Hump Day Hilarity – EU ‘Smack in the Face’ Heatwave Edition

It was totally predictable that the media would start screeching the usual screechiness they employ whenever there is a heat wave anywhere in the world. Some headlines were a bit over the top:


A meme was inevitable. The meme this time comes from “global warming is hitting us full in the face”, from this article in the UK Guardian comes an emergent meme on Twitter:

h/t to Charles Rotter

Except, if you just move East of the UK several hundred miles, the “global heating hitting you in the face” is not so much…of course they wont tell you that a cold outbreak is right next door.

h/t to Dr. Roy Spencer.
4.9 36 votes
Article Rating
413 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Simonsays
July 20, 2022 2:06 am

No one can deny this very weird weather. The media are screaming climate change and C02, what is the alternative explanation?

Joe Gordon
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 2:22 am

Very weird weather?

Almost every day, and there are several organizations that ensure that a friendly media knows about it, there is very weird weather of some sort in some location.

Once the hysteria dies and if someone (not in the media, of course) who is genuinely interested in understanding climate bothers to do the legwork, he’ll find that record high temperatures are no more likely today in any location at any specific time than during the rest of recorded weather history (which is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of this planet’s history).

What’s new is the hype and dramatic map colors and calls for emergencies during one of the few times during the year when it’s genuinely uncomfortable to stay home. Wear a hat, put on some sunscreen, get out to the beach and enjoy.

In the US, of course, calling it an emergency would result in well deserved ridicule. We tend to have hotter summers and colder winters. Most of us have air conditioning or easy access to air conditioning. That’s not the case in northern Europe, because it just wouldn’t get much use. As you get a little further south, many homes have those nice solid exterior shades for windows.

Steve Case
Reply to  Joe Gordon
July 20, 2022 3:37 am

In the US, of course, calling it an emergency would result in well deserved ridicule. We tend to have hotter summers and colder winters.
_____________________________________________________

Please stop buying into the bullshit. Warmer winters and cooler summers is the case in the United States. The IPCC tells us

    IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 Page 750 
    Temperature Extremes
    Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected
    to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to
    a decrease in diurnal temperature range

This graphic is 5 years old, but a redo would probably show the
same thing:



Max Temps USA 48.png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Steve Case
July 20, 2022 5:41 am

Huh? Joe was talking absolute temps. You are talking diurnal range. The range from min to max can decrease while *still* being hotter and colder than in Europe!

Fraizer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 20, 2022 9:27 am

GAT increases because the low temperatures increase, especially at night, in winter and at high latitudes. Even if you stipulate to their CO2 BS, the heatwave hysteria is just BS on top of BS.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Joe Gordon
July 20, 2022 3:40 am

As I have said before, the usual suspects are making a real sing-song of a slight warm period of 150 years in our 4.5 Billion year history!!! Still awaiting a response from two so called Climate Scientists to tell me when in our 4.5 Billion year history the Earth’s climate stayed the same & never changed, it’s been over two years now & not a word!!!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 20, 2022 3:42 am

Forgot to add, the UK record was measured at London’s Heathrow airport, a place covered in concrete & tarmac, which as we technical bods know absorbs heat far better than fields & grasslands!!! Of course nobody in the UK meedja bothered to mention that, it don’t sell newspapers nor airtime!!!

JeffC
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 20, 2022 4:27 am

The first mention of a new record was at Charlwood which is adjacent to Gatwick airport and the most recent record was at Coningsby which is an RAF base. Tells you everything you need to know.

Greg
Reply to  JeffC
July 20, 2022 5:26 am

the weather station at Coningsby is about 20m north of a tarmac runway with a 15 mph southerly wind at the time. Some such airfields have had to suspend operations due to tarmac melting ! You do not need a physics degree to work out why the air is not.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Greg
July 20, 2022 7:25 am

For tarmac to “melt”, it would have to be asphalt, not concrete.

MarkW2
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 20, 2022 8:09 am

Tarmac is made of tar — the clue is in the name (TarMacadam is the full name, after its inventor). I remember roads melting frequently as a child in the UK.

Julian Flood
Reply to  MarkW2
July 20, 2022 8:40 am

I suspect that we now get our tar from France and it has a higher softening point. That means it doesn’t get soft in the summer and does not run together. Which means it is more brittle and breaks up into potholes.

JF

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW2
July 20, 2022 9:47 am

Asphalt *paving* is almost indistinguishable from tarmac. Both are a conglomeration of liquid oil and rock/stone aggregate. Tar is made from melting organic material and distilling it. Bitumen (the main ingredient of asphalt) is made from distilling oil. Not sure most people could look at samples of each and tell the difference.

Andrew Davies
Reply to  MarkW2
July 20, 2022 11:20 am

I remember that too. I bet todays snowflakes don’t know how to get melted tarmac off a childs fingers?

Gary S
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 20, 2022 4:50 pm

When the concrete starts to melt, we are in deep shizen. That’s the point at which I will convert to the AGW religion.

Don Perry
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 21, 2022 9:28 am

Technically, it is called asphalt concrete. Asphalt is just the binder, which is mixed with aggregates to form asphalt concrete, the stuff that is used in pavements commonly called “asphalt”. Calling asphalt concrete asphalt is similar to calling ordinary concrete, cement. Cement is just the binder and when mixed with aggregate is called concrete.

asiaseen
Reply to  Greg
July 20, 2022 7:34 am

Indeed, Coningsby has a lot of concrete and tarmac and perhaps more significant, while not as busy as, say, Heathrow, the aircraft use reheat for take-off and that adds a few degrees to the jet efflux.

Gerry, England
Reply to  JeffC
July 20, 2022 6:02 am

With respect to Charlwood, it lies just north of the western end of the runway but due west of all the infrastructure buildings. The breeze yesterday would have been blowing Gatwick heat away from Charlwood but I could not say whether Charlwood already sits within the Gatwick heat zone. I know in driving the 8 miles from my house one evening it was 4C warmer over there in premises surrounding the airport. I got a 4 minute peak of 101.9f yesterday afternoon and 2.5 hours of 100f and above.

Sparko
Reply to  JeffC
July 20, 2022 9:09 am

Charlwood has its own airfield, known as charlwood valiance.

Reply to  JeffC
July 21, 2022 6:26 am

Well the previous record was broken at about 34 stations, not all of which are at airports, Gringley on the hill for example is in the countryside and recorded 40.1. That tells you what you need to know.

Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 20, 2022 4:43 am

A rather surprising article by the BBC on Heathrow”s ‘Heat island effect’:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980493

Greg
Reply to  Cyan
July 20, 2022 5:39 am

The mention Kew Gardens which is 8m from Heathrow. It maxed at 38 deg C.

Last edited 18 days ago by Greg
Quilter52
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 20, 2022 5:45 am

We were in Scotland in 2019 when A supposedly record temperature was recorded until someone produced a photograph of the place where reading was taken showing an ice cream van exhaust blowing onto the location of the weather instrumentation. At which point, records ceased to be mentioned.

Sparko
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 20, 2022 9:06 am

All the high temperatures recorded were all at airfields. They all had concrete runways, or tarmac

186no
Reply to  Sparko
July 20, 2022 9:38 am

I still maintain that 40+deg is common – but not reported – at places where concrete abounds to say nothing of race tracks – height of Sumer, little wind ……not difficult to be very hot, especially if the air is from the Sahara region.

Newminster
Reply to  186no
July 20, 2022 11:54 am

The heat trap in front of my garage is regularly 50+ around 1800 at this time of year and the thermometer in the open garden which gets the sun late afternoon regularly tops 35 most sunny days from June to early October.
That in the middle of France.
I don’t think anyone would argue that yesterday’s UK figures were exceptional but it would only have taken a degree or so difference in wind direction and a minor difference in air pressure and we’d be saying “nowt special”!
The media are doing what they supposed to do (I should know), attract readers. It’s the Met Office that ought to know better!

Richard Page
Reply to  186no
July 20, 2022 12:50 pm

To me the problem was the Met Office – they have had a string of failed predictions going back several years and then they predicted 40C+ temperatures. Of course they were going to do their damnedest to make sure those temperatures went over 40C, even if they had to use dodgy aircraft and UHI contaminated sites and fudge the numbers a bit. Woohoo – the Met Office got this one right!

Miha
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 20, 2022 12:33 pm

And Heathrow is part of the global mass of mankind (in terms of concrete, asphalt and the like) which overtook the global biomass in 2020. Urban heat effect writ large. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3010-5

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 20, 2022 4:30 pm

Isn’t the temperature recording station between the northern runway and the northern perimeter road?

Jack Frost
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 20, 2022 5:06 am

I saw a headline yesterday that was calling it a “heat apocalypse”, that one made me smile

Margaret H Smith
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 20, 2022 8:28 am

I wonder where the points of ignition came from for all these fires. The implication of the reporting seems to be that the air is hot enough for dry grass etc. to ignite spontaneously but that’s nonsense. Remembering Australia’s big fires recently, I know where my suspicions lie.

Newminster
Reply to  Margaret H Smith
July 20, 2022 12:04 pm

I’ve spent most of the day trying to disabuse people of the idea that anything which would normally be found even on overgrown waste ground can spontaneously combust at 40°C!
Make things worse, yes; start a fire, no.
in spite of what I’ve just written about the media there is no justification for deliberately misleading readers with headlines that suggest that heatwaves cause wild fires. What causes any fire is an initiator which may be lightning strike but otherwise involves human agency in some way — accidental or (more often) deliberate!

Jacques Dumon
Reply to  Newminster
July 20, 2022 1:03 pm

86% of the forest fires have a human origin, either accidental or criminally intentional.
Everyone can experiment that an ignition attempt of a bowl of gasoline even if the local temperature is at 50°C, cannot succeed unless a spark or a flame will trigger the ignition.

Gary S
Reply to  Newminster
July 20, 2022 4:56 pm

The fire triangle – oxygen, fuel, ignition. Remove any one= no fire.

Joe Gordon
Reply to  Margaret H Smith
July 20, 2022 1:28 pm

That is odd. Here, where a brief soujourn into the upper 90s and beyond is uncomfortable but happens once or twice a summer, it’s not associated with fires. I’ve never even heard that one before.

Honestly, I suspect that group of climate fanatics that keeps sitting down in roads and slashing tires. They’ve said many times that if an innocent person dies from their actions, it’s acceptable because their cause is so important.

Plus, they know perfectly well that the police will protect them from harm or from prosecution. And the media’s been on every spark in seconds – they’re likely being tipped off and perhaps even suggesting easy targets themselves.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Margaret H Smith
July 21, 2022 6:06 am

Many house fires are caused by overloaded electrical outlets. With all the use of fans (and probably bad electric cords) my bet would be electrical sources for many of the fires. Many of the fans had probably not been maintained because of little use and could have failed (shorted out) and caused fires as well.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Joe Gordon
July 20, 2022 4:04 am

When we speak of “weird” or “extreme” weather we are being misleading and disingenuous. Weather comes in all shapes and sizes, hot and cold, wet and dry, stormy and calm. It is like the discovery of the platypus some two centuries ago. The fact the no one had ever seen a mammal anything like this before did not mean it was not part of the mammal kingdom. Why should this creature be singled out and viewed as weird while there are such enormous differences between mammals. Similarly with weather. Actually we do not have a climate problem but a language problem. We misuse and abuse language to prop up bad science and confuse people.

Greg
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 20, 2022 5:41 am

“weird” means nothing , claims nothing and is not a falsifiable claim. Any claim which is not falsifiable has no scientific value.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Greg
July 20, 2022 10:07 am

Greg, thanks for this key statement. Michael Faraday began as a boy doing experiment after experiment testing claims. Seems there are few scientists of his honesty and calibre around in the UK today.

It is really weird how Griff can keep believing the British politicians who have stuffed up in almost every way must be right about the weather and climate.

griff
Reply to  Joe Gordon
July 20, 2022 8:47 am

funny then how this weird weather keeps repeating and gets worse across the UK and Europe…

slow to follow
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 10:03 am

What are your references for that claim griff? Not everyone that has studied the subject agrees with you:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/13/new-study-on-the-basis-of-observational-data-the-climate-crisisis-not-evident-yet/

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 12:04 pm

Based on your ‘logic,’ we should probably be concerned about being fried by our own sun by 2050:
A ‘direct hit’ of radiation from the sun has formed a solar storm around Earth (msn.com)

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 12:55 pm

We get warm air from the South during the Summer and you want to call that weird? Are you a weather denier, Griffy?

jono1066
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 3:40 pm

Happy in the south facing office today in the UK with shirt and tie on, windows open on 2 sides , although the tie was on the slightly loose side. Nothing compared to my days in across good old Saudi, or Egypt.
Just go check the MET office daily mean temp graph and see how its reasonably normal, in fact it just managed to get back up to not noticeably above that upper boundary.

Editor
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 5:48 pm

Now you come up with a lame “weird” weather claim because that is all you have left to run on there is NO climate emergency which Willis Eschenbach proved decisively a year ago:

Where is the climate emergency?

Right now, it is 101F (38C) which is typical weather in my area, yet no one is screaming about it because it is easy to deal with it.

I keep my place cool running an undersized SWAMP COOLER thus a comfortable 77F (25C)

Grow up stop being scared so easily!

Alasdair
Reply to  Joe Gordon
July 20, 2022 10:26 am

Yes. We never had all this hysteria and panic before the IPCC was set up by the UN. Both of which being political institutions and known to have been infiltrated by Leftwing/Marxist covert activists.
It is therefore not surprising that one can longer believe anything published by the media these days; as it all just repetitive propaganda.

Ken Davis
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 2:29 am

You said it yourself – weird weather – and the records probably mainly UHI effect

michel
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 2:38 am

To take your question seriously, the statistical distribution of weather is not a normal distribution. Its long tailed, in both directions, warm and cold.

So we find over the centuries occasional episodes of great storms, clusters of hurricanes, great freezes, great heat waves. There is nothing weird about one of these showing up. Its perfectly normal. Every 30-40 years in any location you choose you will probably get some weather event that is extreme by the standards of the recent past. Because these are infrequent, though perfectly normal, they attract attention and searches for explanation and allegations that something has changed.

It hasn’t. All that has happened is that we are taking too short a timetable for our calculation of what counts as normal.

Paul Homewood has performed a very useful service in resurrecting previous UK extreme events over the last few hundred years. Each one of which would have seemed to the people at the time as perfectly extraordinary. They were not, they were just part of a normal weather pattern with occasional perfectly normal extreme events.

That’s how weather is on planet Earth, at least in the temperate climates.

You can see this mechanism going on in the media in the UK at the moment. They have had three days of unusually high temperatures. Its probably the most extreme heat wave since the last extreme one, in 1976. This one is shorter and a little hotter than the 1976 one.

The Guardian and BBC are full of apocalyptic predictions about how this is the future and its going to get worse and hotter and hotter. No reason to think so. Its just a heat wave. There have been such things before and there will be again. Just as there have been extreme late snowfalls and extreme cold periods in winter.

michel
Reply to  michel
July 20, 2022 2:43 am

If you like, what was the explanation of the great heat wave of 1976? Or of the thirties in the US? Or of the Arctic melt of the 1920s? Or, perhaps more controversially, of the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, and the Little Ice Age?

They are all perfectly normal events in a climate which is changing all the time.

We are as a species very bad at properly estimating the risks of events which are very rare but of high price when they happen. For instance, driving a bit too fast to get to an appointment on time.

This is what is going on with the hysteria about a couple of warm days, or weeks. People think they are much rarer than they are, they take too few precautions against them, and so when they happen people freeze or railway lines buckle… and so on.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  michel
July 20, 2022 5:45 am

Someone who gets it! Thanks. Weather has a large range and a high variance. It can still be a normal curve (though likely isn’t) but the next expected value has a large interval within which it can occur (thus the long tails).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 20, 2022 10:02 am

When you are speaking globally, the poles contribute to a cold tail much longer than the hot tail. There are mechanisms that trigger cooling rainfall when the oceans get to 30 deg C.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 20, 2022 10:03 am

That’s why I said (though likely isn’t). Thanks for clarifying with a scientific reason.

Mr.
Reply to  michel
July 20, 2022 8:49 am

Yes, even the so-called “extremes” and “records” have very small measured differences from what was recorded in past events.

It’s an inconsequential technicality if a recent “hottest evah” afternoon is 0.003C hotter than the same date recorded 100 years ago.

Newminster
Reply to  michel
July 20, 2022 12:16 pm

An interesting aside to your point, michel. If “global warming” started in 1980 (or thereabouts) why has it taken 40+ years for another “freak” event like 1976 (and remember it was actually a ‘double header – 1975 was just about the same) to come along.
Statistically, if our climate “experts” were correct 1976 should have repeated itself at least half-a-dozen times since then.

Richard Page
Reply to  michel
July 20, 2022 12:53 pm

Actually I’m not sure it was even a heatwave under the modern rules – it would have to have gone on for 1-2 more days and nights to qualify.

Reply to  Richard Page
July 21, 2022 6:47 am

It would have to exceed the local threshold temperature (90th percentile) for three days, I think the highest value for that anywhere in the UK is 28ºC.

Richard Page
Reply to  Phil.
July 21, 2022 10:58 am

3 or more consecutive days and nights. I don’t think it qualified.

HotScot
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 2:40 am

What very weird weather?

Because the world is obsessed with climate change, everyone is measuring every temperature fluctuation mankind would hitherto just not have bothered about.

It’s navel gazing, dissecting hundredths of a ºC, obsessing over atmospheric CO2, and claiming it’s all catastrophic.

The ‘unprecedented’ Indian heatwave in 2015, which lasted for two months, claimed 2,018 lives from heat exhaustion, from a population of 1.3Bn. Extreme poverty is still rife in India.

Every year, as regular as clockwork, and with very little if any extreme poverty, the UK counts Excess Winter Deaths, largely from cold related conditions (including hypothermia in an industrialised nation which is about the 7th wealthiest in the world) in the tens of thousands, from a population of 65M.

The alternative explanation is that far too many experts who don’t understand the question are providing ludicrous answers like, let’s starve the population of Sri Lanka because eliminating Nitrogen fertiliser is better than a slightly warming planet. The same is now being proposed in Holland.

Last edited 18 days ago by HotScot
Alan the Brit
Reply to  HotScot
July 20, 2022 3:46 am

Agenda 21 is behind it all, a one-world globul guvment, run on Socialist principles, i.e. the wealthy ruling elites will enrich themselves even more at the expense of the peasantry!!!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  HotScot
July 20, 2022 8:45 am

“We find relatively little increase in deaths caused by warmer weather and a reduction in deaths caused by cold winters, leading to a net decrease in deaths: in contrast there was a net increase in hospital admissions linked to warmer weather, especially from injuries.”

(eg, people jumping from bridges into rivers when it’s hot).

“the worrying trajectory predicted by climate scientists is already affecting health in England and Wales” (they just had to put that in didn’t they?) “however in the UK’s cool to temperate climate, mortality is limited and appropriate policy and behaviour changes could mitigate much of the health risk from increasing temperatures.”

UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) ‘Climate-related mortality and hospital admissions, England and Wales: 2001 to 2020’ Jan 2022..

Surrr
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 2:41 am

4.5 billion years of the earth existing, we are a mere micron of a pigeon shit in the middle of the pacific I contrast.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 2:53 am

Just because you and your Nan (child’s word for a grandmother) can’t remember anything like it, it doesn’t make it weird.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
July 20, 2022 5:47 am

For the greenies, history began when they were born. Personality disorder?

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 3:02 am

The media are screaming climate change and C02, what is the alternative explanation?

Wrong question.
The media are screaming climate change and C02, what is the alternative correct explanation?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
July 20, 2022 4:00 am

As I have said before, I cannot take any so-called scientist who says the giant fusion reactor (we haven’t built one yet & possibly never will do) at the centre converting thousands of tons of Hydrogen into Helium every second, & possesses over 99.9% of the mass in the Solar System has no effect on our planet, but the UK’s glorious & infallible Wet Office says it only affects our weather but NOT the climate!!! For me, I believe the Wet Office has embarked upon a process of predicting everything & anything so they have covered their arses, using weasel words like, could, may, possibly, etc!!!

Ron Long
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 3:27 am

SimpleSimonsays, the weird weather appears almost certainly to be due to a strong, multi-factor, atmospheric circulation event. The heatwave over western Europe is coming from NW Africa and the cold over eastern Europe is coming down from the northern polar region, so normal counter-clockwise rotation (with the wind at your back means the low pressure is to your left) means a low AND high pressure sequence are causing an unusual, but not unknown, weather event. Wait a while and it will be cold or hot again, because both weather and climate are complex and chaotic.

Vuk
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 3:36 am

A random occasion of double loop in the jetstream chunneling hot air all the way from Sahara to the North West Europe.
Happens in winter too when it’s sending freezeng cold air from Arctic all the way to the South of Europe.
These events are hardly to do anything with tiny increase in the global temperature, since looping of jet stream is governed mainly by the Coriolis force (Earth rotation), seasonal temperature raise/fall, energy radiated upwards from oceans, energy coming down from the sun, and feedback from leading to trailing section of the loop.
Put all together looking from down here to up there, as good as a random behaviour.

Cardimona
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 3:37 am

Two words – Rossby waves.

Simonsays
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 3:48 am

The reason for my question is without a counter explanation the ground is ceded to the climate alarmists. The facts are the temperature records are unprecedented so hysteria is driving the media cycle and scaring the population. So what do I say to my UK friends ( who call me a raving mad denialist) as to why this happening?

Scissor
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 4:37 am

An objective evaluation would show that few things are unprecedented in some sense. Records are made to be broken.

But heat island effects are real. That air conditioner exhaust or jet exhaust is hot is a consequence of having those modern marvels, as well as thermodynamics.

Queen Elizabeth II is setting records every day. James Lovelock of Gaia fame turns 103 years old on the 22nd. Blame global warming.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Scissor
July 20, 2022 5:50 am

Records are made to be broken.”

CAGW alarmists simply do not understand this!

Graemethecat
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 5:54 am

How about pointing them to the map above showing temperatures over Western Russia well below seasonal averages?

Newminster
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 20, 2022 12:25 pm

Or you could point them to trucks stuck in snowdrifts in Argentina and Uruguay experiencing lowest temperatures evah — or at least since records began!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 6:58 am

Don’t let them put you on the defensive. They made the claim without proof.
This “record” heat is not proof nor confirmation that Man’s CO2 is causing it.
If they say it is, ask them to explain just how the all time high for Columbus Ohio is 106*F set in 1934 and tied in 1936 yet the all time record low is -22*F set in 1994.
IF the rise of Man’s CO2 is causing CAGW, shouldn’t those years be reversed?

PS You might also remind them when the hype about Man’s CO2 started back 1988, the threat was “Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming”.
When Nature didn’t cooperate, “The Pause”, they started to call it “Climate Change”.

Simon
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 20, 2022 2:25 pm

PS You might also remind them when the hype about Man’s CO2 started back 1988,?”
Haha I think you mean James Hansen.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 4:32 pm

Exactly, the meme that CO2 is bad has become a religion. Joe Biden might be giving you a run for your money.

Reply to  Gunga Din
July 21, 2022 7:06 am

You have it backwards it was Wallace Broecker who popularized the term Global Warming with his 1975 paper, “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”

Mark BLR
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 8:24 am

The reason for my question is without a counter explanation the ground is ceded to the climate alarmists.

Not by me (at least) it isn’t !

– – – – –

[ Option 1, which is also my personal favourite … ]

As Carl Sagan put it so long ago, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

It’s up to them to show that their bald assertion (/ completely unjustified assumption) is in any way, shape or form “true”.

– – – – –

[ Option 2 … ]

The “burden of proof” fallacy goes something like :
1) Person A says “X is true”
2) Person B says “Here is some empirical evidence that would indicate that X is more likely than not to be false”
3) Person A responds with “No ! No ! No ! You have to prove that X is (definitely, 100% guaranteed certain to be) false ! ! !”

No “we” don’t.

One of the “axioms” of logical arguments is that it is impossible to “prove” a negative.

– – – – –

[ Option 3 … ]

Maybe try for an inverted “Argument from incredulity” (AKA “Proof by lack of imagination”) approach ?

The “official” argument from incredulity goes something like :
1) “One” cannot imagine how X could be true.
2) If X were actually true then “one” could imagine how X could be true (because “one” is omniscient and infallible …).
3) X must therefore be false.

If you tweak this a bit and then invert “true” and “false” it becomes :
1) ***I*** cannot see what else could cause [ insert Bad Thing here ] other than X
2) Therefore the only possible explanation for [ Bad Thing ] is X

A suitable reaction from “us” would be to paraphrase Michael Valentine Smith :
“Thou art not god …”

– – – – –

[ Options 4 and 5 … ]

So what do I say to my UK friends (who call me a raving mad denialist) as to why this [is] happening?

“Just because …”

or

“Because quantum …”

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 9:06 am

When discussing GW with the average person, regardless of their position, I’ll discuss
Climategate which exposes The Team™ as a bunch of lying politicians, not scientists,
whose goal is to win at any cost. I’ll then discuss areas where there isn’t any
disagreement on facts but Greens never discuss as it would undermine their positions
These include both the benefits/dangers of more/less CO2 & (1000ppm = 2x growth @ 350ppm;
170 ppm 15kya- barely > 150 ppm needed for C3 plants => 0 food & O2) & warming (MWP &
today vs LIA; 10x more deaths @ extreme cold vs hot). Then I ask them if any Greens ever
told them these facts since BOTH sides agree upon them & why they withheld such important
facts? Is it because what they’re telling you is propaganda & these facts undermine
reducing warming & the CO2 they blame for that?

Any facts you know cold, like the missing heat in the tropopause, lack of correlation
between CO2 & T over the past 600M yrs, etc., is an added plus. Be prepared to counter the
propaganda they’ve been fed with counter facts which will neutralize their facts. The
key is to plant seeds to give reasons to doubt the integrity of the sources they rely on
for their facts. While they probably will still disagree, they probably won’t discuss it
with you again as your argument has an edge thay can’t overcome. The person you may affect
most is a third party who’s actually looking for facts & not just a chance to argue.

If I know they’re fairly green, I may open with the fact I think bad drinking water is
obviously a real problem that hurts a lot of people to let them know I’m not totally
anti-green/heartless, especially if the facts support what is being promoted (fact- 2/3 of
the world’s people have parasites, mostly from bad drinking water).

Climategate emails:

Tom Nelson- URH corner

https://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate_emails

WUWT- using site search- 2 examples:

Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues 11/22/09

Over 250 noteworthy Climategate 2.0 emails 1/6/12

https://climateaudit.org/2014/09/06/the-original-hide-the-decline/

Mr.
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 9:42 am

Simon, with friends who aren’t up to speed on history or generally how the planetary system works, you have to resort to basic analogies to explain things to them.

Example –
they’ve no doubt heard of “rogue waves” at sea.
These are unusually large & powerful waves that have been known to capsize large ships.

Rogue waves are definitely a thing, but even the most skilled mariners or oceanographers can’t predict when or where rogues might occur.

They are a product of “dominant variables”, that is – wind directions & speeds, current directions & speeds, water depths, ‘lenghts’ of swells, and even cross-directional swells from very distant hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones etc.

Rogues occur when there is an instantaneous confluence of some of these variable drivers of sea conditions. They stack together to create an “abnornal” event. But not one that is “unprecedented” or that will not reoccur at any time.

Earth’s atmospheric “oceans” operate in the same way, and sometimes produce “rogue” events.
The weather and climate systems are, however, operating normally.
Variables sometimes collide and collude.

(here endeth the parable)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 10:07 am

“Unprecedented” only in the time scale of wide-spread quantitative measurements. That is, recently.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 20, 2022 10:21 am

And cell phone videos.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 11:25 am

“So what do I say to my UK friends ( who call me a raving mad denialist) as to why this happening?”

The UK will cool off in a few days. When it does, ask your UK friends to explain why it cooled off instead of just getting hotter, since CO2 is increasing and is supposedly the source for this heat.

The obvious answer is CO2 is not causing the warming in the UK. Rather, it is a high pressure system that is temporarily sitting over the UK and western Europe which is causing the exceptional warmth.

When the high pressure system goes away, the hot temperatures will go away. The CO2 had nothing to do with this weather activity. The CO2 will still be there when the region cools off. If the CO2 is still there, then why isn’t the heat still there? Have your UK friends explain that.

Last edited 18 days ago by Tom Abbott
Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 20, 2022 2:01 pm

“The UK will cool off in a few days. When it does, ask your UK friends to explain why it cooled off instead of just getting hotter, since CO2 is increasing and is supposedly the source for this heat.”
I would say to them go and get a basic understanding of the difference between weather and climate. Put simply, one is short term and one is long term.

Last edited 18 days ago by Simon
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 6:51 am

So you admit the last couple of hot days is just weather and can be ignored? If you say it can’t, then you have to explain away the cold further East.

Cosmic
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 11:25 am

See all the logical reasoning above please. And then tell them to STFU because the UK is almost always cold, dank and dreary with wind.

Gyan1
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 11:48 am

“So what do I say to my UK friends ( who call me a raving mad denialist) as to why this happening?”

Explain to them that the scale of natural variability dwarfs the human forcing. The attribution of individual weather events to an infinitesimal trace gas is preposterous pseudoscience.

Simon
Reply to  Gyan1
July 20, 2022 2:29 pm

Explain to them that the scale of natural variability dwarfs the human forcing. The attribution of individual weather events to an infinitesimal trace gas is preposterous pseudoscience.”
Your comment captures why the term “climate science denier” is so apt for people like you. There really is no other phrase that could capture your state of mind.

Mr.
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 3:19 pm

Space is always available here at WUWT for ANYONE who wants to post empirical, verifiable, replicable observations or tests that demonstrate when, where, how and why movements in atmospheric CO2 content over any timespan, and no other variables, have ever directly caused, or will ever directly cause, significant changes in climate(s).

I’m bookmarking this comment Simon, in eager anticipation of you, or ANYONE ELSE filling this void with the content as described above.

I’ve been waiting since my profound disappointment at the Climategate emails in 2009 to have my respect and faith in the scientific method restored.

Please help if you can.

Ta.

Simon
Reply to  Mr.
July 20, 2022 5:52 pm

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

Mr.
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 8:21 pm

Simon.

You’re kidding right?

All you have to offer is a graph construct offering –

Land average temperature, with 95% confidence interval
Simple fit based on CO2 concentration and volcanic activity

Simon
Reply to  Mr.
July 21, 2022 12:04 am

Look it is really quite simple. The (almost all it seems) world has moved on quite some time ago from questioning whether CO2 is warming things up here. It is. The argument from skeptics now is that this warming is not a problem. Which is why the likes of Watts, and Spencer argue we have nothing to worry about, rather than going down the “it is only a “trace gas” bullshite.”

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 6:47 am

It started warming in the 19th century, when our CO2 emissions weren’t supposed to matter. What caused that warming Simon? Why did it switch itself off and hand over to us in the 1950s when our CO2 emissions were supposed to start making a difference? I’d love to know your reasoning/excuses.

Gyan1
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 8:45 am

“it is only a “trace gas” bullshite.”

It’s an empirical fact that CO2 is a trace gas.

Understanding what drives weather and climate changes requires quantification of the variables to try to estimate what is going on. Physicists who have done the line by line calculations on CO2’s radiative flux show that it doesn’t have a strong enough forcing to produce the strong positive feedbacks assumed in climate models. That’s why they have never been observed in the real world and why models overstate CO2’s warming potential.

Individual weather events have thousands of variables interacting to produce them. CO2 is one of the smallest of those variables.

Only the uneducated don’t know that the scale of other variables dwarfs the human forcing.

Simon
Reply to  Gyan1
July 21, 2022 1:50 pm

Physicists who have done the line by line calculations on CO2’s radiative flux show that it doesn’t have a strong enough forcing to produce the strong positive feedbacks assumed in climate models.”
Oh please. Which physicists. I bet they don’t work in the field of climate.
“Only the uneducated don’t know that the scale of other variables dwarfs the human forcing.”
Really. Climate science is probably the most microscopically studied science going on at the moment. And you think they somehow all got the basic premise that CO2 is causing warming wrong? OK name a few climate scientists/physicists who say you are right otherwise don’t waste my time.

Gyan1
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 4:22 pm

Why can’t you understand that nobody is saying CO2 can’t cause warming?

“Collision and radiative processes in emission of atmospheric carbon dioxide”
B M Smirnov
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta

“The contribution to the global temperature change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. resulted from combustion of fossil fuels, is approximately 0.02 K now.”

William Happer also ran the numbers and showed that CO2 has little ability to cause the temperature increases the IPCC claims.

“The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures”

https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12

“The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O,”

“This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature” 

Last edited 17 days ago by Gyan1
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Mr.
July 21, 2022 11:36 am

That 95% confidence level is nothing more than a best-fit metric for the trend line. The graph does *not* include uncertainty intervals for the stated values which are used to generate the trend line. Add those uncertainty intervals to the graph, at least +/- 1C (i.e. an interval of 2C) and you have no idea of what kind of a trend line you actually have. Just blank out everything between 10C and 8C and see if you can actually see anything since 1850!

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 4:34 pm

Now the colluuuusion clown becomes a climate denier…awesome.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
July 20, 2022 5:51 pm

DIIIIIRRRRGGGGEEEE!!!!

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 7:22 pm

A religion indeed. Have you found your colluuuusion 😉

Simon
Reply to  Derg
July 20, 2022 7:58 pm

DIIIIIRRRRGGGGEEEE!!!!

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 3:20 am

You are still dumb dude. Colluuuusion clown again

Gyan1
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 4:55 pm

We lack the grid cell resolution to quantify the human contribution accurately. Because natural variability is so much larger than the tiny human forcing it must be modelled. The error bars on the assumptions in climate models are larger than the effect they are trying to isolate. My state of mind is fine. How did you allow brainwashing to shield you from what is common knowledge?

The idea people like me who insist that science be validated by empirical measurement can be dismissed as a science denier is an example of preposterous pseudoscience.

Last edited 18 days ago by Gyan1
Simon
Reply to  Gyan1
July 20, 2022 5:51 pm

Does it not concern you that you would not be able to find a sane scientist on the planet who would agree with your “CO2 couldn’t possibly warm the planet” bollocks? Just asking.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 6:02 pm

Got a cite for your “sane scientists” claim, Simon the Zealot?

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 20, 2022 6:23 pm

Got a name of a sane scientist in the field who thinks CO2 does not warm the planet? I could give you half a dozen skeptic scientists (Spencer, Christie, Curry…), but none of them are so removed from reality (bonkers) they think CO2 plays no part in the recent warming.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 4:17 pm

No cite then, not a surprise.

Gyan1
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 8:58 pm

 “CO2 couldn’t possibly warm the planet” 

How did you come up with that from “the scale of natural variability dwarfs the human forcing”?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gyan1
July 21, 2022 6:01 am

Because that is what he does. He puts words in people’s mouth (i.e. makes up strawman arguments) so he can argue against those words instead of what people actually say.

Gyan1
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 21, 2022 10:50 am

It’s the only thing true believers can do because they have no facts supporting their delusions.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 6:00 am

He didn’t say CO2 doesn’t have an impact. He said the impact is hidden within the uncertainty interval.

You just created a strawman to argue with, which seems to be your favorite tactic.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gyan1
July 21, 2022 5:59 am

gyan: you nailed it!

Simon
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 21, 2022 1:57 pm

The end result is the same. Gyan1 thinks CO2 is not causing the warming. He thinks it’s influence is so small (only a trace gas) it can’t possibly be the culprit. He’s wrong. Thousands of peer reviewed studies clearly say he is wrong. He doesn’t want to read those he would rather play in la la land. That’s fine but don’t tell the world how silly you are without the possibility of being held to account.

Gyan1
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 2:52 pm

 “Gyan1 thinks CO2 is not causing the warming.”

Where in any comment I’ve ever made do you see me indicate that CO2 has no effect?

The subject of this thread is the attribution of an individual heat wave to climate change. I clearly stated why that attribution is pseudoscience.

The fact that you are unable to comprehend my comment is why you have so easily fallen for unscientific propaganda.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 3:05 pm

“the warming”

What “the warming”?

The issue isn’t “whether” but “how much”!

If AGW was at the level the climate alarmists (and the climate models show) state then wouldn’t be seeing pauses in the temperature rise. Those pauses can only occur if *other* factors are at work – things like cyclical processes that we don’t even recognize let alone understand.

If T ≠ CO2 then the functional relationship you want to believe in is wrong.

If T is a function of CO2, Factor_a, Factor_b, Factor_c, …, Factor_z then what *are* all the other factors and what is their relationship to temperature? We already know that clouds are one factor that the models don’t handle properly, they have to be parameterized, e.g. some kind of average value is used. Since chaotic systems are very sensitive to input values then what kind of result do we see from wrong parameters?

Pat Frank went through this in detail. If even one input parameter is wrong or uncertain then that wrong input or that uncertainty compounds through every annual iteration the climate model is put through to get future values.

The pauses show that Frank was correct. *Something* is causing the temperature rise to pause and the climate models are simply unable to reproduce the pauses. Since CO2 is the PRIMARY factor in the models then something is wrong with that.

Gyan1
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 3:17 pm

“Thousands of peer reviewed studies clearly say he is wrong. He doesn’t want to read those he would rather play in la la land.”

I’ve studied the peer reviewed literature on every aspect of climate for 25 years. La la land is climate crisis propaganda. There is no support for that in the published studies.

Attribution studies are some of the poorest quality research in the history of science. They are based on false attribution and circular reasoning which ignores the research that would invalidate their conclusions.

Simon
Reply to  Gyan1
July 21, 2022 4:26 pm

OK… well… look you enjoy where ever it is you are living.

Gyan1
Reply to  Simon
July 22, 2022 11:07 am

I’ve travelled the world and have enjoyed nature everywhere I’ve been.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 4:18 pm

He thinks it’s influence is so small (only a trace gas)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Come back when you figure out what “trace” means, genius.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 21, 2022 4:28 pm

Monte the moron
I know what a trace gas is. And I know it is not the size that matters… and I am guessing that is a good thing for you.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 8:54 pm

Coluuuusion hoax boi reaches deep and pulls out a pen!s lame.

So erudite, so stupid…

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 6:01 pm

Who is Ray Epps, Simon the Zealot?

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 20, 2022 7:23 pm

Lol…the colluuuusion clown has new fake news story.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
July 20, 2022 7:57 pm

DIIIIIRRRRGGGGEEEE

Derg
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 3:21 am

Lol..have you found colluuuusion again. It’s so funny how you fell for it.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
July 21, 2022 1:52 pm

Can’t wait for the Jan 6 hearing today. Will it be as explosive as last time. I sooooo hope so. Talk tomorrow…

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 4:21 pm

Soviet-style show trials are right up your alley, commie.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
July 21, 2022 4:20 pm

FED! FED! FED! FED! FED!

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 21, 2022 9:25 pm

Well Carlo what did you make of todays hearings? I’ll wait with bated breath.
I’ll tell you what I thought. Trump was slaughtered by his own team. The man who demands loyalty got none today.

Last edited 16 days ago by Simon
Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 3:54 am

‘weird weather’ is a pleonasm.

Scissor
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 4:24 am

Could be the resurgence of witches. A few hundred years ago, they caused all the weird weather, so they say.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Scissor
July 20, 2022 7:00 am

But it was really the GHG emissions let off by all those bubbling cauldrons.

Doonman
Reply to  Scissor
July 20, 2022 11:12 am

But fortunately, they killed them all then instead of putting them on probation.

Robert B
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 4:30 am

Alice Springs in Australia just had 15 days below 0, breaking the record of 11 – in 1976.

It’s weather. If anything, the mechanism of the GHE for creating the warming will have a greater effect on minimum temperatures of cold days rather than maximum temperatures of hot days, but both are imperceptible without a thermometer (and a global one, to boot). Models do a bad job of predicting the average increase of less than a degree due to increased C02 to balance the energy budget (Only a half since the 1976 heatwave, UAH). They do absolutely nothing useful in understanding the weather patterns that bump up the temperature to 10 degrees above, or below, the average.

It might seem like a no brainer that there is global warming and it was very hot, but you need to be pretty dull to think that it is evidence of a degree warmer world.

Last edited 18 days ago by Robert B
Jack Frost
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 5:07 am

It’s not weird, it’s just weather.

Greg
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 5:22 am

Is “weird” supposed to be some kind of objective comment ? What do you even mean by that? What EXACTLY are you claiming, so that it can be checked?

The explanation is simple meteorology. There has been a blocking high over the Azores for the last week. This has been drawing masses of hot air up from N. Africa and the Sahara. This happens from time to time . No need for CO2.

The last few days have also seen a competing system over Parisian region which further concentrated this hot air flow into the atlantic coast of France, up into Britanny and spilling over into the UK. Just look at a wind map of satellite animation for Europe.

“What else can it be” is not a proof of anything, expect ignorance of the real cause.

Last edited 18 days ago by Greg
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 5:40 am

In 2012 where I live in Michigan we experienced 104F temperatures. The state did not burn down. Nobody died that I know of. And we have not had temps above 100F since then. If my memory servers me right, 2013 was the snowiest winter ever and 2014 was the coldest ever in the Detroit metropolitan area. We must have turned the corner on global warming and are in for a huge drop in temperatures now.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 20, 2022 8:10 am

And last winter had the least snow, by far, or any winter since I moved to SE Michigan in 1977. In general, the winters are not as cold as they were in the 1970s.

Two communities in Michigan hit 112 degrees on July 13, 1936, Stanwood in Mecosta County and Mio in Oscoda County.
Kalamazoo, and countless other cities across America, saw it’s all-time record high during the July 1936 heatwave. Kalamazoo’s all time record for heat is 109 degrees.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 5:48 am

Have you heard of randomness and the Normal Distribution?

Duane
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 5:52 am

Guaranteed that every single day some part of the Earth is experiencing warmer than average, or cooler than average, and record highs and record lows for the date. Ditto with wetter than average and dryer than average.

The media cherry picks, and for every heat wave they fail to report a cold wave going on somewhere else (after all it’s mid-winter in the southern hemisphere right now).

Then the media and warmunists (same thing) claim that extremes only result from climate change, including cold extremes. As if the planet never experienced varying weather before in geo-history.

fretslider
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 6:01 am

Just how far back can you go? You sound younger than griff

Glen
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 7:10 am

Summer?

Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 8:04 am

A hot day in the Summer in England
has happened before. Why is that weird?
Climate is a 30+ year average of global weather,
not one day in one place.

Most of the global warming since 1975
has been during the six coldest months
of the year at night (TMIN)
I guess you have never heard that
from the lamestream media,

David Anderson
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 8:14 am

what is the alternative explanation?

It’s Wednesday.

Fraizer
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 9:24 am

Yeah, it’s hot in July – weird.

TEWS_Pilot
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 10:33 am

Simon,really, if you are more than 15 years old, you have seen summers this hot before and winters as cold as the last couple before. If you have empirical evidence of a direct cause of this weather, please share it….you might be awarded a Noble Prize. The rest of us just write it off as …..OH, WAIT! I’m WRONG!…..it really is “Climate Change!!!!!”

comment image 

Cosmic
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 11:03 am

Um, as a meteorologist for about 40yrs now I have seen LOTS of weird weather. Weather does all sorts of extreme things…always has…always will. YOU have zero control over it and are not responsible. Quit being so naive. Where I sit today, a mere 8000yrs ago (wink of the eye geologically) there was a 2mi thick ice sheet. What caused that to recede in such short order? I’ll wait for your ignorant answer here.

Doonman
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 11:08 am

CO2 re-radiates at a peak emission temperature of -80 deg C. So indeed, it is very weird that -80 deg C causes 40.3 deg C heatwaves.

bdgwx
Reply to  Doonman
July 20, 2022 11:58 am

Gases radiate the most just prior to dissociation into plasmas. CO2’s peak emission temperature is around 3600K. That is the point when about 50% of the molecules dissociate. By 7000K most of the gas has dissociated. See Kwak et al. 2015 for details.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 20, 2022 3:22 pm

That’s what you get in a plasma torch. It has nothing to do with the temperature of CO2 in the atmosphere!

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 20, 2022 4:45 pm

CO2 does not radiate (“re” or otherwise) with peak emission at -80 C. Even at atmospheric temperatures it is no where close to achieving peak emission. That’s what I’m addressing. I don’t expect to be able to convince you of this. Afterall, I tried and failed to convince you that water, even parcels below the surface, radiates and that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law says it does so in proportion to the 4th power of its temperature. If I cannot convince you of that then I’m certainly not going to be able to convince you that CO2 continues to radiate more the warmer it gets up to the point of dissociation.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 21, 2022 5:57 am

ROFL! So what?

Even at atmospheric temperatures it is no where close to achieving peak emission.”

Then why did you even bother to bring up peak emission? You are trying to use word salad to justify a claim that atmospheric CO2 *could* radiate at 3000C. In fact, it doesn’t and never has.

As for water, you continue to ignore the restrictions on using S-B, i.e. that the object must be in thermal equilibrium within the object. Any inner or external conduction will invalidate the answer given by S-B since S-B does not include a conduction factor. Both Planck and S-B assume that *all* parts of an object are contributing equally to the radiation. If any part is not, then all bets are off.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 21, 2022 8:14 am

TG said: “Then why did you even bother to bring up peak emission?”

I didn’t bring it up. Doonman did.

TG said: “You are trying to use word salad to justify a claim that atmospheric CO2 *could* radiate at 3000C. In fact, it doesn’t and never has.”

Yet another strawman. I said no such thing. What I said is Even at atmospheric temperatures it is no where close to achieving peak emission” and I standby that statement. You can “nuh-uh” this fact all you like; you’re challenge is misguided all the same. CO2 does not hit peak emission at -80C, 55C, or any temperature common in the atmosphere because those temperatures are much lower than the dissociation point of CO2 gas.

I’ll leave you with last word here because I have neither the interest nor the time in trying to defend thermodynamic laws with you yet again. My response to Doonman was meant as a quick and simple correction of the myth that peak emission occurs at -80C for CO2.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 21, 2022 1:49 pm

What I said is “Even at atmospheric temperatures it is no where close to achieving peak emission” and I standby that statement.”

What you *did* was nitpick – an argumentative fallacy you are very enamored of as a tactic to try and refute what someone else has said.

You can run but you can’t hide. You created a strawman nitpick, plain and simple!

Derg
Reply to  bdgwx
July 20, 2022 4:36 pm

No kidding we had the 4th coldest April ever…we need more CO2. That April sucked.

bdgwx
Reply to  Derg
July 20, 2022 6:26 pm

According to UAH April 2022 was the 4th warmest in their record.

Derg
Reply to  bdgwx
July 21, 2022 3:19 am

Exactly;)

Reply to  Doonman
July 21, 2022 7:23 am

Weird because it’s not true and is based on a misunderstanding of the science. CO2 radiation increases with temperature, unless of course its excess energy is lost to collisions with neighboring molecules.

Eric
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 11:17 am
Bill Everett
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 12:42 pm

High air pressure.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 3:27 pm

Natural variation. The warming started during the 19th century, way before we were banging out any CO2 . However, climate zealots appear to believe that nature suddenly turned itself off in the 1950s and handed over the warming to our CO2. The more you think about, the more ridiculous you realise the CAGW hysteria is.

Myron
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 5:52 pm

Third year of La Nina and the jet stream in Meridional flow.

george1st:)
Reply to  Simonsays
July 20, 2022 9:06 pm

Since when is a heat wave or cold spell weird ?
How you deal with it or not is the weird part .

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Simonsays
July 21, 2022 10:33 am

HAARP US Air Force admits to weather modification.
https://amg-news.com/archives/3437
Dr. Michio Kahu has admitted that “man-made hurricanes” have been the result of government manipulation program that skies were sprayed with nano particles and then storms were activated by lasers.

atticman
July 20, 2022 2:12 am

One freak weather system does not make a trend. It’s weather, not climate!

Doonman
Reply to  atticman
July 20, 2022 11:17 am

Nono, climate causes weather now. Haven’t you been paying attention? All the MSN reports say so. All of them. So when climate changes, weather changes. Instantly. And its your fault. Capisce?

July 20, 2022 2:24 am

Wow! It’s almost, like, you know, I mean, like, the atmosphere thingy, it’s like, cells, like wow! One would think all that hotness would just rise and rise until it hits the moon, but, like, it all comes down again, in another place, like…cooled down! Wow!

Mr.
Reply to  cilo
July 20, 2022 9:48 am

A great pisstake. Love it. 🤣

Galileo9
July 20, 2022 2:29 am

The BBC’s temperature map on last night’s main News didn’t look like the ECMWF above. The UK and Western Europe was a deep red and I think the East of Europe was orange. Clearly the BBC have a different agenda.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Galileo9
July 20, 2022 2:54 am

And a different colour scheme

Philip Mulholland
Reply to  Galileo9
July 20, 2022 2:58 am

Galileo9,
The chart posted here is a temperature anomaly plot, it shows that western Europe, with its hot southerly wind bringing dust from the Sahara (check your car windscreen) has temperatures above normal while eastern Europe, with its cold northerly arctic air mass has temperatures below normal.
Ventusky 19Jul22

This a standard meridional weather pattern, all perfectly normal anticyclonic wind flow for a high pressure centred on Denmark in summer.

186no
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
July 20, 2022 3:22 am

Far too sensible an explanation Sir.

Galileo9
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
July 21, 2022 2:56 am

Yes I know, but the BBC didn’t mention the meridional Jetstream at all. The nearest they got to admitting that it’s part of a normal weather pattern during low solar activity is to say that western Europe is under a heat dome. Even if they did mention the wavey Jetstream I expect the BBC would have added “some scientists believe it’s caused by Climate Change”.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Galileo9
July 20, 2022 8:58 am

BBC talks about the Met Office a lot but their weather info etc is supplied by Meteo Group, a private organisation with units in most European countries.

Ken Davis
July 20, 2022 2:36 am

This is where the record occurred – I cant find the actual AWS – these are the co-ordinates supplied by the Met Office – https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/53%C2%B005'38.4%22N+0%C2%B010'15.6%22W/@53.0934587,-0.1736163,380m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x8d1212c7c1e7f2b0!8m2!3d53.094!4d-0.171?hl=en

Mark Gobell
Reply to  Ken Davis
July 20, 2022 2:58 am

Both the Met Office Observation Sites at Heathrow and RAF Coningsby are right next to aircraft runways …

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/07/19/climate-monitoring-since-the-little-ice-age/#comment-223614

Mark Gobell
Reply to  Mark Gobell
July 20, 2022 3:15 am
Mark Gobell
Reply to  Mark Gobell
July 20, 2022 3:23 am

According to WeatherCloud.net, both the Heathrow Airport & RAF Coningsby sites are owned / administered by the NOAA

https://app.weathercloud.net/dEGLL#profile

https://app.weathercloud.net/dEGXC#profile

186no
Reply to  Mark Gobell
July 20, 2022 3:26 am

and both have flat concrete/tarmac surfaces that heat up with exposure to hot (Saharan) air, which with little surface winds will not have the benefit of any “heatsink” effect. Little wonder that temperatures will be towards/higher at these locations. Try taking the track temperature at Silverstone/ any other motor racing circuit this week – would not be surprised if it was heading towards 50deg.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Ken Davis
July 20, 2022 3:02 am

Coningsby is a regular on East Midlands News, not just for weather.
Home of various bits of the RAF including the Battle Of Britain flight.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Ken Davis
July 20, 2022 3:14 am

I think this is the station (circled), a little south of the marker they gave you.

Untitled.jpg
Last edited 18 days ago by Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Ken Davis
July 20, 2022 3:25 am

This is where the record occurred “
Just 3 years ago – remember – when we were haggling about the new UK record of 38.7°C set at Cambridge on 25 July 2019. Here are 34 places where that record was broken on 19 July. Yes, a few were airports.

3.12pm: Coningsby, Lincolnshire – 40.3
12.20pm: Heathrow, west London – 40.2
1.55pm: St James’s Park, central London – 40.2
3.26pm: Gringley-on-the-Hill, Nottinghamshire – 40.1
12.28pm: Kew Gardens, south west London – 40.1
12.39pm: Northolt, west London 40.0
1.29pm: Niab in Cambridge – 39.9
11.06pm: Charlwood, Surrey – 39.9
2.05pm: Cranwell, Lincolnshire – 39.9
3.30pm: Scampton, Lincolnshire – 39.9
2.37pm: Wittering, Cambridgeshire – 39.9
3.02pm: Bramham, West Yorkshire – 39.8
2.55pm: Monks Wood, Cambridgeshire – 39.8
2.07pm: Watnall, Nottinghamshire – 39.8
1.19pm: Bushey Park, Teddington, south west London – 39.6
3.08pm: Topcliffe North Yorkshire – 39.6
1.49pm: Woburn, Bedfordshire – 39.6
2.35pm: Bedford, Bedfordshire – 39.5
3.50pm: Normanby Hall, North Lincolnshire – 39.4
1.59pm: Sheffield, South Yorkshire – 39.4
2.28pm: Sutton Bonington, Nottinghamshire – 39.4
11.17pm: Wisely, Surrey – 39.3
11.39pm: Chertsey, Surrey – 39.2
1.39pm: Marham, Norfolk – 39.2
2.12pm: Holbeach, Lincolnshire – 39.1
2.01pm: Ryhill, West Yorkshire – 39.1
1.15pm: Writtle, Essex – 39.1
12.47pm: Santon Downham, Suffolk – 39.0
1.08pm: Wellesbourne, Warwickshire – 39.0
1.55pm: Coton in the Elms, Derbyshire – 38.9
12.20pm: Iver, Buckinhamshire – 38.9
1.04pm: Coleshill, Warwickshire – 38.8
1.24pm: High Beach, Essex – 38.8
2.57pm: Leeming, North Yorkshire – 38.8

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 4:01 am

On the 18th the weather service made these predictions for the place where I live (in Merseyside, UK): 14h 33C, 16h 34C. So I measured the actual temperature myself, properly in the shade with a very light almost imperceptible breeze. Results: 14h: 28.5C, 16h: 29.1C. Not one degree off but a whopping 5. So forgive me if I wonder about all those reported records.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 4:06 am

I remember my holidays in Cornwall as a child & walking with my brother & parents in Padstow in the evenings, & hearing my parents & other adults commenting on how they could feel the heat coming off the buildings after a glorious hot sunny day!!!

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 4:34 am

The reports coming from the Met office yesterday morning were predicting ever increasing temps hourly, 8:00 AM they were saying “could reach 41”.. by 9:00AM this was ramped up to “could reach 42”.. all the way up to about midday when 43 was the projection. As the warmest part of the day came and went, the highest actual temperature they could point to was at Heathrow, a site compromised by acres of black asphalt. Certainly by midday they had sufficient information to make a fairly accurate prediction, but they decided to go with the ridiculous scenario rather than sublime reality. Did we get an apology for the alarmist rhetoric of the morning? Will they ever admit they were wrong? As they have never addressed the siting issue of the previous Cambridge record I won’t be holding my breath.

Greg
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 20, 2022 8:12 am

But they were not wrong. They always cover themselves with a “could be” / “maybe” get out clause.

Scientists are are 99% certain that the temperature will be between 20 and 60 deg C and the Guardian reports “scientists are certain that it could go as high as 60 degrees C today and thousands may die!”.

Last edited 18 days ago by Greg
Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 5:52 am

12.28pm: Kew Gardens, south west London – 40.1

I just checked the Met Office web site and Kew shows 38 deg C not 40.1 . That is hourly so I guess that’s hourly average. Maybe a puff of hot air raised the thermistor just long enough for them to log 40.1

Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 6:27 am

Thanks Nick, where are you able to find that detailed information?

Reply to  Greg
July 20, 2022 2:30 pm
Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 4:07 pm

Thanks for the reply.

So apart from their claim it comes from the Met office we don’t get any more detail. These early claims were labelled “provisional” but of course the newpaper drops that and does not have any meta data about the quality if the weather station, like the top two being airports and not climate quality recording stations.

It’s also suspicious that Kew Gardens showed 2 deg C less on the M.O. web site than what is claimed here.

Of course it’s all smoke and mirrors, no metadata, no proper source for the data. Excited journalism and not science.

All the Met Office staff are full on propaganda mechants at this stage and providing loads to spin for jouralists to quote. I don’t trust them without being able to check data in detail.

Last edited 18 days ago by Greg
Reply to  Greg
July 20, 2022 5:06 pm

Kew Gardens showed 2 deg C less on the M.O. web site”
Actually, I had looked at the M.O. site, and saw that it showed 39°C for four consecutive hours.

Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 3:46 am

Thanks. I can’t even find Kew on their website any longer and I can’t find what I saw amongst the dozens of screenshots I took over this period.
Do you have a link to where this station can be seen ?

Last edited 17 days ago by Greg
Greg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 4:03 am

Thanks. I can’t even find Kew on their website any longer and I can’t find what I saw amongst the dozens of screenshots I took over this period.

Ah, found it on “WOW” :
https://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/
Royal Kew Gardens
13h-14h 38.4
14h-15h 38.7
15h-16h 39.5
16h-17h 39.2
17h-18h 37.1

Heathrow now shows
13h-14h 38.1
14h-15h 40.2
15h-16h 39.2
16h-17h 38.7
17h-18h 38.2

wind at HRW was S for all the afternoon except SSE at the time of the peak. SSE aligns perfectly with a taxi way. Maybe significant.

Last edited 17 days ago by Greg
Greg
Reply to  Greg
July 21, 2022 4:17 am

RAF Coningsby:
13h-14h 36.1
14h-15h 37.3 SSE
15h-16h 39.1 S
16h-17h 39.7 S
17h-18h 39.6 S
18h-19h 39.4 S

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 7:30 am

Oh dear!

Run Away!

JohnC
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 9:06 am

Marham RAF station
Leeming RAF station
Wittering RAF station
Scampton RAF station
Northolt RAF station
Cranwell RAF station

Sutton Bonington rural, veterinary school University of Nottingham

Coton in the Elms rural

Gringley on the Hill (Lat: 53.4167 | Long: -0.8833)

Richard Page
Reply to  JohnC
July 21, 2022 4:28 am

That Gringley on the Hill one is an oddity – in other reports it was given as being from the Robin Hood Airport temperature station. Can we confirm it was definitely Gringley on the Hill?

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 10:19 am

Nick, are these 1-minute duration events?

Or nano-second events like the Australian BoM use?

Are differences of 0.1C for 1 minute used to claim previous recorded temps haven been “broken”.

Which of these stations’ previous temps were from analogue mercury thermometers rather than automated digital recorders?

I ask because weather temperature records aren’t like the 100 metres sprint final at the Olympics, where 0.001 of a second is a thing.

Weather temps are everyday conditions we all live in, and going postal over a few hundredths of a degree difference for a few minutes during a day once every decade or so is not rational.

I get why the media and bureaucracies beat it up – clicks and relevance preservation – but rational adults everywhere should be able to recognize what’s being perpetrated here.

Reply to  Mr.
July 20, 2022 2:59 pm

Nick, are these 1-minute duration events?”
Probably. But the thing is, they were records. They were much higher than temperatures measured previously, under the same conditions (duration, UHI, asphalt, whatever).

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 4:39 am

And can you therefore say that the slight increase in temperature was from an actual increase in air temperature and not, for example, having more vehicles or more heat reflecting surfaces or more urban activity than with the earlier temperatures? Answer – no you cannot; these sites are all compromised and have far too many variables where any one of them could be responsible for an increase in readings, not the air temperature. There is a very good reason that temperature stations should conform to the Met Office siting rules – it eliminates the other variables so if you look at a temperature from an uncontaminated site you can be confident you are looking at the actual air temperature, not a reading from a local microclimate containing a dozen different heat sources.

bdgwx
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 11:43 am

Nick Stokes said: “Here are 34 places where that record was broken on 19 July.”

And that is but a subset. You could pick any of the few hundred stations on https://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/ and have a good chance at selecting one that recorded 38.7 C or higher.

Cosmic
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 2:33 pm

Thanks for the weather report. Now better get your mask on and head to the basement and let the adults discuss here. Shoo shoo, on your way now..

Reply to  Cosmic
July 20, 2022 3:00 pm

Sorry to intrude with facts.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 4:39 pm

Lol….we measure every second. Now compare that to 20 years ago when someone measured once a day..maybe?

Reply to  Derg
July 20, 2022 5:03 pm

No. As I noted here, min/max thermometers tracked the max continuously.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 7:24 pm

You don’t get it…must be on purpose.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 6:11 am

Even the better LIG min/max thermometers today only boast a +/- 1.0C (+/- 2.0F) accuracy with a 1.0C/2.0F resolution. Older styles were probably less accurate with less resolution.

Therefore it is entirely possible that the heat in London has occurred in the past and wasn’t recorded as such.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 21, 2022 1:38 pm

ROFL!! I see I got a downvote for actually posting a simple fact!

Some people just don’t want to hear the truth!

paul
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 3:24 pm

sooo, mostly under 40c… far cry from the 40-42c that was gonna end the world

bdgwx
Reply to  paul
July 20, 2022 4:34 pm

I was watching the forecasts pretty closely. Of the global circulation models the GFS predicted 41 C, ECMWF predicted 38 C, and UKMET predicted 39 C. The official prediction from the UKMET office was 40 C if I remember correctly. That was made 5 days prior. Those weren’t bad predictions; certainly far better than the WUWT article prediction which said there was “not the remotest chance” through 2050.

Last edited 18 days ago by bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
July 20, 2022 8:31 pm

The Met Office predicting 40C is here
“Even higher maximum temperatures will develop tomorrow with a 70% chance of somewhere in England exceeding 40°C. A value of this level would exceed the current UK record by 1.3°C or more.”

Spot on!

aussiecol
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 3:54 pm

Tell me Nick, when temperature observations were made manually before automation, were the measurements taken every few seconds? Were they measured to the nearest decimal place? Do you think it is not possible these ”record” temperatures occurred before but were not measured?

Reply to  aussiecol
July 20, 2022 4:12 pm

They were recorded with a min/max thermometer in which little metal markers moved up continuously with the mercury, and stayed at the highest points. So, continuously measured.

Do you think it is not possible these ”record” temperatures occurred before but were not measured?”

No. The min/max thermometer may not have had millisecond sensitivity, but past temperatures were so far below 40°C that this could not have made the difference. Before the 38.7°C measured at Cambridge in 2019, the UK record had been 38.1°C, Kew Gardens and Gravesend, 2003. You’d need an error of more than 2°C to catch up with current levels.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 4:02 pm

So the top three records were at airports and the centre of London. I don’t know where you live Nick, but I live in the centre of London. When I travel down to my mother’s on the border of Kent and London, it is noticeably (at least a degree) cooler.
That UHI effect swamps the mere tenths of a degree that the thermageddonists get their knickers in a twist about.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
July 20, 2022 5:55 pm

That UHI effect swamps …”
The UHI effect, whatever is is, has been there for a long time. But these temps are degrees warmer, for the same place.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 12:17 am

I might be wrong, but you appear to be denying that the UHI effect exists. Surely not!

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
July 21, 2022 2:09 am

You are wrong.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 2:18 am

Yeah, I realise I read your comment too quickly. My mistake.
Anyway, UHI (particularly at airports) jacks the temps up massively. Would you be happy if the temp station was by the open doors of a supermarket pumping out refrigerated air (as my local one was doing today)?

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 4:49 am

Nick, you are just not getting it, you read it but without understanding it. UHI is not a constant – if you have a site contaminated by UHI (and we’ll include airports and RAF airfields as having a UHI microclimate, even though these are far more changeable than many metropolitan UHI microclimates) then the UHI component changes from day to day, overnight, from season to season and from year to year. Urban growth is more likely to show an increase in temperatures after a few years on a UHI contaminated site than anything else. You simply cannot make a statement suggesting that because the thermometer is in the same place nothing else has changed with the sites – it’s utterly false.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Page
July 21, 2022 5:39 am

You really have to wonder how much time people like Nick actually spend outside in nature, be it urban or rural nature.

Reply to  Richard Page
July 21, 2022 3:12 pm

 the UHI component changes from day to day”
So why did UHI just happen to rise to all those unprecedented levels in all those varied places on just one particular day?

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 3:52 pm

It didn’t. It’s been a warm summer day and the temperature reached it’s maximum around early afternoon on just one particular day. If you had taken temperature readings from an uncontaminated site then no doubt you would have seen a similar temperature gradient, just without the additional heat from a UHI microclimate. The only unprecedented part is that no uncontaminated site (without UHI) registered temperatures over the previous high temperature, I believe.

Reply to  Richard Page
July 21, 2022 4:29 pm

“The only unprecedented part is that no uncontaminated site (without UHI) registered temperatures over the previous high temperature, I believe.”

To name just a few from my above list Gringley-on-the-Hill, Monks Wood, Watnall are rural, and not only exceeded their previous high temperature, but the previous UK record.

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 22, 2022 5:06 am

I’m still not entirely sure about that ‘Gringley on the Hill’ record – other reports attribute that exact same reading to the temperature station at Robin Hood Airport. The others I’d be perfectly willing to look at but you can probably understand that, after the Met Office ’40C’ hysteria, I was concentrating on those sites over their threshold.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 4:37 pm

Bank thermometers 😉

July 20, 2022 2:41 am

Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures +0.06 deg. C
Earth has been cooling since Feb2016 or Feb2020, just as we predicted in 2002 and 2013.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2022_v6.jpg (749×432) (drroyspencer.com)

At times of very low solar activity, temperature extremes are exacerbated by divergences of the Polar Vortex towards the equator. Extreme cold events are being recorded all over the world.
https://electroverse.net/category/extreme-weather/
https://electroverse.net/category/crop-loss/

It is not uncommon for these extreme cold events to be accompanied by extreme warm events. The average temperature of Earth changes only by small fractions of a degree C, but the extreme cold and warm events are more common.

JMurphy
Reply to  Allan MacRae
July 20, 2022 4:21 am

Which is it – Feb 2016 or Feb 2020?

Reply to  JMurphy
July 20, 2022 7:17 am

“Which is it – Feb 2016 or Feb 2020?”

Just looking at UAH LT data, many would say Feb2016.

However, Feb2016 was the peak of a huge El Nino warm event, so I prefer Feb2020.

But it’s fair to also suggest other dates as well – the Earth is a big ball and extreme cold events have been happening for many years – there were cold events at the end of the previous solar cycle (SC23) circa 2008-2012 that have not yet been equaled at the end of SC24.

There was a major crop failure across the Great Plains of North America in the summer of 2019.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/

My friend Cap Allon has been documenting extreme cold events for many years at Electroverse.net.

So “Place your bets”, “Faites vos jeux”.

JMurphy
Reply to  Allan MacRae
July 20, 2022 3:14 pm

So you’re saying that earth has been cooling since Feb 2020? And you predicted that in 2002 and 2013? Where can I read those predictions?

Reply to  JMurphy
July 20, 2022 9:11 pm

For links see http://correctpredictions.ca/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/15/open-thread-32/#comment-3555344
 
NetZero is a proven failure due to intermittency and diffusivity – the wind does not blow and the Sun does not shine 24/7 (surprise!) and these ridiculous green power schemes take up too much land. Told you so 20 years ago.
 
CORRECT CLIMATE AND ENERGY PREDICTIONS FROM 2002
We published in 2002:
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

I published on September 1, 2002:
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
 
I updated my global cooling prediction in 2013:
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
 
UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2022_v6.jpg (749×432) (drroyspencer.com)
 
I say global cooling started either Feb2016 or Feb2020. Temperature extremes are exacerbated by divergences of the Polar Vortex towards the equator. Extreme cold events are being recorded all over the world.
https://electroverse.net/category/extreme-weather/
https://electroverse.net/category/crop-loss/
 
 
“SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT”
http://correctpredictions.ca/
“The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence.”
Our predictions on Climate and Covid are infinitely more accurate than mainstream narratives.
 
AN OPEN LETTER TO BARONESS VERMA
British Undersecretary for Energy and Climate Change, 31Oct2013
By Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.
[excerpt]
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy”
schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful
prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific
credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
 
COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
 
THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED
By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/

Philip Mulholland
July 20, 2022 2:42 am

Basic Meteorology 101
Convection – What goes up, must come down.
Advection – What goes north, must come south.
This is all due to the 30-year meridional weather pattern that is part of the natural 60-year climate cycle.

Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
July 20, 2022 3:42 am

The UK happens to be affected by three weather systems, Africa, the Atlantic in their West, & Russia’s weather from their East.

No wonder it sometimes seems a bit odd.

Plus it’s a very built up country with a lot
of towns & cities., so taking a temperature readi g at Heathrow, what do you expect. It’s a big airport.

I recall a day in June 1949, I cycled to a nearby town to see a circus, it was a nice sunny evening, then it rained, by 11pm on the way home it was snowing.

Of course it was just known as weather back then.

As for the heat, here in South Australia 40 C is not unusual, & it can last a week before a slight change moves in.

Michael VK5ELL

.

Greg
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
July 20, 2022 5:54 am

It is not any kind of “climate”. It’s weather. There was a blocking high which brought hot air from Africa. It’s weather.

Ben Vorlich
July 20, 2022 3:25 am

The Heatripple was too short to appoint a “Minister For Megaheat”
By contrast Wikipedia on Dennis Howell

In the last week of August 1976, during Britain’s driest summer in over 200 years, he was made Minister for Drought (but nicknamed ‘Minister for Rain’). Howell was charged by the Prime Minister with the task of persuading the nation to use less water – and was even ordered by No. 10 to do a rain dance on behalf of the nation. Howell responded by inviting reporters to his home in Moseley, where he revealed he was doing his bit to help water rationing by sharing baths with his wife, Brenda. Days later, heavy rainfall caused widespread flooding, and he became known as “Minister for Floods”. Then, during the harsh winter of 1978–1979 he was appointed Minister for Snow.

griff
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
July 20, 2022 9:04 am

Dear old Dennis…

It didn’t reach 36 on peak day of 1976.

JohnC
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 10:06 am

Heathrow had 16 consecutive days over 30 °C (86 °F) from 23 June to 8 July[5] and for 15 consecutive days from 23 June to 7 July temperatures reached 32.2 °C (90 °F) somewhere in England. Furthermore, five days saw temperatures exceed 35 °C (95 °F). On 28 June, temperatures reached 35.6 °C (96.1 °F) in Southampton, the highest June temperature recorded in the UK. The hottest day of all was 3 July, with temperatures reaching 35.9 °C (96.6 °F) in Cheltenham.”

The Haweswater reservoir had only 10% of its water left; people walked dryshod on its bed 60 feet (18 m) below its normal water level. The site of the flooded village of Mardale Green was dry.[9] Ladybower reservoir in Derbyshire dried out and revealed the flooded villages of Ashopton and Derwent, it was possible to make out the village layout and garden walls.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_British_Isles_heat_wave#Heatwave_and_drought_effects

Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 10:18 am

Not after they “adjusted” the figures, Griff. I remember, though, being told by the BBC that the temperature recorded at Southampton Weather Centre on 28 June 1976 was 98 degrees F. That’s 36.7 degrees C. I was out in it, and had every reason to believe the report at the time. So, Griff, are you accusing the BBC of lying about the temperature?

Cosmic
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 2:38 pm

Better get your 3 masks on, head to the basement and be safe. Shoo now..shoo shoo..

Rod Evans
July 20, 2022 3:40 am

Lovely weekend lovely temperatures and much appreciated here in central UK.
I am informed it is very cold in Australia in parts. Very cold in parts of Europe also, for this time of year.
That’s weather for you.

Cosmic
Reply to  Rod Evans
July 20, 2022 2:40 pm

Yeah, since the UK is dank, dreary, cloudy, rainy, foggy most of the time I would be dancing in the cobbled streets in celebration of some actual summer weather!

Michael in Dublin
July 20, 2022 3:47 am

Anyone who has experienced a number of hot dry Mediterranean summers knows that fires are quite normal for that season. As far as some houses burning down in the UK, when we get the full story I suspect that it has little if anything to do with the heat. Houses do not combust even at temperatures reaching 40C.

It would be an interesting comparison to see how many houses have burnt down in the UK over the past decade, during which seasons and the causes. Of the 60 000 primary fires with some 250 fire deaths annually in the UK I suspect most are in cold months.

Last edited 18 days ago by Michael in Dublin
Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 20, 2022 4:07 am

Back in the 1970s I was camping in the south-east of France. We had to leave, ‘be evacuated’ is the term now apparently, because of the forest fires.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 20, 2022 5:57 am

It would not surprise me in the slightest to find out that most of the fires will be found to have started in overloaded electrical outlets.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 20, 2022 10:09 am

Or “campfires” lit by eco-friendly groups.

Richard Page
Reply to  Brad-DXT
July 21, 2022 4:56 am

Then there was the 50 year old Italian farmer caught on surveillance cameras lighting fires. Tell me, just how many incidents of arson sourced wildfires do you have to have before you start putting surveillance cameras covering the most likely fire-starting spots?

Rick C
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 20, 2022 8:36 am

Thanks. I was wondering what kind of building materials they use in the UK that spontaneously combust at a mere 40 C. All the news articles have dramatic fire photos so it’s obvious that the hot weather must have started the fires. Do they leave a lot of oily rags or maybe white phosphorous lying around?

griff
Reply to  Rick C
July 20, 2022 9:04 am

One fire was certainly a compost heap combusting.

We don’t usually have even 30C in summer

Rick C
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 11:59 am

griff> Spontaneous combustion in compost piles or any organic matter such as hay, mulch or oily rags is a result of internal heating from decomposition and insulating effects of the pile. It has nothing to do with ambient temperature and can occur even during freezing temperatures. Farmers know that they have to dry their hay and grain to certain levels before storing or risk burning down their barns. I’m quite sure that none of the fires being attributed to heat waves have an ignition source that has nothing to do with the air temperature.

Mr.
Reply to  Rick C
July 20, 2022 3:27 pm

I’ve seen sawdust piles covered in snow that had self-combusted in -5C conditions.

Griff don’t get out much . . .

griff
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 20, 2022 9:03 am

Yes, but the UK is a Northern island and it is NOT quite normal here – certainly there has seldom if ever been multiple fires taking out suburban hoses. The London fire Brigade just had its busiest day since the 1940s Blitz…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 10:19 am

A single data point is useless for establishing causation or a trend.

joe x
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 10:36 am

The ignition temperature can be different depending on the wood type. Wood ignites at about 572°F (300°C)under medium density and room temperature. It burns hot at an average temperature of 1472-1742°F(800-950°C).

https://fireproofdepot.com/what-temperature-does-wood-ignite/

Cosmic
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 2:42 pm

Yep it is an extreme swing of ‘weather’ of which extreme swings occur. Get a life.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 5:24 pm

How many were arson?

Richard Page
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 21, 2022 5:00 am

All it needed was 1 or 2 – the fires spread rapidly. I saw reports of only 1 very big fire in the London area, similarly in Birmingham, I think. Some idiots just like to watch things burn and have no damn clue how to behave.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2022 7:15 am

Fires Brigade Union is saying firefighting staff have been cut by over 15,000 in the last ten years.

Cosmic
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 20, 2022 2:41 pm

Pure propaganda.

Vuk
July 20, 2022 3:55 am

The UK media and politicians screaming ‘stop exhaling CO2’ and global temperature will fall back to 1800s range the first thing the next morning.
An infrequent random occasion of double loop in the jetstream chunneling hot air all the way from Sahara to the North West Europe.
Happens in winter too when it is sending freezeng cold air from Arctic all the way to the South of Europe.
These events are hardly to do anything with tiny increase in the global temperature, since looping of jet stream is governed mainly by the Coriolis force (Earth rotation), seasonal temperature raise/fall, energy radiated upwards from oceans, energy coming down from the sun, and feedback from leading to trailing section of the loop.
Put all together looking from down here to up there, as good as a random behaviour.

Last edited 18 days ago by Vuk
griff
Reply to  Vuk
July 20, 2022 9:02 am

It won’t fall back.

We are just concerned it could get worse without action… this heat for longer every year, for a start.

Vuk
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 12:39 pm

Grifo baby
Sahara has been very hot for the last 25,000 tears. Sahara climate cycles follow Milankovic 41,000 years cycle. I bet you £1 that it will go green again in about 15,000 years time.

Cosmic
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 2:43 pm

Oh, so hot forever now? Mmm k then. fool.

Richard Page
Reply to  Cosmic
July 21, 2022 11:11 am

It’s a hilarious cornerstone of Griffy’s (and other Greenies) ideology – they believe every additional molecule of CO2 raises temperatures in a uniform straight-line progression ever upwards to infinity. They have absolutely no idea whatsoever how the world actually works.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Page
July 21, 2022 2:09 pm

Same with the climate models. y = mx+b trend lines going forever. The only difference between models is what they pick for “m”, the slope of the trend line. No cyclical impacts, not even by the end of the century.

Tim Southgate
July 20, 2022 3:56 am

While on its front page, the UK Daily Mail was screaming that the country was on fire and that the end of the world is nigh, on its inside pages it had a set of photos of Britons flocking to the seaside 100 years ago, in 1921. Funnily enough, the temperatures in the seaside resorts in 1921 were 34C and 36.7C!

griff
Reply to  Tim Southgate
July 20, 2022 9:01 am

I really don’t think that’s accurate.

34 was a really rare and local event last century. Even 1976 didn’t reach 36.

John_C
Reply to  griff
July 20, 2022 11:17 am

Since the temps would have been 93F and 98F, then converted and rounded to 34C and 36.7C, I suppose you are technically correct, as the final numbers are not entirely accurate. And pay no attention to anything measured and reported in 1921. Why, they didn’t even have computers. They had to write the measurements on paper. I can’t just edit a file and tracelessly alter the written record like we can with more modern techniques.

Bellman
Reply to  John_C
July 20, 2022 5:04 pm

Here’s the Met Office summary for July 1921

https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/IO_b9618822-021f-436e-8648-533372fa7476/

They say that on the 10th and 11th it reached 305a or above in parts of England. I think that’s 305K or around 31.9°C. I can’t find any warmer temperatures.

The Mail story

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11027777/How-sun-lovers-flocked-Britains-beaches-heatwaves-yesteryear.html

only mentions 34C in 1921.

I think the 36.7C temperature is the one from 1911.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia