"Almost every summer, there is a heat wave somewhere in the US that garners popular media attention.
During such hot spells, daily record high temperatures for various cities are routinely reported in local news reports.
A natural question arises: is global warming the cause of such heat waves or are they merely statistical fluctuations?
Intuitively, record-breaking temperature events should become less frequent with time if the average tem-
perature is stationary.
Thus it is natural to be concerned that global warming is playing a role when there is a proliferation of record-breaking temperature events. In this work, we investigate how systematic climatic changes, such as global warming, affect the magnitude and frequency of record-breaking temperatures.
We then assess the potential role of global warming by comparing our predictions both to record temperature data and to Monte Carlo simulation results...
Read the full article at Cornell University Library here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0509/0509088.pdf
Woody - "Yorkie, everyone here is probably familiar with RealClimate. It contains every excuse and rationalization for holes in global warming claims. It's propaganda disguised as science."
Where of course CO2Science and the Marshall Institute, Climate Audit, and Tech Central Station are just propaganda without even the hint of science. At least Real Climate is written by working climate scientists that actually know what they are talking about and contribute with original work to the scientific knowledge base. Nothing like that can be said of Peiser, McIntyre et al who's only contribution is to pick apart others work.
I would put my money on Real Climate for accurate information.
Ian - instead of playing "guess what I can come up with next" - I suggest you do some background research on the subject then make a reasoned case for what's not being handled well enough. So instead of going "but but but maybe it's this " - do some research - as I said elsewhere you wouldn't accept anything I would say so you'll have to find out yourself. You might find that climate modellers have considered a few issues including your tilt including a spatial radiation budget.
Try http://scholar.google.com
But be careful what you ask for - a win on albedo might give a negative on circulation system changes - it's all inter-linked as a big system - land clearing probably has intensified the drying trend - but all work in progress. You might give the greenies more ammo by not considering all the ramifications. But now we're out of climate change of course and into attribution of current climate.
P.S. I don't think spiv-Chieftains know about albedo.
True, Annabelle, but if no trend then chance of a record declines every year. This paper was about records not climate change. A meteorologist would have at least checked the site and not just one site out of a context. ' Sorry, no science possible from isolated phenomenon eg what happened in Philidelphia. If you wish to extrapolate from one result, you are into religion.
So what if polar albedo changes are more dramatic, Luke? The change from white to dark is in relation to insolation with an angle of incidence greater than 65 degrees and diffused by a longer oblique passage through the atmosphere.
So in your infinite wisdom, Luke, can you assure us all that the cumulative impacts of permanent change in albedo from vegetation change has been incorporated into the models? If so how?
My suspicion is that this is not the case as there is no mechanism for reporting same and there certainly was no recognition of this beneficial impact when Kemp (the pathetic) was writing stupid letters to Qld Chief of Spivs.
And given your apparent assumption on polar albedo, can you assure us all that these models do adjust the solar constant, and hence insolation and albedo, according to latitude?
He's sighs, exhales and tries to still his mind.
Ian - you might think they have albedo factored in. Sigh.
The temperature data does pick it up - the temperature data reflect a range of issues - solar flux, water vapour greenhouse, greenhouse CO2, aerosols, consequent changes in atmospheric circulations, albedo, surface roughness, stomatal conductance, surface wetness, LAI - yada yada - lotsa factors in the GCMs.
Do you think a temperature gauge measures just one of these factors?????
And if you change tree clearing or whatever - yes it makes differences. BUT - CO2 is still a big forcing. The climate models need and do to varying degrees of success integrate such diverse issues. That's why you need a "model!".
What we do not know though is the polar albedo changes are much more dramatic. White to dark !
Steve, they were conclusions based on the prior discussion on albedo. Is this another one of those situations where you are incapable of exercising reason without a web site to download common sense.
And Luke, it seems fair game for every second eurospiv to be producing horror stories based on a reduction in polar albedo due to receding ice so why do you have a problem with me highlighting the beneficial cooling effects of increasing albedo in more tropical climes?
Wouldn't be a bias there by any chance?
And still the question remains, we know it has a cooling effect but how can it be detected if the temperature data is incapable of picking it up?