top Bottom