▲ 68 points
back
42 comments
Must be a regional phenomenon. Greenland is seeing record growth to the Surface Mass Balance (ice growth) & the eastern US is colder than average.
There's a heat dome over the west similar to the one that brought 126 degree temperatures to Canada 2 weeks ago, but less extreme. Generally, Greenland is losing gigatons of ice every year. https://arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/easygalleryimages/8/465/ar...
It seems like Greenland is now accumulating gigatons of ice since bottoming out. Considering that have recently exited the Modern Warm Period, the graph you presented hitting the minimum of ice & the recent accumulation makes sense.
The weakening Geomagnetic Field strength also seems to drive the weakening jetstreams, resulting in increased polar & equatorial vortexes. Some areas are abnormally hot & some are abnormally cold.
https://news.sky.com/story/china-at-least-20-runners-die-as-...
Records are funny things, since they also depend on technology that has existed in a minuscule fraction of Earth's history to measure. Much of these advancements happened to have occurred following the Maunder Minimum, which featured "the year without a summer" into the Modern Warm Period. Now we have left the Modern Warm Period & have instability caused by the weakening Geomagnetic field, which occurs cyclically around every 12000 years.
It isn't the magnetic field that's causing weakening jetstreams, it's the rapid warming of the poles and the loss of the polar ice cap.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242
You cannot definitively rule out the magnetic field driving the jetstreams & even some of the temperature changes.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42492338.pdf
Space weather is being used to forecast Earth's weather.
http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/ZA689IO20.pdf
Would space climate have a similar effect on Earth's climate? I'm not aware of any studies. Does the lack of studies mean the phenomenon simply does not exist or that we have not modeled the interactions between space climate variability & Earth's climate variability. We have only had satellites for less than 100 years.
The late Quartenary had a Geomagnetic excursion, with mass extinction of large megafauna, & weakened jetstreams causing equitorial/polar vortexes.
Other planet's atmospheric pressure dynamics is affected by magnetic field fluctuations.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045...
There simply is not enough data to accurately & precisely model the dynamics of the climate. Nobody has created a control system that mimic's Earth's climate. All attempts have failed the test of time of a decade or two. The climate is very complicated, with a multitude of cycles, some lasting > 10,000 years. We have had modern measurement tech for about 50 years. Our sample size is too small to understand the dynamics of this system at this time. We will be surprised.
Even if there is a correlation, we don't have agreement of what the driving changes are. Does temperature drive the magnetic field? Does the magnetic field drive temperature? Are they mutually exclusive? Does temperature and/or magnetic field drive changes to the jetstreams? Does ionic activity coming from the Sun or cosmic sources affect the jetstreams?
We don't understand the Sun & the multitude of ways that it's variability affect's Earth. We don't understand the Solar System's position in space & the effects that that the local climate has. We are now observing how the galactic current sheet affects nearby stars. We have not yet fully modeled how interplanetary magnetic field dynamics (e.g. the 4 major gas giants clustering which is also occurring now into the near future) affect the climate as well.
Now back to CO2 driving the climate, I'll leave with an quote...
"the grand underlying principles have been firmly established...further truths of physics are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals"
- Albert A Michelson, ~1900
Related, a discussion of an article about the history of likely errors in highest recorded temps globally:
Invalidating historical record highs is erasing history to sell a narrative.
How, exactly, does this observation “invalidate” anything? What narrative is being sold here?
Please support statements like this with objective facts or thoughtful analysis.
Correcting poor data is the opposite of erasing history.
It's not poor data. It's cherry picking.
The 1922 El Azizia record was recorded by someone who didn't understand how to correctly read the dual temperature device. It's kind of a textbook example of poor data.
Full details in the paper at https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/94/2/bams-d-... .
Or maybe it's fact checking in the face of global hysteria.
A comment I left 11 days ago about how little we actually know for certain:
The ones selling the narrative aren't the scientists with petabytes of accurate, digitally recorded data showing a global warming trend over decades highly correlated to human industrial activity who also agree the temperature in 1913 was recorded inaccurately, but rather those who would point to one record from 1913, or maybe 20 records from history, to show "global warming is a myth".
Scientists (as well as farmers) in 1913 knew perfectly well how to record temperature. Digital measurements only matter in precision far less than 1 degree F. Mercury is very consistent in how it responds to temperature.
Not only was it likely recorded accurately, it's extremely unlikely the 134F record was off by 4 degrees or more. It also had 5 days in a row above 129F that year.
See: https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/nature/weather-and-climate.ht...
California has recorded temps in the 130s as far back as 1859:
https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1413706667925983237/...
June 2021 was on par with the average of the last 30 years, across the globe, according to digital satellite data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-u...
Greenland also had anomalous ice gains in June: http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
I am not selling anything. But historically speaking, those who have sought to erase history have but one motive.
Not only was it likely recorded accurately, it's extremely unlikely the 134F record was off by 4 degrees or more. It also had 5 days in a row above 129F that year.
If you believe the temperature record, then that should include the note in their log: there was a sandstorm when it was recorded. A sandstorm would blow sand up into the air where it can collide with the thermometer. The surface temperature can reach 200f, so material from the ground would increase what the thermometer would read.
The other temperatures during that week were 128 - 131.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/10/death-valley-high-tem...
> sand up into the air where it can collide with the thermometer
I doubt it. The design of instruments' enclosure prevents it.
Moreover, no one challenged the record until grants and narrative AND just the same enclosure design been in use for more than 100 years w/o any complains.
https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/202...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E55WCUmXIAEq2RT?format=jpg&name=...
> knew perfectly well how to record temperature
It's easy to read a thermometer, yes, and mercury thermometers are pretty accurate. But is that recorded temperature an accurate measurement of the air temperature?
At https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01013002curr.pdf you can see the requirements for an accurate temperature measurement site include:
- "Over level terrain (earth or sod) typical of the area around the station, and, at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or paved surface."
- "4 to 6 feet above the surface and shielded by an integral thermoscreen."
- "[no obstructions] greater than ten degrees in horizontal width as measured from the instrument and within 200 feet of the instrument [and] no closer than four times the estimated height of any nearby building, tree, fence, or similar obstruction"
An improperly measured thermometer may get incorrect readings.
Why? As your first link comments "The highest ground temperature recorded was 201° F at Furnace Creek on July 15, 1972. The maximum air temperature for that day was 128° F."
A thermometer which is too close to the ground may pick up some of the 201° F heat, even in the shade.
As another example, 10 years ago it was widely thought the world temperature record was in El Azizia, at 58°C (136.4°F). An investigation then found (among other things) , quoting https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/94/2/bams-d-... :
] the microclimate of the observation site was not typical of the area in several aspects. As noted by Fántoli (1954, 1958), the temperature observations were made over a concrete-coated plaza of a small military fort on a hill. The plaza coating of tarred concrete could accentuate surface heating beyond the norms for a natural desert environment. After the instrument shelter in El Azizia was relocated in 1927, only two other temperature readings above 50°C (in the ensuing 48 yr of record) were measured at the site.
Note that even though the instrument shelter provided shade, the surrounding concrete could unduly affect the measured temperature.
Going back to the main topic, were the temperature reading you refer to an accurate measurement of the air temperature?
Your Twitter link is merely a link to the climate change denialist site https://realclimatescience.com/2020/09/133-degrees-in-los-an... - you should have linked to the latter directly rather than have people chase links.
From the copied newspaper articles we can read only "in the shade", "exposed to the wind".
That it not enough determine if those thermometer readings were accurate measurements of the air temperature.
Hence the qualifier "reliably measured" is correct.
I think you have the logic backwards there. It seems that comment was arguing that scientists want to falsely suppress the 1913 record, so they can also falsely push climate change science. It's wrong, but it's internally consistent.
54.44 C
130° F
2.27 radians F
327.594 K
17.9652 Degree Newton
Repeating, of course.
What does "reliably measured" mean? Isn't the record 134F, measured in 1913? I wonder what the backstory here is.
Tomorrow might beat it by a few degrees.
Im seeing a lot of news lately about record heat waves. Presumably this has been happening for a few years now though although I’m not sure where i could get accurate info on that. Did the media just start pushing this to the from because its now a hot button issue that is selling more clicks?
Not saying its bad if it helps us take more action against global warming its likely good. But I’m still curious.
I'm generally pretty cynical about the news being a lot of click-bait, histrionic garbage. But in this case, the trend in reporting record-breaking heat waves seems to be rooted in the actual occurrence of record-breaking heat waves.
Isn't it strange how we keep breaking records, not just in hot but also cold, and in sports as well. I wonder what records will truly be unbroken. Perhaps the tallest person as we are able to stop the error that causes unchecked growth.
Isn't it strange how we keep breaking records
Nope. We tend to report on the records that get broken. With only one exception, the news generally doesn't go around saying "And another day of the status quo. Here are all the records that stood today without being broken. Here is everything that went unchanged."
That one exception that I'm aware of was when some reporter decided he didn't want a hostage situation forgotten and he began starting all of his reports with "Day xxx of the Iran Hostage crisis..." in order to have something "new" to say about it every single day and not let the public forget there were American hostages still in captivity. I have heard this annoyed the fool out of the American government and forced them to actually deal with it and not let it get quietly forgotten as such things tend to get.
That's really the only explanation for hattmall's perception of cold records being broken... because winters are actually getting warmer, and the number of record cold temperatures is lower than it has typically been in the past:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/warm...
I would add also that we now read news from all over. Instead of counting the number of local temperature events... we now count the number of temperature events from all over (the entire country, if not the world) because that's what the news presents to us. So we might perceive an increase in events, while in reality it has decreased. As such is the case in cold temperature records.
I think climate change is real and that human activities contribute. I think climate change is a more accurate term than global warming.
I also liked what one of my professor's said: "We are like fleas on the butt of a dog trying to figure out which way the dog is going."
I've enjoyed some fictional stuff, like episodes of the various Star Trek series, that had stories about planets experiencing catastrophe caused by increasing levels of asteroid activity or similar events out in space. I liked the detail that the plot for the movie Pitch Black hinged on a long period of darkness caused by an eclipse on an alien planet.
The earth is a living, evolving world and the layer of human-friendly biosphere is impacted by many long-term processes that we little understand and are ill equipped to accurately predict. Change is real. The need to adapt is real. This is actually stressful and all for humans across the globe.
That doesn't mean we are doomed and it doesn't mean we really know what comes next.
i've stopped cutting down rainforest.
It's interesting, but I don't think strange in the sense of being inexplicable.
Hot is an obvious side effect of global warming. Cold may be counterintuitive, but "global" warming (as opposed to local warming) refers only to the global average, and in Earth's case exacerbates both extremes.
With sports, as with any human endeavor, athletes are standing on the shoulders of giants; advancements in things like nutritional/medical science, food availability, fitness/training techniques, technology of gear/clothing/accessories, tactics and strategies in particular sports, and financial investments in sports should all contribute to continued broken records approaching the asymptote imposed by human genetics.
It’s not just a presumption and it isn’t media just “pushing this.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
> Nineteen of the warmest years have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the warmest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880 (source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
You and others have not read my comment correctly. I know this is the case. Im asking why right now it is always on the front page all of a sudden and am simply asking if this is because the frequency has increased or is because its now profitable to print.
But from your own link it is the media pushing this now. Because this was really never something you saw in the news before but all of the sudden you see it ever other day.
> Im asking why right now it is always on the front page all of a sudden
I've been seeing news reports on continuous heat-record-breaking for at least ten years. Perhaps you haven't been reading decent science news until recently.
But one would also expect reporting on a problem to increase as the problem gets worse, yes?
I think these are some of the highest recorded temps, like in Seattle and Portland ever. And it being July, if it is hitting record temps in California, Nevada and Arizona, then it might be a bit hotter than in years past.
Its both last few years a lot of temperature records have been broken. It is also being talked about a lot more as western countries have been feeling the rise directly with the extreme heatwave in Europe 2-3 years ago, then Australia with the bush fires and now North America this year. Previously the sea water rise and global warming though they might have believed it was just a theory to most they had not felt the direct effects.
We've been breaking heat records all over the world every year for the past two decades. This isn't new at all.