Tuesday hit a record high of 119 degrees

Yet you're useing one temp. in Phoenix AZ

It gets hot in Arizona. OMG 120 degress, what is the difference between 119 and 120. Pull you head out of the sand

 

That's not just "some blogger". He is part of the research team. And it's not just "some deviation from the slope line". Let me ask you this...given the other observations from that day what does parcel theory say should be the maximum temperature possible on that day in Death Valley if the lapse rate was dry adiabatic (which it was)? That isn't a trick question. If you don't want to calculate it out yourself that's fine. It's actually a pretty difficult calculation. But that's okay, the researcher tells you the answer in his blog. I actually did the calculation myself (well actually I used sharppy to do it) and I arrived at roughly the same answer the researcher did. This isn't laughable evidence. It's also not the only evidence.

All I did was politely point out that the 134F reading in Death Valley on 1913 is being formally challenged. I simply thought it was interesting news that was worth sharing. I responded to someone who mentioned the record. I'm pretty active in the meteorological community so I picked up on this research project from meteorological forums late last year when it began. What agenda do you think I have here?

Don't hold your breath. I seriously doubt the observer that day was taking photographs every hour. But, don't you think that if your going to claim that you observed a 134F reading on day in which it's theorectically impossible and which would be 4.5 standard deviations above the mean that YOU should be the one providing photographic evidence. I'm just saying...

 

I just thought it was interesting. Nothing more. Why do you think challenging an observation cannot be evaluated in any rational way? What makes it impossible or irrational? Atmospheric scientists do it all of the time...on a daily basis actually.

So just like that you want to claim the challenge is bogus because there's not photographic evidence? Parcel theory and other observers be damned? Why do you not want to see photographic evidence from the other observers in the area? You argument basically boils down to you accepting the reading without question from an observer with a history of questionable observations and credibility even though that observation contradicts 10 others who's credibility was not questioned. What's easier to believe...that one observer with questionable credibility was right and 10 others were all wrong? Or that 10 were right and 1 was wrong?

It just happens to be their job. There's no hidden agenda. There's no conspiracy. These records have been largely dismissed by the meteorological community for decades now anyway. Someone just happens to be making the formal challenge. That's all.

In the context of climate change (which is what I'm assuming you are referring to) it doesn't matter. Striking that 134F reading from the record will not lower the global mean temperature anomaly for 1913. It won't make 1913 look any colder and thus prove that the Earth is warming in any faster than it already is. Again, there's no conspiracy here.

 

Ya, it's been hotter than 119 in Phoenix before.

 

Which means, literally, that the only thing being discussed here is the hypothetical, as in, hypothetically, absent any actual data, could it be possible that the temperature wasn't actually recorded by a thermometer? Because, a "model" has "decided" that, as you say, "theoretically it was impossible". Do you suppose you can see just how specious this sounds? If you suggest that the temperature could "never" be 134, then I suppose you've defined an absolute limit. So, if something could never be that hot, "theoretically", now help us understand then, how we ever get to the blanket of toxic slime that approximates the atmosphere of say Venus? If we cannot ever get that hot, then the hyperventilating AGW faithful could never actually happen because as you've stated, it's "theoretically impossible".

 

Yup. Been there when it was. Of course, there wasn't any hyperventilation when it was the "coldest absolute temperature ever recorded", just this past winter. That was just transient weather.

 

No, I'm not "using one temp. in Phoenix AZ" as a substitute for the plethora of climatological data that has confirmed the scientific reality that spewing tens of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere, a problem that the international community acknowledges and for which it is now taking responsibility.

If an obstinate, isolated, ideological ilk cannot accept the truth, their incorrigibility will alter neither the science nor the global consensus concerning it.

 

If by "model" you mean a numerical weather prediction model that solves the partial differential equations that govern atmospheric states then no, it was not a "model" that "decided" this. It is a thermodynamic calculation that decided this. But, since you mentioned model there is also evidence from numerical weather prediction simulations that also showed 134F would not have occurred on that day...the hindcasted high from modern NWP models was in the low 120's for that day. Again, the argument is that 134F was not theoretically possible on *that* day. The argument is NOT that it is always impossible. Again, just that day (well technically it was several days before and after as well). The "blogger" made that clear in his summary. Read the blog again carefully. Also, I highly recommend getting a copy of Dynamic Meteorology by James Holton. It is a good reference for parcel theory and has the formulas for the thermodynamic equations. Also, google for skew-t charts and atmospheric soundings. A solid understanding of parcel theory and skew-t charts is necessary to understand why that 134F reading is impossible. Yes, it's difficult and time consuming to learn and appreciate. But, you CAN do it if your motivated enough. If you have questions ask. I'm very familiar with it and would be happy to answer questions. This is NOT a hypothetical argument the "blogger" is making.

 

Which is simply a very long winded way of saying, yes, you're right, and that yes, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the temperature recorded couldn't have been collected, just that the model produces a low probability of it being accurate in hind sight. And yet to actually "prove" that the record is false, you'd have to provide some kind of pictographic evidence that the thermometer didn't in fact read 134. Otherwise, this is all sophistry.

And in the end, who cares? Do you care that it was 134? I don't. What I do care about is the idea that our meteorological community believes in this functional data scrubbing. The question is: is this an altruistic purpose? or does this foundationally challenge the idea of previously recorded high temperatures being inconsistent with current temperature models that require historic heat to not be as high as it is today? I tend to believe the latter, as it doesn't do anyone any financial benefit to study this unless it does show historic warming. If you cannot see this, well, not my fault.

 

Golly, you should tell mother nature to stop it as natural releases vastly dwarf what human activity produces. But thanks for repeating the view. It certainly shapes the credibility the rest of us can apply to it.

 

So since we were close to a record low here this morning, by the OP's logic, the globe must be cooling...

I think that the earth is warming fwiw, but the OP correlating one day of record heat to proof of global warming is pretty absurd.

 

No, you don't have to provide pictographic proof. That wouldn't be all that convincing anyway especially if the instrument really did read 134 erroneously. But, if pictographic proof is what you want then why do you not make the same challenge to the 10 other observes who contradicted the 1. Your argument is basically "I believe out of 11 people that only 1 (the one with questionable credibility nonetheless) was right and 10 others were all wrong." Don't you think that's a stretch? And yes, there is empirical evidence that says 134 was not what happened. You've seen a summary of the evidence. Which part do you disagree with and why? The researcher's evidence is very compelling meteorologically speaking. The proverbial nail in the coffin. Your "nuh uh" argument just isn't that persuasive.

Well, it seems as though you're the one bent out of shape about it. I don't really care personally except I just thought it was interesting news. It's just another temperature reading to me. The only thing I am interested is the meteological conditons at the time and the forensic process the researchers are using. I'm sure the researchers care and the WMO. They keep a list of weather extremes and it'd be nice if that list was correct don't you think? And again, this 134 "record" has zero impact on the global warming debate. It has zero impact on the calculated global mean temperature from 1913. And I know this because I checked a couple of the reanalysis datasets for that day and they all must have either correctly filtered our the reading because it was physically impossible or it just didn't have any significant impact on that grid cell's temperature or more than likely it was both that caused that reading to not matter at all. But, I take it you think reducing this one value will have some huge effect? By what amount do you think it will matter? Which datasets do you think would be affected? I'm not an unreasonable person so if you can show in what way this impacted the various datasets I'm willing to help you research. I really think it'll be a waste of time and you won't get the answer you're looking for.

 

I'm always amused by the ideologues who strut their restricted modicum of knowledge and proclaim that all international associations of climatological experts and the representative governments of 200 nations somehow failed to note something about which the ideologues are uniquely aware. Precious!

 

Who said anything about being unaware? It just demonstrably disintegrates the hyperventilation efforts of the AGW faithful when you compare the actual CO2 produced naturally with what the human population then adds. Man adds roughly 3% of the overall CO2 production for a year. Get it yet? 3%. So, if CO2 proliferation is your goal, do tell how the reduction of less than 1 full percent of total CO2 production yearly gets anyone anywhere? The simple answer is that it doesn't. So, find yourself precocious, it's simply amazing to witness folks like you who trot out their own baseless understanding. Thanks.

 

No worries. It is the humidity that kills you, not the heat.

 

He probably told them not to worry about it like he did the Mayor of that Island in Va. that's slowly going under water.