Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Might be the rest of the world is getting warmer yet not the Plains or Midwest. Something has to explain the uptick in annual precipitation in the Great Plains and Midwest USA, as it was long predicted that the Midwest and Great Plains would become much drier than present day under a warmer climate not wetter.
Are thermometers today better ventilated than ones in the 1930s?
I also find it odd that no state heat record has been outright broken this century (South Carolina and South Dakota merely tied theirs), while three state cold records have been set this century. Obviously none of that disproves global warming, but I find it odd.
Not surprising given the extent of Dust Bowl-generated heat. What apparently happened with the Northeast's peaks in 1936 was that a piece of the heat ridge broke off and moved eastward. Something similar happened in August 2001, when after a rather cool July NYC suddenly had a heat wave with temperatures cresting at 101°F.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isleofpalms85
Might be the rest of the world is getting warmer yet not the Plains or Midwest. Something has to explain the uptick in annual precipitation in the Great Plains and Midwest USA, as it was long predicted that the Midwest and Great Plains would become much drier than present day under a warmer climate not wetter.
Maybe that weather patterns shift around, amoebalike?
The US certainly hasn't seen such extremes since the 1930s. On the other hand globally more heat records have been achieved then cold records in recent years. That should be noted and analyzed.
Canada too.
Hottest temp every recorded was in the dirty 30s....
July 5th 1937.....45C / 113F at Midale and Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan.
Other Canadian provincial heat records also way back in the 1930s...and 20s and 40s
British Columbia.......Lytton....july 16, 1941 ....44.5C / 112F
Alberta ........Bassano Dam....July 21, 1931...43.4C / 109.9F
I feel like you're straw-manning climate scientists into wacky people by just reading the headline and not looking at the actual study they cite. As stated on the website that is the worst case scenario which is largely unlikely to happen but could theoretically happen with the levels of warming. What the study does in fact say is that its more likely that there could be anywhere from 1-23 days with highs above 100f. This is a very large range of prediction which isn't surprising because predicting the climate is hard but scientists are sure it will warm if we keep emitting greenhouse gases into the air, they just don't know by how much.
Um gtfo. I've read this and many other studies. There are two scenarios in the study. A high and low. Even the low scenario a model weighted average of 7 days of 100F temps with a range of 1-23 days. We haven't seen 100F here in 7 years and don't even average 1 100F+ day a year (with the 1930s skewing the POR since most came back then). . The model weighted average for high emissions scenario is 23 days by 2070-2099 with a model spread of 3 to 63 because the models are **** and can't possibly predict this for any specific location 60 years into the future. It's not my fault that media takes the worst case scenario from the model outputs and makes their headlines with it.
Our CURRENT PATHWAY is on the high scenario (RCP85). So don't act like I don't read the damn study fool
Um gtfo. I've read this and many other studies. There are two scenarios in the study. A high and low. Even the low scenario a model weighted average of 7 days of 100F temps with a range of 1-23 days. We haven't seen 100F here in 7 years and don't even average 1 100F+ day a year (with the 1930s skewing the POR since most came back then). . The model weighted average for high emissions scenario is 23 days by 2070-2099 with a model spread of 3 to 63 because the models are **** and can't possibly predict this for any specific location 60 years into the future. It's not my fault that media takes the worst case scenario from the model outputs and makes their headlines with it.
Our CURRENT PATHWAY is on the high scenario (RCP85). So don't act like I don't read the damn study fool
Just because the article's headline was way out of context doesn't mean you have to take it at face value to suit your preconceived assumptions. Even if the model's point to a high scenario being more likely then that's still 3-63; a very large range, meaning that it can be anywhere in between.
Just because the article's headline was way out of context doesn't mean you have to take it at face value to suit your preconceived assumptions. Even if the model's point to a high scenario being more likely then that's still 3-63; a very large range, meaning that it can be anywhere in between.
It means that the models are complete crap in trying to project out 60 years for a location. Dont forget the model mean for high scenario which is our current trajectory is 23 days of 100F+ temps. There's absolutely no point of even publishing this nonsense. And it's not just this headline it's the climate ambulance chasers like ClimateCentral.org who make ridiculous projections 60 years into the future for cities such as Chicago. Supposedly our summers will resemble east Texas lmfaoo. If the models show such a wide spread in possible outcomes why do these fools choose the most drastic one??
Not to mention the fact that there were far fewer roads, cars, people, and concrete jungles back in the 1930’s, and yet temperatures then still managed to get that hot, without the amplified effects of urban sprawl seen today.
Not to mention the fact that there were far fewer roads, cars, people, and concrete jungles back in the 1930’s, and yet temperatures then still managed to get that hot, without the amplified effects of urban sprawl seen today.
The warmistas could make a far better case by starting with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. If there indeed was and/or is man-made global warming the first century would have had a far greater impact because of dirtier fuels. Indeed, the unsafe agricultural and ranching practices of the early 20th Century no doubt had a role in the 1930's melt-up in temperatures. Since you can't make current people feel guilty for environmental sins of 100-200 years ago, or levy taxes for it, that does not meet the agenda.
The low temperatures during the 1934 heat wave suggest a larger diurnal range than we would see today. Dry heat from the Dust Bowl? Summers the last couple decades don't look as hot on paper, but we are seeing more high humidity days and a lot higher minimum temperatures, perhaps a result of different agricultural practices. The humidity and hot nights played a huge factor in the July 1995 heat wave toll.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The model weighted average for high emissions scenario is 23 days by 2070-2099 with a model spread of 3 to 63 because the models are **** and can't possibly predict this for any specific location 60 years into the future. It's not my fault that media takes the worst case scenario from the model outputs and makes their headlines with it. 
