« Sue Clark-Johnson, an appreciation | Main | »

February 02, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

There is something to be said for not having to worry about slipping on ice when you are 80. And why is it that 80 feels cool when you are 80?

Beyond all that, keep in mind that sunshine is pure wealth. Photons give electricity, the stuff that civilization is built on. You can make water run uphill with it. You can plant all the leafy trees you want with that water...

Sure the kooks want to burn coal to make electricity, but they are on the wrong side of the market (and history) with that bit of stubborn stupidity.

Just as they are on the wrong side of the market (and history) with wanting to gut pesticide regulations. Even Fry's has its own organic line now. Safeway has had the O brand for years. I mean really, not even a kook wants to eat bug spray with his meals. And yet here and there a kook shouts for the good old days of DDT and white bread.

It is just learned stupidity...
Willful ignorance...
Tribal dumbth.

But they are losing day by day.
Even if they win at the polls in Arizona...
They lose in the marketplace:

Apple plans to spend $2 billion turning the site of its failed sapphire production plant into a data center. Apple tells Bloomberg that the site, located in Mesa, Arizona, "will serve as a command center for our global networks." The 1.3 million-square-foot building will be powered entirely by renewable energy and is expected to create 150 full-time jobs and 300 to 500 construction and trade jobs — far fewer than the 2,000 or so jobs that the sapphire production plant was supposed to make. "This multibillion-dollar project is one of the largest investments we’ve ever made," Apple says.

I truly believe we are seeing the last stand of the kooks and the birth of a new Arizona. Because quite simply, Kook-stupidity is not sustainable in the marketplace. And in the end, money always wins...


Sorry to sun on the parade, but data centers are the low end of the food chain. No R&D, design or engineering jobs, no executive decision-making, no "ecosystem" that builds and sustains a broader economy of advanced industries. This is why most data centers are located in places such as the rural South.

It will be interesting to see if AZ has had to give (more?) away in incentives to get this.

Meanwhile, Arizona -- which started the solar-power industry -- is mostly the slag heap of the industry, with massive arrays being put up with minimal oversight, destroying desert. It should first be the R&D, science, design, startup and corporate center of solar. But it's not.

Yes, the sun can potentially be a power advantage for the state, but some skepticism is in order.



Phoenix's heat, both in duration and intensity, is terrible. The meme "It's a dry heat" is ridiculous, but the knee jerk response of the unknowing who have never endured Phoenix"s summers year after year. The desert climate is very beneficial for those who suffer skin disorders, arthritis and SAD.

One must personally experience an entire severe Minneapolis winter which seems to occur every third year now before making comparisons with other climates.It is much worse than unending bitter cold and snow. Cincinnati it isn't.

I grew up in a house with evap cooling and I don't recall it being uncomfortable. It would be sheer torture today, however. The heat island formed around 1970 and has been intensifying ever since. KTAR used to publish a weather almanac that listed the average daily temperatures throughout the year along with the daily record temps. The last year there was a record low temperature during summer in Phoenix was 1969. It used to be that the coolest temp in the Valley would be a place called Citrus Station south of Tempe. That is no longer the case.

Once water is market-priced in metro Phoenix, Scottsdale, Chandler, and Gilbert will still be able afford their local oases. Central Phoenix, the epicenter of the urban heat island, will not be so fortunate. Losing shade along with the transpiration of moisture from trees will only serve to make the center city hellish. Since "we live in a desert, stupid", passes for wisdom among newcomers, don't expect much opposition from the citizens. Climate change will eventually make all of metro Phoenix uninhabitable but the area to suffer first and most will be in and around downtown. The cruel irony should be noted: beleaguered citizens will cope by moving farther and farther out, exacerbating the heat island even more.

Why is it so hard to explain the concept of limits to most people? Why do we think we can endlessly burn fossil fuels, drive everywhere, overfish oceans, and dump poisons into the water and atmosphere? I don't mean this as a cue to shout Malthus but as a way to engage whatever moral insight people still have about our responsibility as a species. We can't keep doing this. Phoenix is one of the most vulnerable cities in this dangerous age we've created. In Portland, there's extraordinary concern shown about the environment. In Phoenix, that concern is mocked as precious by the oblivious and sociopathic. I hate to say this but Phoenix will deserve its fate.

Climate change will eventually make all of metro Phoenix uninhabitable but the area to suffer first and most will be in and around downtown.

Maybe. If no one does anything. And if the science of climate change is accurate at the regional level. Of course, climate science is correct at the global level, but there is still uncertainty as exactly how regional differences will play out.

But why do you think no one will do anything? My post up above shows how things have changed in regards to just whole foods and the Apple insisting on renewables. All that was unthinkable 15 years ago. Crikey most of us here grew up in an era where our local markets had only white bread on the shelves.

Does it matter that a data farm doesn't employ a ton of people and that Fry's still sells non-organic white bread?

Not really. My point is that change obscures itself by becoming main stream. And the world is changing dramatically in the green direction. And that there is nothing Rush Limbaugh and the Kochs can do about it, except carp and throw money at the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the marketplace. They've already lost... they can't even salvage a tie.

To think that Phoenix won't eventually plant trees and take steps to mitigate the local effects of climate change is akin to believing that Gov. El Duce will free all stores of organic bread and force our youth into Ford Galaxies with fins.

That ain't gonna happen. El Duce won't even be able to stop the street cars from running on time.

Koreyel, I appreciate your reminder that change is the only constant and it's foolish to assume we might not, at some future point, change course. Nothing is static. Still, in terms of "thinking out loud" here, I still think it's more probable that Phoenix will meet the oncoming crisis with a) cheerleading, b) denial, c) scapegoating, and d) delusional thinking. Why? Ask the state that just elected Il Duce governor.

How many graveyards does this state have to blithely whistle past before the perception gels that Arizona does not learn? Even liberal Phoenix can only partly mitigate the gathering catastrophe with tree planting. Is there any public discussion about this idea or the disaster of the urban heat island itself?

I suspect the opposite is still dogma because "it's a desert, stupid". The public square in Phoenix is scorching in the summertime but not with ideas.

Migration is the human response to changes in climate. People will leave before they change their ways.

My tee time is in 90 mins! Enjoy!

The ideal would be to have a winter home in Phoenix and a summer home in the Great Lakes region. Which is what some wealthy people did from 1900-1950. But most people couldn't afford two homes or time away from their daily workplace. So a year-round existence in Phoenix was required. And THAT can be brutal during the summer. Just as bad as an icy Chicago winter. The politics and the intense heat finally drove me away, after all those decades.

Just as the Republican Party has suffered because many of the more moderate members left, Phoenix has suffered because many who recognize our shortcomings (Every metro area has them) have moved away.

"Abandoning ship" is the easy way out. Remaining involved and working to promote one's own viewpoints and suggestions is more challenging.

For every inch of print promoting sensible solutions such as greenbelts of citrus trees (I don't know anyone who denies the nighttime cooling effect they had), I read 100 inches moaning and groaning about the Koch brothers and blaming everything on "the Republicans."

Are we sure we're not despairing about losing a fight we've already begun to win? Downtown has a long way to go, but it IS better than before. Light rail is overwhelmingly popular and is "gaining traction" Valleywide. I'm no sports fan--I didn't even watch the game--but this Super Bowl seems to have generated more positive press for Arizona than the previous two.

I'm a Phoenix native. This is my hometown. Is it as nice a place now as it was when I was growing up? Not really. Is it a better place in many ways than it was ten years ago? Yes.

I have been shouting Malthus since 58!

In July, when I'm mountain biking at 7 pm, sweaty and feeling slightly cool despite the fact that its 105, I often think of the folks who mistakenly believe there are "hellish" months in Phoenix. "Hellish" was before AC, golf carts and trail systems. If you're not out enjoying the outdoors year-round in Phoenix, the problem is you, not the fact that it's a little warm out.

Robert Bohannan, you know this blog so it probably isn't a surprise to you that pessimists tend to rule here. That said, I welcome the conversation.

I am a Phoenix native, too. My view about it began to change in the early 1970s when I noticed it becoming bigger but not really better. The desert I loved was disappearing. That's when I began to question the growth-at-any-price attitude that prevails here. In the early 1980s, I noticed that Phoenix stopped getting daytime thunderstorms during the summer. The weather was getting worse. In the 1990s, I noticed how forlorn central Phoenix was beginning to look. In the 2000s, I noticed how one-dimensional the economy had gotten. Sprawl was not merely the effect of growth, it was the economic engine itself. In the 10's, I noticed the political radicalization of the state had become its default reality.

You can't separate out the individual strands of hypertrophic growth, worsening weather, and political radicalism. They are mutually reinforcing phenomena. So seeing good things like light rail or a Super Bowl must be couched in a sobering overview of a place that is enviromentally unsustainable, along with an economy that doesn't build wealth so much as extract it. Its radicalism results in a toxic causal chain of low taxes for the rich and harsh conditions for the grunt labor. This state has crashed. Downtown may look better but the situation is dire. You're not going to improve a place sitting in the crosshairs of climate change with happy talk. You're not going to improve its economy by refusing to make crucial investments. It's far too late in the game for those maneuvers.

Happy talk, indeed, is the last thing you need or want. You want people to ask tough questions - say, Jon Talton - because the utter lack of self-criticism means the state is no longer reality-testing itself with tough questions and peer comparisons. Rather, it's bullshitting itself if only to keep its Ponzi scheme on life support. There isn't a major newspaper asking tough questions because actual journalism has been virtually extinguished. In that void people now anesthetize themselves with sunshine and Randian gobbledygook.

Arizona is no longer competing let alone improving. Metastatic sprawl is the cheapest and most toxic economic strategy there is. It's like praising cancer for having a growth strategy. Yes, this pig has lipstick. No, it's still a pig.

Ray sounds like my dad in Minnesota when he goes ice fishing.

I thought it was the coastal cities who were most at risk for the possible effects of global warming?


From that article:

In terms of the overall cost of damage, the cities at the greatest risk are: 1) Guangzhou, 2) Miami, 3) New York, 4) New Orleans, 5) Mumbai, 6) Nagoya, 7) Tampa, 8) Boston, 9) Shenzen, and 10) Osaka. The top four cities alone account for 43% of the forecast total global losses.

Boy. Miami, New York, and Boston. Sure makes sense, though, cause real estate prices in those areas are crashing.

Aren't they??

Just think- in another year or so, I'll be able to pick up a Hamptons oceanfront palace for what- only $30.0M or so??

In terms of the heat here, well, yeah. But it's not "hellish". I hike in the summer, but only before 9 in the morning or after 5:30PM or so. Bottle of water, and a lot of the paths are shaded by western elevation. Yard work typically done by noon or not started until after 6 or so.

Others amazingly adapt. Construction crews start early. Landscapers, too. Many do indeed get out of town for some time in the summer. Baseball parks have roofs. But there aren't tumbleweeds rolling past coyotes knawing at corpses.

There are parts of the summer I like. Traffic is easy,nothing's crowded, I like the longer days.

And as for "political radicalism" , well, somehow the NCAA, the PGA, dozens of baseball teams, Apple, the NFL, and dozens of others and hundreds of thousands of tourists have managed to see beyond that.

I think the idea of the weather impacting politics in Phoenix is worth exploring. There is a mañana attitude endemic to an area with resorts and winter weather nice enough to relax and sip cocktails, and summer heat that sucks the very life force out of the very real (as opposed to Arpaio's latest publicity stunt) issues facing the city.

INPHX, I concede! Phoenix is not a coastal city. Indeed, it's not a city global capital particularly wants to be in, so as it does get hotter, most people won't care or notice. And the locals will likely do what you do: make up stories how it's really nice, how the traffic is easily negotiated, and how sprawl is a good thing because it breeds the kind of sociopaths who turn their back on the city and live just for themselves. Something Ayn Rand would probably want.

The long-term prognoses are not good. As the desert Southwest heats up, the ponderosa forests will gradually die off, the snowpack won't replenish reservoirs as it once did, and it's likely the water issue will force citizens into painful compromises with their "lifestyles". http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html

Note to Cal: Saguaros will die off in the lower deserts as it gets hotter. This isn't the fault of the city so much as less precipitation due to climate change.

Goobers who measure the worth of their hometown by its sporting events along with the whiteness of the Republican fan base are living at a level of civilization not seen since renaissance Florence. That said, I doubt most of them care that Arizona is synonymous with a racist sheriff and a dingbat governor(s). Other people do care, which might explain why Arizona is now a national joke. How many more fetus bills can the legislature handle this term? Great reputation you righties have given the state you "love". What's next on the agenda? A targeted tax cut for fetuses who donate their stem cells to billionaires?


Can't really disagree with what you wrote.

You think Arizona is some kind of national joke. But again, the PGA, NFL, Apple, baseball teams, the NHL, NASCAR, INTEL, the NCAA, the PGA and hundreds of thousands of tourists either disagree with you or don't really care.

I wonder where reality is?

With a disgruntled, pessimistic pseudo intellectual blogger expatriate or, for example, the NCAA?

Nice try on the race card ("whiteness"). Any port in a storm, I guess.

Smart, smart people live in the Hamptons. When they start selling because of global warming, I'll start worrying.

Fair enough?

The heat of summer is OK with me and has been since 1950. But I would prefer Phoenix to have kept the population below 200,000 and 4 million other folks would leave towns.

I quit sports in 64 and have no interest in such organized criminal activity, such as game fixing. (points fixed by gambling). Check out the last part of the Superbowl tosses.

Sajuaros will outlive me but more so I care whats left for my grand kids and their kids.

Guess I should take up chasing little white balls around imported grass and not care about the coming generations.

Doppleganger: "In German folklore, a wraith or apparition of a living person, as distinguished from a ghost."

I may have discovered the anti-Talton, in the form of an author named Steve Chandler.

Like Talton, Chandler has written mystery fiction about a former law-enforcement officer (Robert Chance instead of David Mapstone) who begins as a consultant but gets drawn into the investigation of murder.

Like Mapstone, Chance listens to jazz music (Charlie Mingus instead of Duke Ellington), has a girlfriend who helps him with computer hacking (Madison instead of Lindsey), and has a nicer house than an ex-cop would normally be able to afford (seaside Santa Monica instead of the Willo District). Like Mapstone, Chance is "an old school guy" who disdains today's youth oriented, Internet obsessed generation.

Now, here's where things get weird.

Instead of a being a consultant on local history like Mapstone, Chance is a personal business coach, whose paid sessions include extended discussions of inspirational catch-phrases like "attracting abundance". (Indeed, the title of the novel before me is The Woman Who Attracted Money, a reference to the protagonist's girlfriend Madison, a self-employed wanna-be advertising strategist.)

The author himself (Chandler) lives in Arizona, maybe even in Gilbert (gasp!) if the Acknowledgements page thank-you to Sergeant Sy Ray of the Gilbert Police Department is any indication. (Shades of Talton's tip-of-the-pen to Sgt. Cal Lash.)

Incidentally, the author (Chandler), according to his bio, "also heads up the world mastermind success coaching group called Club Fearless".

Alas, as for the writing, there's no comparison:

"Madison tilted her head quickly. It reminded Chance of one of the things he liked best about Angie his golden retriever...how she would tilt her head just a little whenever she was questioning anything."

According to the author's bio, Chandler lives in Arizona "with his wife Kathy and his dog Jimmy".

INPHX, people who worship wealth such as yourself tend to impute extraordinary intelligence to the more feral members of the billionaire class. It's why Donald Trump is a perennial favorite in Dogpatch. Much less so would be someone like George Soros who actually cares about society, or Bill Gates who cares about Africa, or Tom Steyer who cares about the planet itself. Wealth is not the issue but idolatry is. A society that worries more about the "death tax" than its own future is living on borrowed time.

Let's make a deal: you stop trying to impress me with your philistinism and I'll stop using big words.

Cal, your last sentence is key. Most people don't care about the future. It's why the human project is going to be much tougher than it has to be. If the choice is between personal wealth or ethical behavior, you know what most people opt for. The sad truth is that most people are too unconscious NOT to worship money. And if means their grandchildren are damned to a miserable existence, so be it. As a species, we tell ourselves the most convenient and self-flattering fairy tales. Once it's "all about me", there's no possibility of caring for others, let alone future generations.

This is who we are, particularly in America. The worst drug in the world is unfettered greed and it's going to kill us faster than all the illicit drugs that vex the hand-wringers and pearl-clutchers in middle America.


I have no interest in trying to impress you; what would be the point (of trying)?

Chatty Cathy had about 11 canned responses and I wouldn't try to impress her; you might be up to a dozen or so canned responses so why would I even try to impress you?

It's a big world out there, Soleri. Not everyone is so Chicken Littleish about Phoenix. But here, well, as you pointed out, pessimists tend to dominate this blog. Your words, not mine.

Geez. I think you got one right.

Blind squirrel or broken clock??

BTW, can you refer me to a blog where someone is letting those folks in the Hamptons know about the folly of their investments? You know, where maybe someone left the Hamptons because of the impending doom and they're letting all the morons staying there know about the oncoming apocalypse?

Emil, a doppelgänger indeed!

Speaking of Soros, it appears that he and his newest wife (1/2 his age)actually have a place in the Hamptons.


Doesn't he know what global warming will do to his palace?

Someone better tell him......

soleri wrote:

"Note to Cal: Saguaros will die off in the lower deserts as it gets hotter. This isn't the fault of the city so much as less precipitation due to climate change."


The actual theory is that invasive grasses and other plants from Mexico which thrive in high temperatures might migrate northward and choke off the cactuses.

That's according to a footnoted source cited in the EPA page you linked to.

I also found this:

"This spring is predicted to be hotter and drier than before, which could mean area some plants will suffer. While some trees and shrubs show declines, cacti increase with the heat."


INPHX, the billionaires you worship know that it's all about them. They're not going to live to see the rising seas swallow their mansions so why should they care?

As smart as you think you are, I'm surprised you haven't figured out the psychology of sociopaths. You don't care about other people. It's why you deny the obvious. Science is a bummer that's easily rejected according to the etheral moods of the monied class. Remember: you're superior not only to everyone with less money but to the lives of humans not yet born.

Cal, who is off on some secret assignment, asked me to post this:


California is in a bad bad way...
Or not:


Which is to suggest that often for every aphorism that rings true there is a counter aphorism that rings equally true. God (or the Devil) is all in the details....

Consider the brilliant writer James Howard Kunstler. Every year he claims the global economy will melt down before June. And every year he'll get 400 "attaboy" comments to that prediction.

The problem is that Mr. Kunstler (like Rand Paul and host of other tea party loons) just can't wrap his smart head around the idea of fiat currency being a legit way for the world to work. He never has and never will get it. And so, year after year he raises his sign: The End is Nigh!

All of which leads me to this Soleri pull from up above:

...you know this blog so it probably isn't a surprise to you that pessimists tend to rule here.

Why? Is pessimism in our DNA? Our national character? Maybe. But one sure antidote for it is too watch this incredibly insightful clip from the Daily show all the way to the concluding comment: "You're delusional". If there ever was to cure the pessimism on the left, it is by supping a bit with the pessimism on the right:


I recall a piece Jon wrote for the Republic back in the day describing central Az in some distant year. The nights never dropped under 100 in the summer. People commuted hours from Gila Bend to Phoenix to shop at "Mao Mart". It was great stuff.

Back to the weather: There aren’t many San Diegos. Honolulu is the only other place that comes to mind. Portland and Seattle have seasons (I think) but not much in the way of extreme hot or cold (I think); but the seasons of unending drizzle and the short winter days would be depressing. But even a place like San Diego has its downside; for example earth quakes, tsunamis and more recently drought (more on this later). Also, it’s a big fire trap.

The case of the better of the two evils of extreme hot versus extreme cold has no winner. I’ll say this though – when it’s cold you can start to pile on more clothes. For heat you can only take off clothes until you’re naked. That said, I think I rather deal with Phoenix’s heat than Minneapolis’s cold.

I think a creative person could fashion a two city lifestyle. Would need to (1) have very transferable skills (e.g. chef or mechanic) and (2) pare down possessions to minimum. Our resident nomad, Cal Lash, seems to live where ever the mood strikes.

I’ll put in a plug for weather in the upper South. We’re a 9/3 decent weather ratio. July and August can be hot – not Phoenix hot – but hard to take. In the winter, we’ll have about 30 days of way-to-cold weather. Fortunately comes in streaks – a few days here and a few days there. Like every place else, it has its downside: hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, ice storms, etc.

Concerning the drought. When I was working, we subscribed to several weather forecasting services. The best was put out by a guy named Scott Yuckis (or something like that). These were very short horizon forecasts – like out to about three months. But he would crystal ball it on occasion. He was of the opinion that the drought in the Southwest has a long term affair – like up to ten or twenty years. This is not unprecedented. There was a very similar drought in the late 1800’s that wiped out the Spanish land grant ranches. He also ventured that we will experience a period of global cooling due to the sun’s activity. This would be measured in decades also. This could be the reason we have been experiencing the “big pause” in global temperature.

Saw a blurb a few days ago about the possibility of monumental amounts of rain in Northern California in the next few days. Haven’t kept up with it.

Regardless of where one stands on the global warming issue, I think everyone could agree that Phoenix is way too hot due to the urban islanding situation. I think practical methods are available to mitigate this situation and have ventured some before. I won’t elaborate again now other than to say it would not require changing the “hearts and minds” of most of the population.

Interesting article here:


If you’re a data junkie like me you’ll find it interesting. Has population density information that is intriguing. If we hit a dead thread I’d like to opine on the information.

I believe that if you want to evaluate an issue you should read the arguments of both sides (not just representations of one side by the other), so when I came across a climate change denial book recently I decided to have a look.

The book is written by an electrical engineer, not a climate scientist. It's extensively footnoted, but the actual notes (and the index) have been removed "to save space". (That this also makes it more difficult for critics to systematically attack the work is probably irrelevant.) The attempt at scholarship is also compromised by tons of cartoonish illustrations, as well as by the title itself, "The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism". Still, there is plenty of text, some interesting graphs and diagrams, and the book seems to incorporate everything but the kitchen sink from the denialist perspective; and since it was published in 2013 it should also be fairly up to date.

I had expected the book to rely on obscure, minority opinions published in second-tier journals, that would require a lot of research as well as some technical expertise to evaluate and to determine if the research was being misrepresented or exaggerated. I was surprised by how often the book's own arguments undermined themselves with just the application of a bit of critical thinking.

For example, the book states: "Climate alarmists see current increases in atmospheric CO2 as caused by the burning of fossil fuels, but they discount the fact that isotopic analysis shows that only four percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere has come from fossil fuels." It also states: "Man-made emissions are only about three percent of the CO2 exchanged with the atmosphere each year" by soil, biomass, oceans and man-made sources combined.

But the book then proceeds to undermine itself with a very clear diagrammatic representation of the carbon cycle, adapted from IPCC data. While the diagram is perfectly consistent with these two claims, it also shows very clearly that the natural sources absorb as much CO2 as they emit during these exchanges (in fact, absorbing a tiny bit more than they emit), and that 100 percent of the net increase in CO2 comes from man-made sources, at least in this somewhat oversimplified diagram. So, the fact that most CO2 has come from natural sources in the past and that most CO2 currently circulated into and out of the atmosphere comes from natural sources, is completely irrelevant.

The book argues that "history shows global warming is not abnormal" by giving as an example the Little Ice Age which it says lasted from about 1300 A.D. until about 1850. Well, golly, if we've warmed up from an ice age, then surely a little more warming shouldn't be a problem, right?

But the book proceeds to undermine itself by pointing out that "although not a true ice age, temperatures during the Little Ice Age were about 1 to 2 degrees Celsius cooler than they are today". In another chapter the book quotes an IPCC assessment from 2001 which predicted a temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius in its most likely model over this century. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this represents a significantly larger temperature rise in a significantly shorter time frame; and since 2001 (why quote such an old report?) the IPCC has revised its model predictions substantially upward.

The book also makes a broader argument that warming and cooling cycles are normal, using a diagram showing both temperature and CO2 concentration during four ice ages and the intervening warming periods from today to 400,000 years ago, citing Vostok ice core samples from Antartica.

But if you look very, very carefully at the right edge of the diagram, you can see a sharp (indeed, vertical in this timescale) spike in CO2 concentration in the most recent years, that is both far faster (again, a sheer vertical rise) and also far higher in CO2 concentration, than anything in the previous 400,000 years. I mean, it's really dramatic, but you have to look closely to spot it, because it's made to overlap the border of the diagram itself. Fortunately, the border is in black ink and the CO2 graph line is in red ink.

Prior to the 20th century, the highest CO2 concentration over this 400,000 year period crested the 300 ppm mark in about 350,000 B.C., in this diagram. Another diagram in a different chapter, showing CO2 concentration over a much shorter time frame from 1958 to 2011 (citing NOAA data), shows CO2 concentration cresting 390 ppm and climbing fast; again, far, far faster than at any time during the preceding 400,000 years according to the first diagram.

It's hard to see how the author, who ostensibly has immersed himself in this topic to the point of obsession, could fail to connect the dots.

This also debunks another main argument of the book, that solar storms are responsible for the recent build up in CO2, since solar activity has not been more severe since 1960 than it was during the previous 400,000 years. (The author ignores this, instead concentrating on a very narrow window of time to make highly selective arguments.)

The book also attempts to refute the oft-cited statistic that 97 percent of scientists accept that global warming is the result of non-natural processes like factories, utilities, and motor vehicles. The book identifies the source of this "big whopper about climate change" as a 2009 survey by the University of Illinois which found that 97 percent of scientists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise" and who "published on the subject of climate science" answered "yes" to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?"

So how does the book attempt to refute that? By pointing out that 31,000 U.S. based scientists (including over 9,000 PhDs) signed a denial published by something called the Global Warming Petition Project in 2007. The author coyly adds the disclaimer, "While not all climate experts..." without specifying how many signers were published experts in the field or what percentage of such experts this constitutes. Remember, the author himself is a scientist (an electrical engineer with a BS degree).

The book contains a forward by Harrison H. Schmitt, PhD., former U.S. senator and Apollo 17 astronaut, repeating these and other arguments from the book, as well as characterising climate science (which the book calls "climatism") as a "new ideology with socialistic goals" which are unconstitutional and which threaten to "take away our liberty". Did I say it doesn't take a rocket scientist? But note that Harrison Schmitt has a PhD in geology, not climate science.

An interesting headline / news article:

"Top Muslim body calls for 'killing, crucifixion' of IS militants"


This just in:

Cairo (AFP) - Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's most prestigious centre of learning, expressed outrage at the Islamic State group for burning to death a captive Jordanian pilot, saying its militants deserve to be killed or crucified.

After a video was released showing the caged fighter pilot, Maaz al-Kassasbeh, dying engulfed in flames, the Cairo-based authority's head, Ahmed al-Tayib, expressed his "strong dismay at this cowardly act".

This "requires the punishment mentioned in the Koran for these corrupt oppressors who fight against God and his prophet: killing, crucifixion or chopping of the limbs."

"Islam forbids killing of the innocent human soul... It forbids mutilating the human soul by burning or in any other way even during wars against an enemy that attacks you," Tayib added in a statement.

IS itself has implemented such punishments against its own members for robbery at checkpoints or stealing funds from religious endowments in territories controlled by the group in Iraq and Syria.

Blood Atonment?

Koreyel asks if pessimism is in our DNA. To which I respond, I hope so.

In the American political spectrum, "conservatives" are usually considered to be the pessimists (".....to hell in a handbasket, I say!") But when it comes to actually worrying about what matters, do today's "conservatives" consider empirical evidence mattering more than, say, grumpiness? If so, where can I find this "conservative" who is also politically relevant. I appreciate the sui generis James Howard Kunstler although I agree with Koreyel that he is a stuck record (....."the end is nigh"). But Kunstler does have a sharp eye and a gift for seeing the real world with mordant observations (see: The Geography of Nowhere). Kunstler is a classic conservative in the Burke/Kirk school of conservatism. William F. Buckley, Jr. was mostly in this camp and today's Republican is decidedly someplace else, like the Amway, the-sky's-the-limit camp. They're philistines. See: INPHX.

I've been posting here since 2008 and one reason is that this blog's values include a) pessimism, and b) empiricism. Talton is not merely railing against the fecklessness of modernity but the chronic myopia of everyman. Why do some people viscerally hate Talton? Because most people are everyman. We want to be comforted in our delusions and told everything will be fine. A classical conservative worries, however, that you still need to care about your city. You need to worry about a provision for the poor. You need to worry about respect for communal values beyond money itself. Today's self-described conservatives are simply vandals who use the Culture War to disguise their real values: shameless greed along with think-and-make-it-so fantasy.

Liberals - in the current definition - are yesterday's conservatives. They have no illusions that people are fundamentally flawed and require government for that reason. Institutions are bulwarks that preserve social memory and connection. The idea that anarchism can substitute for the myriad guardrails of society is nothing more than the toxic tripe of oversimplifiers. There are, btw, anarchists on the left, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. They're usually young, idealistic, and science fiction aficionados.

We live in a culture that is radically different from the one most of us grew up in. The market has turned almost everything on its head. The right has deftly used this sense of vertigo to rally the old and dyspeptic to their side. But this is no cultural restoration project. It's merely a deflection for their real aim: enriching the rich and denying the existence of society itself. We who call ourselves liberals in its current meaning fight them for this reason. We're all in this lifeboat together - the city, the nation, the planet. We see the connections that "conservatives" deny. That's why we care. It's the necessary love parents have for their children....and grandchildren, etc.

Well, see, there's the problem...

Greece tells Germany and the reat of the EU-- hey, we're all in this (lifeboat) together. And Germany wants a way out of THAT freakin' lifeboat.

Italy and Spain are right behind them....

And when Putin invades the Ukraine, he thinks, hey- come join us- we can all be in this together. I'm going to unify us!!

You think China is going to slow down it's economic engine just because it's polluting everything?? You think they'll bow to Soleri's love for the planet??

There's been a brilliant ongoing story on NPR about a city in Wisconsin that is having water problems. Here is a summary:


And they're telling the Great Lakes coalition- hey, we're all in this together- we need some water!! And the Great Lakes coalition has set up lots of barriers- hey' it's our water, and we're just not so sure that we want to (or should )share it .

Illinois has aked the federal government to backstop $200 billion in pension obligations (6 times the entire annual Illinois budget) cause- gee, well, we're all in this together!!!


There's dozens (hundreds) of other examples.

Soleri, you're problem isn't pessimism. It's naivete. It's asking for something from someone else and cloaking it in this utter nonsense about your silly sense of "community" .

So tell me, genuis. Should the feds backstop the pension obligations? Should ths state of Michigan (or the fed) bail out Detroit? Should the EU force a haircut for Greek bondholders? Should the Great Lakes coalition give up water to that city?

After all, we're all in this together....

INPHX, in your Hobbesian world, it's a perpetual war of all against all. You're not particularly bright, so the globalization you extol when it comes to destroying unions and middle-class jobs also demands international cooperation when it involves environmental issues. But rather than make the necessary connection, you revert to chest-thumping ape. I wish I could impute to you some kind of nuanced thinking besides "what's in it for me".

The pensions you hate are mostly a thing of the past and I strongly suspect the right will succeed in looting them for the CEO class it shills for. Tax cuts for the rich are now the rule of the day and if it means forgoing making necessary pension payments, so be it. I do have mixed feelings about government employees being in unions, and given the broad economic devastation in the middle class, these unions are increasingly difficult to justify. The Republican divide-and-conquer strategy will eventually destroy much of the middle class. Government jobs and pensions are one aspect of that (with the possible exception of retired cops and firefighters - Scott Walker pointed the way out of that conundrum).

BTW, I am glad you're here. Pushback is a good thing. If I get under your skin, all the better.

Well, master of nuanced thinking,

Would YOU favor a federal bailout for Detroit?

Would YOU favor a federal backstop of the Illinois pension obligations?

Would YOU favor forcing the Great Lakes coalition to share the water with the city in Wisconsin?

And for the first two, would the cost even matter?

INPHX, politics is compromise in service of a very broad ideal: maintenance of the public square and public good. Do I favor keeping Detroit afloat? As a matter of principle, yes. The details can be argued over but the goal is worthy. Ditto for environmental issues.

I suspect for you politics is merely something to kick in the groin in pursuit of what you really want: advantages over other people. It's why you canoodle with fetus worshippers and holy rollers. You're sophisticated enough not to want to be in the same room with the GOP base but you need their votes to rob them of their middle-class security.

Other than getting your way in the Ayn Rand fantasy epic you star in, you really don't care. You are, to be as gentle as I can explain, a sociopath. You don't care about other people, or future generations. It's all about right now, what's in it for you, and to hell with everything else. A nation that thinks like this is no better than a high-school football team with a willing cheerleader.

Good news/bad news

From WUWT:

“Good news for Northern California and the Pacific Northwest,” said Bill Patzert, climatologist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “Beginning Wednesday, a series of storms pumped up by a moisture-laden ‘Pineapple Express’ system surging out of the warm tropical Pacific will deliver some small relief to rain and snow starved California. Though not a drought buster, we Californians are hoping this might be a preview of coming attractions for February and March. We are in the fourth quarter of our winter rain season and need a ‘hail mary’ to beat this drought down,” Patzert said.”

“On Feb.4 NOAA’s National Weather Service Weather Prediction Center (NPC) in College Park, Maryland issued a short range forecast discussion about the Pineapple Express. NPC noted: A weather system that’s tapping into abundant moisture in the Pacific will bring moderate to heavy rainfall to the Pacific Northwest beginning Wednesday. The rain will spread into northern California on Thursday and is expected to continue through the weekend. Some areas could see in excess of 10 inches of rain through early Saturday.”

Looks like this will provide some (temporary??) relieve to Northern Cali and the valley. Wouldn’t seem to do much for Southern Cali or Arizona (I think).

Mid-term future (1-10 years) looks very bleak for Phoenix with regard to rain/water.

Water has become a commodity that will be sold by ounce and the companies that own it will not be (just ask Orin Hatch)subject to FDA rules.
No telling what one may end up drinking.
As the worm turns
Pass the Mescal.


That's what I thought. You ramble on incessentanly about the nebulous public square and common good, but a mind like your just can't drill down to details. I guess that makes you a (bad) idea man?

What about Illinois and the pensions?

Typical cloudy reasoning on the details of saving Detroit. ALL THERE ARE ALL DETAILS. A lofty goal that costs the US Treasury five dollars? I'm in. A lofty goal that costs the US Treasury five billion dollars? No, thanks.

The answer to the have nots (Detroit) assaulting the haves (the US Treasury) is not always "Of course".

No matter how "lofty" the goal is.

INPHX, I'm not going to play the game of Online Wonk. Clearly, for someone who thought Romneycare didn't involve regulation of the insurance market, you're hardly qualified to play the expert. We are advocates for broad philosophical principles and your principle is that the government is usually wrong unless it's making a rich person richer. You're not quite honest enough to admit that this principle has less to do with "free markets" than crony capitalism. It's how you see this frothy mix of sporting events in Arizona as wonderful without acknowledging the taxpayer-paid venues they require.

Citizens don't need to be experts. They do need to mature enough to understand that there is no free lunch. Societies that live off their seed corn will ultimately fail. You save, invest, and treat the next generation as important as the "producers". There's no short cut to success that doesn't involve minimizing the social friction that income inequality produces. All successful societies understand this. Every advanced nation (with the possible exception of the U.S) get this. You're not applying time-tested remedies in your white-trash ideology so much as pigging out because it you really don't understand who you are. Other people were there for you. They provided the infrastructure that enabled you to get ahead. They sacrificed in their own lives yet you don't think you should sacrifice anything in yours. There's a word for people like you. It's considered impolite to say it in genteel company so I'll just let the impulse pass and wish you a good day.


Thanks for the lecture on my lack of graditude and letting me know that I don't know who I am.

You must be REALLY unique. A lot of people (referred to as "sane people") would think that those determinations would be difficult based on blog postings. But I guess folks like you (referred to as "looney") can figure those things out based on blog postings.

I think I understand why you avoid the specific instances I have presented and why you're hesitant to play Online Wonk. Emil's 2/3/2015 6:00PM post provided a solid example- you're just not very good at detail or analysis.

How about we take 10 percent of all US senator and Representatives pay to bail out the pension systems mentioned? I dont believe it will push the POLS to food stamps. And if the feel mentally abused the POLS do have great mental health care for places like Betty Ford

Skepticism is a useful trait for an analyst. And playing devil's advocate can be a useful counterweight to oversimplified media narratives.

But I don't think pessimism or optimism are constructive general philosophies. Pessimists tend to overlook solutions and optimists tend to overlook problems.

I vote for Emil, INPHX and Soleri to write the next play.
I think it should be titled, The Revolutionary Road, act two
I like Skepticism over optimism and pessimism.
I have always been skeptical that Emil is a local resident and likely is an Alien Hologram.

@Soleri: What is Portland’s take on the new TV series “Backstrom”? It is an hour long Cop show. I watched the first two episodes and find it to be merely OK. Have watched mostly for the Portland background scenes. Puts Portland in a very positive light. Probably has the rain thing right – about half the exterior shots are in rain/drizzle. I was very impressed by the city’s downtown skyline.

Interesting that Portland seems to be joining Miami, New Orleans and Los Vegas as unique places; places where events that might be a little outrageous for most places are a little more plausible.

More on Portland from New Geography: “In the nation’s whitest major city – Portland, Ore. – African Americans are being pushed out of the urban core by gentrification, partly supported by city funding. Similar phenomena can be seen in Seattle and Boston where longtime black communities faced near extinction.” This is from:


While the writer and the site are right leaning, I think the article is reasonably even handed.
Writer channels his inner Soleri with this concluding sentence: “Cities and communities, divided against themselves by race and class, cannot thrive in the long run, no matter how many publicists and pundits proclaim the battle for urban America already has been won.”

You think China is going to slow down it's economic engine just because it's polluting everything?? You think they'll bow to Soleri's love for the planet??

I understand this perspective. After all, nations do act like wealthy spoiled children who get parodied so often in the world's various cinemas. Nations seem to care only about their own existence...

But there is plenty of evidence that runs counter to this sentiment.

For example the 1987 Montreal Protocol that has ended and reversed the ozone hole. And there is the ban on whaling and the international control of various fisheries to return stocks to health. There's global cooperation to stop the selling of ivory.

Stepping outside of eco initiatives there is a ton of international cooperation to fight the ISIS assholes. And the beating back of Ebola is one of the truly heroic stories that saved millions of lives and suffering...

So... One can just as easily argue that nations are quite capable of cooperation when it serves their long term interests.

But beyond that there is this:


Chinese cities are swimming in the shit that comes from burning coal. It is a crap fuel pushed by crap people. The health care costs are enormous. And of course solar and wind can now outcompete them even when the eco-costs of coal are ignored by the marketplace.

That's why I say quite often that the Koch's have already lost. They just don't acknowledge it yet. They are wasting their money with their anti-eco think tanks. But even that has a bright side. At least they are spending it and spreading it out rather than hoarding it.

Speaking of hoarding....

Isn't if funny that all the attention is on poor old folks with 30 cats and a tribe of hamsters? What this culture of ours really needs is some soul searching regarding the billionaire black holes that are hoarding money with oligarchical impunity...

INPHX- I've worked with sociopaths. You're not one, of course. I do think that you're wrong.
I wonder whether to an extent some of the quibbling might represent fighting over scraps. The trillions that vanished in the oughts, if we still had them would soothe a lot of this.
I think that there is a long game to get discourse moving along these lines, where working people feel so much insecurity that they look to see who's getting a free lunch, or they fasten on an exaggerated external threat in order to discharge their apprehensions. We have managed to create a boogeyman of the month machine.
The fear and resentment that gets ginned up plays into the hands of the sociopaths. They want to ride the "rough beast" that's coming around again; it feeds on divisive and negative emotion within a nation while the riders peddle deliverance from it. (30s in europe, anyone?)
Cheap moralizing and pretended moral superiority, even from the most eloquent on the Left only obscure "the commons" of discourse. When your man referred to those "filled with passionate intensity" I don't think that he was looking right or left.

Ole, Hooray, Dawgzy

I will say, the denialist book brought some interesting anomalies to my attention.

Newspaper readers will know that through 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years, for the United States (as a whole), in the 134 year period of record, occurred in the 21st century (and the other year was 1998).

That's why it's a bit hard to understand how this can be the case, if one looks at the hottest year on record for each individual state in the union.


There are only two state records set since 2000. The decade which set the most records, by far, is the 1930s. And more than 2/3 of the state high temperature records occurred prior to 1960.

So, how can the country as a whole be warmer than ever when nearly all states are not?

Apparently, the feds massage the raw temperature data. There may be perfectly sound explanations for this, but it is a bit peculiar to the layman.

Arizona Sun and sand refinery coming to your town.

The last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now:

"The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now."


The graph says it all regarding the last 800,000 years. Note the shocking CO2 spike at the right end covering less than 100 years.

Note however that the data is not strictly comparable because before 1958 ice core samples are used and after 1958 Mauna Loa Observatory air sampling is used.

One of the commenters makes an interesting point: if the temperature was 11 degrees higher when CO2 was last at the current levels, why isn't it as hot now? Obviously, there are other factors at work in the evolution of planetary climate, but it does raise a point.

Another aspect of this which intrigues me is the controversy (though that may be too strong a word) about whether CO2 increases precede temperature increases or vice-versa, and what this means in either case.

That said, the antarctic ice core samples show a very, very strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and mean temperature. So, , even if CO2 is being driven up by the temperature, rather than the other way around, the ominous spike in CO2 growth at the end of that chart bodes ill.

If CO2 is not the explanation then we are even farther behind the learning curve because there is then no known mechanism subject to man's control which can ameliorate or halt this.

Denialists seem to want to have their cake and eat it too: the author of the book I described (who is representative in this regard), asks how a trace gas like CO2 can explain the observed increases in temperature (which even he admits has occurred in recent decades).

Yet, he goes on to assign the blame to sulfur dioxide, another trace gas (an even rarer one, and one also associated with the the burning of fossil fuels).

They claim that atmospheric water vapor must increase; that CO2 can only drive temperature increases if it somehow causes water vapor (the main greenhouse gas) to increase; then claim that because it is a trace gas, it cannot do this; and that furthermore, empirical measurements of atmospheric water vapor show no increase in recent decades.

Then they claim that another trace gas, sulfur dioxide, provides cloud seeding which condenses water vapor. But if water vapor hasn't increased, as they claim, then sulfur dioxide (supposedly acted upon by cosmic rays) can't be culpable for the observed temperature increase either.

It's another astonishing instance of self-defeating arguments.

P.S. A variation of the sulfur dioxide / cloud seeding argument claims that stronger solar activity creates a stronger magnetic field which blocks more cosmic rays from interacting with sulfur dioxide molecules in the lower atmosphere, thus causing fewer low level clouds; that low level clouds reflect sunlight; thus fewer low level clouds mean more sunlight gets to the surface and more heating occurs.

This is wrong on several levels; but new NASA data shows that low level water vapor increased in recent decades (even as mid and upper level vapor levels decreased, and total levels decreased) slightly.

That "slightly" should be within the parentheses.

"Tropospheric water vapour is increasing. Surface specific humidity has generally increased after 1976 in close association with higher temperatures over both land and ocean. Total column water vapour has increased over the global oceans by 1.2 ± 0.3% per decade from 1988 to 2004, consistent in pattern and amount with changes in SST and a fairly constant relative humidity. Strong correlations with SST suggest that total column water vapour has increased by 4% since 1970. Similar upward trends in upper-tropospheric specific humidity, which considerably enhance the greenhouse effect, have also been detected from 1982 to 2004."

(Note: The troposphere is the lowest layer of Earth's atmosphere and site of all weather on Earth. The troposphere is bonded on the top by a layer of air called the tropopause, which separates the troposphere from the stratosphere, and on bottom by the surface of the Earth.)

Source: Click on the hyperlink for Footnote 2 here:


(Sorry, the library browser hides PDF URLs so it is sometimes difficult for me to provide a direct link to PDF files.)

In other words, water vapor has increased in the portion of the atmosphere where the whether occurs and which is relevant to the greenhouse effect associated with global warming.

The fact that total atmospheric water vapor levels have decreased (because mid and upper atmospheric levels have decreased) is irrelevant. The denialist error is in using the wrong measure (total atmospheric water vapor) rather than the right measure (tropospheric water vapor).

Not to worry Emil, the death of earth will just be another random event of no inherent meaning in the galaxies of infinite universe's.


If the Pentagon's various warnings about global warming do not convince deniers that this is an urgent and real issue there is nothing you (or anybody) can write that will ever convince them.

But here is the thing:

The World at large has moved on from climate denialism. The amount of scientific investigation, technological prototyping, and business investment in a carbon neutral future continues to arc exponentially upwards.

People all over the planet are putting huge amounts of money and mind-time into finding solutions. There is a global scientific-creative effort going on that is infinitely more powerful than the wee subset of mostly southern American humanity that pooh-poohs science.

All of which means this: Denialists are literally, historically and quite irrationally pissing into a 200 mph wind.

I see that Krugman has finally caught on to at least one part of the above. Namely:

Whether this is the right explanation or not, the fact is that we’re living in a political era in which facts don’t matter. This doesn’t mean that those of us who care about evidence should stop seeking it out. But we should be realistic in our expectations, and not expect even the most decisive evidence to make much difference.

Exactly. What Krugman and most democrats, liberals, and centrists haven't yet realized is that just as evidence doesn't matter to our denialists, just so, the future of the world is not listening one iota to their opinions. Denialism and denialists have truly been "left behind".

And that my friend, is a wonderful and truly ironic thing...



Arizona Denialists are hard at work.
God with the help of the LDS legislature pass church tax exemptions.
Will "Cradle Catholic" governor sign it?
Likely, he already has taken money from Public schools and sent it off to Charter Schools, many with a religious bent. I will always consider "Charter Schools" private schools and they should be taxed on all assets including property and income.

Jon, get well.
Maybe some 80 degree Arizona Sun with 5 out of 12 UV's would help

Koreyel wrote:

"If the Pentagon's various warnings about global warming do not convince deniers that this is an urgent and real issue there is nothing you (or anybody) can write that will ever convince them."


Dear me, institutional memory is rather short. The New York Times article from October 2014 cited by Koreyel contains this assertion:

"But the Pentagon’s characterization of it as a present-day threat demanding immediate action represents a significant shift for the military, which has in the past focused on climate change as a future risk."

The Times is remiss, however. It fails to mention that as early as 2004 the Pentagon was warning President Bush that:

"...major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. . . By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. . . The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism . . . An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions."


Of course, widespread flooding did not occur in 2005; nor is Britain showing signs of Siberian conditions. The theory was that global warming would cause the melting of glaciers, which would cool the oceans in a way that would cause a "flip" in weather conditions, causing global cooling in Europe and elsewhere. This was explained further here:


The fact is that global climate science is in its infancy. This is one of the reasons I prefer to discuss the issue on its merits.

The actual scientific consensus is much more reserved, as represented by the balance of peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals. This is sometimes obscured by the activism of a few scientists, highly active in the popular media, who, convinced that the world faces doom unless governments and the public can be convinced to take immediate and drastic action, have undertaken to set a fire under popular opinion.

This is illustrated by the obituary of Professor Stephen Schneider. "The founder and editor of the journal Climate Science, Schneider advised every American president from Nixon to Obama and was a leading member of the UN panel on climate change that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007. He wrote books and more than 400 articles and was in the forefront in demanding international action to prevent catastrophic global warming."

The obituary notes a controversy raised by his 1988 interview with Discover Magazine, in which he describe the dynamic (which, it should be noted, he was *criticizing*):

"...to get some broad-base support, to capture the public's imagination...entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have."


What we empirically observe, at present, is a period of warming. It is not exceptional in Earth's recent history. The rest is based on models which have yet to be confirmed by observation over the period of time encompassed by their predictions.

God save us all from the easily led!!!

Phoenix Temps for the last 30 years
Hottest month of 1986 was June - average daily high 105°F
Hottest month of 1987 was June - average daily high 106°F
Hottest month of 1988 was July - average daily high 107°F
Hottest month of 1989 was July - average daily high 109°F
Hottest month of 1990 was June - average daily high 107°F
Hottest month of 1991 was July - average daily high 105°F
Hottest month of 1992 was July - average daily high 104°F
Hottest month of 1993 was July - average daily high 104°F
Hottest month of 1994 was June - average daily high 105°F
Hottest month of 1995 was July - average daily high 106°F
Hottest month of 1996 was July - average daily high 105°F
Hottest month of 1997 was July - average daily high 105°F
Hottest month of 1998 was July - average daily high 105°F
Hottest month of 1999 was August - average daily high 103°F
Hottest month of 2000 was July - average daily high 106°F
Hottest month of 2001 was August - average daily high 104°F
Hottest month of 2002 was June - average daily high 106°F
Hottest month of 2003 was July - average daily high 108°F
Hottest month of 2004 was July - average daily high 105°F
Hottest month of 2005 was July - average daily high 108°F
Hottest month of 2006 was June - average daily high 106°F
Hottest month of 2007 was July - average daily high 106°F
Hottest month of 2008 was June - average daily high 106°F
Hottest month of 2009 was July - average daily high 108°F
Hottest month of 2010 was July - average daily high 105°F
Hottest month of 2011 was August - average daily high 108°F
Hottest month of 2012 was June - average daily high 105°F
Hottest month of 2013 was June - average daily high 107°F
Hottest month of 2014 was July - average daily high 106°F
Hottest month of 2015 was August - average daily high 107°F


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz