By P Gosselin
Sensationalist weathermen in Germany losing credibility, get mocked and ridiculed.
Meteorologists are discovering that if they want to get attention from the media and more clicks and and likes (short term), then all they have to do is announce fictional heatwaves that weather models routinely hallucinate 10-14 days out. “Temperatures could soar to 40°C!”
German online Weltwoche here reports on this phenomenon with a recent article titled: “The “heatwave” to be followed by the “red hot wave”: the climate alarmists are taking themselves to the point of absurdity and losing all credibility.”
Image generated by Grok AI
In an attempt to sensationalize hot summer weather to convey climate urgency and panic,some German meteorologists have been bombarding their viewers with alarming headlines, like: “This summer threatens to shatter all weather records!”
These climate alarmists have been fixated on regular weather extremes and using dramatic imagery of storms, droughts, and collapsing Swiss mountains to sway public opinion – while totally ignoring the lack of statistical evidence for an increase in such phenomena.
Weltwoche, reports, however, that the increasingly shrill weather rhetoric is backfiring, leading to greater mistrust among a growing number of skeptics who use social media platforms like X to mock and ridicule the sensationalized claims.
Thanks to social media, Weltwoche concludes that the era of media monopolies on truth is over: “But the shriller the battle cries of the climate alarmists, the less credible they become.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Are these climate alarm forecasts of extreme deadly weather killing tens of thousands this summer crazy?
Of course not.
I’ve put tin foil on all my windows to reflect away this deadly global warming from getting in my house.
As a bonus, it stops the CIA spying on me.
We’ll see who the real crazies are….
What’s about an alu hat?
😀
With tin prices at $32,000 a ton and aluminium at $ 2,500 a ton. I know which foil I prefer.
My mother did that in the 1970s, until my parents could afford to buy shades for the windows.
Rapid warming in Germany:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372350914_Observed_temperature_trends_in_Germany_Current_status_and_communication_tools#
Who let you in?
She’s welcome here – we all need a laugh. Besides, only climate alarmist sites censor contrary opinions.
There have been two strong El Ninos in the last decade.
There is zero evidence of human CO2 causation….
Plenty of evidence that it is reduced cloud and increased absorbed solar radiation.
There is also the fact that a LARGE proportion of surface sites are totally unfit-for the purpose of comparing temperatures over time.
In the UK they are a farcical mess, no reason to think Germany is any better.
Valentia, a near pristine site, which is close enough to Germany, shows the average temperature in the 1930’s above that of the period from 2000-2020.
El Nino does not cause long term warming.
And there is reason to believe that German sites are suitable for this purpose. If you refer to my source, you’ll find this explained.
Neither does CO2. There’s no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes *any* warming.
Major El Ninos spread warm water around the oceans.
We see these steps in the ocean data. (see graph)
Pretending surface sites are not affected by urban expansion and densification, is the epitome of DENIAL.
Have you taken account of the Urban Heat Island effect, and the changeover from LIG thermometers to platinum thermistors?
Most places on Earth are warming faster than the global mean…..
It may have something to do with China opening so many new coal-powered plants each year, that we can’t even get an accurate number for them!
The IEA say nearly 100GW of new coal plants was approved by China in 2024 but unfortunately does not translate that into number of plants 🙂
Also, raw data from most of the surface sites in the northern part of the NH show the same thing, …
…1930s, 40s similar to the 2000-2020 period. Here are several sites from around the Arctic
Yeah, it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today. As any unmodified, historic temperature chart will show.
Warmer, in fact.
“The temperature increase in Germany has been faster than in the global mean…”
but.. but.. I thought everywhere was warming faster than everywhere else!
The chart you linked to your reply also includes two additional charts with similar temperature data from other locations in the region of Germany. The other two charts indicate little to no warming over the same period as the one shown. One simply needs to click the arrows in the corner of the graph to see the other two. This brings to question, “which chart best represents reality?”. My question is, “What is the source of these charts?
Well then stop using fossil fuels every minute of every day of your life you flaming hypocrite!
Is that the same 1970s when we were all supposed to be worried about the coming ice age?
Climate models have no predictive power, Janet.
Air temperature projections are physically meaningless. There’s no valid scientific evidence whatever that human CO2 (or “GHGs”) emissions are warming the climate.
The IPCC, Inc. literally do not know what they’re talking about.
Generally, a warmer climate is a more beneficial climate. Celebrate that.
Pat, I haven’t had a chance to read your paper yet, so I can’t comment on its validity. I’ll take a look when I have the time.
Regarding your claim about the lack of scientific evidence for GHG induced warming, how do you explain the cooling stratosphere and the faster warming of nights compared to days? These are clear GHG fingerprints happening simultaneously. That seems like a pretty big coincidence.
Lastly, while a warmer Europe is generally good, it’s the rapid pace of warming that’s worrying scientists.
The faster warming of nights is actually good evidence for UHI contamination.
The ONLY clear fingerprint for global warming is the IPCC-predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot. And it doesn’t exist. No fingerprint, no GHG global warming.
Janet – the cooling stratosphere is a prediction from the radiation physics of CO2. It’s not a validation of climate models.
Do we know that warming due to natural variability won’t also include warming nights compared to days? I’d suspect the observable is not unique.
No one knows the true rate of warming going into the Medieval or Roman warm periods. Is today’s warming unnaturally fast? I doubt anyone knows.
The graphic shows Law Dome d18O over years 173-1995, approximating historical temperature trends. The red line is a 5% weighted fit. Some steep warming is evident at 650 and 1250 CE, but the modern rate isn’t anything special.
Anyway, thanks for agreeing to read the paper. If you like, my email is there. I’m happy to discuss
The rates of warming and cooling during the Dryas events at the end of the last Glacial Maximum were far greater than anything 3xperienced today.
I think it’s really the rapid loss of credibility that has them so concerned.
Only in climatology are observations adjusted to match expectations.
This is the stuff that hockey stick graphs are made of.
This is a useless article. It fails to
_1 Say what the wrong forecasts actually were, and by whom
_2 Show why they were wrong.
Meanwhile, Germany is rapidly warming.
https://www.dwd.de/EN/ourservices/zeitreihen/zeitreihen.html
Janet, obviously due to man-made heat generated by Germany’s industrialisation over that period.
Unless you can come up with a better reason, of course.
UK surface stations are a total farce and totally unfit for “climate” purpose.
There is ZERO reason to assume German sites are any better.
Unfit for any scientific purpose.
So, naturally, that’s what Climate Alarmists use.
You’re funny. Every time WUWT publishes a post with data from a particular region that shows none of the effects of global warmunism, you always say, “well, that’s just that region, not the whole earth” in a vain attempt to minimize its meaning. Then along comes a data set (that is extremely dubious) that says a particular region is getting hotter, or floodier, or windier or whatever, you proclaim it as if announcing the Second Coming, and is somehow meaningful for the entire planet. Even though there are tons of places that are doing just the opposite – because, by the way, that is how a complex planet like Earth has always operated.
I can’t believe you believe your silly propagandizing is somehow convincing people that you are right and most other humans are wrong.
Most regions of the world have experienced significant warming since the 20th century. If there’s any minimizing going on, it’s in the articles you’re referring to. Regional time series can be noisy. It is easy to cherry pick short term cooling trends.
Next time one of these articles gets published, try testing the statistical significance of the so called cooling trends yourself. Chances are, you will end up with a p-value well above 0.05.
Climate related deaths have decreased by 98% in the past 100 years all while the temoprature rose marginally over that same period. Therefore a warmer climate is better for humanity! Deal with it.
Ron, nobody cares.
Maybe try replying to something I said.
Interesting that you DON’T CARE that deaths due to heat have been massively reduced.
You must be a marxist/socialist, or in the US, a Democrat.
Nobody pays attention to systematic error, Janet. The whole of consensus climatology battens on false precision. All of it.
Pat, I’m familiar with your work on your critiques of temperature uncertainty estimates.
However, the uncertainty bars you’ve calculated apply to the immediate vicinity of individual surface thermometers – point measurements. But that’s not the focus of climate science. What matters for climate science are regional and global temperature anomalies over time.
For that purpose, extremely accurate local measurements aren’t necessary. What is important is capturing the year to year variations consistently. Over time, this allows you to observe the broader trends and the direction those variations are heading. They represent broader regions and can be compiled into a global temperature anomaly estimate.
Andrew Dessler has discussed this point, though I don’t have his exact reference at hand right now.
The error bars in global temperature databases reflect the precision of these averages, which is just statistics.
That’s my critique. How much weight you give it is up to you.
Your critique is incorrect, Janet. Meteorological station measurements are not known to represent the ambient air temperature.
SSTs have greater uncertainty than the land temperatures. The Velero IV experiments shows correct SSTs were never measured, because the ship keel disrupted the thermocline.
The temperature time series are not known to represent the physically correct trend.
When calculating anomalies the uncertainties of the measurement average and the normal must be RMS combined. This makes the uncertainty of the anomalies greater than the uncertainties of the original air temperatures.
Consequently, the regional and global air temperature averages are incorrect, but no one knows by how much.
Field calibrations provide the only accuracy metric. They indicate a mean global GMST uncertainty of (+/-)1.9 C.
There’s just no scientifically legitimate way to avoid any of this.
As a result, neither the rate nor the magnitude of the change in historical air temperatures since 1900 can be known.
That’s true regionally and globally.
But why be concerned with whether individual station measurements perfectly represent the ambient air temperature?
That temperature can vary significantly just a few meters away.
Of course, if a measurement is affected by a systematic error, it won’t average out and would indeed be a problem IF your goal were to track temperature changes at that specific location. You’re right that systematic errors affect ambient measurements and can’t be fully eliminated—unless, as you note, they’re addressed with careful calibration procedures.
However, in climate science, the focus is on deviations from the long term average. What matters is how much a station’s measurement anomaly differs from its own historical norm.
Since regional and global averages are statistical aggregates, all that’s needed is a sufficient number of station anomalies spread across the globe.
Janet, station and SST errors are not constant. They all vary in unknown ways in space and time.
You’re really talking about how much a wrong anomaly differs from a wrong norm.
With all the wrongs unknown and unknowable. And for each given station, a monthly anomaly will be differently wrong from the other monthly anomalies.
This is because the environmental perturbations on the sensor vary in time.
All normals and all station averages will deviate from the correct air temperature in ways unknown in sign or magnitude.
The station anomalies will be wrong in unknown ways. Their statistical aggregate will be wrong to some unknown amount.
Any anomaly time series cannot be known to be correct and cannot be known to be conveying reliable trend information.
The difference from a norm you’re specifying is meaningless.
Climatology will never grasp calibration drift with time.
So far, your estimate is dead on, KM. 🙂
In my experience thus far, they don’t understand calibration, per se.
They think it is possible to go back in time and recalibrate air temperature measurements from the 1920s!
You (and climatology) assume that all error is random, Gaussian, and cancels.
You are at odds with modern metrology, which is necessary to get the desired result.
Altered and adjusted data are certainly not accurate, so they are just the ticket for climatology.
Error is not uncertainty.
If you are a steady reader of WUWT then you’d know that your claim of “most regions warming” is false.
Besides, if there is a global phenomenon, then by definition it is global. If “global warming” is reality then every single square meter of the earth’s surface should have warmed by some amount which may vary by latitude and by surface material. During past significant changes in global climate, every part of the world was affected. After the end of the most recent glaciation, every part of Earth warmed. Subarctic ice sheets melted, the vast tundra areas in the midlatitudes warmed, and the tropics warmed, and the oceans warmed.
Surface sites are totally unfit for making climate temperature measurements over time.
It is noted you have been unable to show any warming specifically by CO2.
Long term, the current global temperature is very much at the LOW end of what it has been for the last 10,000 years.
The current global temperature is TEPID, at best.
Quantify “significant”, please.
No uncertainty bounds, Janet. The anomalies are meaningless.
You missed the point of the article. It’s all about the drama, and that we will all die.
More like red meat for deniers.
Janet, any person should explore both sides of the argument, clearly you haven’t.
Watch the following interview with Anthony Watts (this sites’ founder) which charts his conversion as a weatherman who believed in AGW to becoming one of its staunchest critics. His conversion came about when he discovered just how bad the terrestrial weather station data was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch/RiuHOzykxC0
or
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/01/anthony-watts-on-the-tom-nelson-podcast/
The following link sets out how NOAA researchers set out to prove Anthony Watts wrong instead validated his findings.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/20/warming-temperature-measurements-polluted-by-bad-data-research-confirms/
How ironic !
No serious contributor to this website denies the climate is warming and that man has at least a small hand in this but as stated by David Segal:-
“The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.”
The alarmist exaggeration of every weather event to catastrophe is becoming just plain silly and should be obvious to even a staunch AGW supporter that it is overblown to absurdity.
“A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind”. – Robert Bolton
You’ve been had!
Raw data from De Bilt shows a very different story. Warmer for most of the period up to1940, then a big cold dip through the 1970s.. No warmer now that in the earlier part of the record.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Highest-maximum-temperature-of-the-year-TXx-at-De-Bilt-the-Netherlands-The-green_fig2_361222675
Thanks for showing the urban warming
Is de Bilt surface site as pathetically corrupted as most of the UK sites your Met orifice uses ??
“Warmer for most of the period up to1940, then a big cold dip through the 1970s.”
Exactly the way the U.S. regional temperatures behaved during that period, and all the unmodified, regional charts from around the world show the same thing.
All of them show the bogus, bastardized “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick global chart is a BIG LIE that does not represent reality. It was created to promote the CO2-crisis narrative, by dishonestly mannipulating the temperatures to correspond with CO2 levels.
I’m familiar with Anthony’s work. I’ve been following climate science for almost 20 years. Your claim about my supposed unawareness is pretty amusing.
Poor station siting doesn’t increase average or maximum temperatures. It actually tends to cool them. Only the minimum temperature experiences artificial warming. That’s what he found in his own paper on the impact of surface station siting.
This means that the extreme heat events currently affecting Germany and Europe are undoubtedly real, and may even be underestimated, since poor siting would lower maximum temperature readings, not raise them.
That said, the surface temperature record is legitimate. The Berkeley Earth project confirmed this in 2011. Richard Muller, who was initially skeptical, worked with Judith Curry and others to independently analyze the data, and they ended up verifying the mainstream global temperature record.
And as the final nail in the coffin, the USCRN provides an independent benchmark that confirms the trends seen in the broader US temperature record.
Poor station siting doesn’t increase average or maximum temperatures. It actually tends to cool them. Only the minimum temperature experiences artificial warming. That’s what he found in his own paper on the impact of surface station siting.
– Janet S
That will come as a big surprise to most readers of WUWT. If a station is sited next to an air conditioner or a tarmac road, how on Earth can the recorded max temperatures actually be lower than those from a pristine station? Everyday experience disproves this assertion. In any case, higher minimum temperaures increase average temperatures.
Ask him yourself. I’m more familiar with his work than YOU are. How sad is that?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146
So sites in the middle of a concrete pad report cooler temperatures…. lol…
You are delusional !!
From the article you cited:
Comparison of observed temperatures with NARR shows that the most poorly sited stations are warmer compared to NARR than are other stations, and a major portion of this bias is associated with the siting classification rather than the geographical distribution of stations. According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.
Perhap you should actually read the article before attempting to use it as evidence for your idiotic assertions.
USCRN shows ZERO warming apart from El nino events.
ClimDiv is “adjusted” to match those pristine stations on a regional basis to remove all the urban warming signature, so the fact that ClimDiv matches USCRN is because of those adjustments…
Richard Muller was NEVER “sceptical”. There are statements from before BEST was set up, showing he and his group were rabid “believers”.. He was a con-artist more than anything else.
“Poor station siting doesn’t increase average or maximum temperatures.”
That has to be one of the most idiotic and ignorant statements ever made !!
Miss S: Please forgive Mr. steed, he read your comments and surmised that you have followed CliSci, not for twenty years, but for twenty minutes, just long enough for you to read and repost AGW talking points that have been debunked here, repeatedly. Your comments display a very shallow understanding of the issue.
You say ‘deniers’.
The implication seems to be that the rise in German temperatures is caused by AGW, and is evidence of it. If this is the argument, is it valid?
We would have to show that the magnitude of the rise is attributable to, and proportionate to, the rise in CO2 ppm.
We would also have to show that this is not a phenomenon local to Germany. It should at least be showing up in the surrounding countries in Europe. Including the UK. It is not plausible that a global increase in CO2 ppm should only have this marked effect in Germany, but not in Eastern Europe, France or the UK.
There are the same kind of alarmed reports about UK summers, at the moment there seem to be warnings from the Met Office about danger to life, which is supposed to be due to forecast max temperatures of 30C. That’s 86F, for those who don’t think in metric. And its routinely as hot as this in New York and Chicago for weeks at a time during the summer, and no-one pays much attention.
The question is also, where these UK temperatures are being recorded. There is lots of evidence that its cherry picked poor sites.
Ask your UK acquaintance however and they will tell you the midday and early afternoon at the moment are indeed hot summer days, which is not very surprising considering that it is midsummer. But that evenings and nights are pleasantly cool, and there is certainly no cause for alarm, and no evidence that the population need to or are restricting their outdoor activities. Sporting events continue, people take their dogs for walks, the beaches have lots of visitors.
We know the cause of this particular hot weather. Its what always causes hot English summers. A blocking high occurs to the South West,, and this brings low winds with hot air being brought up from the south, long dry spells, and clear skies with strong sun. Wind electricity generation also falls, its had periods recently when 30GW of installed wind produced about 1GW. Look at http://www.distrowatch.co.uk/wind
It always has happened, at irregular intervals – its a chaotic system. The hysteria surrounding perfectly ordinary seasonal events is what the piece is objecting to, and its right.
The worst thing about the hysteria is that it gets in the way of looking seriously at the implications of real weather in this location and these latitudes. Peak UK power demand now is about 45+GW. Miliband is proposing to raise the current 30GW of wind to 95 GW on his way to net zero. On the historical record there will be periods when this 95GW puts out around 3GW. Where is the power going to come from during these periods?
And answer came there none. You want to find ‘deniers’, now you know where to look.
My wife and I were in central London at noontime yesterday and it was a pleasant summer’s day, at 86F/30C. Leter in the afternoon, we were South of Canterbury in the countryside and it was noticeably cooler. Partly, this was because it was past the hottest part of the day, partly because we’re out of the city. While in London, people were going about their daily lives – no threat to health or safety. I suspect that it is all relative – a hot day to a Brit is just a normal day to someone from Southern California. But yesterday was not a threat to anyone.
Tomorrow is the first day of summer – I wonder what heatwaves the Met office has in store for the British Isles.
“a hot day to a Brit is just a normal day to someone from Southern California”
Probably a winter day in Saudi Arabia. 🙂
deniers???
Again, tell us what we “deny” that you can provide solid scientific proof for.
First you will have to figure out what scientific proof actually means, of course.
hint: it is not the climate mantra propaganda bovex that you seem to be brainwashed with..
My wife’s parents survived the Holodomor. They have friends and neighbors that died in the Nazi death camps.
Your used of the slur “denier” is extremely offensive.
That is the express purpose of the use of the term. To compare “climate” deniers with holocaust (and Holodomor) deniers. But then, to a progressive or liberal activist being violent and offensive is perfectly fine as long as it’s in support of their ideology.
Exactly right: to step on others while elevating yourself, the perfect expression of pride.
The story is that nobody believes these dire warnings that have been published and pounded on the table for the last 30 years and yet, we’re all still here, the earth has not ended. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter and in between in between. Storms are not worse, we are not flooded out, people aren’t dropping like flies on a hot griddle.
The cycle of global warmunism started out with the so-called “Precautionary Principle”, that said we don’t know how this will work out, but let’s be cautious and assume it will. Then, when it didn’t it became “it WILL happen … next month, next year, next decade, next century … whatever”. And when it still never happened, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, the scam became obvious to even the most oblivious of us all.
More like 70 years.
I can understand why the Germans escape to the Mediterranean in summer. It’s to get away from the bullshit from the weather people.
That’s the Med where temperatures are regularly over 40C.
Some of my German colleagues would take their summer holidays in the desert – not a surprise after a Bavarian winter.
I’m not a greatly experienced world traveler but I have on a couple occasions had projects in Rota, Spain at the Naval base. I did note that there seemed to be an inordinate amount of Germans vacationing in Rota while we were there (no slight on Germans intended, just an observation).
I fear that this media exaggeration is even getting to me. The BBC of course are making an absolute meal of the hot weather we currently have in the UK and for a moment I did think this was maybe unprecedented for June. Then I thought back to 1974 and 1976, years when I was taking important examinations at school at precisely this time of year and the weather was stiflingly hot for both years. This heat is nothing new..
The record was set in 1976, over 36c. So 47 years ago, it was hotter.
I remember 1976 very well in the UK in OXON.
It was extremely hot for several months but the heat we have in France this june is similar. Nothing to worry about.
In the UK, the summer of ’76 was exceptional in its surrounding decades and the real heat was quite area restricted.
Then in the 1990s nearly every other summer became a near ’76 with long uncomfortably hot periods more countrywide.
A few years either side of 2010 they seemed to cool a bit.
Thereafter summers have become even hotter consistently, you can pretty much guarantee several very uncomfortable weeks.
When I was a teenager, the bookies used to give very good odds on not reaching 30C in a given year, it was quite a rare event. Clearly it’s pretty much guaranteed these days.
We’re not doomed, but you’d need your head in the sand to claim the UK climate has not warmed in recent decades.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/14/junk-temperature-measuring-network-means-the-met-office-cannot-prove-theres-been-a-dramatic-increase-in-temperature/
It used to be 50/50 in each decade – 5 years out of 10 where the temperature got above 30.
In the 50s and 60s, the maximum temp. in the other 5 years was about 28 or 29.
I have read that we now more often get hotter air from continental Europe because of more persistent double jet streams.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31432-y
Pretty much guaranteed when most of your weather stations are class 4 and 5, and can give readings 5ºC or more than reality.
Looks like UHI warming from about 1987 onwards.
Urban warming from unfit for purpose urban corrupted UK sites.. Meaningless.
Because of the ineptitude of present and past Met Officers the UK sites are in a pathetically poor condition such that it is impossible to tell if any measured warming is real or not.
I comment in the awful Independent newspaper, for run really. It’s a nest of vile lefty vipers. My comments are deleted within minutes. Any fact or evidence or truth is eradicated swiftly.
I posted that it was much hotter 47 years ago when the record was set. Deleted. I think the Independent has a total readership of 12, and falling.
The Marx Stream Media is in the process of committing slow suicide.
Sounds as bad as the UK where you can’t trust today’s temperature never mind next week or next year.
UK journalists have been doing the same for years.
Many references to ‘walls of snow’ that never happened but were outlier predictions from the models.
Weather news is now total nonsense.
About time these alarmists got a grip
Its a lovely day today, I’m going to enjoy it
Yes, we will be attending an outdoor wedding in about an hour. It will be hot – all the more reason for a cool drink afterwards.
linked to this type of hype is a short story in today’s Daily Telegraph nature notes that the birth of 5 beaver kitts in Scotland. It is hoped that the beavers will ” help restore the landscape and combat climate change”. Does nobody read such stories to see how ridiculous it sounds? The contribution of a few beavers in Scotland is as near as measurable, nil.
Can a beaver fell a wind turbine by chewing its base? That would certainly help restore Scotland’s landscape.
It’s not just meteorologists. The other morning one of the (UK) news headlines on the radio was ‘doctors say 39,000 will die this year because of air pollution and that 99% of us breathe polluted air’. Living is so dangerous I’m surprised we bother.
People forget that life carries a death sentence.
If Faulkner had to pay electric bills:
https://t.co/Nv6S1KZOGE
In late June of 2021 the “official” high temp was 108°F (42°C) at the airport at Ellensburg, WA. A few miles away, I had a slightly higher reading. Today, the predicted high is 62°F. That’s a decrease of 46 degrees in 4 years. {you are welcome to do all calculations in K}
Because my locality seems to be cooling faster than any other place in the world, I’m heading into the mountains this weekend to see if I can find the incipient icefield.
I know there are Sasquatches all over your area, but if it gets too cold watch out for the Yeti.
I’m west of you in Whidbey. May was slightly cooler than April, and June is slightly cooler than May. If I extrapolate that out, there will be a mile-thick ice sheet on top of me by next June.
The MET office has a bit of a problem with the forecasts. I OWN an accurate thermometer and their claimed temperatures as usual a couple of degrees hotter than my measurements! Even the fairly inaccurate thermometer in my car is less! Surely others have noticed this too?