Los Angeles has its hottest day ever recorded

[westwall]

The significance is that an adrupt climate change will disrupt both agriculture and the distribution system that modern civilization depends on. With the resultant famines. In June, Russia was predicting a harvest of grain that would exceed 93 million tons, 18 million tons over what Russia uses. The hot, dry weather and fires have reduced that harvest to less than 60 million tons, meaning that Russia will have to import 15 million tons. And then you have Pakistan, where virtually the whole of the argiculture was wiped out by monsoon floods.

Our agriculture is at the mercy of the weather. Significant changes in weather patterns means that we lose major sections of it. In a world of nearly 7 billion people, that leads to famine.

It hasn't happened all the other times the temps have risen. What makes this time so special?

 

[westwall]

Los Angeles has its hottest day ever recorded

Hottest of 130 years on a 4.5 Billion year old planet. What's the significance? Has this data point been peer-reviewed? Has the peer-review process been properly vetted?

Well, the 4.5 billion years isn't significant. We're concerned about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, especially since humans emit more GHGs in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. YES, that has all been peer-reviewed and vetted. What do you expect to happen, if the trend continues, given the well-documented ability of GHGs to absorb infra-red radiation? I await your conclusion.

If you're talking about the AGW climate mafia, they don't count. All they were doing was engaging in a huge circle jerk. Regular non-afiliated peer reviewed papers don't agree with them. They are a peer review unto themselves.

 

[westwall]

Maybe. In the 1870's there was a hot spell that hit Santa Barbara most prominently that killed birds sitting in the trees. The temps were also felt in LA but no one knows how hot it was because there were no thermometers. Hyperbole isn't science and never will be.
LA has had a few days of record heat but it had several months of record cold...how does that figure into your little fact tree?

No thermometers...bwahahahaha!

LA wasn't the metropolis in the 1870's that it is now.

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/FindingAids/dynaweb/calher/barry/figures/I0006127A.jpg

 

[Harry Dresden]

Once again.........the k00ks pwn themselves.....................

LMAO..............fckukking dolt...........it was the "second coolest summer in Los Angeles since 1947"

Residents Wilt as Fall Heat Wave Makes Up for a Cooler Summer
By Michael White and Nadja Brandt - Sep 28, 2010 12:00 AM ET
Email Share

Yesterday’s peak of 113 degrees Fahrenheit (45 Celsius) in Los Angeles surpassed the previous mark of 112 degrees set on June 26, 1990, Stuart Seto, a specialist with the National Weather Service, said in an interview. It was the hottest day since record-keeping began in 1877.

“There’s hot, and then there’s hot,” said Byron Tyler, a resident walking in Hollywood yesterday after lunch. He shared a photo sent to his cell phone by a friend in the nearby San Fernando Valley whose car dashboard thermometer displayed 121 degrees. “Looking at that I don’t feel so bad.”

The early fall heat wave has produced two consecutive days of triple-digit temperatures, according to the Weather Service. Downtown Los Angeles will drop to the mid- to upper-90s, Seto said. Valley areas, some of which are within city limits, will remain above 100 until Sept. 29.

“We’ve gotten many calls today that are heat related -- heat exhaustion, heat strokes,” Mike Brown, battalion chief at the Los Angeles County Fire Department said yesterday. “It’s happening all over the map.”

Beaches were busier than usual for a Monday as people sought to cool down, Brown said yesterday. Some motorists didn’t make it. Dispatch calls were running 14 percent higher than on a typical Monday, said Jeffrey Spring, a spokesman for AAA Southern California.

Cars Overheat

“We’re averaging 2,000 calls an hour,” Spring said in an interview. “There are a lot of dead batteries because they tend to give up when they’re not in good shape in this kind of weather. Overheated vehicles, where belts and hoses aren’t doing their job.”

The San Fernando Valley is not L.A.......so it was the hottest day ever in L.A......

 

[Ravi]

Maybe. In the 1870's there was a hot spell that hit Santa Barbara most prominently that killed birds sitting in the trees. The temps were also felt in LA but no one knows how hot it was because there were no thermometers. Hyperbole isn't science and never will be.
LA has had a few days of record heat but it had several months of record cold...how does that figure into your little fact tree?

No thermometers...bwahahahaha!

LA wasn't the metropolis in the 1870's that it is now.

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/FindingAids/dynaweb/calher/barry/figures/I0006127A.jpg

Regardless, they most certainly had thermometers.

 

[skookerasbil]

Once again.........the k00ks pwn themselves.....................

LMAO..............fckukking dolt...........it was the "second coolest summer in Los Angeles since 1947"

Residents Wilt as Fall Heat Wave Makes Up for a Cooler Summer
By Michael White and Nadja Brandt - Sep 28, 2010 12:00 AM ET
Email Share

Yesterday’s peak of 113 degrees Fahrenheit (45 Celsius) in Los Angeles surpassed the previous mark of 112 degrees set on June 26, 1990, Stuart Seto, a specialist with the National Weather Service, said in an interview. It was the hottest day since record-keeping began in 1877.

“There’s hot, and then there’s hot,” said Byron Tyler, a resident walking in Hollywood yesterday after lunch. He shared a photo sent to his cell phone by a friend in the nearby San Fernando Valley whose car dashboard thermometer displayed 121 degrees. “Looking at that I don’t feel so bad.”

The early fall heat wave has produced two consecutive days of triple-digit temperatures, according to the Weather Service. Downtown Los Angeles will drop to the mid- to upper-90s, Seto said. Valley areas, some of which are within city limits, will remain above 100 until Sept. 29.

“We’ve gotten many calls today that are heat related -- heat exhaustion, heat strokes,” Mike Brown, battalion chief at the Los Angeles County Fire Department said yesterday. “It’s happening all over the map.”

Beaches were busier than usual for a Monday as people sought to cool down, Brown said yesterday. Some motorists didn’t make it. Dispatch calls were running 14 percent higher than on a typical Monday, said Jeffrey Spring, a spokesman for AAA Southern California.

Cars Overheat

“We’re averaging 2,000 calls an hour,” Spring said in an interview. “There are a lot of dead batteries because they tend to give up when they’re not in good shape in this kind of weather. Overheated vehicles, where belts and hoses aren’t doing their job.”

The San Fernando Valley is not L.A.......so it was the hottest day ever in L.A......

indeed...........but the 2nd coolest summer in 65 years!!!!!



Oooooooooooooooooops!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

My windows are wide open here in Maine, this morning.

The air feels almost tropical. It's warm and moist.

If I were convinced that this was all global warming was going to amount to, I'd be encouraging people to burn more fuel to keep it going.

Sucks for you folks in the world's sunnier climes though, I expect.

Here in Portland, Oregon, it was 80 yesterday, 84 the day before, going to be 80 today and 85 tomorrow. Unusually humid, overcast.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hottest of 130 years on a 4.5 Billion year old planet. What's the significance? Has this data point been peer-reviewed? Has the peer-review process been properly vetted?

Well, the 4.5 billion years isn't significant. We're concerned about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, especially since humans emit more GHGs in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. YES, that has all been peer-reviewed and vetted. What do you expect to happen, if the trend continues, given the well-documented ability of GHGs to absorb infra-red radiation? I await your conclusion.

I don't make conclusions on something that hasn't been tested. So far we haven't even proved CO2 causation so let's start there. The best one can get from an honest scientist in a peer-reviewed study is that there might be a cause and effect relationship and if so then humans are probably contributing to it.

Have you done the slightest research on how CO2 works in heating the atmosphere? Apperantly not. Here is a site from the American Institute of Physics that explains how the GHG effect works;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And the absorption bands of CO2 were measured in 1858, by Tyndall.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hottest of 130 years on a 4.5 Billion year old planet. What's the significance? Has this data point been peer-reviewed? Has the peer-review process been properly vetted?

Well, the 4.5 billion years isn't significant. We're concerned about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, especially since humans emit more GHGs in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. YES, that has all been peer-reviewed and vetted. What do you expect to happen, if the trend continues, given the well-documented ability of GHGs to absorb infra-red radiation? I await your conclusion.

If you're talking about the AGW climate mafia, they don't count. All they were doing was engaging in a huge circle jerk. Regular non-afiliated peer reviewed papers don't agree with them. They are a peer review unto themselves.

Asshole, since when have you posted a real peer reviewed paper? You post almost exclusively from sources like Watt and Monckten.

 

[Old Rocks]

No thermometers...bwahahahaha!

LA wasn't the metropolis in the 1870's that it is now.

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/FindingAids/dynaweb/calher/barry/figures/I0006127A.jpg

Regardless, they most certainly had thermometers.

I think that the word thermometer was coined in the early 17th century.

Thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

The significance is that an adrupt climate change will disrupt both agriculture and the distribution system that modern civilization depends on. With the resultant famines. In June, Russia was predicting a harvest of grain that would exceed 93 million tons, 18 million tons over what Russia uses. The hot, dry weather and fires have reduced that harvest to less than 60 million tons, meaning that Russia will have to import 15 million tons. And then you have Pakistan, where virtually the whole of the argiculture was wiped out by monsoon floods.

Our agriculture is at the mercy of the weather. Significant changes in weather patterns means that we lose major sections of it. In a world of nearly 7 billion people, that leads to famine.

It hasn't happened all the other times the temps have risen. What makes this time so special?

First, no evidence that there has ever been a worldwide rise in temperature in recorded human history that equals what we are seeing today.

Second, we are already seeing pretty severe effects. Consider the precipitation events of this year. The loss of nearly 40% of the Russian grain crop, the loss of nearly all the Pakistan's agriculture.



Response from Dr. James Hurrell

(this is an excerpt taken from “Questions for the Record”:

Dr. Hurrell’s response to questions from the Committee concerning the May 6th hearing. We are grateful to Dr. Hurrell for providing us with a copy of this material.)

Paleoclimate research is important in order to determine how recent changes in climate fit into the longerterm perspective of changes driven by natural variability, and how the climate system has responded to past, naturally-driven changes in radiative forcing (e.g., from changes in solar radiation). Decades of field and laboratory research developing paleoclimate records has resulted in global networks of well -replicated data.

A few key findings include:
– Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years, and likely the past 1,300 years.
– The last time polar regions were significantly warmer than present was about 125,000 years ago. At that time, average polar temperatures were up to 9 °F warmer than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit. Global average sea level was also likely 13-19 feet higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the
retreat of polar ice.
– It is very likely the glacial-interglacial carbon dioxide variations strongly amplified climate change, but it is unlikely they triggered the end of glacial periods. Polar temperatures, for instance, started to rise several centuries before atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose.

It is very likely current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years, and that the rates of increase have been five times faster over the past 40 years than over any other comparable period the past 2,000 years.

Dr. James Hurrell:

Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section and Chief Scientist for Community Climate Projects at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.

His research interests include climate variability and anthropogenic climate change. He has contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments, and is actively involved in the international research program on Climate Variability and Predictability.
CGD's Climate Analysis Section: Jim Hurrell

 

[asterism]

Well, the 4.5 billion years isn't significant. We're concerned about what's been happening over the last couple of hundred, especially since humans emit more GHGs in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. YES, that has all been peer-reviewed and vetted. What do you expect to happen, if the trend continues, given the well-documented ability of GHGs to absorb infra-red radiation? I await your conclusion.

I don't make conclusions on something that hasn't been tested. So far we haven't even proved CO2 causation so let's start there. The best one can get from an honest scientist in a peer-reviewed study is that there might be a cause and effect relationship and if so then humans are probably contributing to it.

Have you done the slightest research on how CO2 works in heating the atmosphere? Apperantly not. Here is a site from the American Institute of Physics that explains how the GHG effect works;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And the absorption bands of CO2 were measured in 1858, by Tyndall.

Show me a study that accurately predicted the temperature for any time period given a certain amount of CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections

Hansen’s 1988 projections
Filed under: Climate Science Climate modelling Greenhouse gases Instrumental Record— gavin @ 15 May 2007
At Jim Hansen’s now famous congressional testimony given in the hot summer of 1988, he showed GISS model projections of continued global warming assuming further increases in human produced greenhouse gases. This was one of the earliest transient climate model experiments and so rightly gets a fair bit of attention when the reliability of model projections are discussed. There have however been an awful lot of mis-statements over the years – some based on pure dishonesty, some based on simple confusion. Hansen himself (and, for full disclosure, my boss), revisited those simulations in a paper last year, where he showed a rather impressive match between the recently observed data and the model projections. But how impressive is this really? and what can be concluded from the subsequent years of observations?


In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. The details varied for each scenario, but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to bracket the set of possibilities. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”.

These experiments were started from a control run with 1959 conditions and used observed greenhouse gas forcings up until 1984, and projections subsequently (NB. Scenario A had a slightly larger ‘observed’ forcing change to account for a small uncertainty in the minor CFCs). It should also be noted that these experiments were single realisations. Nowadays we would use an ensemble of runs with slightly perturbed initial conditions (usually a different ocean state) in order to average over ‘weather noise’ and extract the ‘forced’ signal. In the absence of an ensemble, this forced signal will be clearest in the long term trend.

How can we tell how successful the projections were?

 

[westwall]

The significance is that an adrupt climate change will disrupt both agriculture and the distribution system that modern civilization depends on. With the resultant famines. In June, Russia was predicting a harvest of grain that would exceed 93 million tons, 18 million tons over what Russia uses. The hot, dry weather and fires have reduced that harvest to less than 60 million tons, meaning that Russia will have to import 15 million tons. And then you have Pakistan, where virtually the whole of the argiculture was wiped out by monsoon floods.

Our agriculture is at the mercy of the weather. Significant changes in weather patterns means that we lose major sections of it. In a world of nearly 7 billion people, that leads to famine.

It hasn't happened all the other times the temps have risen. What makes this time so special?

First, no evidence that there has ever been a worldwide rise in temperature in recorded human history that equals what we are seeing today.

Second, we are already seeing pretty severe effects. Consider the precipitation events of this year. The loss of nearly 40% of the Russian grain crop, the loss of nearly all the Pakistan's agriculture.



Response from Dr. James Hurrell

(this is an excerpt taken from “Questions for the Record”:

Dr. Hurrell’s response to questions from the Committee concerning the May 6th hearing. We are grateful to Dr. Hurrell for providing us with a copy of this material.)

Paleoclimate research is important in order to determine how recent changes in climate fit into the longerterm perspective of changes driven by natural variability, and how the climate system has responded to past, naturally-driven changes in radiative forcing (e.g., from changes in solar radiation). Decades of field and laboratory research developing paleoclimate records has resulted in global networks of well -replicated data.

A few key findings include:
– Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years, and likely the past 1,300 years.
– The last time polar regions were significantly warmer than present was about 125,000 years ago. At that time, average polar temperatures were up to 9 °F warmer than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit. Global average sea level was also likely 13-19 feet higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the
retreat of polar ice.
– It is very likely the glacial-interglacial carbon dioxide variations strongly amplified climate change, but it is unlikely they triggered the end of glacial periods. Polar temperatures, for instance, started to rise several centuries before atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose.

It is very likely current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years, and that the rates of increase have been five times faster over the past 40 years than over any other comparable period the past 2,000 years.

Dr. James Hurrell:

Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section and Chief Scientist for Community Climate Projects at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.

His research interests include climate variability and anthropogenic climate change. He has contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments, and is actively involved in the international research program on Climate Variability and Predictability.
CGD's Climate Analysis Section: Jim Hurrell

None of this is supported by historical records. We KNOW beyond doubt that it was significantly warmer than today during the Roman Warming Period, there is a very well documented sojourn through the Alps by a guy named Hannibal who crossed them with a bunch of elephants during the winter! try attempting that today.
Grapes were grown in the northern parts of England for Roman vineyards. The Brigantes, a celtic tribe, were very accomplished farmers and they populated the lowlands of Scotland.


The same holds true for the MWP, it was much warmer and the planet prospered. There was no methane catastrophe, there was no runaway temperature spike and where the ancients actually wrote about it (Pliny the Elder for the RWP as an example) the climate was pleasant and mild.

History damns the theory as false.

 

[skookerasbil]

Holy MOther of God...............

Now the k00ks are resorting to "projections" from guys in the 19th century!!!

 

[boedicca]

The summer of 2010 was bound to be remembered for cool temperatures across Los Angeles and a stubborn El Niño-enhanced marine layer blanketing the west side.

And then it became Fall.

The mercury hit an unprecedented 113 degrees shortly after noon and we may see hotter temps yet as the September sun bakes the downtown streets into the afternoon.

Today is not only the hottest September 27th since 1877 when meteorological record-keeping began -- it's downtown LA's highest temperature reading ever.

113 Degrees! Today is Downtown LA's Hottest Day on Record - LAist

Hardly surprising that it got that hot during a heat wave in an area that is completely PAVED OVER.