During the 1930s, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 100 ppm lower than today (310 ppm vs. 410 ppm), United States heat waves were just as if not more common than recent decades.
Recently there has been much ado about heat waves and the hottest-ever-recorded-temperatures making their rounds in Northern Hemisphere summer.
Yet scientists have determined that heat waves are largely driven by natural variability, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Was there a basis for anticipating
the 2010 Russian heat wave?
āThe 2010 summer heat wave in western Russia was extraordinary, with the region experiencing the warmest July since at least 1880 and numerous locations setting allātime maximum temperature records. This study explores whether early warning could have been provided through knowledge of natural and humanācaused climate forcings.
āThe July surface temperatures for the region impacted by the 2010 Russian heat wave shows no significant warming trend over the prior 130āyear period from 1880 to 2009. A linear trend calculation yields a total temperature change over the 130 years of ā0.1oC.ā
āModel simulations and observational data are used to determine the impact of observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs), sea ice conditions and greenhouse gas concentrations. Analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of this heat wave. They also provide evidence that such an intense event could be produced through natural variability alone. Analysis of observations indicate that this heat wave was mainly due to internal atmospheric dynamical processes that produced and maintained a strong and longālived blocking event, and that similar atmospheric patterns have occurred with prior heat waves in this region. We conclude that the intense 2010 Russian heat wave was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability. Slowly varying boundary conditions that could have provided predictability and the potential for early warning did not appear to play an appreciable role in this event.ā
Shiogama et al., 2013
Attribution of the JuneāJuly 2013 Heat
Wave in the Southwestern United States
āA severe heat wave occurred in the southwestern United States (US) during June and July 2013. To investigate the effects of natural variability and anthropogenic climate change on this event, we generated large ensemble simulations of possible weather using the MIROC5A climate model forced by āhistorical external forcing agents, sea surface temperature (SST) observations and sea ice (SIC) observationsā both with and without human influence. It was suggested that both the anthropogenic warming and an atmospheric circulation regime related to the natural variability of SST and SIC made the heat wave event more likely. On the other hand, no significant human influence was found in atmospheric circulation patterns. These results were robust for two different estimates of anthropogenic signals on SST and SIC.ā
These conclusions are consistent with the observation that heat wave events have not been increasing in tandem with the dramatic rise in CO2 emissions over the last century, further rendering the link between human activity and heat waves dubious.
In the United States, for example, where the most extensive long-term instrumental temperature data reside, there has been no significant trends in heat wave frequency since the 1880s, and there has been an overall decline in the number of decadal-scale heat waves since the 1930s.
Peterson et al., 2013
Monitoring and understanding changes in
heat waves, cold waves ā¦ in the United States
āFor the conterminous United States, the highest number of heat waves occurred in the 1930s, with the fewest in the 1960s. The 2001ā10 decade was the second highest but well below the 1930s. Regionally, the western regions (including Alaska) had their highest number of heat waves in the 2000s, while the 1930s were dominant in the rest of the country.ā
Image Source: (Peterson et al., 2013)
Ruprich-Robert et al., 2018
Impacts of the Atlantic Multidecadal Variability on
North American Summer Climate and Heat Waves
āHeat waves are primarily driven by internal atmospheric variability (Schubert et al. 2011, Dole et al. 2011), but their frequency of occurrence and severity can be modulated by atmospheric boundary forcing. Soil moisture deficits have been shown to play an important role in intensifying heat wave severity (Huang and Van den Dool 1993, Fischer et al. 2007, Jia et al. 2016, Donat et al. 2016).ā
āRadiative forcing variations, such as those driven by anthropogenic emissions, can also modulate the occurrence of heat waves (e.g., Hansen et al. 2012). Previous studies, based on Coupled Global Climate Models (CGCMs) integrated under different anthropogenic forcing scenarios, concluded that over the US, the number of heat waves would increase during the 21st century (Meehl and Tebaldi 2004, Diffenbough et al. 2005, Lau and Nath 2012). However, this increasing trend may be modulated by the impacts on land of low frequency sea surface temperature (SST) variability (e.g., Schubert et al. 2016, Seager and Ting 2017), such as that associated with the internally-driven component of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; Newman et al. 2016) or the Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV; Schlesinger and Ramankutty 1994, Knight et al. 2005). These low frequency SST variations may explain why there has not been any long-term trend of heat waves detected over the US during the 20th century, despite the increase of radiative forcing (Kunkel et al. 1999, Easterling et al. 2000).ā
Depietri and McPhearson, 2018
Changing urban risk: 140 years of
climatic hazards in New York City
āThe trends based on the NOAA meteorological data show that changes in the length of the heat wave events equal or beyond 3 days of duration are not significant. The mean maximum temperature of the heat wave is also close to stable over the 140-year period of study with no significant increase. ā¦ Results obtained from the in-depth analysis of the NYT articles, corresponding to the dates of longer lasting heat wave events (i.e., equal or more than 6 days in duration), show that the number of deaths and people affected in New York City significantly declined. ā¦ The change in coping strategies mentioned in the newspapers articles and divided before and after the 1960s illustrates how the advent of air conditioning can be most likely contributed to the significant reduction in mortality due to extreme heat. ā¦ Also not significant are the trends in extreme precipitation (beyond 1.75 in. and beyond 3.5 in.) with significant inter-annual and interdecadal variability.ā
Images Source: Depietri and McPhearson, 2018
Full story at No Tricks Zone
That’s because CarbonHeatā¢ is sneaky. It sneaks right past us, and deep into the oceans where it hides, biding its time. But, even though we can’t detect it, we “know” it’s there. Because, models.
He (CO2) works in mysterious ways. Amen
Man that CO2 is one diabolical trace gas.
Amazing that gateway review did not stop some of these studies from being published. I am sure that the CAGW attack dogs have now been released to try to debunk these studies.
Well if you actually look at the study you will see that it is alarmism all the way through. Literally, from the first sentence on. Maybe that’s what it takes to get a paper published in climastrology these days.
Tony Heller has been telling us that for years.
That is his focus. He gets a bit repetitious, but he’s found some good stuff.
I agree. One thing Tony does is to use raw data. When you look at the temperatures above 110 degrees reported by actual people and actual min-max thermometers, the 1930’s are way ahead.
Sadly the farmers who endured it are now pretty much gone. They left no doubt it was hotter then. Some blame goes to bad farming practices, but the pictures are worth a thousand words. Google “dust bowl” and then click on “images”.
As soon as I see temperatures are adjusted and models are used I get nervous. Old pictures do a better job of telling the tale: 2.5 million refugees.
We have an idealized version of farm life on the Great Plains. The semi-arid landscape can produce some nasty droughts. Though Laura Ingles Wilder wrote of beautiful family values, she experienced some tough times, and not all the hardship appears in “The Little House On the Prairie.” Laura and her husband Almanzo were among a wave of refugees driven by a Dakota drought down to Arkansas in the late 1800’s, by an earlier “dust bowl.” That is where she wrote her books. Her daughter was also a writer, and was quite radical for her time, stressing self-reliance and independence (hating IRS, FDR and Social Security), and is considered by some one of the “Three Mothers of the Libertarian Movement.”
Dust to dust, but the American Spirit rose from the ashes.
Science studies say heatwaves were more common in USA during the 1930ās
In other news: Bears poop in the woods, the Pope is Catholic, Dolly Parton sleeps on her back
Well, two out of three correct at least.
Which two and How would you know?
Well, bears definitely poop in the woods, and the pope is a Marxist, so…
Without knowing, I’d have to go with the process of elimination (so to speak).
Elementary my dear Watson. Bears live in the woods and top-heavy. Socialist heretics on the other hand.
Correction. Socialist greenies poop in the woods therby driving the bears onto the praries to pilliage the villagers.
Modern āscienceā began a little over a generation ago? Check this.
Taylor, C. C, H. B. Bigelow and H. W. Graham. 1957. Climatic trends and the distribution of marine animals in New England. U. S. Fishery Bulletin:57(115):293-345.
Many of the faunal changes are what we are seeing reported now, but most interesting are several figures on temperature trends at New Haven, Conn. for the years 1780 to 1953. The change was most apparent in winter temperature showing the second 8-10 decades record warmer than the first, the 1930s heat obvious, along with the increase in their last half century. Their last statement is interestingāāThese changes do not appear to have produced any obvious alteration of the general faunal characteristics of the Gulf of Maine region.ā
If you are interested in good historical science it is available on lineā Bigelow was at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, the other two US Fish and Wildlife Service at Woods Hole. There were no climate science programs at the time that I know of, only Oceanography and Meteorology.
https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/spo/FishBull/57-1/571toc.html
Climate science was invented by computer climate models. JUNK SCIENCE.
NASA JUNK SCIENCE
*****************************************************************************88
I laugh everytime I look at the NASA energy budget diagram. It has back radiation = to the total average solar input which is 1/4 of the direct bright sunshine on a hot summer day. When standing out in the sun one feels the heat on a bright hot summer day much more than standing in the shade. You can feel the UVA and UVB rays baking your skin. NASA would have us believe that back radiation even at night would be 1/4 of this. Or if I am standing in the shade I would still get 1/4 of the total solar input when standing in the bright sunshine on the hot summer day. THIS IS LUDICROUS and explains why NASA should not be in the business of global warming.
I am not certain that anyone should be in the business of global warming. Human kind got along just fine without that ‘business’ for many thousands of years….
Gotta hide gravitational potential energy somewhere.
Allan, as far as the chart goes, because Earth is not at absolute zero temperature, for IR you have to take the āemittedā, which is 398, minus the ābackā, which is 340, to give a net of 58 being radiated from the ground to the cooler sky. This is about half of convection and evaporation, about 1/6 of average daylight sunlight beaming down on you., and even less compared to a flat surface facing the Sun which can be 1000 watts per square meter. Does that help make sense with your senses? God only know why climate scientists show it the way they do.
Heat.
Thermal spectra has only one direction to travel,
Warm to less warm environs.
Thermal spectral waves cannot exist in the direction from a cooler environ to a warmer environ.
Solar thermal spectra [heat] warms the earths mass, the surface of the mass warms the always cooler atmosphere and space.
The earths surface cannot increase its own temperature by receiving its own emitted energy back.
Back Radiance, thermalisation of such, and conclusion built on such premise is for loony tunes.
Doesnt matter how much you sex up LWIR back scattering or emission, once you thermalise it at the earths surface it isn’t science it is politics and pure belief in the non-existent.
Gary, Just checking to see if you mean to say what I hear you saying.
“Thermal spectral waves cannot exist in the direction from a cooler environ to a warmer environ.”
Does this mean that the sunlight surface of the moon emits thermal radiation out to space in all possible directions except in the direction of the Sun?
If you do mean this, how does an atom on the moon’s surface know that a photon it was about to emit would eventually strike the sun, so that photon could then be emitted in some other direction?
SR
He is correct, for heat to move, there must be a temperature difference, and heat can ONLY move from the higher temperature to the lower temperature. Atoms don’t need to move for heat to move; see radiant heat transfer. AFAIK, it don’t need no steeeenkeeeeng photons, either.
State record temps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
NOAA is actively expunging as many of those which are politically incorrect as possible, but the interwar years still stand out among highs. Half are from the 1930s, counting 1930 itself.
Tony Heller has excellent information on temperature extremes. And the religious faith of AGW claim he’s lying. Even though the information is printed in publications of all kinds, government, science, and news media.
Yes, but I don’t remember the 1930’s, so they don’t count.
The latest trick from the warmists here in Europe consists of a saturation campaign in the media over a period of a few days stating as a matter of fact that a national or continental heat record is about to be broken. We have seen it three times in the last few weeks with claims that the UK(twice) and European heat record was about to be shattered. When it fails to occur (by a wide margin in the UK scenario) there is silence or the temperatures are referred to as “near record” repeatedly. This tactic is cynical and deliberate and perfectly tailored for the social media moron generation. I’m blue in the face from correcting people who tell me that Scotland, England and Europe have had their hottest temperature ‘evah’ in the last few weeks!
Highest official temperature in Norway (35,6C) is still from 1970……
Friend just returned from Finland. He said they were all talking about the heat being “record-breaking”. They are used to highs in the 70’s and it was in the 90’s. He said there were no air conditioners in Finland. No night, either, so he had trouble sleeping.
Near record global average temps during the LIA!!! ONLY two degrees lower than present EXTREME average temperatures…….
Low point in the 1960s, about the time of Al Gore’s coming of age along with all the Boomers. I’m guessing this is yet another way their nostalgia, enhanced by the “me-first” attitude, is screwing things up for the rest of us.
I recently posted:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/13/why-climate-change-seems-to-have-faded-from-the-news/#comment-2404211
Richard V wrote:
“I consider that there is a very strong chance that the temperatures today are no warmer than that of the late 1930s/early 1940s.”
I agree with you Richard.
It was almost certainly warmer-than-today in North America in the 1930’s and this may also be true globally.
Best, Allan
_________________________
This is consistent with the following statements from this article, slightly edited:
During the 1930s, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 100 ppm lower than today (310 ppm vs. 410 ppm), United States heat waves were more common than recent decades.
These conclusions are consistent with the observation that heat wave events have not been increasing in tandem with the dramatic rise in CO2 emissions over the last century, further rendering dubious the link between human activity and heat waves.
_________________________
There is NO credible catastrophic man-made global warming crisis ā it exists only in the fevered minds of global warming fanatics.
Best, Allan
HERE IS AN UPDATE ON THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL SOUR GAS CASUALTIES IN SE CALGARY in 2016 ā NOT āTENS OF THOUSANDSā AS I STATED BELOW; MORE LIKE 250,000.
A previous post is here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/18/approaching-grand-solar-minimum-could-cause-global-cooling/#comment-2307521
THE MAZEPPA CRITICAL SOUR GAS STORY
I received an award recently from the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
As an uninvolved citizen and a Professional Engineer, I was advised in May 2016 of an extremely dangerous situation. Following the Professional Engineersā Code of Ethics, I investigated, established the facts and reported to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). This situation was then made safe by the AER.
This action by the AER is the most severe reprimand against any company in the history of the Alberta energy industry.
The potential death tool in a worst-case scenario could have totaled many tens of thousands ā a Hiroshima-scale disaster.
Next week I get a spandex outfit, complete with cape. š
ā Allan MacRae. P.Eng.
NEW INFORMATION: Compton Petroleum had the Mazeppa Project (before Lexin Resources acquired it), and applied circa 2005 to drill more sour gas wells in the same area.
Reference: http://elc.ab.ca/Content_Files/Files/NewsBriefs/EUBgiveconditionalgreenlight-Vol20-3.pdf
For Comptonās well applications, the calculated emergency planning zone (āEPZā) radius was 11.94 km during the drilling phase and 14.97 km during the completion phase. IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT MORE THAN 250,000 PEOPLE LIVED AND WORKED WITHIN THE CALCULATED 14.97 KM EPZ.
Regards, Allan
“It was almost certainly warmer-than-today in North America in the 1930ās and this may also be true globally.”
__________________________
I wonder what do you base your ‘almost certain’ confidence on Allan? Here is an image of the average global temperature anomaly in the 1930s (1931-1940):
Yes, lots of heat over US and southern Greenland. Some also in parts of South America and Asia. But the global temperature anomaly is negative, -0.14 C cooler than the 1951-1980 global average (the figures in these mapped representations aren’t exactly the same as the tabulated data, but are within a couple of hundredths of a degree).
Here is an image of the average global temperature anomaly the last 10 years’ data, to the
final full year (2008-2017):
What are we to make of it? How can one reasonably say that temperatures globally were warmer in the 1930s than they are today?
DW Rice – I suggest data tampering is one credible explanation.
Tony Heller posted this sequence ā all āglobalā surface temperatures ā see the cooling of ~1940-1975 disappear?
Source: Tony Heller
https://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/
Those global temperature charts both clearly show that the 1930s were considerably cooler than the past decade; so I don’t see how this supports your claim that the 1930s were warmer than today.
What data set was used to produce those charts? The raw data? Or the “homogenized” data that has been cooked to make the past cooler, as Allan tried to point out to you. Did your computer screen not refresh yet? Or are you willfully ignoring it?
Allan’s claim was that global temperatures were warmer during the 1930s than more recently. The two charts he posted, GISS 2002 and GISS 2014 both confirm that they weren’t; notwithstanding the fact that they both end 18 years ago!
There are three charts…
The 1930’s/1940’s were cooled 0.4c and the cooling period (ice age scare) after warmed 0.4c. Add these adjustments together to give 0.8c. The 0.8c is almost the difference between recently and then. (0.7c) The warming shown is fake only caused by adjustments. Put warming back to 1930’s/1940’s and cool the later period as it was and we then have recent temperature little cooler (-0.1) to back then. (the recent strong El Nino may have beaten it, doubtful because satellite only showed 0.1c difference between 1998)
Every global temperature data set we have shows that recent temperatures are warmer than the 1930s. Here are the decadal averages for the 1930s (1931-40) versus the last 10 full years (2008-17) for each set, all set to the 1981-2010 anomaly base:-
GISS 1931-1940: -0.10 C
GISS 2008-2017: +0.72 C
HadCRUT4 1931-1940: -0.10 C
HadCRUT4 2008-2017: +0.57 C
NOAA 1931-1940: -0.08 C
NOAA 2008-2017: +0.72 C
BEST 1931-1940: -0.25 C
BEST 2008-2017: +0.53 C
Every single one estimates that the most recent decade was at least +0.7 C warmer than the 1930s globally and 3 out of the 4 estimate +0.8 C warmer.
They all use generally the same raw data that had changed numerous time before.
I know this is only one example, but this location in the UK has one of the biggest effects from climate away from the poles being next the Atlantic Ocean. The other reason being the North Atlantic ocean has found to have the largest variation in temperature during past history.
This paper found no evidence for recent warming, but it is an upland area with no urban heat island. Even here the 1930’s/1940’s were generally the warmest period until the end of the record in 1995. (it was published in 1997)
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1997.tb06251.x
During 1931-1940 virtually all the colours showing white/green/blue don’t have any data with the exception of Australia. Despite during the 1930’s there were record heatwaves during the time. The SST’s are generally made up because there was no coverage for most of it. Not forgetting most temperatures especially around this period have been cooled over the decades to hide how warm they actually were.
It is like comparing a beach ball to a tennis ball. They are representing balls, but they nothing like each other.
Tony’s been all over this for years.
So we’ve heard! š
It is widely accepted that it is so-called blocking highs that are responsible for extended periods of increasingly hot weather. The usual suspect are now blaming the latest one on AGW (Roger Harrabin on BBC tonight) and telling us it will become more frequent as climate change progresses. Sadly for them, science currently predicts that climate change will reduce the frequency of these events (The response of highāimpact blocking weather systems to climate change from AGU – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL069725). From the abstract “Climate models generally predict a small decline in blocking frequency under anthropogenic climate change. ” Nevertheless they are desperately modelling away to try to get a contrary conclusion despite the fact that there is “a lack of understanding of the physical mechanisms underlying the change”.
From a simplistic standpoint, the reduction in frequency makes sense, since the prophets of doom are predicting more turbulent weather as temperatures rise, which would mitigate against the formation of long term static weather systems.
So they are trying to claim that CO2 is responsible for the placement of persistent high-pressure systems around the globe. CO2 supposedly decides whether to put the high-pressure system over California, or over the middle of the U.S. or over the east coast. How does that work?
That CO2 is one amazing molecule!
Yep. All that Californicating anthropogenic climate change missed Oregon. It was indeed warmer in the 30ās and the number of fires demonstrates this. Is it sentient? Does AGW know that left coast folks in California are more stupid than Oregonās left coast?
https://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Documents/Fire/FireIntelGIS/20180305_ODF_CenturyFireHistory_11x17.pdf
Thank you Pamela. You wrote:
“All that Californicating anthropogenic climate change missed Oregon. It was indeed warmer in the 30ās and the number of fires demonstrates this. Is it sentient? Does AGW know that left coast folks in California are more stupid than Oregonās left coast?”
To answer your question, YES!
Global Warming Alarmism (GWA) is the creation of Warmist Imbeciles (WI). It is a chimera, a figment of their fevered imaginations. The more WI you have, the more GWA there is.
It is an exponential function of the form
GWA = WI^E
where E is an exponent called the Global Warming Alarm Exponent and is typically between 1.4 and 1.8.
This equation produces a gradually accelerating curve of GWA that reflects the growing hysteria of the WI mob as their numbers increase, and the tendency of imbecilic hysteria to grow by feeding upon itself. The phenomenon was first described by Charles Mackay in 1841, as referenced below.
Regards, Allan š
___________________________
Reference:
āEXTRAORDINARY POPULAR DELUSIONS AND THE MADNESS OF CROWDSā
Charles Mackay (1841)
https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Extraordinary_Popular…
Excerpts:
āMen, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.ā
āOf all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruderās welcome.ā
___________________________
Allan,
With a bit of padding and proper wordsmithing, I think you could get your idea published.
You can use Mackay’s “Madness of Crowds” as an intro — we used to call it a literature review, but now, I believe, it is called framing. You need an equation or two with high precision coefficients and exponents. Throw in a couple of R^2 and a few sciency sounding references.
You might want to add 6 or 8 additional authors as that seems to be helpful to papers dealing with “climate science.”
Think about it: 15 minutes of fame for Allan Macrae !
Thank you John F. Hultquist for your comments.
Wordsmithing is indeed required to get this hypothesis published. Modern academic journals seem to prefer the use of obscure terms that hardly anyone understands, in order to convey a sense of intellectual superiority.
This is a problem. My training as an engineer requires me to write in terms that reasonably educated people can understand, because what engineers do typically matters, can save lives if properly understood, and cost lives and huge sums of money if mis-communicated.
Here is one example:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/06/science-studies-say-heatwave-were-more-common-in-usa-during-the-1930s/#comment-2422946
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/18/approaching-grand-solar-minimum-could-cause-global-cooling/#comment-2307521
Academics , on the other hand, rarely write anything that has an immediate and critical impact on the lives of others. The term āivory towerā exists for a reason. Also, a huge number of academic papers contain research findings that cannot be replicated by others.
In the social sciences, the current trend toward gender-based hysteria and extremist snow-flakery is leading our young people down a very destructive path. I see no way these young people can survive and contribute in the real world, outside the cradle of academia. They may find a niche in some non-productive jobs in a few Western countries, but will be utterly helpless and hopeless in other countries and the real world out there.
Then there are social manias such as global warming hysteria ā an academic fraud that is so obvious that any educated person could have dismissed it when it was first proposed circa 1985 or earlier, based on the evidence available at that time. The global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to ~1977 effectively disproved the CAGW hypo, on the balance of probabilities.
Since then, there have been many more lines of evidence that also demonstrate that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very low, far too low for there to be any real global warming crisis.
The blatant academic misconduct exposed in the Climategate emails further tarnishes the warmist case. The global warming/green energy fraud continues because it has become a multi-trillion-dollar industry that corrupts corporations, academics and politicians ā it is a disgrace.
Other than that, Iām having a great day! Hope you are too.
My best wishes to all, Allan
…or even by the original publishers who allegedly conducted said alleged research.
…and could even be negative.
The 1930s were such an extreme decade! Are there any good papers that look into why?
Unfortunately, real climate science is on a sabbatical and not due to return until the gatekeepers are ridden of.
Ric,
This page ā¦ https://www.weather.gov/arx/heat_jul36 ā¦ (for July 1936) claims
A strong ridge of high pressure set up over the west coast and funneled the heat northward …
One of the standard blocking patterns was likely involved.
My quick search did not find a proper analysis.
Further, nothing is said about the long period involved. One would need to do a proper search of weather summaries over a dozen years.
Maybe Tony will take this on as a project.
In 1936 we didn’t know anything about jet streams, even the military had not yet flown that high, but I can imagine a circuitous jet stream, moving from the Baja area (has anyone checked the weather records of the southwest, the Phoenix Valley for example? I bet they had a decades-long monsoon that likely shows up in the records) across the southwest and into or around the Great Plains, that reinforced the high pressure ridge you mentioned. And see Caleb Shaw’s comment about altering the Great Plains. The grasshopper swarms and subsequent decline, did they swarm as a result of the drought? Or was their population crash a result of the drought? Or did that cause the drought? There’s a lot to study, yet!
I can’t give links, but as I recall dry ground creates higher temperatures which create a Heat High Pressure which deflects rains, and perpetuates the drought. I’ve seen this set-up hold for a summer, but not a decade. Likely some other factor or factors contributed. SST a likely culprit. CO2 likely not a factor, but plowing up the thick turf might have contributed, if we want to blame mankind.
One interesting bit of trivia I came across is that they used to have huge swarms of grasshoppers that wiped farmers out, but now that grasshopper is apparently extinct.
Buffalo populations dropped from at least 30 million to a thousand. That is a huge reduction in poops-per-day, and needs to be included in climate models. (Ha ha)
During the 1930s, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about 100 ppm lower than today (310 ppm vs. 410 ppm), United States heat waves were just as if not more common than recent decades.
Really just as common? Really?
Why that chart makes it look like heat waves were more common in the past than the present. Now you’ve gone and done it! You made them look seriously misinformed. Way to go! š
It’s a nice graph, Steve, but a source would be most useful. Something more that hovering over the image to decipher the url.
You are right – I found it on a Google Image search of “EPA Heat Wave Index” and I never noticed that it didn’t say as much on the graph once I pasted it up. Here’s the url for the page:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures
Here’s a global gif covering heatwaves from 1901 to 2010, which clearly shows the prevalence of heatwaves in the US during the 30s. Takes over a minute to watch the whole thing.
The 1930s “dust bowl” event was an outlier, it did not last. The recent upwards trend does look like it is going to last.
Some data from long term stations in Australia. Geoff
http://www.geoffstuff.com/are_heatwaves_hotter.pdf
Maybe one day our Glorious Leaders will come to realise that economic suicide isn’t sexy…
If in doubt, you can test this theory by giving away all of your money and resources to people overseas, and seeing what your wife or girlfriend thinks about it
Good test! All liberals should do this.
There. Fixed if for you.
I didn’t read any of the article yet, (I will), but why did I know that already? 10 years, 5 years. 2 years, one year ago, I knew that?? Maybe from seeing all the data over the years…
Not surprising since temperatures were warmer in the 30’s.
How useful, a graph that stops in 2000.
Information overload, for you.
It looks like the graph from before Hansen “adjusted” the Dust Bowl temperatures downwards. It is useful in that respect. I think 1998 is now higher than 1936, in the “new-and-improved” graph.
Yes, 1998 is higher than the 1930’s in the bastardized surface temperature charts, and they have significantly lowered 1998 with respect to subsequent years, too.
But that’s not the case with the UAH satellite chart (above) which still shows 1998 as the second hottest year in the modern era with the exception of 2016, which shows to be 0.1C warmer than 1998.
Not according to the satellite graph. The satellite graph shows the temperature being about ,3 degrees C higher than /79. If you apply that same .3 C to this graph, and draw a straight line backwards, you’ll end with the temperature exactly the same as it was in the mid /20s.
Just tack this UAH chart onto the end of the Hansen 1999 chart. They overlap:
One thing to notice is the Hansen 1999 chart shows 1934 as 0.5C hotter than 1998, and that means 1934 was 0.4C hotter than 2016, and that means we have been in a temperature downtrend since 1934. How does that happen when CO2 is increasing?
“How does that happen when CO2 is increasing?”
Um perhaps because the US and the world are not the same thing?
The U.S. temperature profile resembles the unadjusted temperature profiles of places around the globe. The unadjusted temperature profiles of other nations do *not* resemble the bastardized Hockey Stick global temperature profile.
Here’s an unadjusted chart of Finland. Finland is on the other side of the Earth from the United States, yet its temperature profile resembles the U.S. temperature profile with the 1930’s showing to be as hot or hotter than subsequent years.
I have examples of temperature profiles of other nations, too, if you are interested.
None of them resemble the bogus, bastardized global Hockey Stick charts.
Bear in mind that UAH v6 is just one interpretation of the satellite TLT data. RSS v4 draws quite different conclusions from it, particularly from 2000 onward, and is in good agreement with GISS surface data (slightly warmer in fact). Here all are shown offset to the UAH 1981-2010 base (12 month smooth):
Both UAH and RSS are published peer reviewed papers in support of their methods. It’s not immediately clear that UAH should be preferred over RSS, particularly considering RSS’s better agreement with the surface data.
Both RSS and UAH show 1998 as being second only to 2016 in the satellite record (1979 to present).
The bogus, bastardized global surface temperature charts don’t show this. They have demoted 1998 to an also-ran.
Tom,
1998 is just the 4th warmest year in RSS v4. Listed here, warmest year first:
2016 0.76 C
2017 0.65 C
2010 0.59 C
1998 0.58 C
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
Once again, it’s UAH that is out of step with the rest.
Firstly the RSS was recently altered with the UAH previously being the closest to surface temperature sets.
Numerous years back the UAH had a warm bias so was corrected later. The previous version of RSS did show very slight cooling trend instead of what the new version shows. (see link below) The UAH6 and HADCRUT3 were now in agreement.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5-land/from:2000/to:2014/plot/uah6-land/from:2000/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2014/plot/uah5/from:2000/to:2014/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2014/trend
The UAH therefore corrected to match other previous data sets at the time partly because it had found a warming bias. The surface data sets then change with confirmation bias with HADCRUT4 for example, warming the trend further and RSS changes to match this change.
The only thing thats happened is with confirmation bias the RSS was changed to match closer to the surface data sets. This doesn’t mean it’s in better agreement when it was deliberately changed premature with a sudden change to surface data. The UAH could easily be the correct one and the RSS wrong.
Why?
The change to RSS was too sudden to determine if it needed correcting. The surface is suppose to behave differently to the atmosphere so agreeing with closer to the surface still invalidates being a better agreement. Plus the UAH removed its warm bias and found no problems continuing as it was.
UAH and RSS both recently made changes to their methods. UAH v6 cooled v5.6 and RSS v4 warmed v4. They basically swapped places. Methods used for both changes were supported in peer reviewed publications; UAH by the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and RSS by the American Meteorological Society.
“The change to RSS was too sudden to determine if it needed correcting.”
__________________
The paper was submitted to AMS in October 2015 and wasn’t published until May the following year, after full peer review: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R
One of the RSS authors, Carl Mears, had said publicly for several years that the previous version contained a known cooling bias. Despite this it was frequently held up as evidence that there had been “no warming for 15, 16, 17 years… etc.”
The position is that UAH v5.6 was in good agreement with the surface data sets and v6 is considerably cooler; whereas RSS v3 was in poor agreement with the surface data sets and its update brought it into good agreement with them. Both show statistically significant warming over their full term.
“The position is that UAH v5.6 was in good agreement with the surface data sets and v6 is considerably cooler;”
This statement is wrong because UAH v5.6 back during 2000’s was warming more then the rest. ( I showed this in the link before)
Trends below show why the new change in RSSv4 disagreed with previous data sets at that time. This also proves that UAH v5.6 was too warm and needed changing. The UAH v6 agrees with the data from Hadley centre.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2002/to:2015/trend/offset:0.2/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.01/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/offset:-0.01/plot/uah5/from:2002/to:2015/trend/offset:0.18
“RSS v3 was in poor agreement with the surface data sets and its update brought it into good agreement with them.”
It was cooling more than the rest and I confirmed that. The problem now the recent change has made it showing more warming then the other data sets for the 2000’s and almost matches the UAH v5.6 that it was corrected for. The RSS has therefore taken on the warming error that UAH developed back then.
“Despite this it was frequently held up as evidence that there had been āno warming for 15, 16, 17 yearsā¦ etc.ā
HADCRUTv3, HADSST2, RSSv3 and UAH v6 still supported no warming for about 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2013/trend/offset:0.2/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend/offset:-0.01/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2013/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/to:2013/trend/offset:-0.01/plot/uah5/from:1998/to:2013/trend/offset:0.18
This demonstrates that UAHv6 was more correct than RSSv4 and the adjustments were too soon for RSS because the changes were rash and didn’t match previous decade trends.
It’s an old chart, and it ends in 2000. Also if you look at the decade of the 1930, it was warm but not as warm as later decades.
Heat is different from heatwave wherein the former represents local condition and the later represents the change the local condition from the outside heatflow. That is heat flow is a condition of general circulation in the temperature gradient direction. Same is the case with cold and coldwaves. For example in India, Western disturbances over the northwest India brings the heat or cold from higher latitudes and the stationary high pressure belt around Nagpur latitude movement helps the heat or cold through the wind flows [heatwaves and coldwaves]. they may reach southward direction if there is no circulation pattern in Bay of Bengal. If the circulation patterns presence move the winds to eastward direction. This is added to humidity that define the wetbulb temperature raise. Severe condition comes under 28oC of wetbulb temperature. This is for heat wave condition. The lower limit for coldwave is not fixed.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
LOL;
https://www.smh.com.au/national/many-parts-of-earth-could-become-uninhabitable-study-s-grim-warning-20180807-p4zvwx.html
179.05 year heliocentric analogues worked well for my forecasts of the heat in the summers of 2010 and 2013. The latter I had forecast from 2009, with the detail that the heat would begin from the second week of July 2013.
I think you are wrong. I know the 1930s in the US was not a particularly warm decade, and following decades are warmer. I will have a closer look later, I suspect cherry-picking.
The bottom line is Global Warming does not necessarily cause heat waves, but it makes them worse when they do occur. An important factor to consider is how often heat waves occur, and if they are becoming more frequent due to Global Warming.
“An important factor to consider is how often heat waves occur, and if they are becoming more frequent due to Global Warming.”
The answer is heat waves are becoming LESS frequent. The 1930’s had the most heat waves.
I guess I need to dig out my list of disasters that occurred worldwide during the 1930’s. There were many and most of them were heat related and they spanned the whole decade. If they took place today, the climate alarmist would be saying “I told you so! CAGW is here!”, but those kinds of disasters are not taking place now like they did then.
Here’s the EPA’s Heat Wave Index:
That EPA chart above ends in 2012. The EPA’s webpage shows a chart that ends in 2015.
Oh I agree the “Dust Bowl” event in the 1930s was strange, it just shows what the earth can throw at us when a “perfect storm” of conditions develops.
Your chart actually shows an upward trend, if you treat the “dust bowl” as an outlier. It’s an outlier because the event was not permanent and did not persist.
In the US 1930’s warmer and worse drought then any other decade up to 1994. (published 1995)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281996%29077%3C0279%3AIOCCFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I can see where the cherry-pick was applied, it is taking advantage of the definition of a “heat wave”. Well OK you can argue semantics if you wish. But if you look at high temperatures, the upward trend is clear, permanent and persistent. in other words, global warming.
There is nothing about heatwaves in that paper, indices, value or in context. It just mentions about temperature and precipitation trends including drought periods. The dust bowl was a huge extremely severe area event covering a lot of the US.
Do you actually think that graph representing area is at all accurate? It is a cherry pick in itself because it doesn’t even mention what temperatures it represents. For all anyone knows it could represent 80f for the hot daily highs. The percentage of land is also misleading because coverage of stations over the US are different from the early 1900’s until recently.
You could make that same complaint about any of the charts people are posting in this blog.
The point is the curve is showing an upwards trend across the US. More and more area is experiencing higher and higher temperatures. This is consistent with the rising trend in the US average temperature, which is consistent with the rising trend in the Global Mean Temperature.
The heat index chart also misses a lot of information, but the paper that I linked showed proper data that was not misleading. This paper showed that the 1930’s had the highest temperatures and longest drought until the end of the timeline.
The point being just a bit warmer temperature over a larger area doesn’t relate to a heatwave if the high temperature threshold is not high enough. There is no way of knowing whether that is true or not from that.
The land area chart is only showing a rising trend with lows and highs being almost the same. This still shows the 1930’s being most intense. With highs being almost the same, the graph is very questionable with the data coverage being different through the timeline. It is not a bit of increasing temperature that causes heat waves, but blocking patterns staying in position for a long time.
Finally the lows look like picking up an increasingly UI trend.
Why do blinded frniers house some and only some sciencetific reports to believe ? Why cherry pick?
Of the 50 states and DC, the record high temperatures in 32 of them were recorded before 1940 (Source: National Climatic Data Center):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
Q.E.D.
Yes, because of the Dust Bowl event in the 1930s, and the tendency for temperature measuring stations to be moved from warmer locations (in towns) to cooler locations (airports).
Anyway the US makes up only around 2% of the earth’s surface. A proper analysis of record high temps would a) have to be done for the globe b) take into account temperature station moves.