Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog
July 2nd, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
News reporting of the recent heat wave in France and other European countries was accompanied with the usual blame on humans for causing the event. For example, here’s the CBS News headline: Record-breaking heat is scorching France. Experts say climate change is to blame.
While it is possible that the human component of recent warming might have made the heat wave slightly worse, there are three facts the media routinely ignore when reporting on such “record hot” events. If these facts were to be mentioned, few people with the ability to think for themselves would conclude that our greenhouse gas emissions had much of an impact.
1. Record High Temperatures Occur Even Without Global Warming
The time period covered by reliable thermometer records is relatively short, even in Europe. Due to the chaotic nature of weather, record high and record low temperatures can be expected to occur from time to time, even with no long-term warming trend.
The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time? At least in the U.S., the answer is ‘no’, as the number of days over 100 and 105 deg. F have not increased (see Fig. 5 here). One would need to study the data for Europe to see if the number of record highs is increasing over time.
Then, even if they are increasing, one needs to determine the cause. Most of the warming since the Little Ice Age (up to about 1900) occurred before greenhouse gases could be blamed. We have no temperature measurements during the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago. How hot were some of the summer days back then? No one knows. Weather changes, which leads me to my next point.
2. Summer Heat Waves are Weather-Related, and Unusual Cold is Usually Nearby
The recent excessive heat in Europe wasn’t caused by summer air sitting there and cooking in a bath of increased human-emitted carbon dioxide. It was caused by a Saharan Air Layer (SAL) flowing in from that gigantic desert to the south.
This happens from time to time. Here’s what the temperature departures from normal looked like at ~ 5,000 ft. altitude:
Fig. 1. GFS model depiction of the 850 hPa level (about 5,000 ft. altitude) temperature departures from normal at midday 29 June 2019, showing a hot Saharan air mass that had flowed north over western Europe, as a cold arctic air mass flowed south over eastern Europe. (Graphic courtesy of WeatherBell.com)
The SAL event flowed north from the Sahara Desert to cover western Europe while a cold air mass flowed south over eastern Europe. As evidence of just how large natural weather variations can be, the full range of temperature departures from normal just over this small section of the world spanned 25 deg. C (45 deg. F).
Meanwhile, the global average temperature anomaly for June (from NOAA’s Climate Forecast System, CFSv2 model) at the surface was only +0.3 deg. C (0.5 deg. F), and even for one day (July 1, 2019, from WeatherBell.com) remains at +0.3 deg. C.
Do you see the disparity between those two numbers?: weather-related temperature variations of 45 deg. F versus a climate-related global average “warmth” of only 0.5 deg. F.
Here’s what the situation looked like at the surface:
Fig. 2. As in Fig. 1, but for surface air temperature.
The range in surface air temperature departures from normal was was 32 deg. C (about 58 deg. F), again swamping (by a factor of 100) the global “climate” warmth of only 0.5 deg. F.
Thus, when we talk of new temperature records, we should be looking at normal weather variations first.
3. Most Thermometer Measurements Have Been Spuriously Warmed by the Urban Heat Island Effect
I am thoroughly convinced that the global thermometer record has exaggerated warming trends due to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. When natural vegetation is replaced with buildings, pavement, and we add spurious heat sources like air conditioning units, cars, and ice cream trucks, the microclimate around thermometer sites changes.
Many of us experience this on a daily basis as we commute from more rural surroundings to our jobs in more urban settings.
For example, Miami International Airport recently set a new high temperature record of 98 deg. F for the month of May. The thermometer in question is at the west end of the south runway at the airport, at the center of the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale metroplex. Only 120 years ago, virtually no one lived in Miami; in 1896 it had a population of 300.
The UHI effect is so strong and pervasive that it is now included in the GFS weather forecast model, and in the case of Miami’s recent hot spell, we see the metroplex at midnight was nearly 10 deg. F warmer than the rural surroundings:
Fig. 3. GFS surface temperature analysis for around midnight, 28 May 2019.
When a thermometer site has that kind of spurious warming at night, it’s going to produce spuriously warm temperatures during the day (and vice versa).
The most thorough analysis of the UHI effect on U.S. temperature was by Anthony Watts and co-authors, who analyzed the siting of hundreds of thermometers around the U.S. and showed that if only the best (most rural) sited thermometers are used, U.S. warming trends are roughly cut in half. Curiously, they found that the official NOAA-adjusted temperature data (which uses both urban and rural data) has even more warming than if no UHI adjustments were made, leading many of us to conclude that the NOAA UHI adjustment procedure has made the rural data look like urban, rather than the other way around as it should be.
How does this impact the recent record high temperatures in France? There is no question that temperatures were unusually hot, I’m only addressing the reasons why high temperature records are set. I’ve already established that (1) record high temperatures will occur without global warming; (2) weather variations are the primary cause (in this case, an intrusion of Saharan air), and now (3) many thermometer sites have experienced spurious warming.
On this third point, this MeteoFrance page lists the temperature records from the event, and one location (Mont Aigoua) caught my eye because it is a high altitude observatory with little development, on a peak that would be well-ventilated. The previous high temperature record there from 1923 was beat by only 0.5 deg. C.
Some of the other records listed on that page are also from the early 20th Century, which naturally begs the question of how it could have been so hot back then with no anthropogenic greenhouse effect and little urban development.
The bottom line is that record high temperatures occur naturally, with or without climate change, and our ability to identify them has been compromised by spurious warming in most thermometer data which has yet to be properly removed.
This article ignores the processes, and results from attribution theory (AT). AT uses Bayesian analysis to compute the odds that a given climate event was caused (Bayesian analysis is about causation, not statistics) by human intervention in climate.
In the case of the French weather, the odds that the recent events were caused by human actions ranges from 4:1 to 6:1. These odds should be used to make decision under uncertainty about investing in interventions (or not).
so you can dismiss doing anything that would, for example, inconvenience the oil industry by saying “what about …” etc. but a rational actor would, IMO, prefer the choice to invest in jobs and technology that would address the probable catastrophic outcome, even though taking that course of action might enrich companies and investors (and malign countries) that are not presently making money selling us oil and rent-seeking.
[apologies for using big words with technical meanings that require a college degree in engineering. I know that’s not popular on this blog]
chris
-1
Polysyllabic words with technical meanings does not make a position correct. However, it gives you an opportunity to be pretentious.
+1.
Although, I would have said ‘conceited’. Or perhaps ‘stuck-up’ – for us blue-collar plebeian-types.
Thanks to chris’s example, we are trying to use big words today.
It helps when waving your college degree and “big words” to actually know what you are talking about.
This weather event was caused by .. weather, as Roy Spencer explained.
Feel free to come back with a full explanation of your “Beysian odds” calculations showing an excursion of 10 deg from the climatological average for June was caused by human actions. It’s not even clear what you are claiming , which would not get you very good marks in a college engineering exam.
To be honest, I have the impression that you are regurgitating some claim you have seen on an alarmist site which you have not really understood, would be incapable of reproducing and that you do not possess a college degree in engineering. I could wrong but that is the impression you give.
In my experience Bayesian Statistics is usually the last resort of a Sociologist, because they’ve been told it’s clever, and they were never able to do the hard graft of more ‘traditional’ mathematics usually encountered in the hard sciences.
Chris needs to Eschew Obsfucation
It is all double talk. Mathematics cannot assign attribution to physical phenomenon.
Because it is just numbers, subject to the significance assigned to them by a fallible, and in this case highly biased, human being.
No one needs a college degree to know BS when a blowhard spews it.
+10!
chris….the only thing this article is missing
At the exact same time Miami recorded a record high of 98F…
The weather station at Virginia Key…10 1/2 miles East….recorded at temperature of 88F
…that is blatant, in your face, UHI and weather
No clouds in the sky…and dead calm
chris: You’re absolutely right. Pretentiousness and pomposity are of no use in real/serious science. When I wrote an independent study paper as part of going for my biology degree, I tried to turn jargon and technical terms into layman’s language so that more people could understand. I learned later that using more common language can also demonstrate how much the writer/researcher really understands the topic. I remember doing this under my favorite professor who shoved the information in class with an overgrown skip loader and she expected us to learn it and she did not grade on a curve.
Or
Intellectual tossing
chris,
Someone unfamiliar with your MO might think you are of a mind to ride a particular pet ‘hobby horse’ …
BTW, the US is a net exporter of oil et al.
“In the case of the French weather, the odds that the recent events were caused by human actions ranges from 4:1 to 6:1. ”
Ridiculous!
You can’t even tell us how much net warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere, but want us to believe you have a formula that describes what human-caused CO2 does in the atmosphere.
There’s a possiblity that CO2 adds NO net heat to the atmosphere after feedbacks. Noone knows the number, including you. Yet you and many others make all these wild predictions.
Assuming facts not in evidence is not real science, big words or no big words.
When one looks back at the track records of the various factions in the long and ongoing global warming debate (yes there is one and no it aint hardly over), we can see that one side has a virtually unblemished record of making claims ranging from eyebrow raising and dubious, to outlandish and absurd, to downright paranoid and panic-stricken, while the other side has maintained that nothing particularly or even at all unusual or unprecedented is or has occurred.
The side making these claims have been found to have made some very troublesome series’ of correspondences with one another, have engaged in alterations of data sets, some of which were disclosed, and some of which were only found out by sleuthing, but all of which had a singular effect: The turned data sets and time series graphs that refuted global warming alarmist claims, into ones that appeared to validate these claims.
All of these alterations were made by people with skin in the game, with careers and reputations on the line, and they erased numbers that were not helpful and penciled in numbers that were.
No one has to be a scientist to know this is not just shady and suspect.
It is much worse than that.
Fudging numbers so they agree with your ideas, and then pointing to those fudged numbers as proof you are correct, is as blatantly dishonest as it gets.
And on and on it has gone, ad nauseum, for decades on end. Always the same.
One side makes outlandish claims which never come true, and those people never admit they were ever wrong about a single thing.
The predict Armageddon that get angry when the world does not end.
They have bad judgement, bas science, and bad memories.
Meanwhile, the other side has consisted of people who have at every stage predicted these outlandish pronouncements were not going to come to pass.
Why should anyone pay attention to people who are always wrong, incorrigibly dishonest, sickeningly ungracious, gallingly unprincipled, laughably unscientific, jarringly illogical…plus quite often mean, nasty and rude to boot?
More Kool-aid sir ? 😉
For a guy who likes to look down on others, you sure do know how to misuse big words.
The idea that you can accurately calculate what the odds of any type of weather being due to any single cause is so ludicrous that only someone with their job on the line could make it.
I am an engineer and I believe you are full of s***…
and this comment seems to ignore alternative mechanisms that explain so called globl warming such as UHI, natural occurrences of extremes, etc and I would add the adoption of electronic ‘thermometers’ which automatically record local extremes which last a very short period of time and which old mercury/alcohol instruments effectively ignored or ‘averaged out’. It also seems to ignore the evidence of the two sattelite sets and 4 balloon sets of data which indicate a much lower rate of warming if any over their period of operation.
If you limit the Bayesian ‘causative’ inputs, I am sure you will get a Bayesian solution but of what use? Bayesian GIGO still just produces garbage.
As Michael Mann proved, you can use statistics to prove anything you want, so long as you torture the data enough.
@ Chris
What’s the REAL WORLD empirically observable physical fingerprint of the CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect mechanism REQUIRED to be observed in the REAL WORLD in order to evidence the theorised CO2 mechanism working at the surface ? I bet you don’t even know.
[apologies for requiring relevant knowledge to be evidenced and not misapplication of abstract irrelevant pythagorean mysticism to chaotic non linear open thermodynamic systems, but fools are not suffered here]
Thank you Chris for not never usin those big werds cos I never did that hard redin ritin or numbers at skool. Can I join your club to meet interestin peoples?
Chris wants everyone to forget that wet behind the ears high schoolers go to college and take 16 hours of classes a week for 30 weeks a year for 4 years and comes out the other end with a degree.
At no stage of this process is any magic spell or secret cryptic knowledge revealed.
So anyone who would even think, let alone say, that some particular degree makes them uniquely qualified to understand or opine on anything, is somewhere between oblivious to reality and completely delusional.
Don’t you have a bridge to haunt somewhere?
As one with an engineering degree, I say you’re full of crap.
Proper attribution comes from understanding the natural processes that occurred prior to the event. Oddsmakers need not apply.
This guy got part of it right about the heat pumping in from Africa, but then went on to confusion.
Much of the heat in France came from Africa, wherethe sunshine directly overhead drove hot wind north where it was trapped by surrounding colder air, allowing it to build up in a heat dome.
Let me introduce you to the EPA UV Index map for the US. If you didn’t know, the sun is strongest at this time of year, summer, and wherever the skies are dry the overbearing summer sun will really crank up the heat via high UVI, just as it has in the US this last week.
CO2 had nothing to do with it. Is summer sunshine too technical for you?
If you CO2 guys were so good, a month ago you’d have been warning everyone about the impending Bayesian high-odds heat wave. Instead, you’re all a bunch of ambulance chasers always coming in with a phony CO2 attribution after the fact.
Please also note that the Saharan air was largely heated by the surface, not CO2. Convective heat transfer is not considered by those talking broadly about radiative effects of GHG’s, nor should they They should have to understand it first.
If there were no GHG’s, the air coming from the Sahara would be even hotter than it is now. GHG’s intercept radiation from both up and down, and radiate it into space. Subtract that ability and Europe would reach bread-baking temperatures.
“If you CO2 guys were so good, a month ago you’d have been warning everyone about the impending Bayesian high-odds heat wave. Instead, you’re all a bunch of ambulance chasers always coming in with a phony CO2 attribution after the fact.”
Good call! Abulance chasing is what the alarmists do. I guess they have to do it this way because all their predictions for the future, that have come and gone, have turned out wrong. So they default to “after the fact” judgements to make themselves look knowledgeble about the subject. I think this is called Monday morning quarterbacking in some quarters.
U talk about modelling. This does not prove anything except your wishful thinking. All models are wrong, but some of them may be useful.
Sadly u seems not to recognise this well established maxim. 35 years of modelling geology including paleo climate has to thought me not to believe blindly in any modelling including mine.
Suggest to start off being humble with your analysis and perhaps this will positively translate into how u treat others.
chris,
You cite statistics while ignoring a reference to the source of the specific calculations. WUWT? I’ll give you a chance to ‘play fair’. Please provide a link to the source calculations and assumptions. If you conjured these stats yourself, please publish your work here with same calculations and assumptions. Perhaps then we can assess the validity of your so far baseless assertions. Until then, the null hypothesis holds true: Natural variation within an interglacial warm period. Apologies for using direct words with specific meanings, in search of the facts. But that is what engineers do!
“Until then, the null hypothesis holds true: Natural variation within an interglacial warm period.”
Yes, Sir! It’s Mother Nature driving the Earth’s climate until proven otherwise.
And so far, noone has come close to proving otherwise. Speculation is not evidence.
Attempting to talk down to your many ‘betters’ is not a good look.
Dunning-Kruger much?
Chris, I guarantee you such an analysis assumes (1) all warming has been human-caused, and (2) there has been no UHI effect over the last 100 years. In that case, you don’t get out of the analysis any more than you assumed — that humans are to blame. It’s circular reasoning.
Did you know (of course your did, since you are so well-read) that random forcing of a modeled climate system with realistic heat capacity and net radiative feedback can produce climate change? Some might mistake it for anthropogenic in origin, when in fact it was just caused by a string of random numbers causing a feedback-constrained random walk. I encourage you to read this short post and look at the resulting graph of “global temperatures”… clearly you are smart enough to understand it: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/mystery-climate-index-2-explanation/
Dr. Roy shoots, he scores! The pretentious idiot loses.
“The UHI effect is so strong and pervasive that it is now included in the GFS weather forecast model, and in the case of Miami’s recent hot spell, we see the metroplex at midnight was nearly 10 deg. F warmer than the rural surroundings:”
This was broad daylight…
At the same time Miami recorded 98F….Virginia Key recorded 88F…10 miles away
…what did it was dead calm, surrounded by hundreds of sq miles of asphalt, and not a cloud in the sky….that afternoon the wind picked back up…and everything went back to normal
Chris,
Even my last bowel movement has the intellect required to comprehend your surreptitious meaning behind your blathering so no apologies are required.
Let’s deconstruct your main statement and make the required alliterative adjustments so that true light is shed in the hidden meanings…
so you can dismiss doing anything that would, for example, inconvenience the oil industry by saying “what about …” etc. but a rational actor would, IMO, prefer the choice to invest in jobs and technology that would address the probable catastrophic outcome, even though taking that course of action might enrich companies and investors (and malign countries) that are not presently making money selling us oil and rent-seeking.
What you are really stating is…
so you
can dismiss doingshouldn’t attempt anything that would, for example, inconveniencethe oil industrythe big green renewable machine by saying “what about …” etc. but a rationalactor (aka Leo DiCaprio)person would always question orthodoxy, IMO, prefer the choice to invest in jobs and technology that would address theprobable catastrophic outcomeleast costly option for the return on investment, even though taking that course of action might enrich companies and investors (and malign countries) that are not presently making money selling usoil and rent-seeking.panacea of unreliable wind and solar with unsustainable mined minerals for battery backup and rent-$eeking big green companieswhat big words? attribution? Bayesian? inconvenience? Many people would understand the inconvenience that Bayesian statistics cause for attribution.
How about “line spectrum”
or Ridberg Spectrum, Lyman series or Balmer series. Monochromatic, corpuscular behaviour of radiation.
In fact the article is an explanation that the “Bayesian priors” aren’t really known since we have such a limited, accurate set of data to work with. Navigating the climate is like guiding the Titanic with 20 min. old radio messages while barrelling along through barely visible icebergs.
Or perhaps you can give a cogent explanation about what human factors caused the weather over Europe for a week. There is no way people can control the paths of trillions of tons of air wandering around the atmosphere. Presently there is no way to link the wanderings of the climate to specific human actions. Human speculations drive a lot more hot air.
Wow Chris, that’s a rare example of someone making a complete arse of himself and never coming close to realizing it.
I have no college degree; I have a lot of college coursework; I have worked as an Particle Accelerator Engineer, Chemist, etc. I have even spent some time being a 3rd party Instrumentation Engineer to NOAA. I was recruited out of college in between my Junior and Senior years and thus far have never made it back.
Again confusing knowledge with intellectual prowess. Having a lot of knowledge does not preclude someone from being a moron.
And frankly even you hedged your bets with this statement:
“…probable catastrophic outcome…”
So you are talking out of both sides of your mouth or perhaps that is your bottom mouth speaking with an implied double standard of “weather is not climate” hypocrisy
Besides AT is from the behavioral sciences and psychology and last I check neither climate nor weather was a person.
The universe and climate are both a “just are”. They are neither good nor bad they just exist and going to follow the physics of the aforementioned universe not some poorly constructed mathematical model or perhaps even a well constructed model.
Chris,
It is too early in the year for that much snow.
Just an observation…
You use no words in your argument with more than 4 syllables. The longest are “attribution”, “analysis”, “intervention”, “uncertainty”, “inconvenience”, and “catastrophic”. Most of us learned these words in elementary or secondary school, but perhaps in whatever special school you attended they were considered “technical”. Far be it from me to undermine the fantasy that is your self-esteem, so…well done you! Have a cookie.
Chris wrote: “the odds that the recent events were caused by human actions ranges from 4:1 to 6:1”.
Assuming I am reading Figure 1 correctly, The current weather “event” consists of temperatures in Western Europe that are about 20 degC higher than normal and temperatures in Eastern Europe that are about 20 degC colder than usual. This “event” is clearly caused by an unusual large northward motion of warm air into Western Europe and southward motion of cold air into Eastern Europe. The two events are clearly linked – the northward movement of warm air can only take place when the cooler air normally present over Western Europe has moved somewhere else. In this case, it has clearly moved north, causing cold air to move south over Eastern Europe.
The whole phenomena appears to be a giant circular motion of air. If aGHGs were responsible for this circular motion or enhanced the likelihood of this circular motion, one might say human actions contributed to it. However, the odds you cite for human involvement were obtained by cherry-picking part of the phenomena, warming in Western Europe.
But the principle cause is the low (cold) pressure system moving further south over the Atlantic when most commonly we have a high pressure system over the Azores this time of the year.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/06/25/0900Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-10.99,31.27,747/loc=-80.810,44.581
Ppl should just ignore ‘chris I was the first to comment’. It is so braindead to push these custom / on-demand attributions.
I’m still shivering at +16C because of the same event. I’m ‘sure’ chris would say it is 4 to 6 times more probable because of the greenhouse effect err global warming err climate change.
“The whole phenomena appears to be a giant circular motion of air.”
Yes, it is a giant clockwise circulation of a high-pressure system. A slow-moving or stalled high-pressure system means the area underneath the high-pressure system gets hotter and drier day by day because high-pressure systems suppress storm fronts within them and instead push the storm fronts up and over the circular motion of the high-pressure system and down the other side and that’s how you can get very high temperatures underneath a high-pressure system while just outside the perimeter of the high-pressure system it can get very cold at the same time as cold air is driven south around the high-pressure system. That’s also how 1936 was one of the hottest years on record in the U.S. and also one of the coldest.
You can find the center of a high-pressure system by looking at a weather map and noting the hottest temperature. That’s where the center is.
You can also determine the boundaries of the high-pressure system by noting where the hot and cooler temperatures are located, and/or locating the west-to-east jet stream (if shown) which will locate the high-pressure system because it will be the northern boundary of the high-pressure system. All the weather fronts will follow this jet stream “up and over” the northern side of the high-pressure system.
Chris: Despite Mann’s publication about the origin of extreme warm spells, AR5 said CMIP5 models didn’t predict an increase in blocking events. Some explanations for this event begin with a blocking low west of Portugal.
Bayesian theory is all about incorporating prior information when developing probabilities. It definitely has its uses, but in this case could be seen as begging the question.
Bayesian theory is all about reassessing a prior statement of probability when new information comes to light. It has no application in the case of guessing what the cause of a single phenomenon might be.
I’m trying to figure out where the “big words with technical meanings that require a college degree in engineering” were. I didn’t see anything I didn’t read in high school — but then, I went to HS back in the 1970s, before the Department of Education started destroying American public schools.
Anyway, getting back to the statistical side of the street, a least squares regression run against the last five years of all 1230 European stations individually that are in the NOAA GHCN-Monthly summaries show a maximum slope of 0.004 and a minimum of -0.004. Of the stations, 955 had statistically insignificant warming trends, and 275 had statistically insignificant cooling trends.
In other words, there’s been no real warming in Europe for the past 5 years, so how does a no-warming scenario cause record highs?
and how does a warming scenario still allow for record lows?
Oooh “attribution theory”, that does sound sciencey.
Also your mom called and asked if you can clean your room, the gerbils are stinking the place out.
Chris,
I’m sorry, I could find no big words with technical meanings that I don’t use when I wish to sound pretentious.
The odds of attribution which you noted were not accompanied any evidence of said attribution.
Most of us went to University 🤣
It seems to be a common trope for people to assume skeptics of climate alarmism are somehow basement dwelling Bible-thumping troglodytes that think the Earth is flat. I think that this is an intentional social game used to Discourage people from disagreeing with the catastrophic warming hypothesis.
It’s also relatively disturbing that people don’t seem to understand the difference between a weather system and the climate. Whether or not carbon dioxide is influencing the global surface mean temperature – Weather events like a blocking high pressure dome with hot temperatures will happen.
We have hundreds of years of historical evidence of droughts that killed thousands and dried up major rivers. There have been stories about gigantic floods as far back as Gilgamesh. It is absurd to look at every hot day or every warm spell and blame that on carbon dioxide. Then turn around when it is Winter again and blame every new record cold snap on “weather” or carbon dioxide.
We have been instrumental I observing this system for a gnat’s fart of time. The confidence these people have with their predictions of doom just looks hysterical.
Toomany three letter words for me to understand! Words like oil, and, for, but, you! Did Chris go to Cambridge University per chance? Went to a lecture once by said Cambridge Lecturer, gave a very interesting talk on “structural stability”. Dined with him & a couple of other engineers afterwards as our guest. Poor fellow, had’t a clue on practical buildable engineering as he had no practical site experience nor much in the way of practical design experience, the downfall of academia, not enough practical people involved, just theorists! (Paid very nicely for it though!)
Alan the Brit
My daughter recently qualified with a Masters in Animal Behaviour Science. She bought a pedigree ‘trained’ dog.
It just bit someone.
I have no qualifications and have owned around 10 unpredictable rescue dogs over my lifetime. Not one of them has bitten anyone.
It’s garbage though. If an event could be entirely natural then you cannot give any meaningful probability that a single instance of that event was not entirely natural.
Moreover, if CO2 does not increase the probability of such an event, then the the figure is always zero. You cannot prove the CO2 increases the probability by assuming it does.
Sorry to use basic logic, I know many Alarmists don’t understand that.
By following the KISS principle the probability is that the event was entirely natural. There is more common sense in that one principal than in any attribution science. If attribution science actually worked I would have been using it in Vegas long ago.
You failed to state whether the odds are in favor or against human causation. The usual formulation in a saying like “a 4:1 to 6:1 shot” is that the odds are one chance in four or one chance in six that a given outcome will appear. I think you are trying to imply that human causation is four to six times as likely as natural variation to be the cause; but I, at least, read your numbers the other way, as I am more used to seeing them.
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
+1
Floccinaucinihilipilification.
using big words with technical meanings that require a college degree in engineering.
As a long-time former PE, you give engineers a bad name.
And I quote: “[apologies for using big words with technical meanings that require a college degree in engineering. I know that’s not popular on this blog]”
Wat? Dood…. Eat me, and by extension us.
Everything else you previously said was instantly negated because of your ad-hominem, and condescending final posit. You obviously and willingly shut down any and all worthwhile discussion that we may have had with you. -Evidently, because you never wanted one.
Thus, my counter posit to thoust insultive tripe:
May your family tolerate you, and remain well.
Any jackass who thinks someone needs a college degree in engineering to use a dictionary or have a moderate vocabulary to begin with is not even worth wasting time with, IMO.
All I read was an assertion, which is very much at odds with the simple observations that anyone can make with a modicum of logic.
Such as one of the last points made by Dr. Spencer: The record broken was set in 1923.
That right there blows away any assertions to the contrary regarding attribution.
It was roughly as hot 100 years ago.
And this is weather, which by definition is not climate, and climate is only climate change when a 30 year average changes.
And who can ignore the map?
A kink in the jet stream draw Arctic air southward, causing warm air to be drawn northward.
Another way of looking at it is, that the wind blew from the south, at a time of year it is very hot to the south.
Last year these areas of France had record cold weather at a time of year that damaged the vineyards.
And besides for everything else, when alarmists begin to be called out by the clisci mainstream, then I will believe maybe they are to be taken seriously.
When they advocate for replacing FFs with alternatives that actually work to produce energy as needed and without CO2 production, I will believe maybe they are really motivated by the desire to lower CO2.
And when even a few of them makes changes in their own lives that is consistent with a belief that we are in some sort of crisis, then I will entertain the notion that they are not just full of crap.
No sensible person will ever pay attention to illogical and hypocritical scolds.
“apologies for using big words with technical meanings that require a college degree in engineering”
Sorry but I’ve read your comment a few times now and have yet to identify these ” big words with technical meanings that require a college degree in engineering”. Could you please indicate these “big words” or have they been deleted to save we poor plebs from a brain strain?
Correct.
Media only likes headlines. Purpose of media staff: To make money for owners. CNN want us to believe they are doing honest reporting.
The major error is to attribute the high temperatures to increases in CO2.
No one would argue that the temperatures at Charles de Gaulle Airport are higher on hot days than they were 100 years ago (when the airport did not exist), and that the cause is anthropogenic. (We did build an airport). However, anthropogenic CO2 emissions (in China?) are not the proximate cause.
As regards “Climate Change”, the definition follows Justice Potter Stewart who said -“I don’t know what it is, but I know it when I see it”. (Potter Stewart was referring to pornography.)
Climate Alarmists do the same thing – any extreme weather is always attributed after the fact to Climate Change (caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions).
No explanation is offered as to why these extreme events are transitory.
That really is the elephant in the room. In the story immediately previous to this one, Climate models are fudged, Dr. Michaels makes the same observation. Dr. Curry has made the same observation.
You really can’t say that you have seen the fingerprint of global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 if the early 20th century warming matches the late 20th century warming.
Sanity 1, Alarmism 0
There are no “record low” temperatures in France in the 21st century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_France
UHI, data manipulation, warming out of the little ice age, recent El Nino’s.
The list is endless, but like the rest of your religious cult, you’ll only accept the pre-selected answer.
If you are unable to address the fact that in the 21st century, there are a multitude of record highs, and an absence of record lows, all of your bluster is meaningless. In other words, show me measurements that dispute my assertion.
Wow, not just an arse, but a repeated arse.
First off, for the whole world your claim is completely wrong.
Beyond that, all of the factors that I gave can also be used to explain the non-event that so impresses you.
What is it about climate change acolytes that causes them to have such a totally unjustified opinion of their own intellectual capabilities?
I stated a simple fact: “There are no “record low” temperatures in France in the 21st century.”
…
Now, instead of name calling, please stop waving your arms and address this FACT.
“your claim is completely wrong”
…
Please provide evidence of your assertion.
A link to an extensive list of all time record lows in France.
https://www.plantmaps.com/interactive-france-record-high-and-low-temperature-map.php
Keith
“In other words, show me measurements that dispute my assertion.”
MarkW can’t do that so he will use his yawningly boring 9 year old school yard bully name calling to attack “you”.
Keith, your fact is completely irrelevant. The world is big. Strange correlations happen all the time.
The fact that you are desperate to prove what has already been disproven has lead you to desperately cling to nonsense.
Now that’s funny, considering all Simon has ever done is attack those he disagrees with.
And of course neither he nor Keith have much of a record in regards to supporting their disproven claims.
MarkW continues to wave his hands and says: ” what has already been disproven ”
..
Come on MarkW, show us your evidence.
The fact that none of the climate models (except the Russian one) come anywhere close to predicting current temperatures.
The fact that the world has been warmer 3 times in the last 5000 years, without CO2 and with only good things happening.
The fact that the world has been warmer than it is now for about 90% of the last 10K years, without CO2 and with only good things happening.
The fact that none of the catastrophic things the AGW acolytes routinely predict have happened.
That’s good enough to disprove the claim that CO2 is the main driver of climate and that warmer temperatures are going to kill everyone.
The fact that you want to fixate on France because right now it’s warm, while ignoring cool temperatures in the rest of Europe.
There is no absence of record lows globally in this century, only if you cherry-pick France.
Zoom out man, get the bigger picture. For your hot France there was a cold Russia. A look at the anomaly maps of the NH will show that the only thing that made June 2nd highest in the NCEP record is the polar warmth and where people live the cold vs warm was about even. We farmers in the US will lose a huge amount of corn production to cold soil and wet conditions. If the US has a bad year the world does too. 5K acres in Sardinia having a locust “plague” is nothing compared to how much your groceries will climb in Europe if the US has more springs like this, or colder.
Get a grip, Sketchley. The rise in nighttime lows is demonstrably due to land use changes and UHI, not your pet magic gas. Quit climate ambulance chasing, the warts of your worry are all attributable to warm ocean cycles.
“in the 21st century, there are a multitude of record highs, and an absence of record lows,……..In other words, show me measurements that dispute my assertion.”
If my (short) memory serves me correctly the writer clearly has ADD and very selective memory.
I vaguely heard that Chicago was a pretty cold place last winter, whether it was anything other than a very normal extreme cold snap is debatable, but a few people died.
Here in Russia there are plenty of places where you don’t want to linger long outside in January, although Moscow had such a giant snowfall (not sure if was a record again), but it stranded my car under it for 3 months.
If you care to visit Canada or say Yakutia during those winter months when there is either no sun at all or very short days, I can assure you it’s irrelevant whether our (very minimal and inaccurate 100yr old temp records) are broken.
It’s just freezing cold!
This spring we have a constant northerly air stream over northern Russia and the Baltic states, one of which was noted in this article as the El Nino effect has broken down, and the NAO & JS is playing havoc with our scandinavian airstreams.
This results in some noteable temperature extremes from day to night, where during the day it can be +30 and the next night only 4C.
Again nothing abnormal, and I’m sure pretty similar in 1930.
Pigs: obviously you have not read this commenting thread.
…
Go back up and re-read where I posted: “There are no “record low” temperatures in France in the 21st century: ”
…
Piasa, I apologize, you seemed to have missed my point. Spencer is giving us all the reasons to question the “record high” measurement coming out of FRANCE. All I have done is provided a counterpoint to his attempt to discredit actual physical measurements.
If only there were such a phenomenon as a “Rural Cold Island” there might be more record cold temps. As it is, most technological processes are exothermic, so alas.
unless france has moved, that would be wrong
http://coolwx.com/record/globemovie.month.php
But there are 21stC “record lows” in Belgium which is not so far away
https://www.thebulletin.be/coldest-28-february-belgium-records-began
Some cool 21st C weather in Switzerland as well.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/coldest-january-recorded-for-almost-25-years/8207646
And in Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Italy
And a little in Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Spain
Depends how you pick your cherries
Actually your link is stupid. It is record lows as a single temperature. I was in South-West France in May and we had a record low – for that area for that date. The wine estates were very worried about such a late frost.
Up until late week, south-West France had had a very cool June. I drove 120km on Friday and went from 35 degrees to 22 degrees. Alarmist stupidity using silly data.
Actually if you want to talk about record lows for France….
KS has zilch idea what he is on about.
Last year on the way to Chambord I visited a cave cooperative in Orleans area.
The shock was not possible to mitigate, so Keith can take this fact and lump it, and stock it up where it hurts.
The manager was a fantastic source of wine history for which we got a free hour long lecture.
I have been going to said Cave coop on and off for nigh on 30yrs, which it must be remembered is one of the most ancient areas of the French wine industry (in fact Orleans was famous for centuries for its vinegar trade), as they would recycle the off wine which came up the Loire in boats in centuries past. (didn’t have sulfates or other stuff to keep it in them days!)
The business was just closing after nearly a century of working. (they told me it will be the last bottles I will ever buy from them).
WHY?
Nothing to do with the world heating up or boiling or global warming crap.
The FATAL blow was each time LATE FROSTS.
Ie. Several years in succession which meant there was simply not enough grapes to turn into wine, so productivity took a massive hit.
Late frosts?
Surely not?
Ce n’est pas possible monsieur!
Macron, the arch liar..ie. Bankers, – the stock in trade for “president des riches”.
Let him turn water into wine.
Sure as anything, some places in France are going bust because it’s TOO COLD!
There are no “record low” temperatures in France in the 21st century:
And if that were true, the suffering from this “fact” is inestimable, no?
Keith Sketchley
You statement is really a non sequitur. It is commonly acknowledged that temperatures have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age. (That is why we are no longer experiencing an ice age!) One would therefore expect record high temperatures during the period of warming. Record low temperatures would be less probable because most of the warming has been occurring at night and in the Winter. None of this speaks to attribution. That is, the question is, “Are humans responsible for the warming, and if so, to what extent?” So, what was your point in citing Wikipedia?
“The most thorough analysis of the UHI effect on U.S. temperature was by Anthony Watts and co-authors, who analyzed the siting of hundreds of thermometers around the U.S. and showed that if only the best (most rural) sited thermometers are used, ”
wrong.
never published . well publushed and then retractes nearly 7 years ago after mistakes were found
plus it used ushcn. no longer an official souece for various reasons.
And Watts reneged on his support of Muller and BEST as a result of this paper.
https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-104.pdf
Only in the world of climate science is pointing out the flaws in ones work considered, reneging on a pledge to support.
One’s, tit – don’t use big words if you cannot use an apostrophe correctly.
Right an argument on line about science requires the correct use of an apostrophe to be valid. What a stupid comment. And have you read Mosher’s post? Not going to pull him up for the spelling?
You consider those to be big words?
Anywho, Muller reneged on his promise to do an honest and unbiased paper. So why should anyone support it?
Getting even more desperate. What’s the matter did someone threaten your paycheck?
Steve: I understand that BEST has shown that a global land temperature record constructed only from rural stations shows the same amount of warming as a record constructed from all stations. Although there clearly are stations biased by UHI, there apparently aren’t enough of them to make their bias apparent in the global land record constructed using BEST’s methodology.
Have you looked at densely populated regions to determine if UHI bias can be detected regionally? Finding UHI bias in some regions – which many feel must be present – would lend credibility to your evidence that bias is small on a global scale.
The problem with BEST’s methodology is that it assumes that all breakpoints (with are split into two separate records) are caused by a permanent change to new measurement conditions. This almost certainly isn’t true. If a station is moved from an increasingly urbanized location to a nearby large park, a breakpoint will be created. However, the station move has restored unbiased (or less biased) measurement conditions. Slicing the record into two parts (or homogenizing) keeps the trend that was biased by increasing urbanization and inappropriately discards the needed abrupt correction. The same thing problem occurs when station maintenance restores earlier measurement conditions which had become biased. For example, an increasingly dirty Stevenson screen will reflect less sunlight, creating a warming bias. When the screen is clean, that bias will be eliminated. By splicing or homogenizing, the biased trend is again retained and the needed correction is discarded. It would be extremely interesting to know if BEST’s important conclusions about UHI depend on how breakpoints are handled.
Frank,
You commented, “Although there clearly are stations biased by UHI, there apparently aren’t enough of them to make their bias apparent in the global land record constructed using BEST’s methodology.”
I suspect the reason is that is was assumed that the environment is isotropic. That is, all stations in proximity to a city will be affected equally. In reality, there is often prevailing winds that will remove heat from the city, warming the rural area downwind. Conversely, the rural areas upwind will be affected by the temperature of the winds blowing towards the city. The average of the cooler upwind rural area with the warmed downwind rural area will make it appear there is little difference. I have previously pointed this out to Mosher and — crickets!
Where did you publish your crap paper Mosher? In act 1, scene 1 of a new journal which had published nothing before that and which was shown to be part of a publishing group which specialised in fake peer reviews and publications. And you have the gall to come and talk about publications and reputations.
Your publication was in the lowest possible journal of a fake publication group. That’s your claim to fame. So just get lost and don;t throw mud when you’re covered with it.
Your comment doesn’t actually make sense. It can still be the most thorough analysis. It can still be the most thorough even with errors. Plenty of pretty good and useful science has errors.
So is the paper entirely wrong or largely right?
I’d be curious to know if anyone has records from past years for that station. What mean a list of records “captured” in at past years.
I have a few lists “captured” at different years of record high and low for my little spot on the globe and some are … odd. (ie A list from, say, 2012 might have a record high for a particular date that’s lower than that date’s record high on a list from 2007.)
Of course none this has to do with the lessening of the gradient between tropical and Arctic temperatures, the slowing down of the jet stream, and its increasing meandering. /sarc
Can you show that it does, or are you that desperate to change the subject?
Of course showing that those things are happening and are actually caused by CO2 would also be nice.
The jet stream progression slows during solar minima.
The North Atlantic jet stream correlates with Solar output over a millennium
Jet stream blocking caused the great Moscow heat wave of 2010 at the depths of the last solar minimum. There are many papers linking Rossby wave sinuosity to low solar activity. Which explains why we see such events more commonly each 11 years or so.
Did you read the article to which you linked? The cycles mentioned are 100 years, not 11. The effects were noticeable in winter, not summer.
BTW – Two papers (one co-authored by Judith Curry) other than Jennifer Francis have linked loss of Arctic sea ice to changes in the jet stream. I suggest you read https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/arctic-sea-ice-loss-tied-to-unusual-jet-stream-patterns.html
Chris: “In the case of the French weather, the odds that the recent events were caused by human actions ranges from 4:1 to 6:1.”
Please can you jot down the sums that you base these numbers on?
Apparently better odds than Chris being an actual intellectual rather than pseudo-intellectual
But… but… but…
We know what caused the Medieval Warm Period, right? …and…
We know what caused the LIA Little Ice Age … right? …and…
We know what caused the exit of the LIA in the last 1800s, right? …and…
We know what caused the Great 21st Century Pause, right? …
No?
WHY NOT?
‘Cuz if “they” cannot find their recorded climate trends with all the data already accumulated, what reason would we have to believe that anything “they” claim about the present-casting or even fore-casting is remotely close to accurate? Might as well go to a water witch, or a palm reader, or an Almanac.
Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓
GoatGuy: You are looking in the wrong place for evidence.
We know that conservation of energy demands that an object that receives more energy than it loses must warm.
We know the only way for energy to enter and leave our climate system is through radiation.
Laboratory experiments prove that rising GHGs will initially slow down the rate at which the planet emits thermal infrared radiation to space.
Therefore, we know rising GHGs must be causing some warming. (This doesn’t tell us how much warming and whether it can be easily detected against the background of normal variability – like the Pause.)
The modest 21st century pause is an example of unforced (internal) variability caused by fluctuations in heat exchange between the surface and colder deeper ocean. We know this because ARGO observed warming of the ocean during the Pause.
We don’t know whether the MWP and LIA were caused by internal variability or natural forcing. It doesn’t really make any difference. If ECS is as high as the IPCC’s models suggest, fluctuations the size of the MWP and LIA aren’t going to make much difference. And such fluctuations could make the problem worse. Are we about to experience another MWP or LIA? How can you be sure/
Frank please give a link to these experiments.
Anthony has done an experiment and posted it on this site. The CO2 jar experiment showed no warming with increasing CO2.
Temperature is not just a number. It has more than a simple meaning. Energy.
So taking into account a peak value, i.e. record temperature does not provide a description for the global energy content under the curve.
My big cobra photo flash has an instantaneous power of about 140 horse powers. All powered by 4 AA cells. Does that peak number imply that I can drive my car with the same batteries ? NO.
So was this period of nice weather something critical ? How many sched flights were cancelled due to excessive temperatures in Europe ? Zero.
How many were cancelled due to cold this past winter ? More than 200 per day, mildly said when readings took the plunge.
Enough of bad science and hot-o-phobia already.
Two points. It should be realised by our government that the Media is in
the business of making money, so they are mostly concerned with Gotcha
moments and big events. Truth in reporting seldom gets a mention
But of course some politicians like to scare the people, so they can then offer
to save us, just as long as we then vote for them.
We also of course have people in positions of power, who want to destroy
the economy, then of course they will offer us their political system, i.e.
such as Communism.
Come to think of it, that’s the same thing.
Second point. As its quite clear that the Urban Heat Island Effect is
distorting the temperature figures, plus possibly ideology is also involved
by some of the staff concerned.
Is it practicable that we only use data from the buoys, balloon s and the
satellites and disregard these readings from the majority or even all of the
surface measurements.
This reminds me of the quote said to be from Joseph Stalin, “It does not
matter how many people vote. What does matter is who counts the votes.”
M JE VK5ELL
Yes and another thing to keep in mind is where someone states such and such a town had a ‘1 in 100 year rain event’, which means very little if you don’t compare it to long term trends and other spatial data.
If there are 10,000 other towns that didn’t get a ‘1 in 100 year event’ at the time, it means it was actually nothing unusual, as you should get roughly 1 of these per year for 10,000 towns, or put another way, 100 of these ‘1 in 100 year events’ over 100 years for 10,000 towns would give you the expected average for 10,000 towns ‘1 in 100 year events’ over 100 years. (I think that’s right, but you get the point).
at 21:52 PM on 25 June, 2019
Barry,
A bit of advice from someone who has posted at SkS for a long time:
If you continue to complain about the moderation they will ban you forever. It is a very hard job to moderate and they get little in return for their hard work. If you limit your comments to what you think is important you will be more effective in the end.
The facts speak for themselves. Adding moderation complaints detracts from your posts.
(HUH????) SUNMOD
The null hypothesis stands: Normal temperature variations within an interglacial warm period.
I will track down the source but I have read in an Australian paper that in Western New South Wales in 1896 during the Federation Drought there were more than 30 consecutive days with temperatures exceeding 45 C.
What contribution did anthropogenic greenhouse gases make to such a climate or weather event?
From Meteo:
Montpelier (site established 1946). In 1946 Montpellier had a population of 92K. Current population is almost 260K.
Strasbourg (site established 1924). In 1924 Strasbourg had a population of 167K. Currently 280K.
Mont Aigoual. Population in 1946 1,400. In 2008 the population was 1,000.
Is it possible, just possible that these temperatures have something to do with concrete jungles?
This race to records temperatures seems to be childish, just as “statistics” in sports. What does it means ? Nothing ! In 2003, in France, the heatwave was very unpleasant and uncomfortable : during several weeks heat was quitey so high during the night as the day, around 31°C to 39°C. We couldn’t breathe and sleep usually. During this short heatwave at the end of june, nights were fresh and I had 44°C in my garden in south of France when the sun was at its zenit, and 42°C one hour and half later and 22°C the next day morning !
Just a good weather for me for drinking a good cold beer…
“The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time? At least in the U.S., the answer is ‘no’, as the number of days over 100 and 105 deg. F have not increased (see Fig. 5 here). ”
WRONG!!!
I agree that the number of days over 37.8 to 40.6C have not increased, but that is not the same as “number of record high temperatures”. Because a record high is surely the highest temperature yet experienced.
Statistically, the chance of a 1 in a 100 year record is 0.01. So if you have 100 countries and are measuring the temperature, then based on pure chance, there should be 1 once in a 100 year record for each possible record (high temperature, low temperature, high rain, etc.)
So, if we have been measuring the temperature for 100 years, then the chance of a new record high ought to be 1/100. If we measure for 200 years the chance of a new record high ought to be 1/200. I don’t know the average length of time that measurements have been made where record highs are possible, but they often seem to be about 30 years. On that basis, if those same stations continue in use, then we’d expect the rate of record highs to approximately halve over the next 30 years.
However, whilst most of the climate cult are pretty brain dead, a few money makers have their heads screwed on and they no doubt can do the same maths. So, they know that unless they keep creating new weather stations (or at least changing them enough to restart the “record high” count) then their source of endless press releases will eventually dry up. So, there could literally be a mann-made increase in record highs!!
Also many stations were installed during the New Ice Age scare moment .
Years are not independent, nor places. So the P is not 0.01 etc.
But taken many places, you will get lots of records.
Heat waves are becoming more common in Spain. The yearly total number of heat waves days has risen from around 3 in 1975 to around 12 in 2018 (linear tendency line) a four fold. I worked out the data from the Spanish Meteorological Agency and that is what tha graph shows.
?_nc_cat=107&_nc_eui2=AeGDFziDldSJf4g05g6xFZafcXwyjvQ–LY6u4oZkKLXfECtphvXGvSBZtQHH5-HPsOG5Mlu1uYA76qUP8F8xcAt6S6ypgob6dwhZHWqK0pxRA&_nc_oc=AQlenTY1pDJbVT2Zp53xgFR1v06jFyvF2Cnk5paBs0dahLeczNuJyaL8IylCbAf-W8M&_nc_ht=scontent.fvgo2-1.fna&oh=96aecc1c07b98d3d2ff3e23bc96d8360&oe=5DC1F1EE
Guillermo Gefaell
Thanks, interesting. Until today I thought Spain would, though being a warmer country on average, suffer less from heat waves than France. Time for me to rethink a bit I guess…
Very interesting, thank you. So what is happening is Spain seems to be part of a general tendency. The USA case seems to be special.
On the other hand, contraintuitively, the increasing in the yearly heat waves number and total of hot days in Spain does not match rain precipitation. In spite of much more hot days the country is not drying. Precipitation tendency has been flat for the 1965-2018 period. Curious.
Guillermo Gefaell
Thanks for the reply, which nevertheless surprises me quite a lot, because until now I never could correlate heat waves with rain precipitation.
With one exception: the southern flank of steep hills when heat waves cross them, what brings the hot air to quickly move up and thus to cool, what results in harsh rainfalls or even hail.
This happens often in Liguria near the Riviera, or above Funchal on Madeira.
But these exceptions put aside, I really only know about heat waves associated with drought (and sometimes also with strong winds, like during the Dust Bowl).
Hasta luego 🙂
Sure, people aren’t dying of heat stroke, they are alive, just hiding in the bushes jerking off.
right?
Climate change affects weather, just not in a deterministic fashion rather in a probabilistic fashion , that is by making the likelihood of extreme events, more likely, which over time results in higher frequency of extreme events, like we are observing in recent years all over the world.
Twisting reality when people are dying by the thousands of heatstroke, is truly stupid.
Global warming causes climate change, which affect weather patterns and increases frequency of extreme weather events.
All the glaciers of the world have retreated in a fashion that is beyond any possible natural process, as proven by 150 years of data and research … , of course researchers are all out to get you .. WATCH OUT ! THERE IS ONE BEHIND YOU! SHE IS MEASURING THE TEMPERATURE of the AIR
QUICK RUN RUN SAVE YOUR LIVES!!!!!
Leo Kenji: “she [the researcher] is measuring the temperature of the air”
Along with reading a thermometer, why isn’t she measuring back radiation?
For Greg Goodman
If I well understood you, you seem to live in Southern France and had shown here at WUWT in a previous thread some interest in temperature measurements made in France during the most recent heat wave.
I just downloaded the GHCN daily data concerning French stations. Measurements were available today up to June, 29.
Here is the top 10 of a descending sort of the warmest days transmitted to NOAA by Meteo France:
FRE00106207 MONTPELLIER-AEROPORT 2019 6 28 43.5
FRE00106203 MONT-DE-MARSAN 1947 8 1 42.5
FR000007747 PERPIGNAN 2019 6 28 42.4
FRM00007535 GOURDON 2003 8 5 41.8
FRM00007535 GOURDON 2003 8 4 41.8
FRE00106203 MONT-DE-MARSAN 2003 8 4 41.4
FRM00007535 GOURDON 2003 8 12 41.3
FRM00007607 MONT DE MARSAN 2003 8 5 41.2
FRM00007535 GOURDON 2003 8 13 41.2
FRE00106203 MONT-DE-MARSAN 2003 8 5 41.2
As you can see, there is of course no data coming from interpolated corners like Gallargues-le-Montueux, Varages etc etc.
This is however not quite what you need in order to see what really happened. Simply because the sort contains all warmest days, of course including those in July and August, which are often enough warmer than those in June.
Grepping the June days out of the sort gives you this:
FRE00106207 MONTPELLIER-AEROPORT 2019 6 28 43.5
FR000007747 PERPIGNAN 2019 6 28 42.4
FRM00007535 GOURDON 2003 6 22 40.7
FRE00106203 MONT-DE-MARSAN 2003 6 22 40.4
FRE00104907 MONTELIMAR 2019 6 27 40.3
FRE00106203 MONT-DE-MARSAN 1950 6 29 40.2
FR000007630 TOULOUSE-BLAGNAC 2019 6 27 40.2
FRM00007761 CAMPO DELL ORO 2019 6 14 40.1
FRE00106209 AJACCIO 2019 6 14 40.1
FR000007630 TOULOUSE-BLAGNAC 2019 6 29 40.0
7 times 2019 in the top 10 for June: that’s a little bit much.
Nobody in France has forgotten that in 2003, over 14000 (mostly aged) persons died during the heat wave, nearly all due to harsh dehydration.
I was near Toulon in July 2003, and and I will not forget that soon. In comparison, the 37.5 ° C in northern Germany last week was no more than a funny game I really enjoyed.
Bonne journée,
Jean-Pierre
Data source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
Care to explain why this does not appear on your list at all?
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/02/frances-70-day-heat-wave-of-1911-killed-41000-in-uninterrupted-heat-most-were-babies/
What is your point, A C Osborne?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canicule#Principales_canicules_en_France
I was a few days ago in a little discussion about nonsensical record highs in Southern France, and not in a discussion about historical heat waves.
Tout va bien sinon?
For the sake of completeness:
FR000007354 DEOLS CHATEAUROUX AERODROME 1911 6 8 33.0
FR000007354 DEOLS CHATEAUROUX AERODROME 1911 6 7 31.5
FR000007354 DEOLS CHATEAUROUX AERODROME 1911 6 5 30.5
FR000007510 BORDEAUX-MERIGNAC 1911 6 8 30.2
FR013055001 MARSEILLE OBS. PALAIS-LONCH 1911 6 19 30.0
FR000007354 DEOLS CHATEAUROUX AERODROME 1911 6 6 30.0
FR000007510 BORDEAUX-MERIGNAC 1911 6 30 29.7
FR013055001 MARSEILLE OBS. PALAIS-LONCH 1911 6 6 29.5
FR000007510 BORDEAUX-MERIGNAC 1911 6 6 29.5
FR000007510 BORDEAUX-MERIGNAC 1911 6 29 29.5
FR000007510 BORDEAUX-MERIGNAC 1911 6 16 29.3
FR013055001 MARSEILLE OBS. PALAIS-LONCH 1911 6 7 29.2
FR000007510 BORDEAUX-MERIGNAC 1911 6 7 28.9
FR000007150 PARIS/LE BOURGET 1911 6 6 28.9
FR000007510 BORDEAUX-MERIGNAC 1911 6 5 28.5
FR000007354 DEOLS CHATEAUROUX AERODROME 1911 6 29 28.5
FR013055001 MARSEILLE OBS. PALAIS-LONCH 1911 6 24 28.3
FR013055001 MARSEILLE OBS. PALAIS-LONCH 1911 6 8 28.0
FR000007747 PERPIGNAN 1911 6 19 28.0
TheWayBackMachine ( archive.org/web/web.php ) is your friend.
Enter your data source link into the “Search” and see if older records match the current records.
I don’t know if you’ll find any changes but I know many records temps for my little spot on the globe have been changed as I said above.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/02/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-2736337
OOPS!
I said “Search”. Make that “Browse History”.
MONTPELLIER-AEROPORT
https://donneespubliques.meteofrance.fr/metadonnees_publiques/fiches/fiche_34154001.pdf
Temperature 4 Nr35B
Sources de chaleur gênantes : parking et route
Aire de parking à moins de 10 m
Category 4 FFS , massive parking area within 10m.
and that is one of the official “synoptique” stations reporting to international datasets.
A thematic heat map of weather and climate news coverage also follows that pattern with most intensive media coverage in the high heat zones compared to the cool zones.
As for UHI, we’re going to need more integration of GIS and cross sectional weather station sighting transects to measure the heat bubbles and asphalt evolution.
So, European heat waves are just the Sirocco on steroids?
From the head post
“The question is, are the number of record high temperatures increasing over time? At least in the U.S., the answer is ‘no’, as the number of days over 100 and 105 deg. F have not increased (…). One would need to study the data for Europe to see if the number of record highs is increasing over time.”
Yes, for the U.S., the answer is ‘no’:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017.jpg
But for the Globe, the answer is (of course according to a layman’s home work), clearly ‘yes’.
1. As John Christy generated his record high stat out of the USHCN record, I first switched to the GHCN daily record with around 18000 US stations in the grand total over the period, and around 36000 worldwide, and generated a similar stat for CONUS:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view
I chosed 35 / 40 °C instead of 100 / 105 F: nobody uses Fahrenheit ouside of the USA and some of its backyards. But it seems that the stuff, though based on a considerably greater data set, nevertheless fits to John Christy’s work quite well.
2. Extending the stat worldwide then gave this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view
The station data was distributed over a grid of 2.5 ° cell size, in order to have 200 US grid cells competing with 2000 cells worldwide, instead of having in the yearly average about 8000 US stations competing with about 8000 worldwide, what lets the Globe look like CONUS’ backyard 🙂
Who has some doubt concerning accuracy and precision is kindly invited to to the same job. We can then compare the results.
Maybe I redo the stat work again, this time restricted to Europe or even to France, when I have some idle time.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
#1 way to know a statement is false: It is preceded by the phrase “experts say”.
Roy Spencer already gave the right answer but I will reformulate the pretentious vocabulary in simple, really common sense words.
Attribution theory deals with the question how to modify a hypothesis about a process when new data about the same process are available . Common sense, right ?
The Bayes theorem which gives the conditionnal probabilities is the statistical tool to quantify how to adapt causal hypothesis to data (but NOT the other way round !) . Again common sense.
So the first sentence should have been “If we use Bayes theorem , should we change our opinion about climate change causes after we got new data about the weather in France end of june 2019 ?” . Clear enough.
But now comes the catch that R.Spencer already caught.
This method works ONLY if you know the prior probability distribution ! In this case you must know what the weather in France would be if there was no perturbation (e.g if the CO2 was not what it is).
If you don’t know that, Bayes doesn’t give you anything.
Yet obviously this is precisely what you do NOT know.
So if you want to say some random non sense anyway (like odds 4:1 etc) you simply must postulate some non “perturbed” probability distribution which you pull out of your hat or out of some computer model.
And this boils down to simply assume that global warming is caused by man and the computer models give an accurate answer on the question what would be if ….
So finally it is a tautology because if you postulate that the weather in France is given by the global warming and that the global warming is caused by man then without surprise you find that indeed the global warming dictates the weather and that it is caused by man 🙂
Tom Vonk, nice to see you again.
I live in rural Limousin, apart from Limoges it’s very rural. One day During the heatwave Limoges was forecast to be the hottest place in France 41’C.
I have a simple gauge for hot spells, the road tar melting last week saw very little evidence around where I am. We also had a trip Saumur on the day it was also one of the warmest places, again not much tar melting. Using that yardstick the last heatwave was hotter and/or longer
Back in the 80’s we called this a Sirocco wind event: a Lp above the UK and HP at the east, which “sucks the hot air from the sahara in. Happens usually in the winter where you suddenly have 14-17 degrees C in january.
CO2 blankets the earth in 410 ppm CO2. There is no way for CO2 to cause localized warming. There is also no way for CO2 to trap outgoing heat and cause warming or a record high. Record highs require new energy be put into the system. Trapping outgoing radiation won’t cause warming, it slows cooling. Visible radiation warms the earth, not outgoing LWIR. Clear skies will warm the earth, not CO2.
Extreme Climate and Droughts are Nothing New; Collapse of the Akkadian Empire Circa 2,200 B.C.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/06/30/extreme-climate-and-droughts-are-nothing-new-collapse-of-the-akkadian-empire-circa-2200-b-c/
Why Today’s and Past Heat Waves Have Nothing to do with CO2
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/06/30/why-todays-and-past-heat-waves-have-nothing-to-do-with-co2/
The other issue is scale. Most of the temperature records show an anomaly up to 1 degree (base date varies) The new record was 45.9 and the previous was 44.1 (1.8 degree difference). Most data sets show current global temperatures lower than the 2016 peak.
The hottest recorded day for the last 200 years. How have temperatures been recorded 200 years ago? By having someone loom at the mercury. Who has seen an old mercury thermometer? Any confidence that we were able to detect a difference of a tenth degree celsius? I remember when I was a kid, we could sometimes not make out to one degree what temperature it really was. Most stuff from before WW2 is mush, anything from before WW1 is guesswork at best. But we constantly see those lines with extremely intricate and precise temperature developments over hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. It should be stated that they are all guesswork and could be off by entire degrees Celsius. But that’s not what we are told. If it supports the Global Warming script, it’s elevated to be a fact, if it does not, it’s adjusted until it fits.
Even if they could determine down to a tenth, they only recorded to a degree. Using best judgement as to whether they should round up or down.
The fact that the weather fluctuates on its own without any human input, does not negate the fact that in the last 300 years human activity has destroyed, polluted, or poisoned (your choice) a large part of the ecosystem. No person in their right mind could possibly think that human actions have no effect on climate. Industrial production, deforesting (by half) the planet, heating (and cooling) massive buildings, (the heat produced by these processes all leaks out later, or you would only have to heat/cool them once), human produced radiation (electrical/electronics, atomic processes), dumping trillions of tons of toxic chemicals into the water, air and land, not to mention that each organism itself produces some amount of heat from simply living all affect the entire system. If we do not take action to limit our excessive consumption of resources, and production of harmful products we might as well just line up and all jump over the cliff now.
Patching the hole in the boat is not the solution, we need to rethink our entire approach as to what a good life is. If the definition of a good life destroys the chances of the next generation having any decent chance of a life, the your definition of a good life is merely a delusion.
If we do not take action to limit our excessive consumption of resources, and production of harmful products we might as well just line up and all jump over the cliff now.
Actually the problem of this person is that it lives in another Univers or another time.
In our Universe and in our time what we observe is :
– the life expectation has never been so high in history
– we have no famines, no Black Deaths and the medical science cures diseases that have been killing millions only 100 years ago. We go on the Moon and we might colonize Mars and Jupiter satellites in a few centuries too.
– the living standards have never been so high in history. In most countries everybody has electricity, water, hospitals and mobility. We work much less than 100 years ago.
– the quality of air and water is much better than what it was 100 years ago.
– the Earth’s population keeps increasing. Well this one may be ambiguous : on one hand it shows that the environment (including climate) is more and more favorable but on the other hand it asks a question if there is/should be some limit for the number of people on the Earth.
You weren’t paying attention, I said 300 years ago, the only reason medical science had to keep up with most of the current solutions is the fact that we did so much damage to the planet to start with. There was a plague outbreak last year in Madagascar; there is currently outbreaks of Ebola and Congo Fever in Congo; over 200,000 had cholera last year in India alone; there is are currently almost 2 billion under nourished or starving people on the planet, about 1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water. Saying there are no plagues or famines makes you look very uninformed. You want sources check out the WHO website, or here https://outbreaks.globalincidentmap.com/. The oceans are so full of man made garbage that some of the marine life is dying off. Science reported recently that this generation will be the 1st in a long time to have shorter lifespans than there parents. If attitudes and actions do not change this will not be the last generation to see reduced lifespans. Some things science or medicine cannot fix, although for others both of these are quite useful. Until people start taking some responsibility for their own actions and poor thinking, the problems will be getting worse. And this is nothing new, like Jack said “You want truth? You can’t handle the truth.” Until people learn from their mistakes they are going to repeat them.
Chris,
No need for apologies, big words often camouflage ponci schemes as in
“investing in Elon Musk interventions”:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&ei=GiUeXeW5EKmqrgS6ipmwDg&q=investing+in+Elon+musk+interventions&oq=investing+in+Elon+musk+interventions&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
Chris,
No need for apologies, big words often camouflage ponci schemes as in
“investing in Elon Musk interventions”:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&ei=GiUeXeW5EKmqrgS6ipmwDg&q=investing+in+Elon+musk+interventions&oq=investing+in+Elon+musk+interventions&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
Sure you’re a management consultant, Chris.
You’ll never consult alone.
Since using bad high readings as some kind of proof of human culpability is FRAUD I would like to point out that the random highs caused by UHI and the intentionally/unintentionally compromised station positions as well as any idiocy of blowing heat across them is CRIMINAL in nature, not “spurious”.
Apply the correct verbage, reporting a temperature from a station that doesn’t meet the standards is a criminal act akin to yelling “fire” in a theater.
Cut no tape, call it as it is. France has committed fraud through neglect of its social services.
Hang on … What? I live in London, which according to this graph matched temperatures in France of almost 45 degrees. Only, it didn’t. It was a balmy 23 for the week.