Another Crowd Sourcing Request

We have another article up on which could use some additional vetting.

Comments and suggestions please on The 130-Degree F Reading in Death Valley Is A World Record

Pro: The old record of 134 degrees F in 1913 is flawed should be discarded.

But the observation will not count as an official world record. In 2013, the World Meteorological Organization officially decertified the official all-time hottest temperature in world history, a 136.4 degrees Fahrenheit reading from Al Azizia, Libya, in 1923. (Burt was a member of the WMO team that made the determination.) After the abandonment of the Libya record, the official world record was given to a 134 degrees Fahrenheit measurement taken at Death Valley on July 10, 1913.

However, this record has been strongly disputed by Burt and Herrera.

“The old Death Valley record from July 1913 is 100% bogus (not just 99.9% such), as are all other temperature readings of 130 degrees Fahrenheit or higher from Africa in the past,” Burt said.

Burt wrote a detailed 2016 blog post at Weather Underground challenging the 1913 record at Death Valley, explaining that official readings of 134, 130, and 131 degrees Fahrenheit taken on July 10, 12, and 13, 1913 were likely the result of an inexperienced observer. In order for the 1913 Death Valley record to be decertified, though, an official World Meteorological Organization investigation committee would have to be assembled to look into the matter, a years-long process for which there is currently no motivation.

In 2012 the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) disallowed what had long been considered the hottest air temperature ever measured on Earth: a 58.0°C (136.4°F) reading measured at El Azizia, Libya on September 13, 1922. As a result of this record being struck from the books, the temperature of 134°F (56.7°C) recorded at Greenland Ranch at Furnace Creek in Death Valley, California on July 10, 1913 became, by default, the new world’s hottest air temperature yet measured. In this guest blog we will investigate the credibility of that measurement. This blog is courtesy of William T. Reid, a geographer and climatologist who has been studying the desert climate of California and, in particular, the Death Valley temperature record for some 30 years. Mr. Reid and I worked together to come to a commensurate conclusion regarding the validity of this significant planetary weather record: It is possible to demonstrate that a temperature of 134°F in Death Valley on July 10, 1913, was essentially not possible from a meteorological perspective, using an officially sanctioned USWB shelter and thermometer and following proper procedures observationally.

Since the record hot observations at Greenland Ranch from July 7-14, 1913 cannot be explained meteorologically, it is the conclusion of this investigation that the observer, Oscar Denton, knowingly or inadvertently exaggerated the maximum temperatures during that time frame. This likely was the result of his lack of experience as an official USWB observer coupled with a strong notion that the temperature readings from the USWB instrument shelter, above the cooling influence of the irrigated alfalfa sod, were inadequate. Given the much higher temperatures indicated on other household thermometers at the ranch, Mr. Denton may have been of the opinion that the ‘official’ Stevenson screen observations were not accurately representing the extreme heat which he felt was self-evident. The heat wave in July 1913 was the first such he was ‘in charge of’ as an official COOP observer and perhaps he was not familiar with temperature measurement in a controlled environment i.e. an official USWB-supplied Stevenson Screen and the official equipment (thermometers) that accompany such. Thus he fell back on what he perceived to be his own experience of Death Valley heat and associated temperatures and he consequently exaggerated the temperatures indicated on the maximum thermometer to values he thought were more realistic.

The Greenland Ranch weather station was sited in a very conservative place, a relatively cool place in Death Valley. If the observations of 129°F to 134°F at Greenland Ranch from July 9 to 13 were authentic, then maximums at the closest surrounding stations during that 5-day period would have been substantially hotter than actually observed.

Finally, it is not possible to conclusively prove that Mr. Denton intentionally or inadvertently exaggerated his observations. However, it is possible to demonstrate that a temperature of 134°F in Death Valley on July 10, 1913 was essentially not possible from a meteorological perspective using an officially sanctioned USWB shelter and thermometer and following proper procedures observationally. Thus, the best explanation for the record high report(s) in July 1913 is observer error.

Con: 134 degrees in 1913 is still the official record and there is no reason to change it.

According to the National Weather Service, this dispute is a non-issue and 1913 holds the record. See the Tweet below from July 9, 2021.

Tune into social media and you will hear caterwauling to the effect of: “Many meteorologists believe the 1913 reading should be decertified as unreliable, just as the 2012 reading in Libya was. If it is decertified, which is likely, this would be the new record, eclipsing last year’s measurement of 129.2 degrees F in Kuwait.”

The “many meteorologists” boils down to the opinion of one Christopher Burt of the popular weather website Weather Underground, who is pushing decertification based on his pet theory that hot sand grains in a dust storm imparted additional heat to the thermometer bulb on July 10th, 1913. Or that there was “observer error”. But there’s no science or history backing this up; it is just an opinion.

The only way to prove the sand grain theory would be to setup an experiment in Death Valley on a day like that 130°F reading last weekend with a test rig to blow in sand grains to the weather shelter housing the thermometer. They’d need to use the actual sand there, because sand varies greatly is size and composition. Burt wants you to believe the weather station might be unreliable, but history says otherwise.

In terms of the reliability of the Greenland Ranch weather station at Death Valley, California, there should be little question in that regard.  The US Weather Bureau (now known as the US National Weather Service) actually established this weather station in 1911 in cooperation with the company that operated the ranch.  In their own words, the US Weather Bureau “carefully tested maximum and minimum thermometers” and stated that “the instrument shelter at this station is the same as those used at several thousand other weather stations maintained by the Weather Bureau throughout the United States”. The US Weather Bureau summarized by stating “the extreme maximum temperature of 134°F recorded on July 10, 1913, is the highest natural-air temperature ever recorded on the earth’s surface by means of a tested standard thermometer exposed in a standard ventilated instrument shelter”.

Click either of the images above to see the history of the station. The images are from the publication Monthly Weather Review.

But here’s something the media tends to ignore. July 1913 had several days at or above 128°F. This is simply “business as usual” for Death Valley. In fact, back in 1913, over 100 years of “global warming” ago, Death Valley’s official weather station at Greenland Ranch also hit 130°F or higher three times that July. This was an intense stretch of hot weather from the 5th through the 14th when the high temperature reached 125°F or higher each and every day. In fact, this 10-day stretch still ranks as the hottest stretch ever recorded in Death Valley. The hottest days in this time period occurred from the 9th through the 13th when the high temperature reached at least 129°F with the hottest being on July 10th when the record-breaking 134°F was measured.

Here is the table of high temperature records for Death Valley. Note the top three records occurred during July 1913. Six of the top 25 records were in July 1913. So much for Burt’s opinion of “meteorologically impossible” and “observer error”.

Until such time it is decertified by the World Meteorological Organization, this “unreliable” opinion about a well-known temperature record accepted for over 100 years remains flat out wrong. The 134°F maximum temperature as being the hottest-ever remains fact.

4.9 19 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 29, 2021 2:19 am

Cool the past to make the future warmer. They are learning from BoM in Australia.

It seems Burt is saying that although they supplied the equipment they didn’t teach the observers how to read a thermometer accurately.

Last edited 1 year ago by lee
Reply to  lee
July 29, 2021 4:54 am

Kind of amazing that people that can’t even comb their hair are so intent on correcting the flaws of people long gone.

Bill Powers
Reply to  lee
July 29, 2021 7:30 am

What type of training do you require to read a thermometer and record the reading?

“official readings of 134, 130, and 131 degrees Fahrenheit taken on July 10, 12, and 13, 1913 were likely the result of an inexperienced observer.”

Likely based upon???? Nothing like making shite up as you go. If that statement doesn’t scream 1984 Orwellian Newspeak then you are LIKELY a purposefully dumbed down public school graduate and easily duped by the central authoritarians narrative that doesn’t have your best interest at heart.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  lee
July 29, 2021 12:55 pm

Are you guys still straining over quantitative evidence? Didn’t you get the memo about that being a feature of a disqualified white male hegemony to be replaced by woman centered personal feeling remembrances upon the insistence of three self-described black Marxist-trained lesbian witches (this is no epithet as Ms. Cullors, Garza, and Tometi proudly channel dead ancestors for their input) who initiated Black Lives Matter in 2013 and lately harvest the proceeds as bank deposits and fenced mansions, while such lives continue to matter so very little to their abortionists and urban black ‘brother’ executioners who both waste oodles of them (but then that hints at intolerable numeric truths again). Oops, have I disclosed secrets to be withheld from that much anticipated equitable proletariat?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  lee
July 29, 2021 6:37 pm

Not so much just to cool the past, but rather to make a new world record in time for the COP. Their best chance would be the 130F that seems reachable (it has been reached a few times). Desperation (before a major cooling?) is palpable.

Back before the first decade of the millennium, which was to prove the most disastrous for ‘warming’ scientists, they were comfortable in their honest beliefs that we were headed for a global warming crisis. In the new millennium however, they faced the seemingly endless “Dreaded Pause^тм” the shock of which actually ended the careers of an untallied number of scientists who were afflicted with psychological depression popularly known as the “Climate Blues”. On top of this was Climategate revealing the fraudulent science by leading scientists behind the scenes and
the finding that projections of temperatures were 300% greater than independent observations showed. Moreover, it was the decade of the rise of sceptics, the final nail.

Easy beliefs shattered and with 30-40yrs invested in their work, they abandoned science and took up activism in earnest, adjusting the temperature record to keep the ‘warming’ going.

It won’t be pretty as this meme falls apart – for the ‘scientists’, institutions and for a heavily propagandized 100s of millions in the West.

B Clarke
July 29, 2021 2:27 am

I’d rather trust the old men from the early 20th century who were methodical in their methods not driven by agendas and money, a sense of pride and truth in their work.

Unlike today , agenda driven = climate change ,their Lords and masters determined to prove the past was cooler than the present, its insulting to the old men ,their work ,their reputation.

Reply to  B Clarke
July 29, 2021 4:56 am

And they didn’t have AC exhausts to goose temperature readings.

B Clarke
Reply to  Scissor
July 29, 2021 5:13 am

Yeah, but the old men did smoke pipes 🔥😃

Reply to  B Clarke
July 29, 2021 5:17 am

Yea, young men did too because rolling your own was and is a pain in the ass.

B Clarke
Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 5:26 am

“Trivia alert”

Old men or more correctly ” the old man” is a mining term used by victorian miners when they broke into older workings.

” the old man has been here before”

Reply to  B Clarke
July 29, 2021 6:16 am

Not inappropriate for Greenland Ranh since there is an old Borax mine not far from there.

Jay Willis
July 29, 2021 2:45 am

I’d like to declare a world record in my garden today. It’s really very hot and nobody has competently recorded it before. And its been getting hotter and hotter, I’m very worried that the glaciers that were there, only a few weeks ago, have totally melted never to return. We haven’t seen any poor polar bears for years. All those people in the past were well meaning, but not very clever, and probably not trained at all.

Reply to  Jay Willis
July 29, 2021 5:13 am

Back in those days the owners manual for a gasoline powered vehicle typically gave directions on how to adjust the engine valves and carburetor. Now days owners manuals warn the reader not to drink the contents of the battery!

Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 5:24 am

Ironically, Coca Cola is great for cleaning battery terminals.

Reply to  Scissor
July 29, 2021 5:32 am

To keep them clean and making good contact for the duration use dielectric silicone.

Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 5:43 am

I’ll have to get President Biden’s opinion, since he used to drive an 18 wheeler.

Reply to  Scissor
July 29, 2021 6:11 am

I’m sitting in the “Bull Pen” (a parking area outside the gate of a facility one delivers to or picks up at) at the Giant Foods DC in Carlisle, PA. Delivered 41,300 lb of refrigerated Nestle’s product this morning. Nailed the back into door 62 at 0’dark30 this morning without a single pull up.

Later today I will be picking up sintered metal components for auto parts from facilities in Philipsburg and Ridgway, PA. But for the next hour I will be sitting here with heat turned up on the trailer unit to dry the condensation because the aluminum floor on a refer trailer is slick as snot when wet.

To get to Pilipsburg I will be taking US 322. Beautiful drive through the PA hill country. The low point being when I pass by State College, some of you may guess why. Still I feel sorry for all of you stuck in an office in this beautiful day.

pHil R
Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 10:06 am

I used to live in Downingtown. Used to take 322 out to Amish country to drive around and go to markets on weekends.

Reply to  pHil R
July 29, 2021 10:50 am

Well it looked nice when I wrote it, but now I am sitting in the dock at Philipsburg and it is raining with visibility if about 1/2 mile. Still rather be here than in an office.

Ron Long
Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 10:07 am

Congratulations, Rah, you’re qualified to be President.

Reply to  Ron Long
July 29, 2021 10:44 am

For 15 years I was a Vice President and General Manager and that was more than enough for me!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ron Long
July 30, 2021 8:47 pm

Judging from his writing, he is more qualified than the ‘non-birthing person’ we currently have filling the position.

Reply to  Rah
July 31, 2021 10:35 am

Familar w/that PA area — I’m not too far from there now. Alot of family ancestors just west of the Harrisburg area. Some of the most productive agricultural areas in the world.

Last edited 1 year ago by beng135
Reply to  Scissor
July 29, 2021 8:07 am

And, as I have found, when Coca Cola wasn’t handy, so does plain tap water. In a pinch, of course. Now, if you toss in some bicarbonate of Sodium, voila! Coke is HIGHLY over rated!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
July 29, 2021 3:54 pm

It works pretty good when you pour it down the carburetors, too. It smokes a *lot* for a few minutes. If someone sees it, they might think there is a house on fire, but after a few minutes of dense smoke that would make the military smile, the exhaust will start running clear, and lots of parts in your engine that might have been sticking a little, get loosened up, like stuck value lifters.

It probably wouldn’t be a good idea to do it it town today. You would have the fire department and the police department down at your house wondering what was going on. Just tell them you are cleaning up your engine. 🙂

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 30, 2021 9:53 am

“Just tell them you are cleaning your engine” didn’t even work 20 years ago. My Father in law used to put “Marvels Mystery Oil into his valve covers and carburetor to loosen everything up. It would produce a blue cloud. His mistake was taking his old Lincoln on the road. The local cops wrote him a ticket for the smoke, although the car would stop smoking within 15 minutes or so.

I told him not to take it out of the driveway in the future. Not on the road, not a violation of THAT law, and trespass the police if they show up and try to come on his property.

He drove that Lincoln bought used for probably 40 years without any engine work required.

Reply to  Drake
July 31, 2021 10:45 am

Hope he wasn’t drinkin’ & drivin’ that hot-rod Lincoln.

ht/ Commander Cody

Last edited 1 year ago by beng135
Reply to  Rah
July 31, 2021 10:32 am

And they close off the mower decks so completely (so you don’t stick your hand in there) that it gets clogged up w/grass & stalls & has to be cleaned out constantly.

Reply to  Jay Willis
July 29, 2021 5:23 am

I’ve been getting unprecedented tomatoes this summer.

B Clarke
Reply to  Scissor
July 29, 2021 5:49 am

I’ve been getting something unprecedented this summer and its not very pleasant 🤐

Last edited 1 year ago by B Clarke
Reply to  Scissor
July 29, 2021 6:21 am

Just now getting ripe at my place in access real Indiana. Stands now have Indiana Sweet corn and it is especially sweet and juicy this year.

Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 1:50 pm

I cheated this year and started my plants in a greenhouse. I’ve had several two fisters of a variety called Bodacious. Good stuff. I’ve had to give away a lot of tomatoes to get rid of them.

Reply to  Scissor
July 30, 2021 9:54 am

Make stewed of can up some salsa.

July 29, 2021 2:47 am

That must have been one hell of a sand storm to last over several days.

It just drives them nuts that record still stands. It really hurts because they thought they really had a chance it would be broken earlier this month and fell 4.1 deg F short.

BTW, despite the hype, not one of the lower 48 have set a new state record for their all time high temp this year.

Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 6:11 am

Since they didn’t get to break the all time record, the only thing to do now is get rid of it.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 10:33 am

Every record in the headlines today always seems to be full of qualifiers so they don’t have to point out that the all time records haven’t been broken in decades. “Today’s high was a record breaker for a July 17th in one county, not during a leap year, after 4 o’clock, measured on a west facing slope, during a democrat administration, while a pandemic was going on!”

Climate believer
July 29, 2021 3:16 am

“But there’s no science or history backing this up; it is just an opinion.”

That would seem to be the case, so what is Mr Burt’s motivation?

The Weather Underground was a radical left wing militant organization first active in 1969, founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan….

…..oh right…

spangled drongo
July 29, 2021 3:16 am

We have a similar situation in Australia where the met officials have cancelled all the old records. Even one that conformed to their select specifications. It’s problem was, apparently, that it was taken on a Sunday.

We can’t have record temperatures when CO2 levels obviously weren’t the cause:

Reply to  spangled drongo
July 30, 2021 10:09 am

Nice article. Whoever from the ABOM who removed the record claimed nearby stations did not confirm the record, but that statement was and is false. So is the ‘person or persons” who claimed that without doing the research under investigation? Have they been removed from a position of public trust, since they cannot be trusted? Or, as I am sure is the case, are they unknown/unidentified, a nameless, faceless leftist bureaucrat?

Tom Halla
July 29, 2021 3:28 am

The hottest temperature being In 1913 just does not fit the narrative . . .

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 29, 2021 8:11 am

No, they obviously want the record to be from THIS year!

Dennis G Sandberg
July 29, 2021 4:38 am

What stands out on the temperature chart is no high temperature recordings between 1913 and 1972. I’ve been under the impression that a couple years in the 1930’s were “the most hot ever”. Explanation?

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
July 29, 2021 4:45 am

Plenty of all time high temperature records were set for various states in the 20’s and 30’s. Just not in CA.

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
July 29, 2021 4:58 am

Go to to find the list of all state high temp records and the year they were set.

You have to understand that the higher the atmospheric pressure, the higher the temperature can reach and Evergreen Ranch/Furnace Creek is well below sea level so the average pressure is higher there.

For this reason the Phantom Ranch at the bottom of the Grand Canyon typically records highs several degrees warmer than any of the several stations around the rim.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 5:20 pm

So there might be a meterological explanation, contrary to what Mr. Burt says.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 30, 2021 10:11 am

Mr. Burt has no justification for his fabrication, other than his religion.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
July 29, 2021 9:49 am

You should read this book:

Therein you will learn about hot/cold/dust, and the people and society of the Dust Bowl years.
I highly recommend another of his books: The Big Burn, about this fire and the people and politicians of the time.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
July 29, 2021 5:26 pm

“I’ve been under the impression that a couple years in the 1930’s were “the most hot ever”. Explanation?”

You probably heard that from James Hansen. Hansen said the 1930’s was the hottest decade and 1934 was the hottest year in that decade and 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which would make it warmer than 2016 also.

The reason the Data Manipulators changed the temperature profile by cooling the 1930’s into insignificance was so they could pretend that the present day is the hottest in human history because of CO2. They couldn’t say that if the 1930’s were just as warm as today, so they bastardized the temperture chart and made the inconvenient 1930’s go away.

Pure fraud. The only thing supporting the Human-caused Climate Change scam. So a fraud supporting another fraud.

July 29, 2021 4:39 am

The Libyan record was not decertified because it was “meteorology impossible”. It was dropped because near by stations recorded temps well below on that day and several other days during that period there by demonstrating the incompetence of the recorder.

Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 8:14 am

Either that, or something like the butchers finger on the scale? A match, perhaps? Or maybe like the school kid who gets a mouth full of HOT water from the restroom, before going to the school nurse, saying they don’t feel so good? There are ways to fudge the numbers, you know.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  IAMPCBOB
July 29, 2021 2:19 pm

like the school kid who gets a mouth full of HOT water from the restroom, before going to the school nurse, saying they don’t feel so good

I resemble that remark!

Or at least I used to. Worked every time we had a flu epidemic at school. Good times!

Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 4:46 am

It is meteorologically implausible.

There was a study done here ….

Since the DALR is a known quantity and taking into account a super-adiabat at the surface (they will all have one).
They produced graphs of station temp vs station height.
comparing a event in 1913 against others.
They should all fall on the DALR.
1913 doesn’t for DV (GR)
comment image

This is what the station distribution should look like ….
comment image

1) Greenland Ranch temperatures not consistent with meteorological conditions in July 1913

The temperatures reported at Greenland Ranch during the period of hot weather from July 7-14, 1913 were not consistent with meteorological conditions in the region at the time of observation. There is no indication that an exceptional heat wave was occurring in the Southwest U.S. during this period. ‘Isolated hot spots’, whether a result of wind patterns or local geography, cannot account for the exceptional temperatures reported at Greenland Ranch given known meteorology of Death Valley during extreme heat events.

2) Lack of correspondence with surrounding weather sites at time of July 1913 observations

The extreme temperature of 134°F measured on July 10, 1913 did not correlate with observations at other sites in the region on this date and likewise for the entire period of the extreme temperature readings reported from Greenland Ranch during the week of July 7-14, 1913. During several other periods during the time that Oscar Denton was the observer at Greenland Ranch temperatures were often, although not always, at odds with the surrounding site observations. Given the maximums at the surrounding stations in July 1913, the atmosphere was never hot enough to support authentic air temperatures as high as 134°F at Furnace Creek in Death Valley.

Last edited 1 year ago by Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 7:26 am

The record at Greenland Ranch still stands though it was formally reviewed 2010-12 so apparently the authorities disagree.

pHil R
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 10:23 am

Naive question from a non-meteorologist. Is the adiabatic lapse rate linear over the full altitude range? if it’s not linear, especially at elevations below sea level, the lower portion of the curve might actually be closer to the actual temp. measurement.

pHil R
Reply to  pHil R
July 29, 2021 10:29 am
Anthony Banton
Reply to  pHil R
July 29, 2021 2:58 pm

Yes it can be confusing.
that plot is a stew-log T which plots logarithmic P along the vertical and the DALR ends up curving.
The UKMO uses a Tephigram, which is a small section of a Theta (potential temp) vs T diagram.
That way any equal area on the diagram has the same energy.

The DALR is constant through the atmosphere via the following maths ….

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 10:49 am

Trying to compare the Greenland Ranch temperature readings to places 100 to 200 miles away and calling them “surrounding stations” is ridiculous. The only fair comparison would be the readings at Cow Creek, which mysteriously seem to be missing from your charts.

[can you please spell your email correctly so it doesn’t keep getting flagged for moderation-mod]

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
July 29, 2021 2:31 pm

No it’s not as all stations were under the same airmass.
Geographical height is the main variable under such circumstances as a “heat dome”

Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 30, 2021 10:21 am

BUT, your 2 graphs sow different sets of local nearby ( up to over 100 miles?) weather stations.

Why is that?

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 2:28 pm

In effect what you are saying is, “Exceptional weather does not happen.” This is ridiculous from personal experience. I have seen small areas of rain, maybe a hundred square meters, with much cooler temperatures, by feel, than surrounding areas. I once walked across an open field where there was a sharp boundry between cooler and warmer temperatures, by feel. Almost clear sky, no feelable wind. Two steps between temperatures. I walked back and forth several times to confirm this astounding experience,

Anyone who is aware of the things around them will experience many odd, even inexplicable things in their lifetime, if they do not ignore and forget them.

Outliers are important. They say either the observations are incorrect, or the theory is wrong or incomplete. In this case, unless the observations can be proved to be incorrect, not merely inconsistant with others, the record must stand.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 30, 2021 9:45 pm

Your graphs show different years [transposed?], and apparently different stations.

During the period of July 1-15, 1913, there were the following record high temps (from the article above):

129 deg Jul 1
128 deg Jul 7
129 deg Jul 9
129 deg Jul 11
130 deg Jul 12
131 deg Jul 13
for an average of 129 deg, which is 3 degs above your graphical estimate of 126 deg, and 129 does not fall on the adiabat line either.

The unstated assumption is that all the other stations are reliable. Regression lines are sensitive to end points. If the BAG temp was higher than recorded, then it could easily shift the intersection point to 129 deg or higher.

You do not apparently consider the possibility of some microclimate anomalies at any of the stations that contribute to the regression line. That is, what is your uncertainty on the slope of the regression line?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 30, 2021 10:17 pm

Go back and look at the nightly lows. That shows the picture. The lows were lower 70s to mid 80s. Then the evening of the 10th, the overnight low as 98. It never cooled off that night. That’s why the temp could get to 134, it didn’t have too far to go.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 31, 2021 11:04 am

Were all the surrounding stations, used to create the lapse rate, read at the same time of day, during the peak temperature?

Because of the Coriolis Effect, winds change direction with elevation. How does this affect your claim of the regression line for max temps being reliable for predicting temperatures for a station below sea level, near the bottom of a basin?

Again, what is the uncertainty associated with the slope of the regression line(s)?

July 29, 2021 4:52 am

cancel culture marches on…

Lance Wallace
July 29, 2021 4:55 am

Purely on statistical grounds, the 134 degrees appears to be an outlier. Consider that in the intervening hundred-plus years, many temperatures of 127-129 occurred, but none of them exceeded 129.

Reply to  Lance Wallace
July 29, 2021 5:02 am

What? They just recorded 130 at Furnace Creek earlier this month!

Reply to  Lance Wallace
July 29, 2021 5:31 am

Statistically, over the past century, the climate has actually cooled in many places.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Lance Wallace
July 29, 2021 3:24 pm

An “outlier”, but not an impossibility. In 2007 the region I live hit an all time high of 118 which is in an area that every year reaches 100, and sometimes as much as 110, but rarely higher than that. In the same way, a period of several days showed higher than usual highs peaking at 118. It does not surprise me that a spike in temperatures could be several degrees higher than the typical highs. Of course the news outlets told us this was going to be the new normal when in fact, the summers have been quite subdued since that spike 14 years ago.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Lance Wallace
July 30, 2021 9:49 pm

Records are made to be broken!

Big E
July 29, 2021 5:04 am

So do we now address the historical temperature records, which have been used for baseline AGW predictions, as lacking accuracy and thus, make all the modeling totally unusable? Apply this to all the limited, worldwide temperature recording stations that already have heat island problems and the historical data is of zero use.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Big E
July 29, 2021 2:36 pm

Radiosondes, satellites and ARGO. All operational during periods of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Anything else is wildly inaccurate, sparse in many areas of the globe and subject to arbitrary adjustments.

The late 20th Century is acknowledged to be a period of rising temperatures following a multi-decadal cooling period. UAH6 covers the last 42 years and, therefore, its temperature trend should reflect that period of naturally rising and CO2-driven (if any) temperatures. UAH6 has a trend of only 0.14 C/decade. Not very alarming for a period of cyclic increase, within a minor secular warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age.

Given the above facts, it would require some world-class mental gymnastics to guess that the 21st Century would warm more than about 1.5 C. Since the theoretical response of temperature to CO2 increases is logarithmic, its potential impact on global temperatures is pretty much petered out. It would be a real stretch to bet that temperature increases during the 21st Century would exceed 1 C.

July 29, 2021 5:35 am

Looks to me like Chris Burt’s argument to disregard the Death Valley record is that “I don’t believe it.”

To use some track and field analogies: All the track records that show men running sub 4 minute miles should be disregarded because everyone knows that it is impossible for a human to run a mile in less than 4 minutes. Bob Beamon’s long jump in the ’68 Olympics that broke the world record by nearly 22 inches should be disregarded because breaking the record by that amount is just unbelievable. There must have been a measurement error.

There has to be a better reason than I just don’t believe it to change official records.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  DonK31
July 29, 2021 3:02 pm

Looks to me like Chris Burt’s argument to disregard the Death Valley record is that “I don’t believe it.””

No, not at all.
As I illuminated above, and he explained
The surrounding stations are to cool to have the same airmass affecting all.
It does in a “heat dome” situation.
ie it is an outlier meteorologically.

Captain climate
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 5:54 pm

Why not just have one thermometer for the whole planet? You’ll never have to maintain these pesky stations that might pick up on local variability.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Captain climate
July 30, 2021 1:45 am

Local variability occurs.
But there is a limit.
At some point you have to say it’s an outlier.
After all you wouldn’t want some recent heat record get through for the same reasons?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 30, 2021 10:36 am

But you would let them get through if they are heat records in UHI areas without adjustment of the UHI effect, wouldn’t you?

And the change from whitewashing enclosures to latex paint without running two enclosures with the old and new method side by side for a couple of years to verify results?

And the re-siting of enclosures without recording the old and new enclosures locations for a couple of years to verify results?

Or the change from manual readings to electronic readings, through several iterations without running the old and new method/equipment side by side for a couple of years to verify results?

The reason I first came to WUWT was due to Anthony’s research project of the siting and methodology changes in weather stations years ago. I have NEVER seen where the methodology changes, all of which would appear to have an upward temperature bias, have been accounted for in the US record.

July 29, 2021 6:14 am

I’m just thinking of the possibility of a reading error, which Burt seems to be banging on about.

Thermometers typically have the 10s marked and a long line. The 5s are marked with a medium line, and the 1s with a short line. I could understand a reading that’s 5 degrees off if you have a brain fart and read 101 as 106 or 103 as 108 or 109 as 104.


a) Burt seems to accept that all the 129s and 128s were read accurately, which implies care and diligence on the part of the reader.

ii) I mentioned placing the readings in the wrong 5 degree range, but I would think that an observer would be unlikely to go past a marked 10 degree line and make that mistake. Within a 10 degree range? Possibly. But between 10 degree marks? “I don’t think so, Tim.”

3) I would expect a reader to do a bit of a double-take upon seeing a 134 reading. I’d expect a reader might just not quite believe their own eyes and the reader would do a double or triple-check before recording the 134 degrees.

The above is just my opinion on why I think that a reading error is unlikely. My career was in manufacturing, and at various times, I used a wide variety of measuring instruments to check our quality or suppliers’ quality (I had to check one part in Angstroms!).

I also had the responsibility in one small company for calibration of all measuring instruments – not really important to Burt’s objection – but along with that, also teaching various employees how to get good, repeatable measurements with the gages and measuring equipment they would be using. And that’s how I have learned over the years what kinds of brian farts (Hi, Bob Tisdale 😁 ) can occur in reading and recording measurements. I taught and cautioned those new-to-measuring how they can easily make errors and how to avoid those errors.

I know that several others who read and comment here have similar experience with measuring, reading, and recording various things. I’d like to get a little feedback on my opinion that someone who sees a thermometer reading 5 degrees over what they would normally see would most likely double-check to make sure it was right.

Reply to  H.R.
July 29, 2021 6:33 am

The actual reading was 134.1 according to multiple sources.

Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 6:45 am

I was rounding for readability, Rah. 134 vs 129 is close enough to make the point of being out of the previous norms and to discuss the possible error in misreading the 5s ranges.

I didn’t think the Death Valley record was set by 0.1 degree over priors, was it?

Reply to  H.R.
July 29, 2021 7:12 am

But admittedly lacking your experience in this area, I would suggest that the recording of a 10th of a degree over the whole number indicates a high level of care and precision by the recorder.

Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 8:30 am

Well, I asked for further thoughts and you added that point. Thank you, Rah.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  H.R.
July 29, 2021 7:04 am

During my working life I have several roles where I had to make calculations based on measurements made by others. Aluminium Electrolytic Capacitors being the most notable. The values in those days, 1970s, were nirmally +50% -20% the range was because the process to make the foil was difficult to control, chemical etching and electrical oxide forming. Samples were measured at the start, middle and end of a roll.

When exceptionally high or low readings were measured the operators would highlight them as such. These days things would be easier, back then we had to search through paper records for batches processed at the same time People took a pride in getting these things right, usually asking a colleague to double check.

The question of operator error always make me think why do you think they got it wrong? Why is an exceptionally high historical record suspect and an historical execeptionally low record not? Why are modern high records accepted when temperatures at nearby stations are significantly lower? Paul Homewood has done a lot of good work in highlighting this type of issue in some headline temperatures in the UK.

Reply to  H.R.
July 29, 2021 8:54 am

H.R, combine your points with difficulty viewing the scale. Having been a cowboy in California, I’ve some experience here. In DV, the rock is light colored, in very bright sunlight, this is dazzling. Now you have to look into a darkened cabinet to read a fine scale. Your pupils are very small trying to limit the amount of light entering the eyes. Its also 130°F, and you’re melting in the heat, wanna get this over quick.

As to other points, DV is very hot, winds can blow off the tight places and blow some super heated air around, consider a micro-burst, or Santa Ana type wind.

What correlation is there betwixt DV and local stations, and what are the distances. For those who’ve not been there, several bare rock mountain ranges exist between some of these stations and DV, there are 7,000 foot peaks nearby this -255 foot valley.

Reply to  Lil-Mike
July 29, 2021 11:54 am

Having never been in D. Valley (The first word gets you sent straight to moderation, BTW), you’ve presented some factors that would put almost all D. Valley readings in doubt. I appreciate that you’ve “been there and done that.”

So from the Pros and Cons above, it’s not clear to me if Burt rejects all D. Valley readings or just the record reading. I dunno. Not clear.

From your experience in D.Valley, Lil-Mike, do people develop coping mechanisms or compensating behaviors over time? I’d think so, otherwise we’d have to discard all D. Valley readings as unreliable, and I’m not sure anyone is willing to do that.

Along that line – coping behaviors – I didn’t see anything in the Yea/Nay discussion above about the reader/recorder. Did the same person who read and recorded the record do the task for long periods, a few years, before and after the record? If so, I’d think the person would have a method or routine that allowed for consistent readings and there would be no reason to single out the record reading as unreliable.

As Ben V. notes above, The question of operator error always make me think why do you think they got it wrong?”

I’ve just been considering some factors that would make one think the reader got it right and didn’t make a mistake.

But, we do have to bring up all factors, plus and minus. If this was a one-off, never read/recorded before, different reader on what happened to be the record day, that would leave some room for doubt. If it was a regular, I’m with Ben. Why would we doubt?

Reply to  H.R.
July 29, 2021 2:47 pm

Thanks H.R. for the heads up on the D. In the past, when working in the bright light— of course in a place like DV, you’re wearing a hat, or you’re D—I’ve always taken my hat off if needed to shield the light. Now-a-days I just shove my phone into the dark space and take a picture.

Did Burt throw out data he thought suspect, of course. Does he consider anything that doesn’t fit AGW theory suspect? Your guess is as good as mine.

Here’s my thought. Take the Greenland ranch data (GR), run a correlation report with neighboring stations. Find GR’s trend to each of other stations. Refer back to the date in question, does the GR data match the typical trend to neighboring stations for that day?

For instance, the correlation report shows GR trend is (min, mean, max, StdDev) to Stove Pipe Wells, and on X date SPW temp is Y, and GR is within the max difference, then yup, its entirely plausible that GR was infact within the expected delta from SPW.

I do need someone to help me find the data set for GR, and neighboring stations. I’ve downloaded data from here: but it’s pretty big. 5GB compressed, 52GB uncompressed. Its in a tar file that I can pull from, unfortunately that 52GB is only 2020 data. I need some help to find the station numbers especially for GR, as I can’t find it in the data set. The GR station number doesn’t show up in the NOAA map here:

I’ve got a fast research server running in a server farm, so that’s no problem. I only have 80GB of disk, so that is a problem. However I can script to remove unneeded data to preserve disk space.

But I do need someone to help me locate the data for Greenland Ranch and neighboring stations.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  H.R.
July 29, 2021 5:35 pm

“3) I would expect a reader to do a bit of a double-take upon seeing a 134 reading. I’d expect a reader might just not quite believe their own eyes and the reader would do a double or triple-check before recording the 134 degrees.”

I think that is a very logical conclusion.

Reply to  H.R.
July 30, 2021 10:50 am

Everyone talking about a misreading seem to forget that the person taking the reading LIVED AT THAT LOCATION! WITHOUT AC!

When he walked out to take the reading, he KNEW it was hotter than hell!

Years ago, I installed traffic signals and street lights. I was working on Flamingo Road in Las Vegas NV. There was a bank on the road with a sign that flashed the temperature along with advertisements. I was on that site for almost a month that summer. While I was working, I could always sense when the temperature reached 105 F and would look up from my work and sure as heck, it would be 105.

Us modern climate controlled humans don’t have anything on that guy who lived in that heat.

I would TRUST that HE knew it was exceptionally HOT that day, that week, that 2 weeks, and NOT get the reading wrong. So I totally disregard a climate warriors expectation that he did not read it correctly!

Reply to  Drake
July 31, 2021 5:17 am

Drake – Good info in support of the record not being misread.

As Lil-Mike brought up, there are ways to adapt to reading under difficult conditions. Someone living there obviously would know them.

Ben commented on someone seeing something way out of line compared to ‘normal’ readings. The same person reading day after day would then be very likely to do the doubletake and doublecheck.

And after reading some of the additions to my comment on human factors, I also had a thought about “pride in workmanship.” It was very much a cultural thing when people made things by hand instead of punching a button and having a machine make the product. People took pride in their work back when. (Nowadays, not so much. Many just show up and expect a paycheck.)

Reply to  H.R.
July 31, 2021 7:35 am

HR, Take a peek at the original data

Here is a good lead into the fact that 134°F is reasonable.
Look at the raw data collected here raw data page
Notice the evening temps in the beginning of the month are 70°, 89°, 90°, 90°F, up until the 10th, the overnight low jumps from low 70s to mid 80s, then to 98°F the night of the 9th, it doesn’t cool off that night, its 98°F that night before. The next day the 10th the record high is set 134°F.

With the overnight low jumping from 90° to 98°F, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the daily high to jump from 129° to 134°F the following day.

Reply to  Lil-Mike
July 31, 2021 9:37 am

Thanks for the link to the raw data, Lil-Mike.

That’s a meteorological argument for the record. And a good point.

I was looking at Burt’s human error argument, and it’s the same person all month. (Nice handwriting; another thing showing care in record keeping).

As I originally wrote, if it was somebody out of the blue that took the reading, then yeah, Burt just maybe, just might have a point of argument.

But that’s not so. Burt can’t pick and choose which readings to call operator error on when all the other readings are considered good readings.

In one of the links, Anthony Watts covered the meteorological argument. I just thought, from my experience, that calling operator error on that one reading was B.S., and several of the comments added to the argument that operator error was not very likely.

Richard (the cynical one)
July 29, 2021 6:31 am

The program needs a constant stream of disastrous trends to keep the momentum up. Otherwise common sense might recur. Why should the irrelevant and inconvenient past get in the way of a compelling script?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
July 29, 2021 2:43 pm

Its called Narrative Science. It trumps observational data. [Look it up.]

Tom in Florida
July 29, 2021 6:41 am

Really? This is what is important?

k b
July 29, 2021 7:20 am

The “Con” case is poorly argued, basically just “the record hasn’t been changed yet, so it’s still the record.”

Looking at the additional materials linked, describes a “A weird weather day in California”. Burt is quoted as believing the modern record, because of unusual weather that is not within the capabilities of the models:

“I’m coming around to thinking that this 129.9° reading just might be for real,” Burt said. “For one thing, the weather today in California has been unique. All kinds of strange local weather occurred. In fact, the folks at most of the state’s National Weather Service offices are saying there has never been a day like today in recorded history in the state: all kinds of weird dynamics at work and the models just can’t handle the details.”

Yet in arguing against the 1913 record reading, Burt asserts the normal patterns as arguments against the 1913 record

Any significant increase in ambient temperature at shelter level (1.5 meters above the ground) would be, and must be, associated with a similar degree of warming of the entire air column. Thus, the temperature typically changes little at desert stations during the hottest hours of the afternoon. Arnold Court, an expert desert climatologist for the U.S. Army in the 1940s (see references), found that shelter temperatures remained within 2 or 3 degrees (F°) of the maximum temperature from about 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in Death Valley on July afternoons. The physics of the deep, mixed layer does not allow for the development of area-wide ‘hot spots’ within a region, and it does not allow significant afternoon temperature ‘spikes’ to occur. What it DOES allow is a fairly predictable pattern of temperature in the desert both diurnally and spatially. It promotes a strong correlation, on a regional scale, between daily maximum temperature and elevation.

So the 2020 record is plausible because of a unique day with strange local weather that the models cannot handle, but the 1913 record is “impossible” because the physics does not allow area-wide hot spots or significant temperature spikes.

Burt’s rejection of the 1913 record is simply an appeal to consistency, but the 2020 record shows that record-setting days have weather that is more variable than Burt imagined.

This isn’t to say that the 1913 record is proven correct!

It would also be interesting to evaluate the 2020 record and compare surrounding sites with similar analysis to see how Burt’s appeal to consistency and comparison with other regional sites compares to the variability of the “unique”, “never been a day like today” behavior in 2020.

Reply to  k b
July 29, 2021 9:01 am

Burt is suggesting that geophysics have changed. This flies in the face of uniformitarianism (the current hypothesis that states the same laws of physics and chemistry that operate on earth today have always operated on earth).

Joao Martins
July 29, 2021 7:26 am

The existence of Jupiter’s satelites should be discarded and taken as not true, because they were discovered by an “inexperienced observer” who was using the telescope for the first time.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joao Martins
Joao Martins
Reply to  Joao Martins
July 29, 2021 7:31 am

Corolary: if anything discovered or observed in the past is contrary to what you would like, just erase it, as stalinist lackeys have made on the photographs showing Trotsky. With a good photoshop no one will notice.

Carlo, Monte
July 29, 2021 7:41 am

The Adjustocrats demonstrate their lack of measurement uncertainty fundamentals again, in multiple ways.

1—they believe it is possible to sort out the True Value of a measurement made over 100 years ago, when it is not possible to ascertain the true value of a measurement made today.

2—the psychological peak detector effect is very powerful; even if this 134 number should really be 114 because someone’s ink pen left a blot back in 1913, it doesn’t matter because there is no way to erase it from everywhere it is recorded, especially from the memories of people.

3—they fail to understand that measurement uncertainty is an estimate (or calculation) of the range within which the true value is expected to lie.

4—there seems to be no appreciation of what the real uncertainty interval of this 1913 temperature measurement really is.

What they should instead be doing is trying to give this old measurement a reasonable uncertainty interval, which does not have to be symmetrical: it could be something like -5 > +1 F.

July 29, 2021 7:51 am

“Many meteorologists believe …” Anna Nicole married for love

H. D. Hoese
July 29, 2021 8:09 am

We visited Death Valley when the flowers were rarely out. Was surprised to find that there was a spring there. Check on the aquifers where some fish were and managed to survive. This one related to an estuarine species, extremely tolerant. As photo shows there are mountains to the west.comment image

July 29, 2021 10:03 am

What’s the source of the data for this station and the other stations in the Weather Underground analysis plot below?

July 29, 2021 12:31 pm

Let’s be reasonable about this. Both sides here are calling in as ‘evidence’ that which is mere speculation. Most of the comments show bias towards believing anything, however thin, that might support their pre-decided position.

The 1913 readings might well be correct. We can never know for sure. But what we do know is that human beings like to exaggerate, and if this was reported by human agency then the possibiity of distortion remains. And if exaggeration makes a record, then out of all the possible readings that are made, we are going to see the exaggerated one.

Then, as now

Dave Fair
Reply to  mothcatcher
July 29, 2021 2:50 pm

You assume weather people back then were as dishonest as current CliSciFi.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 29, 2021 5:40 pm

The weather people back then were not trying to sell a Human-caused Climate Change narrative. They were just doing their job. Assigning motives to them is pure speculation.

Reply to  mothcatcher
July 29, 2021 3:23 pm

So, did they like to exaggerate in 1913 but not the 21st century?
Seems to me our modern catastrophists have a lot more motive to be exaggerating their numbers than some guy out in the middle of Death Valley a hundred and something years ago.

Reply to  mothcatcher
July 29, 2021 6:22 pm

During that time at Greenland Ranch the owner desired to irrigate it and make it a resort. We’re talking palm trees and such included in his plans. The guy recording the temps was employed on the Ranch.

BTW you can find the original hand written record covering those extra hot days at Tony Heller’s site. The man was neat and meticulous in his entries.

Jeff Reppun
July 29, 2021 2:40 pm

Next we should expect the WMO to decertify the high temperature records for the 24 US states that were first set in the summers of 1930 thru 1936.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jeff Reppun
July 29, 2021 2:54 pm

Pristine CONUS recording stations show a long-term cooling. CliSciFi practitioners are screaming that CONUS is not the world (only 15%). They ignore the sparsity and lack of quality control of weather stations in South America, Africa, Asia, etc.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 29, 2021 5:44 pm

The regional charts from all over the world show, if not a cooling trend, at least they show it is no warmer today than it was in the Early Twentieth Century.

There is no unprecedented warming today, as the alarmists claim. This means CO2 is a minor player in determining the Earth’s temperature since there is more CO2 now than back then, yet it was just as warm back then as it is now.

Tom Abbott
July 29, 2021 3:44 pm

Well, it appears Burt thinks he is a mindreader who knows what the observer, Oscar Denton, was thinking when he wrote down the 134F figure, in 1913.

I’ll say this, I doubt very seriously that the observer, Oscar Denton, had a human-caused climate change bias. I’ll bet he never thought about it at all. He just wrote the temperature down. And now the alarmists want to continue artificially cooling the past. They should quit trying to re-write history.

The next thing you know, they’ll be saying the 1930’s were not as hot as today.

July 29, 2021 5:57 pm

The only way to prove the sand grain theory would be to setup an experiment in Death Valley on a day like that 130°F reading last weekend with a test rig to blow in sand grains to the weather shelter housing the thermometer. They’d need to use the actual sand there, because sand varies greatly is size and composition.”

There is very little sand in Death Valley, which is a series of bowls inside of rocky hills descending from the Sierra Nevada with the lowest bowl well below sea level .

The wind can kick up dust, including larger grains, but sand as sand goes, no.

Death Valley Soil are a mix of many grit sizes from dust to gravel to rock. When one of the rare showers wet down the grounds around Death Valley, it sets up hard when it dries.

One can visit some of the mines surrounding Death Valley. Once at the mines it becomes incredible that miners dug mines and tunnels through that hard soil and hard rock.

It takes an Easterner urbanite to imagine that hot grains of sand can transmit heat to the glass to the mercury that was in those glass thermometers.

Sand striking glass at wind speeds sufficient to lift sand, quickly chips and scratches the glass.
All of the glass, not just the bulb, becomes frosted obscuring the view.

Plus the urbanite fails to explain how sand and grit flies into an enclosed weather shelter yet still have enough energy to strike the thermometer and transmit heat. Typically when air is stilled by an obstruction, the soil drops out.

All speculation, assumptions and sophistry by Burt.

Reply to  ATheoK
July 29, 2021 11:49 pm

There are sand dunes in DV National Park, but they tend to stay in one place (Mesquite Flat area).

July 29, 2021 7:56 pm

Here is a good lead into the fact that 134°F is reasonable.

Look at the raw data collected here raw data page

Notice the evening temps in the beginning of the month are 70°, 89°, 90°, 90°F, up until the 12th, the overnight low jumps from low 70s to mid 80s, then to 98°F, it doesn’t cool off that night. The next day the 10th the record high is set 134.1°F.

Knowing this short term trend makes the 134°F record plausible.

July 30, 2021 8:19 am

How does the Greenland Ranch station site compare to the location of the current sensor?
As for the sand theory, they’re aren’t any sand dunes in the immediate vicinity, and the heat of summer is not sandstorm season.

Clyde Spencer
July 30, 2021 8:42 pm

What we are presented with is an opinion based on conjecture. The facts supporting said opinion are not in evidence. A poorly-supported opinion alone shouldn’t be sufficient to disqualify a record that has stood for over 100 years.

It isn’t like we are arguing about a 3-sigma outlier. It is a temperature during a record heat spell that is within 5 degrees F of a temperature that has been reached several times in recent years. It would be more improbable that there wasn’t at least one temperature in the last century that wasn’t slightly higher than a commonly occurring July high temperature.

It is generally accepted that the uncertainty for temperatures increases the farther back in time one goes. However, we don’t throw all of them away because of their age (We only do that for pH measurements!). The record temperature perhaps deserves a footnote indicating that a couple of experts consider their post facto opinion to be of greater veracity than the written record. End of discussion. Move on.

James Schrumpf
July 31, 2021 8:01 am

How about this perspective: if there was no motivation for decertifying an inconveniently warm temperature from 108 years ago, this record would be unexceptional. No one would be looking at it, no one would be disturbed by it, and no one would be impugning the competence of the observer.

%d bloggers like this: