On Friday, Accuweather was predicting all-time record heat for everywhere from Death Valley to Denver. As far as I can tell, they are batting 0.000
Here in the Front Range of Colorado, we have had about average temperatures this weekend – with lots of rain.
The Colorado River needs the rain
they are saying 117 for Las Vegas…
…the official NWS/NOAA temp was 115
The figures have been adjusted yet – give them a few days and it will be the HOTTEST EVER.
TYPO – The figures have NOT been adjusted yet – give them a few days and it will be the HOTTEST EVER.
terrance,
Who is they?
If you did not have your head up YOUR rectum Totally Obnoxious Oaf, you would know.
Does not appear so in Arizona.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/us-heatwave-in-southwest-par-for-the-course/
It’s all about making headlines in support of the Obama Agenda. See here the propaganda machinery at work. Screw them all.
In the another thread here I was wondering about the 115°F I saw on the Las Vegas strip back in 1991 or 1992. I used the PDF found in this thread at Anthony’s …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/30/about-the-record-temperature-in-las-vegas-yesterday-it-wasnt-117f/
… and if that history of McCarran airport records is correct then I have to believe that temperature on that big clock on the upper strip was wrong. They do not show 115° in either of those years.
Steve, do you think the civilian clock/thermometers are somehow affected by all the concrete and asphalt? I mean, on the strip up there ( back then ) it was nothing but concrete and asphalt – streets, buildings, and parking lots with no dirt or sand to be found, anywhere.
I’m starting to wonder if McCarran actually shows cooler temps than the strip, because it’s almost the exact opposite to every other situation where the local airport is “developed” but the surrounding community is rural.
I would name this dog Bill McKitten as I’m sure Bill is frightened by his own emissions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN1KigdIahc&feature=player_embedded
“the unusual weather is more unusual than usual.”
http://drtimball.com/2013/government-weather-and-climate-science-is-a-proven-disaster/
I would say that the unusual doctors of climate are more unusual than usual.
Back in 2002 the late John Daly commented on the government’s ongoing attempt to break the world high temperature record by intentionally violating station location standards.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/badwater.htm
Apparently it was 107 in Houston yesterday, I live 30 miles to the SW and my porch thermometer that faces NW never got over 98…….
Tuscon set a record for number of consecutive days over 100 and Corpus Christi set an all time record — do they count?
Indeed, all within a 30 month period:)
http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/13962322/record-cold-during-this-bitter-blast
Chewer,
Climate scientist refer to it as global weirding — this is what happens when the jet stream gets mangled due to rising Arctic temps.
Global weirding is a junk science term used by incompetents to blame random weather events on their pet theories. Whatever claim is made is unprovable, hence much beloved.
but Laz, Arctic temps are not rising
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/shock-news-arctic-to-boil-over-soon/
Gotta love the leftard global warming shibboleths. The ‘warming’ arctic is responsible for a mundane temperature record in TX. However there is NO proof of the following.
1. That the Arctic is warming in any type of significant way
2. That a warming arctic can and does “mangle” the jet stream
3. That a “mangled” jet stream could or did cause any particular weather event.
4. What mechanism of the jet stream caused a particular temperature record in a particular location.
5. How is a mundane temperature record “weird”.
Hi T.O.O.,
I just typed “global weirding” into a Web of Science search for journal article titles. I expected to see a bunch of articles pop up. Imagine my surprise when a big fat 0 popped up.
Hmm, I thought, maybe they haven’t been including it in their titles and instead have included it as part of their abstracts instead. So I searched the same term in the “topics” category, which searches both titles and abstracts. Huge number of articles popped up, right? Dang, even a bigger surprise to see another big fat 0 pop up again.
So I must conclude that either you’re lying about scientists using the term or their only using it in the context of their political activism. Since a few scientists have used the term, it would appear that it’s only in their activism. As such, it really has no relevance.
-Scott
Well now Scott,
You didn’t try very hard did you? There are more studies that use the phrase, but I will let you discover them for yourself.
Global Weirding in British Columbia: Climate Change and the Habitat of Terrestrial Vertebrates
Fred L. Bunnell, Laurie L. Kremsater, Ralph W. Wells
Abstract
The authors summarize the distribution of terrestrial vertebrates of British Columbia across major habitat types and present empirical and projected effects of global weirding within two particularly vulnerable habitats—alpine and wetland. Global weirding embraces all phenomena associated with climate change: increases in average temperatures, heat waves, cold spells, floods, droughts, hurricanes, blizzards, plant and animal die-offs, population explosions, new animal migration patterns, plus dramatic regional differences.
Latitude,
I suggest you look at that graph again with your glasses on. And if you want a longer perspective of Arctic temps in the 70 to 90 degree range, this is an excellent graph:
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warwickhughes.com%2Fcool%2Fjones79_90n.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.warwickhughes.com%2Fcool%2Fcool13.htm&docid=9V-QOHLS3BHKpM&tbnid=1iXiRl7nJ4hMDM%3A&w=408&h=366&ei=7YjRUY6XJsifkgXat4Eg&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c
T.O.O – I provided details on my search method so anyone could replicate them. Were my results reported inaccurately? But I must LOL–so one peer-reviewed paper that shows up at the top of Google Scholar is your evidence? Quickly glancing through the first few hits of Google Scholar, I don’t see any other peer-reviewed articles. Why is that? Or are there a ton I’m missing–please tell me your search methods that generate dozens of peer-reviewed articles. Why are there no mentions of it in either the titles or the abstracts of Web of Science, which is a very large database/search engine for journal articles? Might it be that it’s not that common?
Oh wait, I see what you said now:
[emphasis mine]
I guess you were right…the singular term probably is the truth, as there only appears to be one PI with a published peer-reviewed paper that uses that term in the title.
But, if you want to claim that it is common, why does it not show up at all in Web of Science?
-Scott
Scott,
Is this really the battle you really want to fight — to find out if scientists actually use the term “global weirding”?
19 MAR 2009: ANALYSIS
With Temperatures Rising,
Here Comes ‘Global Weirding’
They’re calling it “global weirding” – the way in which rising temperatures are causing species to change their ranges, the timing of their migrations, and the way they interact with other living things. And the implications of all this are only beginning to be understood.
by john waldman
The concept of “global weirding” is emerging as a notable complement to its cause, global warming. Coined by Hunter Lovins, a founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, it describes the consequences of the rise in average global temperatures, which are expected to amplify the abnormal: hotter heat spells, longer and sharper droughts, more violent storms, and more intense flooding.
John Waldman, a professor of biology at Queens College, New York, works on the ecology and evolution of anadromous fishes, historical ecology, and urban waterways. Before joining Queens College, he worked for 20 years at the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research.
T.O.O.,
See my comment above about political activism. Looks like that’s how they use it, as it’s not really in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Given that what you pasted is from 2009, it seems like they’ve reluctant to start using it in their science papers since you’ve only managed to find one paper with it with Google Scholar and Web of Science doesn’t pick up anything with the term, period.
So do scientists use the term? Of course they do. Do they use actual science with it? Not really. They also use the term “global cooling”, even in scientific papers. Web of Science picks it up with a “topic” search 7598 times, and 7568 of those were from 1990 or later. But I would be foolish to claim that since they say it that it’s a valid argument, even when they say in it scientific papers.
Scientists using a term for activism and propaganda really doesn’t score any points in my book. If it scores in your book, I’d recommend that you raise your standards.
Now tell me, why isn’t the term at all found by Web of Science? Also, were you surprised to find that there wasn’t a single hit for it? Have you found any other peer-reviewed journal articles with it?
-Scott
When Las Vegas, Death Valley or anywhere else on the planet for that matter, stays above 100°F (38°C) for a period of 160 consecutive days (between 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924), I will then take notice, until then…..
“you call that a heatwave….this is a heatwave”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Bar
“During December and January, temperatures in excess of 45 °C (113 °F) are common, and the average maximum temperature exceeds normal human body temperature for 6 months each year.”
Oops…..wrong link in the above comment….should have been this one:
http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm#top
Was that a snafu?
For the NW, today is only Hades light. Tomorrow is Hades stout. But I don’t believe any of it is a record of any significance.
Everything now is the worst ever.
In fact, I think I’ll get a bumper sticker that says, “This is the worst ever.”
I go here to get daily records of all types.
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/validProds.php?prod=RER
“Climate scientist refer to it as global weirding…” 😆
T.O.O.L. confuses alarmists with ‘climate scientists’! That explains everything. 😉
Non-scientist climate change communicators have got it rough.