Hot ’nuff for ya?

Things are cooling off a bit here in West Michigan, and I see that other places are coming down, too.

Just got this email from a reader:

Highest temp ever recorded Sept 1922 (missed where, not in the US) 136 Deg F

Highest Temp ever in US 1913, Death Valley 134 deg F

A quick search bings us to Ask Yahoo:

The biggest scorcher ever noted was on September 13, 1922, in El Azizia (also known as Al ‘Aziziyah), Libya, when the mercury hit 136 degrees Fahrenheit. El Azizia is near the Sahara desert, so it’s no wonder the place gets so hot. Temperatures have likely gotten even hotter in the actual desert, but weather stations aren’t there to record it.

California’s Death Valley had the second-highest temperature. This desert area hit 134 degrees Fahrenheit in 1913. Like the Libyan city, Death Valley is in a mid or low latitude, which gets far more direct sun than the areas above 45 degrees north or south.

1922? 1913? The Model T line had only been running a few years when the Death Valley reading was taken. Maybe there’s more to global warming (if it even really exists) than human pollution? Maybe? I know it’s blasphemy to suggest it, so I’m just sayin’…

Comments

  1. Since when did you begin to cover the Global Warming thing? If you are starting seriously, here are some sites to look after: http://www.realclimate.org/ real climatologists comenting on the MSM common-patators, as well as explaining the science of climatology. A blogging common-patator finds answers to skeptic/denialist claims: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html I mention these, Murdoc, because your comment doesn’t suggest you’ve looked into what real climatologists are actually saying. The MSM is another matter…pehaps that’s what’s your complaining about.

  2. Read ClimateAudit.org for why ‘RealClimate’ can’t be trusted. Murdoc is accused of being an Oil Company Shill in 5… 4.. 3.. 2.. 1..

  3. Quick cheat sheet: ‘RealClimate’ is run by ‘real climate scientists’ Such as Dr. Michael Mann who has degrees in Physics and Mathematics. (Spot the climatology degree? No. Neither could I.) Not only that, but he’s a bad statistician. His famous studies Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1998 and 1999 which purport to provide evidence for ‘global warming’ have been shown to be fatally flawed both by a recent National Academy of Sciences panel and two Senate Committee hearings. When faced with his mistakes, he hasn’t backed down. He ducks, dodges and weaves. He ‘moves on’. It ‘doesn’t matter’. In short, his mistakes including: * Using measurements of tree rings as a ‘temperature proxy’ when the experts who measured the tree rings stated clearly that they don’t proxy temperature, as they show a recent spike which does not correlate with any thermometer readings in the area where the trees were growing. * Using statistical methods he invented which show global warming even if you feed them random numbers with no long term trend. * Failing to report adverse verification statistics which, if reported, would indicate the statical results can not be trusted. * His ‘global reconstruction’ is driven entirely by proxies from the Sierra Nevadas. Remove that data and the ‘global warming’ goes away. Not very global, is it? That’s not all but those are the main points. Feel like you want to trust ‘real climate scientists’ now?

  4. Global warming is real. That aside, IMO the real problem is the wing nuts on the left and right playing with science to push an agenda. The left wing nuts, Sierra Club, are all about going back to nature, giving up technology, and being one with nature. The right wing nuts, deny global warming exists, so they can expand, industrialize at will. Basic common sense – if you clear cut the forests, burn them, and put in millions and billions of tons of CO2 into the air – at some point you are going to have an effect. Now its true that there are natural processes that do the same. But to me the real issue is. Do you we really have to pollute? If we can live in cities not covered in smog, would it be so evil to do so? Should we damn clean technologies so we can spite the left wing wack jobs? We have the technology to promote cleaner power generation. There are proven health benefits to do so. To me, developing clean technologies is a multi-win senario. Reduce depence on oil, clean the air and improve health, and maybe we can be good stewards of the land. By the way if you want some more ‘offical’ numbers you can always try NASA. http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

  5. Do we really have to pollute? I dunno, do you like having electricity and cars? Of course we could have nuclear power stations, they don’t pollute much, but they make certain people hysterical. As for cars, they’re really pretty good these days, they don’t output much other than CO2 + water, when the engine is warm anyway. Unless CO2 and water are a problem I don’t see the issue. So, are they a problem? If so, why? Just saying ‘well, we should not pollute anyway’ is dodging the question of where this supposed scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming is. By the way, it’s pretty cold in the Southern Hemisphere right now.

  6. it being Winter in the Southern Hemishpere and all, yep,, cold. anyay, I am not going to respond to your flame baiting. I was only posting to be informative for Murdoc’s sake. To the effect of: only looking at a couple of the most extreme events in history does not get one a fair idea of global mean average temperature changes, nor the changes in dispersion of those temperature events. On an energy policy note, this: http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17236&ch=biztech looks very nifty.

  7. So.. if it’s cold in the Southern Hemisphere because it’s winter.. does that mean it’s hot in the Northern Hemisphere beacuse it’s summer? If that’s what you’re saying, then I agree…

  8. Sam: You’re right. I’m not studying global warming. I’m not even really ‘covering’ it, though I point out a few things every now and again as the mood strikes. James: I don’t disagree one bit about cutting down on pollution. I’m not sure anyone I know (even the card-carrying members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) is pro-pollution. It’s just that the whack-o brigade of the environmentalist movement is, well, whack-o. I fully support rational regulation of tree-cutting, though. I’d be willing to dump a lot of money into re-forestation projects of some sort or another. Rational ones, of course. No ‘bulldoze Chicago to create a new gigantic forest.’. Okay…maybe Chicago… I believe 200% in nuclear power for electricity supply. If we could expand our nukes enough, I’d even be willing to support electric cars in many cases. I am hoping that oil prices help push alternative fuels, anyway. Even though some of the alternatives I see are alternative oil sources. Nicholas: Almost all of us are Americans. The southern hemisphere doesn’t really count… Regarding all this, what about the increase in temperatures recorded by space probes on Mars and in other places? I’ve not studied this either, but unless those reports are outright lies (always possible in the media, of course) doesn’t it lend credence to non-human theories for global warming, if it even really exists?

  9. Incidentally, this is a lot of comments and controversy for a post that doesn’t mention either [xxxREDACTEDxxx] or light aircraft carriers…

  10. Nic, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_hemisphere ‘Climates in the Southern Hemisphere tend to be slightly milder than in the Northern Hemisphere. This is because the Southern Hemisphere has significantly less land and more ocean. The water heats up and cools down more slowly than land.’ So I don’t really see any problem with the differences in climate repsonse between the Northern and the Southern Hemispheres. (also Currents move warm water around, further insulating the SH from crazy climate effects; though it didn’t mention that bit.) Additionally, the Northern Hemisphere has a different suite of greenhouse gasses to worry about. Industrial pollution produces lots of Ozone, soot etc., which plague the North, but not the South; as well as land use changes blah blah blah. Murdoc, as far as Mars and elsehwere go, things are very very different. The implied in such mentions is that the changes in the Sun might be to blame. We have been watching the energy form the sun very carefully since the 1940s, and rely on Beryllium isotope data to reconstruct earlier changes in energy form the Sun. There was a rise in Solar energy from about 1910-1940ish, but this has since leveled off: http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/ (click on the graph) and as noted the Earth has oceans and and such which insulate us from minor changes in the sun’s energy. Mars, not having a hydroshere (or even much of an atmosphere nor Magnetoshere), is a different story entirely,; and as such its’ Dry Ice Glaciers (or whatever they are) are more susceptable to smaller changes in the Sun’s energy. We haven’t been viewing that planet as a whole in good resolution for very long and it has very different orbital charicterstics. The very short and region limited regional study which skeptics/denialists glom onto just isn’t enough to say much of anything with certainty. Even less is known about warming (if any) on Jupiter.

  11. I agree.. the southern hemisphere has more water.. therefore its climate should be milder. That means, if there is ‘global warming’, it might be warming less tha the northern hemisphere. It still doesn’t explain how most data shows it to be COOLING. That would require a whole new theory, which nobody I know has come up with. The only argument I can think of that would make sense, assuming that CO2 is trapping more heat, is that something (ocean currents?) is moving the extra heat northwards. But again, I can only think of how that could moderate the warming, not actually reverse it… One of the big explanations that usually comes up when we ask the question ‘if CO2 was responsible for the warming, why did it cool between 1940 and 1970 while CO2 concentrations were increasing?’ is aerosols. Aerosols are limited mainly to NH. That being the case, wouldn’t you expect to see MORE warming in SH? Without aerosols, models are unable to predict the current warming. To me this casts doubt on their ability to explain the climate. Another problem for the CO2 AGW hypothesis. As for agents like methane (the only other ‘greenhouse gas’ we product in significant enough quantities to have any real effect), is there any evidence that it isn’t well-mixed in the atmosphere, therefore allowing it to have localised effects? I would have thought, the fact that earth has a ‘greenhouse effect’ which traps radiation from the sun would MULTIPLY any changes in incoming radiation. If the sun increases in brightness even a little bit, not only will that increase temperatures slightly, it will also cause more evaporation, which traps even more heat. At least, that’s another hyopthesis that AGW rests on. Without the ‘water feedback’, global warming is projected to be miniscule. So, either ‘water feedback’ doesn’t happen, explaining why the sun has such a small impact on earth climate, but also negating the AGW hypothesis, or it does, and that explains why solar changes can have a noticable impact. I don’t see how you can have it both ways. In short, there are a lot of contradictions in the hypothesis, when trying to explain (a) why AGW is supposed to be so bad if solar radiation changes are supposed to have such a small effect and (b) why measurements of climate change are at odds with AGW predictions. For example the AGW hypothesis predicts that the stratosphere should be cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming. But satellite readings show that it isn’t. So far I have not read any satisfactory explanation for this. As for that solar graph, it’s too short to tell the whole picture. As this graph shows, solar activity increased between 1900 and 1950 and has stayed pretty high since then, with the usual 11-year cycle fluctuations. It certainly makes it hard to rule out the sun as a climate driver. Long-term solar activity seems to have a pretty good correlation with climate, going back the past couple of thousand years. Anyway, there’s a lot more research to be done yet before we understand that fully.

  12. I think there are enough political, economic, and social reasons to remove our dependency on oil* for energy and move to alternative energy sources and conservation that global warming isn’t really even necessary to make it worth our while. *Lack of the word ‘foreign’ was very intentional.

  13. KTLA : True, although there’s no silver bullet drop-in solution which will remove dependence on oil overnight (or indeed any time soon). I’m all for conservation. I’m even an environmentalist. I just can’t stand to see people twisting the truth in order to serve their agenda. I won’t do it. We should be able to answer questions with ‘I don’t know’. I think if you look into the science deep enough, you’ll find that’s the real answer. There’s nothing wrong with that; more research is required. However, claiming that the ‘science is settled’ is not the way to get more research… Similarly I don’t think scare tactics are the correct way to go about driving technology. Most of us want cleaner cars and power stations, but I for one am not going to try to force people to do what I want by claiming that they’re doomed if they don’t.

  14. Don’t know about all that global warming stuff………….when I was working in the Jordan River Valley (June ’04-March ’06), which is gvery similar to Death Valley, it’d routinely hit 50C (about 122F) in the shade at this time of year. Must have been 134-136 F out in the sun.

  15. Don’t know about all that global warming stuff………….when I was working in the Jordan River Valley (June ’04-March ’06), which is geologically very similar to Death Valley, it’d routinely hit 50C (about 122F) in the shade at this time of year. Must have been 134-136 F out in the sun.

  16. nic, stick around, I was going to post a critique of the blog you got your graph from, but their site seems to be innacessible to me atm, so I can’t fairly review it. A key point though is what one means by ‘Right now’ I am not sure if Mann was being quoted fairly if actually quoted at all, I’ll get to that as soo as the Article58.com site is open to me again. What does Mann mean by ‘Right now’ versus what you and Article58.com mean? Here is Michael Mann with his own words and his own graphs in his own context for the same period of time: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html make of that what you will. IMO the Southern Hemisphere appears here to be more turbulent than I would have expected. Mann here admits that the record is hampered by the lack of good proxies in the Southern Hemisphere for that time period. But generally, for nine hundred years in the past millenium there was a gradual cooling trend, which is likely the ‘average’ which Article58.com was talking about…which is really a ‘mode’ average, not a ‘mean’ average [/quibbles] to me in terms of climate, ‘Right now’ objectively means the past 5 years averaged out to remove seasonal fluctuations and anomolies, and then put in the context of the industrial age, when greenhouse gasses are rising. Voila: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/demos/temrec/graph.htm this shows both hemispheres temperature record next to each other along with their trended lines, and the the Global trend. The all display the same basic trend behavior with some variation, as one would expect given the different surface composition …but not too much differences. It’s from a six year old presentation, but I don’t think the basic data it’s based upon has been drastically corrected since. Both Hemispheres show warming trends in synch, with similar positions of (but not amplitudes) peaks and troughs …and its a more Right Now ‘right now’, meaning this past century….not before accurate temperature records were kept; and during the period when greenhouse gasses were on the rise.

  17. okey for some reason article58.com is now working for me. Here is the article I beleive you got the idea from: http://www.article58.com/?p=38 No where here does the author quote Mann as saying anything in context of ‘Right now’ being the past 1800 years. So I will assume these are your words. As mentioned, the modal trend average for the period is some 900 years of slow reduction in temperatures. Thats a ‘mode’, meaning the most commonly occuring, not the ‘mean’ or total average trend, nor the most powerful. And if you look at Manns graphs for the same period but in the Northern Hemispher, and Globally, you will see the same trends: Gentle rise early on, then 900 years of cooling followed by a sharp rise at the end…which is what most people think of as ‘Right Now’ The article’s author sataes: ‘If you graph the available data from Mann 2003, et. al., (Mann being one of the main purveyors of global warming theory) you will note that while the northern hemisphere data does show a warming trend since about 1400, the southern hemisphere data actually shows a COOLING trend.’ however he doesn’t provide for us a NH graph to compare with the SH, and lets us guess that he is right. As I linked ot previously though, Mann hs done that work for us: http://tinyurl.com/mrxrh here we see both hemispheres together, and instead of seeing in the NH ‘a warming trend since 1400’, I see a similar cooling trend with the SH, though the later appears more flat (in a bumpy kinda way) than the NH. I call Shenanigans!

  18. The day before we left our base in the Saudi desert in 1991, our Corpsmen monitoring heat conditions recorded 135 in the shade. Not an enjoyable day spent sweating in a GP tent. I’ve heard our troops in the Middle East have seen even higher temps at times.