Update 2 on Northwest US Heat Wave Predictions

Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather Blog

The Reason for the Extreme Warmth on Monday–And My Podcast on the Heat Wave is Out

 I think I understand why the temperatures in western Oregon and Washington will be so stunningly extreme on Sunday and Monday.

A unique combination of factors will come together to make the unthinkable possible.  Forget the “heat dome” explanations found in the Seattle Times and some media outlets, or those saying that the extreme heat can only be explained by global warming.

I will call the phenomenon a downslope heat surge on the western slopes of the Cascades.   

A relative of the extreme heat associated with Santa Ana winds in southern California, but with a twist.

An Unusual Collection of Ingredients

To get this amazing event, a series of ingredients had to occur at the same time and same place.  To put it another way, it is like throwing several dice and having all of them come up with sixes.

Ingredient One: An unusually strong area of high pressure aloft over our region (known as an upper-level ridge), associated with sinking air and unusually warm temperatures.  

At the surface, this feature is associated with high pressure to the east of the Cascade crest, which tends to produce weak offshore (easterly) flow.  Such easterly flow keeps the cooling influence of the Pacific Ocean away.

Why did we get this high amplitude ridge?   It is associated with a highly amplified wave pattern in the eastern Pacific, which may have been caused by a tropical system interacting with the jet stream (see below).  This is the result of natural variability ( I did a paper exploring this issue with climate models)

Upper level (500 hPa pressure, about 18,000 ft) for 5 AM this morning. Red indicates higher than normal pressures/heights, blue below normal.   Note the highly amplified wave pattern

Ingredient Two: An Approaching Trough of Low Pressure That Creates Strong Easterly/Downslope Flow over the Western Slopes of the Cascades

The key to this situation is that there will be high pressure inland and an approaching area of low pressure (called a trough) that will approach our coast.  Between these two features, a zone of very large pressure difference will be created, which will be associated with strong southeasterly flow.

To illustrate, there is the weather chart for around 5000 ft (850 hPa pressure) that shows the key features.  A narrow zone of strong southeasterly flow will be created that will descend the western slopes of the Cascades.

The air will start off warm, with origins from the desert southwest, but will warm further as it descends the Cascades into western Washington.  Why warm more?  Because the air will be compressed as it descends into western Washington.

The absolutely unbelievable temperatures at 5 PM Monday illustrate what will happen.

Surface temperatures will get above 112F over and near the western slopes of the Cascades.  Large portions of western Oregon and Washington away from the water will be above 104F.


All this is happening during a favorable time of the year (the sun is powerful and days are long).  

Check out my podcast for more of the story:

You can listen to my podcast below or use your favorite streaming service.


You can also use your favorite streaming service (see below)
 Listen on Apple Podcasts
 Listen on Spotify Podcasts
 Listen on Google Podcasts

4.8 22 votes
Article Rating
235 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Insufficiently Sensitive
June 26, 2021 6:20 am

<i> Forget the “heat dome” explanations found in the Seattle Times and some media outlets, or those saying that the extreme heat can only be explained by global warming.</i>

Lovely to hear the whistle blown on the corrosively biased Seattle Times. Its concept of ‘Science’ is just about the equivalent of the Golden Calf of the Bible – something the local soreheads place blind faith in, but having very little to do with data or inductive reasoning or, God forbid, the scientific method.

n.n
Reply to  Insufficiently Sensitive
June 26, 2021 10:52 am

Inductive reasoning from the specific to the general. Deductive reasoning from the general to the specific. The former is cargo cult territory.

nyolci
June 26, 2021 6:28 am

To get this amazing event, a series of ingredients had to occur at the same time and same place.

Like it or not, this is the actually predicted consequence of global warming. The likelihood of these “series of ingredients” to occur is getting higher and higher, elevating the likelihood of severe heat waves in turn. Of course it’s next to impossible to prove that this particular heat wave is the direct consequence of AGW but the increasing number and severity of heat waves surely are. For all the bullshiting about the “Monckey pause” and the natural variability cycle that is turning around producing a cooling, and the impeding end of the interglacial effective from this February, in reality you can expect these extreme heat waves as regular guests in your neighborhood.

rbabcock
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 6:42 am

How about a link showing we are actually having increasingly severe heat waves? Facts?

nyolci
Reply to  rbabcock
June 26, 2021 6:58 am

How about a link showing we are actually having increasingly severe heat waves?

Hm, you caught me… 🙂 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves I interpret this for you, I guess you need some help. The number of heat waves per year tripled (3x) since the 60s, they are longer (in days) by 30%, and they are hotter by a third (degC). And more to come! https://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5686/994
FYI I got these links after a two second search. Internet is magnificent. You should learn it.

Last edited 2 months ago by nyolci
Komerade Cube
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:16 am

This isn’t much of a data set. 1961 to 2019. On top of that it is a highly suspect EPA site. I briefly looked for something longer or more authoritative but didn’t run across anything.

nyolci
Reply to  Komerade Cube
June 26, 2021 7:21 am

I briefly looked for something longer or more authoritative but didn’t run across anything.

EPA is a chief institution of applied science whether you like it or not, you can’t get anything more authorative. The “longer” part is a bit more problematic due to the increasing paucity of data as we go back in time.

Insufficiently Sensitive
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:35 am

EPA is a chief institution of applied science whether you like it or not, you can’t get anything more authorative. 

Applied politics, not science. It is a political weapon devised to obstruct engineers from building better upholstered caves for humans to live in.

nyolci
Reply to  Insufficiently Sensitive
June 26, 2021 7:44 am

to obstruct engineers

Well, if we want to stay on the level of simplistic conspiracy theories, I have to tell you it doesn’t obstruct me for sure 🙂 Please get your contheos a bit more sophisticated.

steve
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:42 am

You ever heard of the 1930’s

David Kamakaris
Reply to  steve
June 26, 2021 9:02 am

Or the Medieval, Roman climate Optimum, mid-Holocene, etc etc. Nyolci is unaware of Earth’s history before his lifetime.

nyolci
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 26, 2021 10:54 am

Or the Medieval, Roman climate Optimum, mid-Holocene … Nyolci is unaware of Earth’s history

Wrong (as always). And here comes the real irony. How do you know about the Medieval, Roman etc. climate optima? Because of climate reconstructions. The most well known of these is Mann’s. So please decide, do you accept these reconstructions (so you have to accept Mann’s too) or reject. In the latter case pls stop bullshiting about these optima. FYI according to the current reconstructions the current temperature is already higher than any of these optima.

John Tillman
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:03 pm

Mann’s reconstruction is totally bogus.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:39 pm

Well you sure tipped your hand in citing Mann as your go-to for the climatology you espouse. No wonder you sound so foolish..

How about this for a reconstruction that blows all your ridiculous propaganda in the gutter where they belong.

tree-stump-climate.jpg
IAMPCBOB
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 5:07 pm

Since you seem to enjoy talking about bullshit, let me say this about that: Bullshit!

Gene
Reply to  nyolci
June 28, 2021 12:31 pm

Seems you’ve joined the far left religious climate cult… facts and the history of the Earth’s climate cycles be damned! Maybe you can explain the major ice age during the Carboniferous period… when CO2 levels were at or about 4,400ppm?

David Kamakaris
Reply to  nyolci
June 28, 2021 3:07 pm

” stop bullshitting about these optima”
Bullshitting is your forte. Still want me to stop? Step out from behind your computer screen and make me.

I learned about the Medieval, Roman, mid-Holocene optimums in school studying geology, you know, Earth history. I accept reconstructions when they’re based upon sound science which eliminates anything Mann has done, especially the hockey stick. You seem to acknowledge the existence of the MWP & LIA. Where are they in Mann’s vaunted hockey stick? So I don’t accept Mann’s reconstruction, nor should you. But you go right ahead and continue to cite Mann. I certainly won’t stop you or issue you threats to do so. Being and sounding foolish is something you do well.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 26, 2021 5:06 pm

This is more typical of the millenials.

nyolci
Reply to  steve
June 26, 2021 10:49 am

You ever heard of the 1930’s

Yes. FYI we are already beyond those extremes.

MAL
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 11:10 am

Yes. FYI we are already beyond those extremes.” You don’t have a clue do you do you?

Simon
Reply to  MAL
June 26, 2021 12:38 pm

You don’t have a clue do you do you?”
I think he does he does.

rah
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 12:51 pm

No we aren’t even close as the first graph in the flash shows. Hiding 230 years of heat waves:
https://youtu.be/cvdivKMRrZs

John Tillman
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:12 pm

We are not far beyond the 1930s, let alone the Medieval, Roman, Minoan and Egyptian Warm Periods and Holocene Climatic Optimum.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:40 pm

Not even close.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:45 pm

When climate journalists and politicians don’t have any factual information on their side, they make up fake appeals to authority about consensus in an effort to get people to turn their brain off.

“Countless Scientists” – YouTube

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 27, 2021 8:42 am

Like Nyolci claiming Mann’s Hockey Stick version is the most well-known, as if that makes it more valid than lesser-known mortals and their efforts.

Mann’s Hockey Stick is special in a way: It is one of the foundations of the Biggest Lie in Climate Science: Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change. It’s well known for being unsupportable scientifically, i.e., a joke.

Well known does not necessarily equate with being good or correct.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 27, 2021 10:49 am

Well known does not necessarily equate with being good or correct.

Yep … notorious is rarely a positive recommendation. For instance M.E. Mann will undoubtedly be a footnote in history as a notorious fraudster … much like Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man scam.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 28, 2021 3:59 am

Yes, “notorius” is a better descriptive word.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 27, 2021 1:51 pm

What part of “hide the decline” and Mann’s “Nature trick” does Nyolci not get?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Tillman
June 28, 2021 3:58 am

He probably gets it, he just doesn’t want to acknowledge it.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 5:08 pm

NO, we are not. Not by a long shot.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
June 27, 2021 8:28 am

“Yes. FYI we are already beyond those extremes [1930’s].”

Not according to James Hansen. Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and since 1998, and 2016 are statistically tied for the warmest temperature since the 1930’s, that would still make 1934 the “hottest year evah!”, and no, we are not beyond the extremes of the 1930’s, we are about 1.1C cooler than the 1934 record high, right this minute.

Read ’em and weep!

comment image

Here’s Hansen’s 1999 chart:

comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
IAMPCBOB
Reply to  steve
June 26, 2021 5:05 pm

LMAO!!! I seriously doubt whether nyolci has, but he/she certainly hopes none of US have! Believe me, there are still MILLIONS of us old tymers out here, and WE do remember them! Well, I was born in 1939, but my parents and grandparents told me a lot about those days. Are you trying to blow smoke up our azes?

Citizen Smith
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:00 am

“EPA is a chief institution of applied science”?  Interesting.  This is a new concept I have never considered.  I have always thought of them as activists headed by a political appointee.  Sometimes the appointee tries to deradicalize the employee base and limit their power and sometimes the appointee stirs them up into a veritable wasps’ nest.  For example, they tried listing co2 as a pollutant. Not very sciency at all.  “Authoritative” though is an apt description.  Lets go with a Chief Institution of Applied Karens.

nyolci
Reply to  Citizen Smith
June 26, 2021 10:59 am

For example, they tried listing co2 as a pollutant. Not very sciency at all.

Well, no wonder these things are decided by scientists and not deniers like you.

Richard Patton
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 12:29 pm

I see someone has run out of evidence for ammunition and is starting to sling mud (name calling)

Simon
Reply to  Richard Patton
June 26, 2021 12:38 pm

So you agree name calling is poor form?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 28, 2021 3:53 am

Yeah, but you wouldn’t ever call people names, would you, Simon? You called me a racist for describing the Mad Mullahs of Iran as Mad Mullahs. Hypocrite.

B Clarke
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 12:49 pm

What is a denier?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  B Clarke
June 26, 2021 2:48 pm

What is a denier?

She can’t answer that. I’ve asked the same question numerous times.

B Clarke
Reply to  Rory Forbes
June 26, 2021 2:53 pm

Two questions I have asked, two questions go unanswered,
The dark side sends its disciples in vain.

Simon
Reply to  B Clarke
June 26, 2021 4:13 pm

Someone who denies truth/reality.

B Clarke
Reply to  Simon
June 26, 2021 4:14 pm

In what context?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Simon
June 26, 2021 5:18 pm

Someone who denies truth/reality.

That describes you precisely.

People using that term are being extremely offensive by equating scientific skepticism with Holocaust Denial.

Gene
Reply to  Simon
June 28, 2021 12:38 pm

Are you looking in the mirror Simon?

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:00 pm

Obama is scientist ? 😀

Gene
Reply to  nyolci
June 28, 2021 12:37 pm

nyolci… you are the denier! 50 years of failed predictions… and you still think the most recent prediction will be true… isn’t it a sign of insanity, to try the same thing over and over… and get a different result?

John Moore
Reply to  Citizen Smith
June 26, 2021 2:36 pm

‘Authoritative / applied science / institutions’: move over, and make room – NIH, sullied under F. Collins & A. Fauci, seeks room.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Citizen Smith
June 27, 2021 8:47 am

““EPA is a chief institution of applied science”? Interesting. This is a new concept I have never considered. I have always thought of them as activists headed by a political appointee.”

That only applies when Republicans are in charge.

When Democrats are in charge, the EPA turns into a Great organization, in the minds of the Democrats, because they are running it.

Felix
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:10 am

Authoritative? By whose reckoning, other than their own?

nyolci
Reply to  Felix
June 26, 2021 10:58 am

Authoritative? By whose reckoning, other than their own?

Ask a scientist, he will tell you how this is decided in academia.

Richard Patton
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 12:58 pm

Truth is not discovered by majority rule. Academia has a vested interest in the status quo. Academia was firmly wedded to the geocentric concept of the universe in Copernicus and Gallelio’s day and used the Church to shut Gallelio down. Astronomical academia at the beginning of the 20th century was wedded to the idea that the universe had no beginning (which is why Einstein was initially so opposed). Medical Academia was convinced that ulcers were caused by stress, so much so that they tried to take away the medical license of the doctor who discovered ulcers are caused by bacteria. There is a saying about Acedimia which is appropriate “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:01 pm

Why don’t you ?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:55 pm

Ask a scientist, he will tell you how this is decided in academia.

I doubt you will find a larger public access to scientists and engineers anywhere else on the internet than right here on WUWT.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:12 pm

EPA before the adjustment

Screenshot 2021-06-26 at 16-07-49 June 2021 historic heat W US - MarketForum.png
Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 26, 2021 2:13 pm

EPA after the adjustment 2 months ago

Screenshot 2021-06-26 at 16-08-51 June 2021 historic heat W US - MarketForum.png
Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
June 26, 2021 2:15 pm
Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 4:13 pm

Actual EPA’s official position as stated in the Greenhouse Gas Finding of Endangerment is that they are a policy agency not a science agency. The claim
was originally made in EPA v Ethyl Corp which was cited as the basis of the GHG Finding of Endangerment.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 5:02 pm

Sorry, but I have very LITTLE faith in the EPA OR any other govt alphabet so-called ‘expert’ departments! Their main purpose in life is to make sure they keep their jobs! Nothing more!

Gene
Reply to  nyolci
June 28, 2021 12:27 pm

EPA is a liberal bastion for the left… as evidenced by their “finding” that CO2, one of the three most important elements for life on earth, is a “pollutant”.

The notion that a warmer greener world with more rain, longer growing seasons and more arable land could be sold as the existential crisis of our time is testimony to the greatest propaganda triumph the world has ever seen.

John Tillman
Reply to  Komerade Cube
June 26, 2021 7:53 am

Not even sure the bar graphs count as data.

In any case, the ‘60s and ‘70s were in the 1940s to ‘70s cold cycle, ended by the PDO switch of 1977.

Starting the heat trend in the coldest decade is like starting the Arctic sea ice trend in close to its highest year.

nyolci
Reply to  John Tillman
June 26, 2021 11:05 am

Not even sure the bar graphs count as data.

Do you prefer the comic book format or what? Now seriously…

Starting the heat trend in the coldest decade

First of all, this was an answer to another bullshit slinger, rbabcock, who doubted there had been any increase in heat wave parameters. I rectified his thinking showing there had indeed been. Secondly, I take your specific objection as the tacit admission of the fact that we indeed have a warming and that is worsening the heat wave situation. You unwittingly (and unconsciously) changed your position and (perhaps just by chance) you get close to actual science.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:50 pm

Wow, you “rectified” a correct statement ? – And talk about science ?

John Tillman
Reply to  nyolci
June 27, 2021 1:49 pm

You’d have be deluded or lying to take such a tacit admission. By what warped logic do you take that?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  John Tillman
June 26, 2021 3:41 pm

Starting the heat trend in the coldest decade is like starting the Arctic sea ice trend in close to its highest year.

Gee, when would that ever happen?

rbabcock
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:25 am

The EPA link is supposed US only, which is based on a corrupted database. Maybe you can point us to a link that is 1. global and 2. not based on corrupted data?

USHCN1920-2020Maximumvs.Adjusted-2.gif
nyolci
Reply to  rbabcock
June 26, 2021 7:34 am

based on a corrupted database

This is the run of the mill deniers’ BS. It’s “corrupted” because it doesn’t support your BS. As for the global stuff, please take a look around the thing called the “Internet”. FYI The second link I gave was a global study.

rbabcock
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:56 am

It is corrupted, plain and simple. Fortunately people have archived snapshots of the original data to show just how bad it is. Why are they adjusting current data upwards? Have we still not yet figured out how to measure temperature? Take your blinders off and do a little outside research.

nyolci
Reply to  rbabcock
June 26, 2021 11:10 am

Fortunately people have archived snapshots of the original data to show just how bad it is.

The thing is that you don’t understand what and how happened. This is science, first learn.

Why are they adjusting current data upwards?

Ask them. They are actually eager to explain it to you. They have actually explained these corrections 10000 times already. Please learn.

Have we still not yet figured out how to measure temperature?

We are getting better and better by time. Now we understand much better some factors affecting readings.

MAL
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 11:33 am

Here a graph for you right from the GISS
comment image

Now till me where is all the increased heat. Oh by the way where I now life the temp right now is 97 F it will reach a temp of 106, which is the average temp for the day. The record for today is 121 F. In you book I should melt because where I grew up the average temp for the day would be about 80 F and the in the last 30 years the amount of extremes heat has dropped. Quit frankly I moves to Arizona so I could be in 106 F heat at least some of the year and I will never see -40 ever again in my lifetime. Oh by the way the all time high for North Dakota were I use to live is 121 which happen in the 1930s. The hottest it been in North Dakota when I lives there was 106 the coldest I experience there was -50 F. Now that temperature extremes. When I grew up in Minnesota it was not quite as bad there they have a little more moisture the range was 105 to -45,. I did miss the 105 in April one year in the 1980s since I was in Atlanta at the time enjoying the 90 degree heat. The previous 105 in Minnesota that I was in occurred in the 1960s, Just this summer that had that kind of heat again. Most northern Minnesota summers lately they been hard pressed to get into the nineties. Yes summer and temps in the nineties Something that was normal during my childhood, something my grand children are just not seeing.

Last edited 2 months ago by MAL
Simon
Reply to  MAL
June 26, 2021 12:43 pm

I think Mal is struggling with the concept of having a meaningful range on the Y axis. Clue…. you can make any graph look meaningless if you use large numbers.

Reply to  Simon
June 26, 2021 3:59 pm

You can make any graph look alarming when you use a small range.

John Dilks
Reply to  Simon
June 26, 2021 4:01 pm

And you can make the same data look scary if you use tiny numbers.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 3:26 pm

Please learn.
Why not go ahead ???? 😀 😀

Gene
Reply to  nyolci
June 28, 2021 2:01 pm

I don’t think “We” is correct… that assumes you are getting better. What is your response to MAL? He seems to have an excellent understanding of the local climate he grew up in.

Joseph Z
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:47 am

The 2nd link was a global study of Chicago 1995 and Paris 2003 saying that both cities would have more sever heat waves like those 2 data points. Its been 17 years now since that paper. Have we had more heat waves like those? Is it more common?

nyolci
Reply to  Joseph Z
June 26, 2021 11:17 am

Have we had more heat waves like those? Is it more common?

Yes. They actually had a 9 year period for Chicago (the study was published in 2004) and those 9 years already confirmed the predictions for Chicago. But these two heat waves were just illustrations for the greater Northern American and European situations.

Joseph Z
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 1:39 pm

The Chicago Paris study was in 2004. The 9 year Chicago study was also 2004. Therefore, you haven’t answered the question of have there been more heat waves like in Chicago 1995 from 2005 to 2020.

rah
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 9:29 am

NOAA, NASA, and the EPA temperature data bases are all demonstrably corrupt.
comment image

nyolci
Reply to  rah
June 26, 2021 11:18 am

NOAA, NASA, and the EPA temperature data bases are all demonstrably corrupt.

No, and flashing two diagrams won’t prove your case.

chickenhawk
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 11:20 am

maroon alert

rah
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 11:41 am

Deny their authenticity so I can spoon feed you the links and wipe your chin or shut up and go to your room kid!

Editor
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 12:18 pm

The flashing diagrams are 100% based on NASA, really those are THEIR charts you are watching.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 3:01 pm

No, and flashing two diagrams won’t prove your case.

The comparison of data from 20 years apart is excellent evidence of corrupted data, if not absolute proof. Your poor brain has failed you.

B Clarke
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 3:01 pm

No there not flashing there alternating ,have you worked out the reason yet?

rah
Reply to  B Clarke
June 26, 2021 3:42 pm

Tony Heller does some great work. I can’t imagine a better more succinct way to get the point across about the fraud that modern “climate science” has become in government hands than those two NASA charts.

B Clarke
Reply to  rah
June 26, 2021 3:47 pm

Agreed , I saw the fraud on Tony’s web site .he’s done some great work exposing the climate fraud.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 10:13 am

Name calling now…I would love to meet a believer in AGW that doesn’t resort to name calling when they lose their side of the argument.

When you have the old data set and the data in it does not equal the exact same data points in the new set, and the changes always seem to increase the warming trend up to present – what do you call that new data? If corporations changed historical data this way people would go to jail. In climate pseudo-science its an accepted practice.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 26, 2021 10:34 am

Robert, a great many regular skeptical posters here resort to name-calling immediately.

Scissor
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 26, 2021 10:41 am

Yes, but not from losing the argument.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 26, 2021 3:03 pm

Name calling is different that ad hominem. I suggest you learn the difference. One is a logical fallacy, the other is a sign of contempt (often deserved on this site).

nyolci
Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 26, 2021 11:19 am

When you have the old data set and the data in it does not equal the exact same data points in the new set

This has been explained already 1111111 times. So I’m very-very justified calling this “objection” tiring bullshit.

GungaDin
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 1:51 pm

The tiring bullshit is the 11111111 “explanations” for corrupting the data sets and thus the science, all for political gain (and cash).

(IE Solyndra got a huge chuck of tax-payer dollars. Then it went bankrupt. Did it’s CEOs go bankrupt? Which politician did they support?)

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:51 pm

But not one time correct in a seriously way.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 3:24 pm

It’s always very amazing, guys like nyolci rely on science and scientist and come along with “denier”, “conspiracy theory”, even “consensus” as a so called arguement. It shows, that in reality, they have nothing in hand, absoltely nothing. They spead lukewarm air, poison the atmosphere and the discussion and declare nothing.
The nyolcis of the world are only good for a laugh.

They feel so important and are so useless.

LKMiller
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:25 am

Ummmmm….no. You say: Like it or not, this is the actually predicted consequence of global warming.

While it may be that “heat waves” (bet dollars to donuts the definition has been “adjusted”…), please explain how the magic molecule drives the two meteorological phenomena described above by Cliff Maas,

Ingredient One: An unusually strong area of high pressure aloft over our region (known as an upper-level ridge), associated with sinking air and unusually warm temperatures. 

Ingredient Two: An Approaching Trough of Low Pressure That Creates Strong Easterly/Downslope Flow over the Western Slopes of the Cascades

nyolci
Reply to  LKMiller
June 26, 2021 11:23 am

please explain how the magic molecule drives the two meteorological phenomena described above by Cliff Maas,

Already explained. Energy budged, emitted radiation, blablabla. The net effect is that the atmosphere retains extreme amount of heat (equivalent to 10 times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb per second). Again, this has been explained to you deniers 10101010 times, so at least don’t pretend to be ignorant. (Well, if you really don’t pretend it, your problem is much more severe…)

Jim Masterson
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 11:35 am

You apparently don’t know that calling people the “D” word is against site policy and an “argumentum ad hominem” attack to boot.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:10 pm

They may have thought to explain it, only and simple, the explanation is wrong and often dispoved and often shown to guys like you, denying science the whole time

GungaDin
Reply to  LKMiller
June 26, 2021 2:08 pm

The predicted consequences of CAGW?
My children have seen snow.
There are still the very same beach front properties now as then and many proponents of CAGW, including Algore, have bought some of them.
The Arctic is not ice free.
Mount Kilimanjaro still has a snow cap.
Tuluva is not underwater.

Just a few examples of “The predicted consequences of CAGW” that never happened.

The list is long.
I’m sure others can add to it.
(And I didn’t even mention how many deadlines and tipping points have expired. Yet we haven’t.)

Reacher51
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:34 am

You seem to have missed Figure 3 on that web page. You may note the drastic decline from 1930s to the near centennial low of 1960, which dwarfs in magnitude the relatively small increase from the 1960s to the present.

Since atmospheric CO2 has been rising steadily from the 1930s to the present, how is it that heat waves have significantly declined over that period of time?

Scissor
Reply to  Reacher51
June 26, 2021 8:19 am

Funny how graphs start at just the right point in time to show their desired trend. The EPA has been corrupted like most other government organizations.

Really it’s not funny. The “curve” has become just another tool to gain control.

nyolci
Reply to  Scissor
June 26, 2021 11:29 am

Funny how graphs start at just the right point in time to show their desired trend.

Hm. Isn’t it a tacit admission that (i) we have warming indeed, and (ii) this warming is causing more severe, longer and more numerous heat waves? This would be a curious admission from a science denier, wouldn’t be?

nyolci
Reply to  Reacher51
June 26, 2021 11:26 am

You seem to have missed Figure 3 on that web page.

No, I didn’t. Irrelevant to the question whether heat wave parameters are increasing or not. And I know you think this somehow proves there’s a natural variation but no, it doesn’t, scientists are very clear about this.

Since atmospheric CO2 has been rising steadily from the 1930s to the present, how is it that heat waves have significantly declined over that period of time?

Been explained 234234 times. Aerosols from industrial production (mainly sulfur).

Last edited 2 months ago by nyolci
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:13 pm

You forgot the papers showing aerosols cool less then previously presumed, it’s around 10 years old. It was more than a surprise for these researchers being on the warm side…..

Reacher51
Reply to  nyolci
June 27, 2021 10:29 am

What is irrelevant is your particular use of the word “increasing.” An increase involves a change over a period of time. You have chosen, for some reason, to look at an increase from the 1960s, which was the lowest average decade in the entire 130 year time series. The heat wave index for the 1960s is lower, in fact, than it is for the preceding 6.5 decades, and extraordinarily lower than the decade of the 1930s. So heat waves may have increased from the centennial low point of the 1960s, but of course they have also decreased far more from the centennial high point of the 1930s. Your argument is a bit like claiming that something extraordinary is happening to the world’s temperature based on the fact that it is now noon and temperatures outside have clearly been rising since 9am. In other words, the argument is asinine.

If you actually know someone who refers to himself as a “scientist” and who has told you with a straight face that there is no such thing as natural variability, then that person is almost certainly prefacing the term “scientist” with another word, such as “Political” or “Christian.” Natural climate variability has taken place for 4.6 billion years, and on every time scale imaginable. This is as close to a fact as there is in science.

That being said, if we take your rather odd assertion about a lack of natural variability as a thought experiment, then what should we infer from the heat wave index? It appears that aerosols from industrial production apparantly began fluctuating up and down starting in 1895, with a massive reduction in aerosols beginning around 1930, causing heat waves to spike massively for a decade. After 1930, aerosols then went back up, hitting their absolute peak starting in 1960. After 1960, aerosols then decreased to the same levels as 1895-1930, resulting in a nearly identical number of heat waves.

This may have been explained 234234 times, but I obviously missed the one of those times that makes any sense.

I obviously also missed the explanation for why NOAA has decided to show increases in heat waves from 1960 onwards specifically for “large metropolitan areas,” rather than for the country as a whole.

Is it because the CO2 demons, in a fiendish attempt to fool the rational, collectively chose in 1960 to concentrate their heat wave making properties only in those areas that were set to massively increase both their population and their cumulative volumes of asphalt, concrete, cars, delivery trucks, air conditioning units, and other general machinery, all while simultaneously decreasing their volumes of grass, trees, and natural waterways? Have the 234234 priests of your new religion initiated you into these holy mysteries? Those of us who still cling to the old ways of logic and reason are having trouble wrapping our minds around them.

If, however, aerosols are able to completely tamp down heat waves, then all we apparently need to do is to increase the amount of aerosols in the air, and we can reduce the planet’s temperature as much as we like. With a few extra coal plants, perhaps we can even go back to the halcyon days of the Little Ice Age. I think you may have just solved the “Climate Crisis!”

Last edited 2 months ago by Reacher51
Joseph Z
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:39 am

Cherry picking 1961 as a start to keep those 30’s and 50’s from showing the flaw. Limited to Metro sites so the UHI can clearly be seen. Took me all of 2 minutes to find those flaws that you missed.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Joseph Z
June 26, 2021 10:56 am

It’s a feature, not a bug!

starzmom
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 9:17 am

1960s? What about the 1930s? As I recall, in the 1970s, shortly after the 1960s, we were headed into an ice age.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 9:50 am

You caught yourself, imagine 😀

DHR
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 10:15 am

Your first cite is a study regarding “large metropolitan areas” as it clearly says. Such areas have been and continue to have increasing temperatures as they grow larger and larger. It’s called the heat-island effect. Your second cite predicts more heat waves based on climate models. Tony Hellers blog provides frequent data dumps showing how heat waves have changed over the entire US for 100 or more years. The trend is very zig-zaggy but clearly down.

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 12:48 pm

We’re talking about the same EPA that, under the Obama admin, called CO2 a pollutant (that is the opposite of “science”, and that in 2015 caused one of the worst environmental disasters in the US, with no one in the EPA taking any blame? Remember: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/epa-caused-environmental-disaster-2015-still-no-one-has-been-punished/
EPA=Environment Propaganda Activists

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 4:59 pm

Odd as it seems, I think we’ve found a new replacement for Griff! I don’t care what your fancy references say. I have lived through a LOT of the past 8 decades, and I can honestly say the weather isn’t a whit different than it was when I was a young boy! It was hotter than hell, then, in the Summer time in West Texas and So. California, and it’s STILL that hot, today! Nothing has changed!

Rich Davis
Reply to  rbabcock
June 26, 2021 7:18 am

Please don’t encourage the trolls to post.

All you can hope to get is tortured data that denies the hottest decade on (original) record, namely the 1930s

Mike Maguire
Reply to  rbabcock
June 26, 2021 1:42 pm

I have a couple of authentic data links for you rbabcock.

Showing the exact opposite…….. that we are NOT having increasingly severe heat waves……..at least not in the United States based on 424 USHCN Network stations:

https://www.axios.com/climate-change-warm-cold-temperature-records-ratio-02f86e11-5d83-47d4-944b-5856745c1d2b.html

Or based on extreme temperatures from the 50 US states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes

Climate believer
Reply to  rbabcock
June 26, 2021 3:21 pm

“FYI I got these links after a two second search.”

2 seconds…wow…impressive.

Data limitations:

By focusing only on the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the United States with sufficient data, this indicator provides sparse coverage of some of the less densely populated portions of the country—particularly the north-central states.
This geographic gap is exacerbated by the fact that Minneapolis–St. Paul, Denver, Kansas City, and Omaha are among the large MSAs with insufficient data for analysis.

As cities develop, vegetation is often lost and more surfaces are paved or covered with buildings. This type of development can lead to higher temperatures—part of what is called the “urban heat island” effect.

Built-up areas have higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas, especially at night. Urban growth since 1961 may have contributed to part of the increase in heat waves that this indicator shows for certain cities.

This indicator does not attempt to adjust for the effects of development, because the focus is on the temperatures to which people are actually exposed, regardless of the factors that are causing these temperatures to change (i.e., regardless of the relative contributions of climate change or other influences).

Despite the presence of inter-annual variability and several outlying values in the 1930s, standard statistical treatments reveal a highly statistically significant linear trend since 1960. For example, an ordinary least squares linear regression from 1960 to 2020 gives a slope of 0.002 index units per year (p = 0.0006). However, the trend over the full period of record is not statistically significant.

US Heatwave trends.png
StandupPhilosopher
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 6:42 am

Luckily, everything has been predicted as a natural consequence of global warming.

Scissor
Reply to  StandupPhilosopher
June 26, 2021 6:48 am

It’s nice that global warming brought cool temperatures to the East side of the Rockies. I have to wait for it to warm up a little more before I take a bike ride.

nyolci
Reply to  Scissor
June 26, 2021 7:23 am

It’s nice that global warming brought cool temperatures to the East side of the Rockies.

Oops, science got a serious hit from a denier… 🙂

Scissor
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:10 am

Just got back from my ride. Still in the 60’s, sunny and no wind – perfect bike riding weather.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:21 am

Idiocy…

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:15 pm

Better than getting one hit by one by a true believer as you are 😀 😀

Last edited 2 months ago by Krishna Gans
Rich Davis
Reply to  StandupPhilosopher
June 26, 2021 7:19 am

Literally everything, including severe cooling.

nyolci
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 26, 2021 7:30 am

Literally everything, including severe cooling.

And including your nervous breakdown. It’s written in the latest IPCC report.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:04 am

Note that the IPCC is a political body….. 😀

LdB
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 26, 2021 8:32 am

That is being polite … they are a special needs group 🙂

GungaDin
Reply to  LdB
June 26, 2021 2:24 pm

And what they “need”, we don’t need or want!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 5:24 pm

Sorry, I used my last copy of an IPCC report for what it’s best used for, ass wipe.

John Tillman
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:01 am

The CA and US heat record remains 134 F, set in 1913. OR’s former record from 1898 has been disallowed and replaced with 117 F in 1939. Many state heat records are still from the 1930s.

Despite urban heat islands, the US is not suffering more frequent and severe heat waves than in the past.

nyolci
Reply to  John Tillman
June 26, 2021 7:09 am

The CA and US heat record remains 134 F

Yep. For a while. The likelihood that it remains is getting smaller and smaller every year. Furthermore, this record doesn’t disprove AGW however you try to twist it. It’s not against scientific predictions etc.

Despite urban heat islands, the US is not suffering more frequent and severe heat waves than in the past.

You’re wrong. Again. Numbers don’t lie. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves Perhaps this is the effect of the rural heat ocean that surrounds those urban heat islands.

Komerade Cube
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:18 am

This isn’t much of a data set. 1961 to 2019. On top of that it is a highly suspect EPA site. Is anyone aware of a data set that runs back before the global cooling scare?

nyolci
Reply to  Komerade Cube
June 26, 2021 7:24 am

See above, you wannabe bot.

Rich Davis
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 10:54 am

Meaning he’s not a bot like you, or what?

Oops not taking my own advice to ignore the trolls

Last edited 2 months ago by Rich Davis
John Tillman
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:31 am

Liars lie. The EPA lies.

Those graphs aren’t data. Show us the real observations presumably behind those bars.

Years ago, despite nothing wrong with the old station, NOAA cited a new station in Death Valley facing a southern aspect cliff, in hopes of beating 1913. Not happening.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
June 26, 2021 7:48 am

NOAA and NASA have cooked the station books by cooling the past and warming the present, restrained only by satellite and balloon data.

Yet sthe record heat wave:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:49 am

It’s well known everywhere in the world, that weather patterns in special geographical surroundings where winds are blowing down mountains increase the temperatures, so well known, these patterns even have a name: foehn.
And you come along telling us, a foehn weather is sign of AGW.
It’s laughable 😀
Better to tell us the story from horses.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:04 am

Wow! Who knew the Santa Anas – which we deal with annually down here in California – is all from Global Warming!

Amazing!

nyolci
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
June 26, 2021 7:11 am

And it’s not all! You’ll get the Santa Anus soon! All from Global Warming!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:23 am

Why are you such a nasty person?

Paul Meyer
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 26, 2021 8:55 am

Because she is liberal… When they lose they go personal…. Just the way it is.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Paul Meyer
June 26, 2021 10:11 am

Indeed.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 26, 2021 12:47 pm

Why are you such a nasty person?” Now that’s funny.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:33 am

It’s okay I will burn my fossil fuels to cope with it 🙂

Scissor
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:55 am

Only one anus commenting on this post so far, and it’s not me and it’s not Shanghai Dan.

chickenhawk
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:55 am

That sounds really cold, Santa being from the North Pole and all. But I guess that’s climate change. From super ass freezin’ to hellacious hot and all the crazy in between!

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 9:07 am

And right to the bottom of the pyramid…

Thank you for implicitly admitting you’re wrong!

DebatePyramid.jpg
Scissor
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
June 26, 2021 10:45 am

Excellent graphics there, Shanghai. You can see why those promoting the heating narrative choose 1960 as a starting point for their trendline.

GungaDin
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:57 pm

The annual “Santa Ana” winds were given that name LONG before the “CAGW” or “Climate Change” meme began to imply that they are, somehow, something “new” or “changed” or “worse”.
Nature does tend to have cycles, some annual, some decadal, some multidecadal. Some longer.

“CAGW” has attempted to give names to events, claiming itself as “The Cause”.
“Permanent Flooding” in CA? “Permanent Droughts” in CA?

Quantify what is Man’s actual contributions to a rise (or drop) in Global temperatures separated from Nature’s natural “what goes around, comes around”.
No one has EVER done it.
Lots of theories, lots of (ever changing) Climate Models.
But NO ONE HAS EVER DONE IT!
You can be the first.
Have at it.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:11 am

The cold snaps and records the last 3 to 5 month are the proof for what, btw ?
Global cooling ? 😀
You ever heard from “weather” ?

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 26, 2021 7:16 am

You ever heard from “weather” ?

Never ever… What’s this? 🙂 Krishna, you never fail to disappoint. You always need those slaps I give to you. So the cold snaps, yeah, that’s weather. Heat waves, that’s weather too. Continous increase in the number, length and severity of heat waves together with less and less cold snaps, that’s AGW. By the way, scientists don’t say cold snaps are impossible. Before you start to confabulate about them.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:42 am

The cold snaps increase in numbers and decrease in temperatures, explanation ?
You may continue to confabulate 😀

sailor76
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 26, 2021 9:02 am

I thought the climate crises theologians had already resolved this contradiction by assigning all extremes in weather at either side, cold or hot, as being caused by AGW. That way you win any argument no matter what.

Here is Jennifer Francis theory, that expouses that train of thought in a CBS article, The wavy Jet Stream Theory explained:

“This enables a broad mountain of warm air to form over the Arctic, temporarily supplanting the cold vortex. The warm mountain acts as an atmospheric block, redirecting the jet stream and bitter cold air southward.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-texas-winter-storms-arctic-cold/

sailor76
Reply to  sailor76
June 26, 2021 9:18 am

It’s obvious from nyolci’s defense of “less and less cold snaps, that’s AGW” , that he does not really understand, that the new AGW orthodoxy calls for more and more cold snaps as a result of AGW. It does get confusing, defending AGW!

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
June 26, 2021 1:50 pm

The cold snaps increase in numbers and decrease in temperatures, explanation ?

I don’t have to explain anything. This is the beautiful part. I’m just citing science where it is already explained. Okay, perhaps I try to explain a thing or two. So rule number one when debating a science denier is “never take anything they say at face value”. So I’m curious whether cold snaps really increase in number and decrease in temperature. While it may be true, it looks like the usual denier bullshiting (or misreading of some very obvious stuff, ie. bona fide stupidity).
Anyway, I don’t give a shit whether it’s true, again, you are kindly referred to the relevant publications, check for yourself. But one thing is true, you won’t get any contradiction. That’s the other beautiful part. Science is a very well built edifice.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 2:20 pm

That’s the other beautiful part. Science is a very well built edifice.

But the one or the other “representative” of that science is only good as bad example for non scientific argumentation QED

TeaPartyGeezer
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:22 pm

You’re an example of the typical amateur who proclaims himself an ‘explainer’ of science on the internet .. better known as a troll.

You obviously have less understanding of ‘the science’ than most of the posters & commenters on this site. But you come on here snarling and sneering at those icky ‘science deniers’ whom you “never take anything they say at face value.” What, pray tell, gives YOU the expertise that would make anybody take YOU seriously? It certainly doesn’t involve common sense or logic/critical thinking! Or honesty.

Before you can effectively debate ‘the science,’ you need to understand the science .. and do more than repeat talking points and repeatedly link to the same highly debatable websites, over and over. The only thing you’re ‘debating’ is political science, not natural science.

If you took the time to learn, and understand, the actual science .. and were honest with yourself .. you would know that we are in no danger from the climate.

Matt
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:26 am

BS

nyolci
Reply to  Matt
June 26, 2021 7:37 am

At last. You simply say what you want to say without those unneccesary circles. You wanna say BS, you say BS.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:21 am

And he is right, believe it or not 😀

B Clarke
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 1:01 pm

If your so convinced of agw, its going to happen ,why are you here, it matters little what people say here right? We can’t change anything right, so whats your point? Why the offensive language?

Insufficiently Sensitive
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:32 am

Like it or not, this is the actually predicted consequence of global warming.

Got any evidence to support that careless line?

nyolci
Reply to  Insufficiently Sensitive
June 26, 2021 7:41 am

Yes. Two links I got after 1.5 seconds of search. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves https://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5686/994 You won’t like them, you don’t have to like them. But they are science whether you like them or not.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:26 am

I’ll tell you s.th. about our last “heat wave” we had the last week in Germany.
While CO2 didn’t increase over that week, the temperatures increased at least around 10k during that week, and imagine, we had southern winds directly from the Sahara, including respective dust, sign of AGW ?
Not at all.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:35 am

I love them … what isn’t to like better than being cold.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 9:09 am

Your link showed me this graphic; thank you for confirming that heat waves have been falling since the 1930s!

Heatwaves.PNG
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
June 26, 2021 10:28 am

It took me about 30 seconds to find that graph using DuckDuckGo. Maybe nyolci should stop using politics-based Google and use a real search engine. It’s easy to see why the EPA started at 1961 when trying to say that heat waves are becoming more common.

Last edited 2 months ago by Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 10:17 am

Guys like you, louder they cry, less they know, QED.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:03 am

Does AGW change the elevation extremes in the western U.S.? No, to suggest so is preposterous. Why are places like Antero Reservoir, Colorado nearly always coldest, and Death Valley nearly always hottest — note the elevations above surrounding terrain. There will be situations when unusually warm air due to season is pushed in an unusual direction up or down slope. If you don’t understand the impact that terrain has on weather, then you are truly a “flat earther”.

Scissor
Reply to  Kevin kilty
June 26, 2021 9:27 am

I live about 80 miles from Antero Reservoir and frequently hear about the extreme cold temps there.

People have a difficult time understanding basic physics concepts like buoyancy, adiabatic cooling and warming that contribute to the interesting characteristics of the places you mention.

Because of the mountains and widely varied terrain, Colorado has a lot of interesting “micro” climates. Wolf Creek averages about 36 feet of snow in a season. In the summer it’s lush and emerald greener like the Pacific Northwest but unlike most places in Colorado.

There’s been no significant change in Colorado climate for over 100 years, but the weather variability allows deceptive people to craft their narratives.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
June 26, 2021 10:15 am

For many years the weather station in Tabernash, Colorado would often be the coldest place in the U.S., by virtue of its location in Middle Park where cold air sinks to the floor of the valley. It is no longer there, though.

Scissor
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 26, 2021 10:49 am

I had to search for it on a map and I only live about 40 miles away and have driven through it more than a few times. A tunnel from Boulder to Winter Park would be a wonderful thing.

meab
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:07 am

Stupid comment, nyolci. You must have missed Dr. Mass’s post yesterday where he concluded that the hotter the heat wave is, the smaller the component from CO2. Why? It’s because the weather has always been highly variable from very low to very high temperatures but the contribution from CO2 is known to be small. Recent warming has actually been highest during winter and overnight temps, not so much in daytime summer temps. Oh, and you should know that the EPA, just this year, replaced their plot that showed the worst heat waves were in the 1930’s with the one you posted. Ask yourself what changed this year to upend the data that has stood for decades.

Felix
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:09 am

You know what else the global warming alarmists predict?

Ya know …. with their track record, and their utter failure to predict even the past several decades, I think I’ll pass on believing anything they predict. Any model which can’t predict the past is hardly qualified to opine on either the near r distant future.

Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 8:35 am

Climate models predict nothing, it isn’t their job.
Their job is to produce scenarios, in general being far of reality. Even if you average these scenarios you are far of reality.
So I ask you, what you want to tell us, teratologies ? 😀

joel
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 9:37 am

So why are the people who are “right” on global warming shutting down atomic power plants, our only large scale source of carbon neutral power?

Bob boder
Reply to  joel
June 26, 2021 6:10 pm

And buying beach front properties

Doonman
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 9:53 am

Does the 100 ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years cause the higher or the lower pressures in the atmosphere? Because the pressure differences are what is driving these weather systems in the pacific northwest.

You forgot to say. tsk tsk.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 10:09 am

Most government agencies practice “Cherry Picking” to make their point – the fact the government publishes something does not make it authoritative – only that it meets some political agenda standard.

Try this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/

You can see that while the EPA statement is true, it is cherry picked. I detest when agencies my taxes support obfuscate the truth by hiding the portions of data.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  nyolci
June 26, 2021 7:11 pm

I am interested in the apparent kamikaze missions of posters like nyolci.

A true believer out to persuade? A sociology student out to collect evidence on the wrongthink of others for a research paper? A personal project to set a record number of downvotes? An experiment in artificial stupidity escaped from the lab?

One certainty is that just as their missions are futile in that they will never convince anybody of anything factual, the reverse is true.

And here I am having wasted time writing this response.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
June 27, 2021 8:17 am

“Like it or not, this is the actually predicted consequence of global warming.”

This situation in the Northwest is being caused by a high-pressure system and a low-pressure system getting together and enhancing downslope winds which causes the temperatures to rise. This is not a consequence of global warming, it is a consequence of weather sytems coming together over mountainous terrain.

“The likelihood of these “series of ingredients” to occur is getting higher and higher”

So you say, without evidence.

Gene
Reply to  nyolci
June 28, 2021 12:23 pm

Only in the minds of the super religious believers of the Global warming/Climate change/Climate crisis… aka Lemmings!

rbabcock
June 26, 2021 6:40 am

Heating due to the compressibility of air coming down mountains is pretty amazing (to me anyway). Even here in central North Carolina we get the effects from air blowing perpendicular to the Appalachian mountains which are only 2000m high from the northwest warming our temperatures. It’s counterintuitive here to have air coming from the north that is warming, not cooling.

But the real impact is when you have deserts and oceans with their subsequent large high and low pressure systems interact with very tall mountains to create situations described in the article. It can go from freezing to abnormal heat back to freezing in hours just due to compressibility and the Chinook winds are one of the best examples.

From an article on LiveScience: “An extreme example of a Chinook wind was recorded in South Dakota in January 1943, according to Black Hills Weather. The recorded temperature at 7:30 a.m. was minus 4 F (minus 20 C) and when the Chinook winds began shortly after, the temperature increased 49 degrees F (7 degrees C) in just two minutes and by 9 a.m., when the Chinooks died down, residents were experiencing 54-degree (12 C) weather. When the winds died down, it took 27 minutes for the temperature to drop 58 degrees, back to where it was in the morning.”

Scissor
Reply to  rbabcock
June 26, 2021 6:54 am

We see these things on the Front Range of Colorado.

One anomaly that I often enjoy in the winter is temperature inversions. It can often be very cold at the foot of the mountains, e.g. Boulder, and this keeps people at home, but up in the mountains, a warm air layer makes for comfortable uncrowded skiing.

Rhs
Reply to  Scissor
June 26, 2021 7:13 am

Just last week there was a sudden heating event at Chatfield state park. The temperature rose nearly 20 degrees in 30 minutes. IIRC the reason was air being compressed because a large air mass was falling.
I think it stuck around for about an hour before dissipating.
Having grown up barely north of the Ken Carl Ranch, I’ve seen temps rise and fall at incredible rates.
Physics, got to love seeing it play out in person!

Scissor
Reply to  Rhs
June 26, 2021 9:30 am

Do you recall the story of the hang glider that came down as a frozen block of ice? I wonder if he died believing in global warming.

Rhs
Reply to  Scissor
June 26, 2021 10:45 am

YES!!! I remember that story. Whether or not he believed in AGW or not, he forgot about temps in various levels of the atmosphere. No one is completely useless, they can always serve as a bad example.

Reply to  rbabcock
June 26, 2021 7:19 am

Heating due to the compressibility of air coming down mountains is pretty amazing (to me anyway).

rbabcock,
This is familiar to every cyclist who has ever used a hand pump to blow up a flat tyre.
Compressing a parcel of air by doing work on it results in mechanical heating of the air.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
June 26, 2021 8:27 am

Gotta change over to CO2 cartridges (yes, CO2! the magic molecule!) and carrying a hand pump will soon be a distant bad memory.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 26, 2021 12:16 pm

And charging them with high pressure CO2 gas from cartridges will cool my tyres as well.
Truly a magic molecule.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  rbabcock
June 26, 2021 9:10 am

We get it annually in SoCal. Living in Ventura, it’s often not that bad for us (ocean For The Win). But as you drive inland, every mile literally adds 1-2 degrees of temp, such that it’ll go from 70 at the beach to 100 degrees by the time you reach Moorpark (15 miles inland).

Crazy!

mkelly
June 26, 2021 6:56 am

Friction of the air flowing down the mountains probably adds some heat to the situation.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  mkelly
June 26, 2021 8:08 am

Well, not friction, but there is some modification of air temperature due to interaction with the ground — the boundary layer.

Greg
June 26, 2021 7:02 am

I will call the phenomenon a downslope heat surge

Oh, almost like the Foehn effect then. 😉

Actually that requires moist air coming of the ocean not dry air coming off a desert so the effect will be less . What is the altitude of the land to the east of the Cascades?

 Why warm more? Because the air will be compressed as it descends into western Washington.

But how about it cooling first, as it rises? Without the moisture to form a Foehn effect and extract the latent heat from water vapour there will be a much lesser heating effect, only contributed by the net difference in altitude between the inland desert and the coast.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg
John Tillman
Reply to  Greg
June 26, 2021 7:25 am

East of the Cascades is mainly high desert. Elevation of Bend is 3623 feet.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Tillman
June 26, 2021 10:48 am

West of the Cascades isn’t all that different. Where I live on Whidbey Island, we get about 26″ of annual precipitation, and most of that is in Fall and Winter. It’s not uncommon to go for a couple months in summer without any rain. The longest stretch I’ve seen is 88 days, I think that was in 03.

My lawn is green in the winter, brown in the summer.

John Tillman
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 26, 2021 2:15 pm

You’re on the edge of the Olympic rain shadow. But even the wettest parts of the PNW are rarely rainy in July and August.

Western Marine Climate Zone.

Reply to  Greg
June 26, 2021 8:07 am

“Without the moisture to form a Foehn effect and extract the latent heat from water vapour there will be a much lesser heating effect,”

Greg,
That is so back to front it is difficult to know where to start.
This is not about water vapour (humidity) it is about cloud water droplets.
Cloud laden air aloft (that is air containing water droplets) on descending from high elevation warms at the smaller moist or environmental lapse rate because the physical change of state of the entrained cloud water droplets to water vapour on descent absorbs latent heat from the air as it is compressed.

Evaporation causes cooling remember.

Humid Air that is dry because it is below the dew point does not have any water droplets to buffer the heating process as the air is compressed on forced descent. Consequently descending dry air warms at the larger adiabatic lapse rate and achieves a higher surface temperature at the bottom of the mountain slope.
Cliff Mass is correct in his analysis.

Greg
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
June 27, 2021 10:39 am

Philip. That is so back to front it is difficult to know where to start.

entrained cloud water droplets to water vapour on descent absorbs latent heat from the air as it is compressed.

NO. that is sensible heat which is extracted from the air : it cools. You do not seem to know what latent heat means.

The Foehn effect does not start at the top of a mountain, it starts at low elevations before the air goes up the mountain. If the air is humid the decompression forms clouds ( dumping the latent heat of evaporation from WV into sensible heat in the air and water ) much of that water is often precipitated leaving warm air with little absolute humidity. When this descends the lee side slope it heats up. There is less water to evaporate so it heats more than it cooled on rising. There is a net difference in air temperature ( net heating ) , from similar altitude before and after the mountains, because energy is transferred from the water vapour to the air.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg
Kevin kilty
Reply to  Greg
June 26, 2021 8:09 am

We had a week of very clear sky, sunshine and high temperatures in the intermontaine west.

Steve Oregon
June 26, 2021 7:09 am

Science by an honest scientist? Thanks Cliff.

June 26, 2021 7:11 am

“I will call the phenomenon a downslope heat surge on the western slopes of the Cascades.  “

Kudos to Cliff Mass for calling it correctly.
This is a Foehn Wind, the only remaining question is which type?
My money is on Isentropic draw-down.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
June 26, 2021 10:16 am

The satellite cloud map this week has been interesting…clouds over the entire west coast Pacific ocean that stop at the land…..remarkable…..I guess clouds over the cool ocean and none over the land are normal this time of year.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Anti-griff
June 26, 2021 10:50 am

In northwest Washington, yes. If you go to the Pacific coast in July, it is often in the 60s.

Scissor
Reply to  Anti-griff
June 26, 2021 10:57 am

It’s weird. Around Santa Barbara they have a usual cloudy pattern called the June gloom. I always find it remarkable that it’s cool and humid along the coast and just a few miles inland it’s hot an dry.

Watching clouds spill over the coastal hills and then dissipate is a beautiful sight.

The following is from Australia, but the physics are the same.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Anti-griff
June 26, 2021 1:51 pm

During the summer that is SOP for the Oregon and Southern Washington coast, especially in the afternoon. You can stand at the beach and see the edge of the clouds only about a mile offshore. Outside of heat waves, the normal summer pattern is for those clouds to advance inland to the Cascade Mountains overnight and then burn off and retreat to the beaches by afternoon. Western Oregon and Washington have the best summer weather in the US. Dry (less than 1/2″ of rain) not too warm (low 80’s), however, we pay for it with month after month of gray skies in the winter. You can pick any city east of the Rockies and they have more sunshine in the winter, but you can’t beat the PacNW for great summers. Outside of once in a century heat waves like currently in progress, even in a heat wave the night time temperatures drop into the low 60’s (16C) and you can cool down your house with just fans. I’ve spent summers in Georgia and Oklahoma and I’ll take our summers any time.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard Patton
June 26, 2021 5:58 pm

Right on Richard. The only bad thing about the summers here is the Pacific is still very cold.

Kevin kilty
June 26, 2021 7:58 am

Indeed, Cliff. Change in internal energy is heat in minus work out, by the mechanical engineering sign convention. Warm air descending from higher terrain to the southeast of Oregon and Washington is having work input to it and it is warming at something near the dry adiabatic lapse rate. If a person lives in the Mountain west they will notice the pronounced effect that elevation has on temperature.

Paul Johnson
June 26, 2021 8:54 am

Given the origin of these air masses in the desert Southwest, won’t these record high temperatures be associated with record low humidity, thus somewhat mitigating their effect?

Scissor
Reply to  Paul Johnson
June 26, 2021 9:40 am

That’s a good point. In fact, our measure of global warming is temperature, not heat.

Reply to  Paul Johnson
June 26, 2021 1:06 pm

Paul,

I don’t think that the Southwest desert origin for the air-mass is correct.
This latest satellite image of cumulus cloud streets over Idaho and Montana suggests a northern Canadian origin for the airflow.

griff
June 26, 2021 8:56 am

To get this amazing event, a series of ingredients had to occur at the same time and same place. To put it another way, it is like throwing several dice and having all of them come up with sixes.

No, it is the entirely predictable outcome of climate change. I mean, why should random dice rolls come up now?

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  griff
June 26, 2021 9:12 am

Because it’s a regular thing just 900 miles to the South, in Southern California?

Imagine that – weather patterns can move around! Who would believe that weather isn’t static…

Reply to  griff
June 26, 2021 9:16 am

Who predicts what ‘?
Are you talking about models ? 😀
They predict nothing.

Last edited 2 months ago by Krishna Gans
John Tillman
Reply to  griff
June 26, 2021 9:28 am

It has happened before, with CO2 much lower.

Portland record of 107 F was first set in 1965, then tied in 1981, when I lived there. My Danish dental hygienist housemate said it was like Africa.

The forecast for tomorrow and Monday is to beat that record, but it’s obviously just a weather event. Portland’s highs went nowhere all during “global warming” for 40 years.

Last edited 2 months ago by John Tillman
Richard Patton
Reply to  John Tillman
June 26, 2021 1:53 pm

That was during the period they were screaming global cooling wasn’t it?

John Tillman
Reply to  Richard Patton
June 26, 2021 2:19 pm

Yup. And there was global cooling, but mostly natural, plus some pollution. Cleaner air over Europe and North America contributed to warming in the following decades. But India and China have now stopped that gain.

GungaDin
Reply to  John Tillman
June 26, 2021 3:29 pm

For my little spot on the globe in central Ohio, the all time recorded high was 106 F set July 21, 1934 and tied July 17, 1936.
Al Gore predicted Man’s CO2 would cause both.
(Who knew CO2, the magic molecule, was a time traveler!)

GungaDin
Reply to  GungaDin
June 26, 2021 3:44 pm

OOPS!
That should be:
and tied July 14, 1936.”

Scissor
Reply to  griff
June 26, 2021 11:03 am

Never play Yahtzee?

Peta of Newark
June 26, 2021 8:59 am

A high pressure system sitting over a desert.
Not a good start..

(Much talk about ‘away from water’ – howzabout putting some there? You know the recipe by now, mash up some basalt, spread it around the offending desert and let Ma Nature do the rest)

Combine with an expected/predicted strong Foehn Effect – even worse.

The offending high, with lows dancing around it caused by the omnipotent Jet Stream
(Don’t think I’d ever want to be in its shoes, not these days anyway)

Cannot claim to be any expert on Jet Streams, (plenty wannabes but are there actually any real experts on Jet Streams) but…
This self appointed expert wonders why the Jet Stream seems to be as far south as it it is here, at this time-of-year.
Serious question, where should the Jet Stream be in mid/late June?

Assuming an errant Jet Stream, does that not mean that Polar Vortex is bigger than it might normally be?
Does that not mean that The Planet is colder than it might normally be?

This is an Atmospheric El Nino and as such, a cooling event and perfectly NOT symptomatic of Global Warming

Mike Maguire
June 26, 2021 9:27 am

This is an astute and 100% correct explanation using the physical laws of meteorology.

Cliff, you are a gifted and objective meteorologist that only cares about authentic science and educating people. Thanks for sharing your gifts!

Yesterday, while looking at US heat waves, I discovered the EPA using NON objective and NON authentic meteorology to adjust out the massive significance of the record smashing, unprecedented, long lived 1930’s heat waves in the US…..that suddenly, according to them, as of April 2021………. no longer exist!

I added additional analysis to explain it this morning:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/71468/#71521

Photon Powered, Sideways, High-Side Racer
June 26, 2021 10:23 am

Which of the individual natural physical phenomena and processes ( ingredients ) that are critical to the outcome of very high temperatures ( the system response function ) have been Validated to have been enhanced at the specific locations at which the system response function is of interest by “Climate Change”? Validation that changes in the Climate itself at those specific locations is a function of the changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is also necessary.

The Laws of Physics describe the state of the natural world in terms of local driving potentials. Global-average values never enter.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Photon Powered, Sideways, High-Side Racer
June 26, 2021 6:03 pm

That’s because global average values are fantasies.

Robert of Texas
June 26, 2021 10:25 am

Here is the “thing” that climate activists never seem to understand…

If there is Natural Warming it is *impossible* to separate that from any warming caused by fossil fuel CO2. We know that there has been Natural warming and cooling over millions of years. We know that the world was warming before fossil fuel CO2 could have played any part – therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Natural warming is still occurring.

Given this, it is meaningless to point to “additional heatwaves” or “heatwave intensity” and claim it is the product of the additional CO2. Maybe it is, but far more likely CO2 is playing only a partial role, maybe a minor role, and even possibly no role at all.

This is why climate pseudo science is not science, it is making unproven connections and ignoring very likely contributing factors. In other words, it’s just someone’s opinion. The use of models to “prove” the connection is laughable – models do not prove anything. You have to make *unique* predictions that separate your hypothesis from business as usual and test them. Until that occurs with a high success rate you still do not understand the climate system.

Climate pseudo-science has made very few unique predictions and they have all failed. Hypothesis is rejected. Come up with a new one.

n.n
June 26, 2021 10:46 am

Well, not the NW, but the Salt Lake Valley desert jumped from a cool 100 over a 2, 3 day span, to a persistent 80 degree heat wave. Chaos.

Greg
June 26, 2021 11:48 am

Noon PDT Sat. 26th June. , looks much hotter in the interior than on the coastal side of Cascades.
Yakima 97, Olympia 85.

35C/ 85F in Seatle.

https://www.weatherwx.com/forecast.php?config=&forecast=pass&pass=currentwx&usecountry=us&region=&useplace=&usestate=wa&plot=temp&period=&usemetric=0&dpp=0

Promising 42C/108F Monday. I’m skeptical.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg
Greg
June 26, 2021 11:53 am

I’m surprised that the Guardian is not making a splash with the “unprecedented” weather forecast as proof of global HEATING.

They usually like to get in early so that they can have several days of “unprecedented” expectations even if the weather turns out less dramatic. If there actually is a heat wave they can run the story for a full week of climate hysteria.

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg
taxed
June 26, 2021 12:25 pm

Looking at the jet stream forecast this whole story is looking over hyped too me. To my mind the upper level high would have to be a further 500 to 1000 miles to the east for it to be the wide spread heat wave been claimed. So l expect that any really hot temps will be largely confined to local area’s due to local factors.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 26, 2021 12:31 pm

Wouldn’t it be wise to wait and see how much of these forecasts actually materialise?

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
June 26, 2021 7:24 pm

and whether previous forecasts have actually materialised.

June 26, 2021 12:33 pm

The equatorial Pacific has reached its maximum warmth for this year; it’s downhill all the way to the end of the year:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20210622.sstOutlooks_nino34.png

The usual forlorn predictions of El Niño for Christmas will still come. But the new year will instead be back in La Niña territory.

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
June 26, 2021 2:19 pm

in image form

Nino34 2021 BOM.PNG
Mike Maguire
June 26, 2021 4:52 pm

Portland NWS: https://www.weather.gov/pqr/
Seattle NWS: https://www.weather.gov/sew/

Constantly updated temperatures for the Pacific Northwest:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/71468/#71624

Portland OR, just hit 104 Deg. F, which is the hottest temperature ever for the month of June for that city. Previously set downtown in 1942 at 102 Deg. F.
Should be hotter tomorrow. The all time high is 107 Deg. F.
https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pqr/pdxclimate/pg5.pdf

Screenshot 2021-06-26 at 18-29-38 Temperatures - pg5 pdf.png
Bruce Cobb
June 26, 2021 5:06 pm

Don’t tell the resident climate caterwaulers, but it is just a heat snap, i.e. weather, and no, sorry, they aren’t increasing in number or intensity, despite their ardent wishes for that to be so. Better luck next time.

Tom Abbott
June 27, 2021 8:09 am

Excellent analysis of the situation, Cliff.

%d bloggers like this: