From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
The latest garbage from the Guardian:
The record-shattering temperatures that hit the western Mediterranean last week would have been “almost impossible” without the climate crisis, according to scientists.
The heatwave across Spain, Portugal, Morocco and Algeria was made at least 100 times more likely by global heating, the researchers calculated. Before the climate crisis, such an extreme event would have been expected only once in a least 40,000 years, making it statistically impossible on human timescales.
The scientists said such heat early in the year was especially harmful to people, who were less prepared than in summer. Farmers were already suffering under a prolonged drought and the heatwave struck at an important time in the crop-growing season, particularly for wheat…..
The researchers used peer-reviewed methods to assess the influence of global heating on the 26-28 April heatwave, and the results are the fastest yet for such a study, produced in just a week. The heatwave brought temperatures never previously recorded in the four countries at that time of the year, ranging from 36.9C to 41.0C.
The team used weather data and climate models to compare the likelihood of the high temperatures in today’s warmer world with their likelihood before the climate crisis. They found that global heating had made the heatwave at least 100 times more likely, with temperatures up to 3.5C hotter than they would have been without global heating.
Heatwaves tend to be the deadliest type of extreme weather, the scientists said. Mortality data from the April heatwave is not yet available, but heatwaves in 2022 led to nearly 4,000 deaths in Spain and more than 1,000 deaths in Portugal.
According to the Guardian’s own report at the time, the new record for April set this year in Spain was only 0.2C higher than the previous record. So hardly a one in 40,000 year event then!
But what about some of the other claims?
Heatwave deaths last year, for instance, which were claimed to be 4000. The claim comes from a report by the WHO, which also states that heatwaves killed 3200 here in the UK last summer. As we know, there was no evidence for such a claim at all; excess deaths were running at a similar level all through last year regardless of season.
And for some reason the Guardian forgot to mention the recent Lancet study which showed how many more people die from cold than heat in Spain:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext#seccestitle130
And what about those farmers, who are supposedly struggling because of climate change? We don’t have data for last year yet, but output of wheat hit a record high in 2021, and has been steadily increasing for decades:
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
Finally before the Guardian gets too apoplectic about a slightly warmer climate, they should remind their readers that Spain is only just recovering from the Little Ice Age, just as the rest of Europe is:
HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World – pp235
Maybe the Guardian would like Spain to return to the climate which brought the devastating famines of 1904-06, as first floods and then record droughts nearly brought about revolution.
Rule #1 Any three sigma weather event is automatically due to climate change.
Rule #2 see rule #1
Rule #1: If it’s hot, it’s global warming
Rule #2: If it’s cold, it’s climate change.
No, If it’s cold, it’s weather.
No, If it’s cold, it’s weather.
_____________________
You haven’t been paying attention:
“The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes”
Dr. John Holdren 2014 from the White House.
“A growing amount of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the united states as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues …the odds are that we can expect, as a result of global warming to see more of this pattern of extreme cold …”
You Tube
On rule #1, the current stylebook at the Grauniad says “global HEATING” for any warm period (such as two days in a row approaching 20c in the UK)
But hey, it’s ‘peer reviewed .. eh … approved’.
Pal-reviewed method… a climate model
40 000 years ago we would have been in the middle of the cold phase between the Eemian and Holocene. As would have been 80 000 years ago. 125 000 years ago Hippos swam in the Thames.
As Paul Holmewood says in a subsequent post, the record was set at Cordoba Airport by a totally inappropriately sited thermometer
See also https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/05/09/record-temperature-set-next-to-the-tarmac-at-cordoba-airport/#comments
The temperature was recorded close to the airport runway – peer-reviewed indeed!
It hasn’t been an entirely good couple of weeks at the Grauniad. Yet again its anti-semitism got the better of its alleged editorial judgement with a totally unhinged letter from Diane Abbott MP and a blatant anti-semitic cartoon – replete with just about every trope you can think of.
If you’re interested… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12038575/Jewish-Board-Deputies-meet-Guardian-executives-criticism-mounts-anti-Semitic-cartoon.html
Its climate/environment section gets more shrill and nonsensical on a daily basis. For example, “researchers used peer-reviewed methods”. This immediately told me before reading any further that this was yet another modelling exercise. And sure enough… “The team used weather data and climate models…”
Right now it seems to me that 97% of Guardian climate claims rely 100% on the dodgy art of attribution. I say dodgy because we all know about parameterisation and other fiddle factors….
“Observations alone cannot show what caused the trend. In order to attribute the observed trend to global warming (or not), we have to use climate models. “
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/pathways-and-pitfalls-in-extreme-event-attribution/
Without the models they haven’t a single shred. Basically, it’s game over.
It is very important to “peer review” a simulated climate.
If the peer reviewers stare at the code long enough, the embedded green bias and ideology within, transforms itself into unquestionable “scientific” output that subsequently must be published by the complicit media under the ubiquitous byline…”in a recent study experts say”..
It is difficult to know where the Guardian goes to from here, re Climate Alarmism. They are already in full “this is an existential threat” mode when reporting the mundane everyday variations of weather, what area of faux news is left for them to plumb?
“difficult to know where the Guardian goes to from here”
Best people to ask?
Graham Readfearn, Damian Carrington or Moonbat
And of course the Grauniad has no mention of the fact that we have a 9 year record high Arctic ice cover for this time of year…..to cherry pick a little larger area than Spain….
It has been warm, February slightly warmer than usual and March the same but April was much hotter than usual. Since February there’s been a blocking system acting like a shield against Atlantic fronts which bring fresher air and rains. It’s also noticable that most days are a total dead calm.
The reservoirs are near empty and if it doesn’t rain during May it’s unlikely to rain again before November. The wheat crop is over and the sheafs have matured without forming correctly, together with water shortage a problem for the farmers.
Last time I saw all this it ended with an almighty series of storms.
June 21 is the longest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere. This means that the sun is at the same height on April 21 and August 21. In August, most people in Spain are on vacation and enjoy the warm weather.
And yes, it has been drier in parts of Spain this year, but a lot of reservoir water has been misused to generate electricity.
Even poor people in those countries should be able to afford an air conditioner. You can get small ones now for well under $100. If they can’t afford them, the local community should buy them one. Problem solved.
The usual nonsense about a climate crisis – that makes a change from the even-more-usual Climate Emergency!
Climate “crisis” lends itself better to the name of the cult – Climate Crisis Cult.
“Climate Emergency Cult” just doesn’t impart that same sense of general panic and mayhem.
A few months back I commented on the Guardian, below the line. My point was that the consensus on Climate change as greed by 27 consecutive COPs reviewing 3o years of IPCC reports can be summed up as:
1) Study climate change.
2) Meet regularly to discuss what to do about climate change.
3) Take absolutely no action now on climate change.
An ignorant commenter replied with ‘ I must have missed the time when the COPs agreed to take no action on climate change now.’
NOTE: It’s not their fault that they are ignorant on the environment. Reading the Guardian leaves you less well informed on the environment than reading nothing. Much the same as the telegraph on economics or the Daily Mail on justice.
So, I linked to the Paris Agreement and showed that there as no requirement for any action by developing nations like China and India, right now. Therefore, there was no action required right now.
Why do I tell this tale? Because the Guardian deleted my comments and banned me from commenting there.
The reason being (the Guardian told me by email) is that my comment breached this guideline:
Of course, curating your readership to sell as a block to advertisers is only possible by keeping dissent closely controlled. And that can be easily done by defining trolling as ‘being right when we are trying to deceive our readership.’
Quote:“important time in the crop-growing season, particularly for wheat…..
<Little voice in everyone’s ear> “It was and is the growing of wheat that made the heatwave..
It also made the CO2
Carefully manicured vineyards and fruit orchards didn’t help either.
How might 100’s of 1000’s of acres of glasshouses be very much different from A Large City and it’s effect on local heating?
And 99% of everything being grown there is Sugar – what an utter complete train-wreck for us, climate, planet and everything
“Carefully manicured vineyards and fruit orchards didn’t help either.”
I have a vine at the front of my house. It is entirely innocent – unless someone can prove otherwise… And even if it has guilt, what of the nearby fig tree?
Growing things are what reduce atmospheric CO2, not that the modest levels present in today’s atmosphere are anything but a boon to the biosphere. You are letting a believe system get int eh way of facts and reason.
Yes the “heat wave” would be impossible without climate change – i.e. without emerging from the depths of the current ice age into a more benevolent and warmer interglacial period in which all organized human society developed and flourished. SUV’s had nothing to do with this. Nature is in charge.
“The record-shattering temperatures that hit the western Mediterranean last week would have been “almost impossible” without the climate crisis, according to scientists.”
“Scientists”, “the team”…… WHAT SCIENTISTS??? From where? From what institution? From what discipline??? What “team”???
That’s the one thing that really bugs me – aside from the outright lies and fabrications – about these stories. They make these completely unsubstantiated claims – but never any names or specifics regarding the supposed “experts”.
Plus, you can always tell that CAGW is a cult whenever they use the term “scientists believe….” There is no “belief” in science – science operates on observation and fact – and never on belief – that’s best left to the religions.
Yes, the narrative is very redolent of those 1960s tv ads that spruiked some brands of filter cigarettes being better because “9 out of 10 doctors say . . . “
Rule ≠3 If Global Warming doesn’t scare ’em, call it Global Heating!
Soon to be upgraded to “climate desperation“
Did somebody already point out that cold weather much more likely to kill than hot. Busy now but can post sources. Or maybe just make up a graph with whatever I want to show. I could source that to notoriously biased enviro groups. Maybe get some funding if contact lots NGO’s and same enviro wacko groups.
“A once in 40,000 year event”,”100 times more likely due to global heating“…
That’s a pretty remarkable attribution algorithm you’ve got there. 40k ya was the height of the last glacial maximum. No one knows what high temperatures were 200 years ago much less 400, 4,000 or 40,000. Pure made up nonsense from climate non-science.
And 125 000 years ago Hippos swam in the Thames.
I knew without even looking it was those World Weather Attribution clowns.
This is pitiful the people who presented the study (I won’t call them scientists) and the Guardian need a trip to the wood shed.
“Before the climate crisis, such an extreme event would have been expected only once in a least 40,000 years, making it statistically impossible on human timescales”
Previous 3 periods with similar warmth to current warmth based on Authentic Paleoclimatology :
Medieval Warm Period ~1,000 years ago.
Roman Warm Period ~2,000 years ago.
Minoan Warm Period ~3,500 years ago.
Not as warm yet in the higher latitudes today as the peak warmth below(when there was less Arctic Sea Ice):
Holocene Climate Optimum 9,000-5,000 years ago
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/90279/#90284
This can’t be repeated enough times:
It really boils down to this (Cliff Mass can be counted on as an elite source for using objective, authentic science)
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-golden-rule-of-climate-extremes.html
The Golden Rule
Considering the substantial confusion in the media about this critical issue, let me provide the GOLDEN RULE OF CLIMATE EXTREMES.
Here it is:
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability.
Or to put it a different way, the larger or more unusual an extreme, the higher proportion of the extreme is due to natural variability.
“They found that global heating had made the heatwave at least 100 times more likely, with temperatures up to 3.5C hotter than they would have been without global heating.”
Pretty sure global heating is by the Sun and it made the day about 310° C hotter than without it. Bedwetting theory says that there is less than an extra 0.9 W/m2, or <0.5%, energy warming the surface so a rough guess ( because cooling depends on T^4) that the temperatures ought to have been 0.12% higher. That comes out at 0.36°C hotter, or there abouts.
It must be one of those rare places that warms 10 times faster than everywhere else.