A picture is worth a thousand words:
It isn’t global.
This is weather, not climate. It is caused by a persistent blocking high pressure pattern. In a day or two, that red splotch over the eastern USA will be gone.
Image from Dr. Ryan N. Maue of WeatherBELL
h/t to Joe Bastardi
UPDATE: Dr. Roy Spencer puts it in perspective
June 2012 U.S. Temperatures: Not That Remarkable
July 6th, 2012
I know that many journalists who lived through the recent heat wave in the East think the event somehow validates global warming theory, but I’m sorry: It’s summer. Heat waves happen. Sure, many high temperature records were broken, but records are always being broken.
And the strong thunderstorms that caused widespread power outages? Ditto.
Regarding the “thousands” of broken records, there are not that many high-quality weather observing stations that (1) operated since the record warm years in the 1930s, and (2) have not been influenced by urban heat island effects, so it’s not at all obvious that the heat wave was unprecedented. Even if it was the worst in the last century for the Eastern U.S. (before which we can’t really say anything), there is no way to know if it was mostly human-caused or natural, anyway.
“But, Roy, the heat wave is consistent with climate model predictions!”. Yeah, well, it’s also consistent with natural weather variability. So, take your pick.
For the whole U.S. in June, average temperatures were not that remarkable. Here are the last 40 years from my population-adjusted surface temperature dataset, and NOAA’s USHCN (v2) dataset (both based upon 5 deg lat/lon grid averages; click for large version):
Certainly the U.S drought conditions cannot compare to the 1930s.
I really tire of the media frenzy which occurs when disaster strikes…I’ve stopped answering media inquiries. Mother Nature is dangerous, folks. And with the internet and cell phones, now every time there is a severe weather event, everyone in the world knows about it within the hour. In the 1800s, it might be months before one part of the country found out about disaster in another part of the country. Sheesh.
You forgot the “in part” or “largely” qualification that was in the originals.
The debate isn’t about AGW, it’s about CAGW (positive feedbacks and tipping points). There’s no 95% consensus on those, not remotely.
The US should be sued in World Court by the ROTW (Rest Of The World). Eastern and Central US has stolen all the rest of the world’s summer heat. It is even willing to put up with massive storms trying to keep cold air from getting in, in order to selfishly deprive everyone else! Those responsible should be put on ice, and left there until they’re terminally frostbitten.
It’s only fair.
History will show that all the authorities weighing in on this topic were intellectually corrupt, self-serving, grant-money-chasers except for the few disinterested, impartial experts who were paid large sums of money by the fossil fuel industry and the libertarian think tanks (funded by the fossil fuel industry) to explain to the public just how corrupt all those other people were.
@Glenn Skankey Tamblyn
Are you saying that this is a new phenomena, never happened before? Persistence of the Greenland below jet stream pattern is surely a key feature of interglacials as the Greenland above is of glacials. Historical evidence would suggest this is merely a natural response to natural process.
Everything that can possibly be attributed to AGW will have happened before — many times. But it does not follow that what is happening now cannot therefore be attributed to AGW. It all depends on the specifics of the case — on actual things, and not on references to history’s habit of repeating itself, or natural cycles, and so on.
K2 wrote: “With respect to temperature records, or in fact any record of a varying parameter over time, it is completely expected that the number of record extreme events will decrease over time”… and… “The telling number is the ratio of record highs to record lows. Changes in that ratio reflect changes in the base statistics, changes to the average temperature. ”
PHWEEEP! Five-yard penalty for logical contradiction. (Ok, I know, but I’m from the USA and we play mostly American football over here.) Unlike Herr Dr. Prof. Schroedinger and his cat, you are not allowed to assert that a statistical process is simultaneously stationary and non-stationary.
diogenesnj, Help me understand where the contradiction in what K2 wrote lies. I understand him to be saying that as we approach some natural limits in the physical world, fewer and fewer record low and high temperatures will be broken; still, as long as some record highs and lows are being broken, there will be a ratio between the two types of broken records, and that this ratio is significant for our understanding of climate change. Of course, all of our records are simply for the period of time during which observations have been made; and if we go back far enough in time, we will encounter new circumstances and new natural limits. But our concern is for what will happen under present circumstances with present natural limits; we are worried about the world that our children and grandchildren will have to live in. So far, then, K2’s observations seem reasonable; please advise.
Trouble with this posting is that NOBODY will see it only the few hundred here. if a major newspaper had this article front page it would mean something. Anyway ther is NO global warming check AMSU data. Actually July looks like itrs gonna be quite coolish globally haha
Mr. B. says:
July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm
The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. If you don’t want to believe it you don’t have to. But I for one am more willing to listen to the conclusions of people who have devoted their education, time, study and energy to this issue than to some guy with a blog……
____________________________________
As a scientist, I KNOW other scientists will lie through their teeth when it comes to money or their career. I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data. I have also been fired more than once for refusing to falsify data upon direct order from my superior.
My personal experience with the “Honesty” and “Integrity” of scientists is that it is rare, most will go along with the herd or with higher authority rather than stick their neck out. In my entire career I found only one other person willing to stand up for what was right instead of going along with what was easiest. She was also fired for her honesty. Most people are followers not leaders. I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader. That is what saying there is a “Consensus” and the labeling and denigrating of those who don’t go with the flow is all about. That practice alone should make people wonder about “The Science” Real science is about the quest for truth and facts not following “Authority” not being a member of the “A” list.
Here is the current state of “Honesty” in Science:
More articles about the lack of honesty in science.
A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
ScienceDaily: US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
A few individual cases:
In a July 26 letter to Cetero, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration describes the falsification as “extensive,” calling into question all bioanalytical data collected by Cetero’s Houston bioanalytical laboratory from April 1, 2005 to June 15, 2010. The FDA said Cetero manipulated test samples so the tests would yield desired results….
UConn officials said their internal review found 145 instances over seven years in which Dr. Dipak Das fabricated and falsified data, and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity has launched an independent investigation of his work.
The inquiry found that Stapel, former professor of cognitive social psychology and dean of Tilburg’s school of social and behavioural sciences, fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him. Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications, dating from 2000 to 2006
The United States Attorney’s Office..announced that a felony Information has been filed …. During the time period alleged in the Information, Grimes resided in Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, and was a Professor of Material Science and Engineering at The Pennsylvania State University.
LISTINGS:
Retraction Watch
.naturalnews.com:Scientific fraud news, articles and information
Many here at WUWT have a degree in science, engineering or the maths. That is why we smell something very fishy with the IPCC and “The Science”
This is what Forty citizen auditors found when they looked at “the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible.. the gold standard.”
Sorry, the more we dig, and look at the data we can get our hands on (as any true scientist is required to do) the more it stinks. “The Team” knows this and that is why the data was not released upon simple requests, Freedom of Information Acts and when push finally came to shove the data was “Lost”
Phil Jones: The Dog Ate My Homework
From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing
Lonnie and Ellen, A Serial Non-Archiving Couple
Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology, Review Editor of Climate Research and IPCC co-author, calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation
If you want more on the supposed “Integrity” of those you seem to believe in see: WUWT Climategate links
KR says:
“So no, this particular heat wave cannot be directly attributed to climate change. But we’re certainly going to see a lot more more of them, with fewer cold events, as climate averages change and the weather dice get loaded more and more heavily to the hot side…..”
———————————————————————————————————–
Thats what they said after Katrina. That there would be a lot more of them and they would become the new normal.
Chipotle says
Along the equator it is cooler than average
———
The map shows the equator as white or grey . . The map key has that as 0 to +3. So no.
a) Texas is not in ‘drought’ (okay, * perhaps far west Texas, but that can change in a comparatively short period of time like it did with the rest of the state); you write that as if it (Texas) were still ‘in drought’ in its entirety, which would certainly be an untruth (our reservoirs, our source for drinking and lawn-watering water are in GOOD shape this year).
b) Planting region-inappropriate trees and shrubbery is the #1 reason for ‘tree deaths’; I lost several region-inappropriate deciduous trees on account of 1) a late frost (last year) after out-leafing and 2) the stress from a long, hot summer and through accumulated stress factors finally allowed WOOD BORES to overtake them whereas other deciduous trees are doing just fine …
Continue to ‘talk your book’ brother; it’s all you’ve got.
* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/uuniversity-of-nebraska-claims-record-drought-in-the-usa-not-so-fast/
.
@Paul K2. You say that a loss of Arctic ice leads to a slow down in the Jet Stream which in turn allows weather patterns (like the current heat wave) to stick around longer.
The strongest / longest heat wave in recent memory was in the 1930s. Can you comment on Arctic ice loss then? I would like to believe climate scientists know what they are doing but my concern with your logic is they focus on short term effects and extrapolate them into long term ones.
Glenn Tamblyn’s comment marked July 8th at 3:00 AM is an excellent summary of the current theory covering changes in extreme weather patterns driven by polar amplification. Anyone interested in learning about the recent changes in extreme weather should read it.
I might only add that observational evidence shows that the Arctic sea level pressure (SLP) has been rising over the historical average. This higher pressure decreases the driving force for the jet stream. Please see Figure S4 in the Cohen paper that shows the observed Arctic winter SLP trends (and shows the models didn’t predict the rising trend!).
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL12.pdf
Also KR’s comments appear lucid and accurate.
I suggest readers might re-read this thread, concentrating on these commenters, and then an accurate understanding of two important points will emerge:
1. Extreme weather events will become more common due to overall rising temperatures, in the case of the mid-latitudes in the NH, the temperatures are rising over 1 deg F every ten years in many places inhabited by people (such as the Midwest states bordering the Great Lakes. This temperature rise “loads the dice” and increases the chances of extreme heat events, and increases the chances of severe precipitation events due to higher atmospheric moisture.
2. Meteorologists are now collecting data that show the decline of the Arctic ice pack has increased the seasonal SLPs in the Arctic, and has changed the amplitude and movement of the Rossby waves in the jet stream, creating more stable and persistent weather patterns. Blocking patterns in the jet stream results in extreme weather events.
LazyTeenager,
your bias is blinding you…there is blue, white, and gray, so -3 to +3. overall – just by eyeballing it – its mostly around white with the grays and blues about balancing. about 0 on average.
@ur momisugly Jesse Fell
Ah, the specifics of the case. Natural cycles have no reality in the anthropocene as all is different. Reminds me of an UK Chancellor of the Exchequer who decreed the end of boom and bust.
Science is best guess, informed by empirical evidence. That the linear models do not fit the real world, with no sign of the predicted signatures of unnatural climate change, suggests that the models have been falsified and that more attention should be given to cycles and empirical evidence.
Eric,
A cycle of nature is a sequence of events that is repeated at regular intervals. Like all other events, these events have causes. Too often, when people challenge the AGW thesis, they refer to cycles of nature as if they were absolute, autonomous, uncaused — but for a cycle of nature to be accepted as a serious alternative to the AGW hypothesis, these causes need to be identified. Otherwise, we are left with the explanation that increasing atmospheric CO2 isn’t causing temperatures to rise because — just because!
Joseph Bastardi – A simple test? Certainly.
Recent warming (last 30-35 years) has been on the order of 0.16-0.18 C / decade for the surface record, a bit less for the tropospheric. If the ongoing temperature record shows enough change to reject that rate of change at 2σ certainty, then, and only then, I will agree that the rate of warming has decreased.
That shift has not happened.
Short timeframes – 15 years (try 16 years, not starting with the 1998 El Nino peak, you get a completely different slope), 10 years, 3 years (Smokey – seriously?!?) – have too little data in the presence of ENSO, insolation, and just plain weather variation to establish a trend change.
You could, of course, attempt to account for and remove variations (ENSO, insolation, aerosol, etc), as Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 did; then 10-12 years should be enough time to establish trends. They, however, found no indication of reduced trends.
davidmhoffer – “I spent some time upthread on the explanation of the logarithmic nature of CO2, which the IPCC admits, and how that implies that additional CO2 over current levels is just not significant.”
The effects of increased CO2 (given current concentrations and any range we’re likely to see) are indeed logarithmic. If you look at the data for CO2 increase, however (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12 for data since 1958) and take the log of that increase, you will see a curve that is greater than linear (upwardly curving). You can do that easily in Excel, just insert the data in http://woodfortrees.org/data/esrl-co2/mean:12 and take the Ln( ) of the concentration column.
That means that CO2 increase over that period is greater than exponential, and that CO2 forcing is increasing faster than linearly. Personally, I would consider that significant.
Maybe it is your education (indoctrination?) on select subject and lack thereof on others that blinds you; it is very possible you have no idea of the workings of ‘weather’ and how that integrates over time into ‘climate’; so let’s assume you are just short knowledge-wise, IOW ignorant, of weather processes. Perhaps something like The American Weather Book would go some ways in resolving this exhibited and repeated ignorance on subject.
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_American_weather_book.html?id=Jgw6AQAAIAAJ
.
****
Paul K2 says:
July 7, 2012 at 12:47 pm
John F. Hultquist: Most homes in Pennsylvania didn’t have AC thirty years ago. None of my family had AC in their homes. We really didn’t need it much. That is likely why you had trouble sleeping. Now, most of my extended family there has AC.
****
You need to go back just a few more yrs. In western MD, I distinctly remember the miserable heat in the mid-60s drought-summers (highest was 106F on our thermometer in ’66) when the whole family had to retreat to the mildewy basement to sleep in cots. Thank goodness for AC some yrs later.
For comparison, the high yesterday here from a rural location was 96F.
Jesse,
The attempt to use CO2 as Occam`s razor to cut through the Gordian knot of climate complexity leaves an awful lot of loose ends, and the models which depend on it have been falsified. Time to look again at the cycles to understand the because.
Exactly my point. It’s time to look at the cycles — in particular, the things that are causing the cycles to happen. I am merely trying to say that in challenges to the AGW hypothesis, I often find “cycles” being proposed as explanations sufficient in themselves. They aren’t.
American journalists should feel ashamed at this East Coast, Washington centric news bias, it comes over as both elitist and rascist (as they seem to be saying other people who suffer similar weather are not as news worthy) as should those psuedo-scientists who feed them the alarmist nonsense.
Paul K2~ I would also like to hear your take, as per Steve of Rockwood To reiterate:
‘You say that a loss of Arctic ice leads to a slow down in the Jet Stream which in turn allows weather patterns (like the current heat wave) to stick around longer.
The strongest / longest heat wave in recent memory was in the 1930s. Can you comment on Arctic ice loss then? I would like to believe climate scientists know what they are doing but my concern with your logic is they focus on short term effects and extrapolate them into long term ones.’
Joseph Bastardi – If you don’t like or prefer the F&R 2011 methods, I might suggest looking at the much simpler analysis of John Nielsen-Gammon,
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/
where he simply plots temperature broken into the categories of El Nino, La Nina, and neutral periods. He also in part accounts for volcanic aerosols by excluding years immediately after major eruptions. What he finds is that all three categories show warming at ~0.16 C/decade. And no evidence of a decrease in that rate.
1. No doubt they’ve already decided on the answer, and are just accumulating evidence (and discarding counter-evidence). This is how a religion operates.
2. Looks like the expected result if half the thermometers are in places affexted by UHI or microclimate.
3. In the early 1900’s oranges were grown in Florida at least as far north as Cross Creek (north of Ocala). Now the groves have died back down to the Orlando area because of frequent freezes. Just mentioning that for those who think that an early-blooming flower is evidence in the context of cAGW.
Jesse Fell says:
Please show us these ‘large’ sums of money from the fossil fuel industry going to skeptics. I’m stilll waiting for mine. The oil and gas companies pour far more money into the CAGW religious coffers than they do to libertarian think tanks.
scarletmacaw, You could start here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
But that’s just a start. The money trail from oil companies to climate change denial groups has been traced by lots of investigators — a little Googling on this subject will turn up a wealth of information. Do you really believe that companies such as Exxon would keep their hands in the deep deep pockets while researchers say that burning fossil fuels is a threat to the welfare of humanity?
I would welcome a simple public debate by the proclaimed experts on the CAGW subject, but just about all of the Climonista’s refuse to do so. The resistance to FOIA requests and lack of desire to publicly debate speaks volumes, no?
If things are so obvious, it should we an easy thing to prove in an open forum for all to see.
Here is an example of how this subject should be handled with free and open dialogue and full transparency.