When I saw this press release from Portland State University, I knew I would not have to look far to spot the bias and/or error. First it’s a climate model, second, it’s the WORST climate model, CMIP6 -Anthony
Via Eurekalert:
As the climate becomes warmer on average, it makes intuitive sense that we will see more hot days and we’ve had predictions of this for some time. However, the duration of heatwaves — how many days in a row exceed a temperature that is unusually hot for a given region — can be very important for impacts on humans, livestock and ecosystems. Predicting how these durations will change under a long-term warming trend is more challenging because day-to-day temperatures are correlated — tomorrow’s temperatures have a dependence on today’s temperature.
This study takes this effect into account, along with the warming seen in current and historical observations and projected for the future by climate models for a wide range of land regions. Not only do the heatwave durations increase, but each additional increment of warming causes a larger increase in the typical length of long heat waves. In other words, if the next decade brings as much large-scale warming as a previous decade, the additional increase in heatwave durations would be even larger than we’ve experienced so far.
Abstract
Heatwaves are expected to both increase in frequency and duration under global warming. The probability distributions of heatwave durations are shaped by day-to-day correlations in temperature and so cannot be simply inferred from changes in the probabilities of daily temperature extremes. Here we show from statistical analysis of global historical and projected temperature data that changes in long-duration heatwaves increase nonlinearly with temperature. Specifically, from analysis informed by theory for autocorrelated fluctuations applied to European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Reanalysis v5 (ERA5) reanalysis and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) climate model simulations, we find that the nonlinearity results in acceleration of the rate increase with warming; that is, each increment of regional time-averaged warming increases the characteristic duration scale of long heatwaves more than the previous increment. We show that the curve for this acceleration can be approximately collapsed onto a single dependence across regions by normalizing by local temperature variability. Projections of future change can thus be compared to observations of recent change over part of their range, which supports the near-future-projected acceleration. We also find that the longest, most uncommon heatwaves for a given region have the greatest increase in likelihood, yielding a compounding source of nonlinear impacts.
Journal Nature Geoscience
DOI/Link: 10.1038/s41561-025-01737-w
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
HA HA HA……, they are so full of shit!
I base my objection on a model so it must be right.
Snicker……
Garbage for several different reasons.
Have you submitted your analysis for publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal, such as Nature or Science?
Peer reviewed 😉
“Not only do the heatwave durations increase, but each additional increment of warming causes
a larger increase in the typical length of long heat wavesa fourth-power increase in longwave emission, countering any tendency toward acceleration of the warming.”There, fixed it.
By the way, NASA as an institution – excluding the GISS faction – knew this in early 2009.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
Oh, and we can watch from space to see for ourselves how this works. (The readme description gives the full explanation. “Watch on Youtube” and pause the video to read it.)
Since the rate of warming from 2010 to present is now ~0.3 C/decade compared to 0.18c/decade from 1970 to 2010, it would seem your claim is invalid.
Better not mess with knowledgeable people, mr Beeton.
But then again, that never stopped you before yet you never seem to learn anything from the experience..
How do your ‘knowledgeable people’ get such bad information?
The real question is, how do you know your information is good?
Appeal to Authority, perhaps? “Scientists say….”
And the answer is: “My information is the universal conclusion of all peer reviewed research, based on data sets from NASA, the UK Met office, Japan, and other countries. “. It’s evident neither Mr Dibbell nor ballynally checked the data or the research. How about you?
The data does not tell very much other than it’s been a bit warmer lately. There are no projections to be made from it other than your continued stupidity.
How could you possibly wish to be taken seriously with an utterly meaningless statement like that?
To be clear, this is from NASA, January 14, 2009:
“The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth.”
The video shows how this is so effective during “heat wave” conditions where high pressure systems clear the skies.
NASA had a language problem, not a science problem, in that piece.
Heat does not radiate to space. Change “heat to space” to “energy to space” and all is well.
Heat, and this is also a definition in the NASA lexicon, is the flow of thermal (aka kinetic) energy across a temperature gradient (hot to cold). Vacuums do not conduct or convect thermal energy. EMR, yes.
What warming? Not seeing any significant warming in the Kansas City area. The 1930s still hold the bulk of the high temperature records. We haven’t seen 100 degrees in 2 years.
Welp, Monday you may see 100. This is quite a heat dome in the middle of the country.
It only made it to 86 in Topeka on Monday because of clouds and rain. In fact, we haven’t hit 100 yet for July. High temp so far since the 17th has been 95. Heat index reached 116 a couple of days because of high humidity. This is based on my personal Vantage Vue weather station installed based on current NWS recommendations for siting. Tomatoes and cucumbers doing fine!
Yes, it’s getting hot. It happens every year about this time. Nothing out of the ordinary to see here.
The current forecast doesn’t call for that, but I guess we will see. In the past 24 years, not counting 2025 since it isn’t over yet, 12 years had no 100 degree days, and 4 had only one 100 degree day each. Compare to the period between 1930 and 1960, inclusive, all but 2 years had 100 degree days (1932 and 1950). This data is courtesy of the National Weather Service, Pleasant Hill, Missouri office (I think).
“What warming?”
Yeah!
The actual written temperature record shows we are currently in a temperature downtrend from the Early Twentieth Century.
The actual written temperature record shows that the weather is cyclical in nature, warming for a few decades and then cooling for a few decades and then repeating the process.
The Climate Alarmists are just focused on the current warming phase of the cycle and assume it will continue upwards forever “because CO2”. But that never happened in the past, even when CO2 levels were much higher than today.
The temperatures are currently 0.5C cooler than the high point in 2024. So are we warming or cooling? Climate Alarmists are SO confused!
Incorrect. The earths rate of warming was ~0.18C/decade from 1970 to 2010, and since then has been ~0.3 C/decade.
We currently are at the peak of the current solar maximum.
Hmmm… Does the sun warm the planet?
We just passed the summer solstice, the longest day in the year.
Hmmm… Does the duration of sunshine affect the planet? Seems it cools at night when the sun goes down.
You are stating numbers you got from somewhere, but you do not list the source nor anything that properly, scientifically, verifies it.
Hint: There is no GAT. That is bogus. T^4 is sufficient proof that “Tmax – Tmin)/2 is the mean for a rotating planet. Add in the interpolation between sensors and a inadequacy of ocean sensors and sensors in the southern hemisphere and you find serious questions about the accuracy and relevance of those numbers.
“We just passed the summer solstice, the longest day in the year.”
In the northern hemisphere, the shortest day in the southern hemisphere!
Pseudo scientific nonsense.
Why do you ignore the 1930-1960 period? Did recorded history start in 1970?
The climate started to warm ~1900, in response to the gradual accumulation of atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning during the first decades of the Industrial Revolution. The warming picked up beginning ~1970 as the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 continued to grow, and accelerated further as mankind has burned more and more fossil fuels, emitting more CO2
What actual hard data do you have to support those claims? Where I live, the 1930s are still the warmest decade ever, based on actual temperature data collected over almost 140 years. The coldest single year on record was 1985, and the coldest ever recorded temperature was 23 degrees below 0, in December 1989. There does not seem to be consistent warming at all.
One location is not the world
There is no such thing as a global temperature.
How do you average an intensive property? No one in climate science has ever even tried to explain that one, simple thing. It’s just the statistician’s assumption that “numbers is just numbers”. You can average any collection of numbers and whether that average value is meaningful is of no concern.
Re your question on averaging. I think a basic course in statistics and science might help you understand how it works.
You know, I have taken a lot of basic and not so basic science courses as well as statistics and various math classes. I learned that you can only average numbers you actually have. You cannot average numbers you don’t have, such as reliable temperature measurements from the Arctic and Antarctic, central Africa, Siberia, and other very sparsely populated places on the earth, in the pre-satellite era. If you make up numbers to in-fill places and times you don’t actually have numbers for, then you have made up results. It is not data, it is not data derived statistics, it is false information. There is no other way to describe such made-up numbers. This is true whether you are talking about anomalies or actual temperatures.
If I had made up numbers for my Master’s project, I probably would have been asked to leave school and I most likely would not have gotten my degree.
Since what you posted is a mixture of distortions and falsehoods, I don’t think your science degree has done you any good
What did I say that is false? Please be specific.
Your claim that average global temperature can’t be a valid parameter because you can’t average intensive properties is false, for two reasons:
1) Global average temperate is calculated with an implicit weighting of temperatures, so it’s an extensive. not intensive, averaging.
2) When all the worlds scientists use this methodology, one random individual such as yourself has a high bar to clear (eg, submittal of your extensive analysis to a peer reviewed scientific journal) to establish credibility.
They use it because it’s the only method possible. That does not make it correct. It does not take into account local, unrelated variations – for example ocean heat transfer from one depth to another in one region and not another could show as an increase in the average but tells us nothing else.
It’s not the only method possible. Climate science has had humidity and pressure data from electronic measuring stations since the 80’s. They have everything they need to start using enthalpy – the true indicator of heat. Climate science could have a 40 year length of enthalpy analysis today – but they refuse. Why?
“implicit weighting of temperatures”
Implicit? Meaning unstated assumptions? Yeah, that’s the ticket to a true scientific analysis.
And how does “weighting” change an intensive property to an extensive one? An extensive property scales with size. An intensive one does not. You can’t change an intensive property into an extensive one by *weighting*. You can develop an extensive property using an intensive one along with an extensive property – e.g. using temperature (intensive) and mass (extensive) to develop the quantity known as enthalpy. But climate science doesn’t use enthalpy. They only use temperature.
Spatial weighting of temperatures doesn’t create an extensive property from an intensive one. It’s meant to minimize sampling error but it’s useless because it doesn’t make temperature an extensive property.
Again, if spatial weighting changes the distribution and statistical descriptors of the data you *have* then the data you have is already garbage and not fit for purpose.
Infilling and homogenization is garbage. If this changes the distribution and statistical descriptors of the data you *do* have then the data you *do* have is garbage anyway!
Do you understand that unrelated local changes will affect the average? or did you miss that part?
An average is an average, Did you miss that part?
“An average is an average, Did you miss that part?”
The assertion of a blackboard statistician using the “numbers is just numbers” meme.
The usual Appeal to Authority.
“Re your question on averaging. I think a basic course in statistics and science might help you understand how it works”
In other words you have no answer to offer. My guess is that you don’t even understand what an intensive property *is*.
Right. It’s a ‘global average temperature’.
There is no such thing as a global height for humans. But there’s an global average height for humans.
Height is an EXTENSIVE property. Remove the legs from the human and their height gets less. Height depends on how much of something you have.
Temperature is an intensive property. If you have a quart flask full of air and a gallon flask full of air, both in equilibrium with the same environment, they will have the same temperature. That temperature doesn’t depend on the size of the flask, i.e. how much air is in each flask.
You *can* average extensive properties. You can’t average intensive properties.
Your knowledge of extensive vs intensive properties seems to be on par with climate scientists and climate science.
Wrong. The temp FELL for 40 years from the 30’s on while CO2 increased. So much for your thorey….
Oh yes indeed..the climate started to warm in 1900. There are cooling dips along the way, but the trend is inexorably UP , and accelerating.
That atmospheric co2 concentration is a major factor driving the climate is not up for debate, Little One; its basic science, taught in eighth grade earth science. Its apparent you havent taken earth science, nor have you figured out that CO2 is not the sole factor (eg, aerosols play a role ) , but over the decades since 1900 it’s been the dominant factor.
Here’s the July record highs for Columbus Ohio.
https://www.weather.gov/iln/climate_records_cmh#
Looks like 1911, 1934 and 1936 had heat waves before home AC units were common.
BTW the 106* on the 14th in 1936 is the all time recorded high for Columbus.
Columbus. Not the world
Most of the world hasn’t collected temperature data consistently for more than 40-50 years. Any global average claims earlier than that are flatly bogus.
Wrong. The data collection started in 1880. https://climate.nasa.gov
How can that represent the world 😉
Take a course in science and find out
You apparently can’t read.
“Most of the world hasn’t collected temperature data consistently”
That is a TRUE statement. In 1880 I would venture that most of what we consider North America today did not do *any* temperature collection on a consistent basis.
Western Europe and China maybe, but not in Africa or Eastern Europe.
And forget about the oceans!
The temperature data that *was* collected had significant measurement uncertainty, at least +/- 1C and probably greater. Totally unfit for the purposes to which it is being put today.
Your assessment is incorrect. The scientists use temperature anomalies , not absolute temperature, which eliminates systemic error, and homogenization, which reduces other errors. The remaining errors are reflected in the error bars for the anomalies. The bottom line is that scientists all over the world use these techniques. I’d advise you to study up a bit before commenting further.
Anomalies inherit the measurement uncertainties of the components making up the anomaly. Anomalies do *NOT* lessen measurement uncertainty.
Measurement uncertainty *adds* even when you do subtraction of two components.
Nor can anomalies lessen systematic measurement uncertainty in any identifiable manner. The measurement uncertainty interval is a combination of both random and systematic elements. The confounding issue becomes which contributes how much to any individual measurement. That is generally an unknown in field measurements. So how can you assume that systematic measurement uncertainty cancels across two measurements? All you know is total estimated interval containing the values that can reasonably be assigned to the measurand. Systematic measurement uncertainty is *NOT* constant across measurements. My guess is that you can’t even begin to list out the systematic components of measurement uncertainty that should be included in an uncertainty budget for a temperature measurement station, be it in 1901 or 2025. (hint: what does air temperature inside the measurement station do to the temperature reading at different times?)
All you’ve done here is quote the canard in climate science that all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels. You can’t even justify the Gaussian assumption let alone the “cancels” assumption.
You really don’t understand basics.
I think most of us here understand that you can’t make up numbers to fill in for data you don’t have, and using decidedly incomplete data does not give you a comprehensive average.
I agree that most on this thread have no clue about math and science
Idiot.
“You really don’t understand basics.”
That’s not an answer of any kind. The fact that you cannot refute a single thing I have asserted stands as mute proof that you are nothing more than a troll with no actual knowledge of physical measurement protocols at all.
It does seem you understand squat.
(Yawn.) Let me know when we get to the 1930s level of heatwaves in the USA. Or did they already disappear/massage/”correct” that data to fit the warming narrative?
Everything’s relative. If CMIP6 is the worst ensemble then the others must be very good.
Here’s the latest annual CMIP6 temperature multi-model mean versus observations.
Based on the worst temperature data set PISStemp.
You are so gullible!
The CMIP6 models are forecast from 2014 onwards (hindcasted up to that point, see the vertical line in the above chart).
Since 2014, the rate of warming in this site’s beloved UAH_TLT is +0.38C per decade; whereas in GISS, the warming rate since 2014 is +0.33C per decade.
That’s right. According to your beloved UAH, global warming over the CMIP6 forecast period has been faster than it has been in GISS.
So are you saying GISS has underestimated the warming, and that’s why I’m gullible?
Hindcast is curve fitted, so of course they match the historical data used.
Yes. You are gullible.
You did notice their predictions have more than a 2ºC spread? 😉
Did you notice I said ‘multi-model mean’?
The mean of wrong models probably isn’t accurate either.
And yet in every single CMIP ensemble this is what is expected and what is found.
So what? You didn’t address the fact that the average of wrong models us probably wrong.
It’s incredible that some folks would believe that by averaging the wrong results of over 100 models, you would somehow obtain a correct average. Can anybody logically explain how this is possible?
Anyone that thinks you can take the mean of disparate JUNK models and get anything approaching “reality” is living in la-la-land.
Climate models are based on JUNK science from the very start.
Roy Clark: A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors | Tom Nelson Pod #271
Yet there we have it. The multi-model mean is what is expected to best resemble observations and that is what is found across all the CMIP model ensembles.
So, they average model outputs and that proves the model outputs are valid.
Those are not observations, by the way.
Nor are they experiments.
In software the acceptable term is use cases.
The better approach is the monte carlo simulations that alter parameters within known tolerances and give the spread of results of the simulations. Then you go test.
No, it proves that currently observations are within the multi-model range and very close to the multi-model mean.
They are anomalies derived from temperature observations.
Even UAH quote their trend using simple linear regression. It’s not a good look, because it clearly highlights the statistically significant warming contained in the data, which I guess is why Spencer never shows the trendline on his monthly updates.
Lol.
Do you even listen to yourself?
And the idiocy just continues on it’s merry way……
Ha ha ha HAAAAA! Using GISTEMP, the hottest of all the statistically-manipulated data sets of observed temperatures. Where’s the 1998–2016 warming hiatus? Not there? Strange. It was widely acknowledged and the source of agonized consternation among the climate zealots until 2016’s El Niño mercifully (for them) started the warming again.
Never mind CMIP6 is from around 2020. All the climate models hindcast the decade or so before reasonably accurately. It’s the future forecasts that wander into Wonderland. Here are the 23 ensembles of CMIP6 projected to 2100. UAH’s most recent long term trend from satellite observations is +0.16 C/decade, though it was around +0.14 C/decade until the 2023–24 El Niño. Even if the current trend continues—far from certain—it puts global temperatures about 1.6 ⁰C higher in 2100 than 2000, well below even the lowest CMIP6 forecast.
This is what really happened. Note the warming hiatus from 1998–2016 that doesn’t appear in GISTEMP.
The data you show is UAH_TLT.
As I mention above, since the CMIP6 forecast period began in 2014, UAH has been warming at a faster rate than GISS (+0.38 C/dec in UAH vrs +0.33 C/dec in GISS).
So according to you, what “really happened” is that the world warmed faster than it did according to GISS. T
According to you, the chart I posted underestimates with warming trend (if UAH is to be believed).
There has been 2 strong El Nino events since 2014.
They are what you always rely on to calculate a trend.
Neither has anything to do with human CO2.
Firstly, the average of the ENSO index (where El Nino is +0.5 and La Nina is -0.5) from Jan 2014 to June 2025 is +0.1. So ‘neutral’, officially.
Secondly, the same ENSO conditions applied to the GISS record as applied to the UAH record; so why did UAH warm so much faster?
Average.
Ok.
That the GISS and UAH do not correlate means both have to be questioned.
So we cheer UAH to the rafters until it runs faster than GISS then we either ignore it or throw it under the bus too.
Whatever happens, there must be no evidence of warming!
I wouldn’t agree that any of the models “hindcasts ” anything accurately. They are all tuned with their manually adjust control knobs to mimick the past … might as well just trace the actuals and mark them with the model logo.
Except the data they are using for “the past” is fake to start with !
What do you make of the fact that, since the start of the forecast period in 2014, UAH has warmed at a faster rate than GISS?
Is GISS downplaying the recent warming or is UAH exaggerating it, in your opinion?
El Ninos warm the atmosphere in spikes and steps.
They are the only warming in the UAH data.
If you think there is CO2 caused warming in UAH…
… then show it to us… without using those El Ninos.
Again, in the magical la-la land of bnasty, La Ninas do not exist.
Ad hominem attack.
Like that poster doesn’t engage in ad homs?
I’ll look out for you pulling him up next time.
You are close. They do accurately hindcast, but one must always remember that hindcasting is simply cure fitting by, as you state, adjusting the control knobs to mimic the past.
Over the past 20-years, the warming rate in GISS is identical to that in UAH. Both +0.31C per decade.
So is GISS deliberately increasing its warming rate to match UAH or is it UAH that’s got its finger on the scale to make it warm as fast as UAH?
And if GISS can’t be relied on over the past 20-years, then what about UAH?
“..warm as fast as GISS”, sorry.
As you have shown many times…
.. there is no evidence of warming by human CO2 in the UAH data.. just El Nino events, which happen to give big spikes and a step change in the atmosphere.
They are all you have.
Just this magic property of ENSO whose warming periods always cause lasting warming but whose cooling phases do not exist.
“Ha ha ha HAAAAA! Using GISTEMP, the hottest of all the statistically-manipulated data sets of observed temperatures. Where’s the 1998–2016 warming hiatus? Not there? Strange.”
After 1998, the temperatures cooled for a decade, according to the UAH chart (below).
Whereas, the Data Mannipulators at NOAA and NASA mannipulated their data to make it appear that the years between 1998 and 2015 were hotter than 1998, and were the “hottest years Evah!”, actually mannipulating the data to the point that they had year after year showing as hotter than the previous year (by one-hundredth of a degree). Ten years of NOAA and NASA climate change scaremongering using manniplated data.
You can’t find anything like that on the UAH chart. It didn’t get hotter than 1998 until the year 2016 (one-tenth of a degree hotter). See if you can find any year between 1998 and 2015 that could be described as the “hottest year evah!” on the UAH chart. There are no years hotter than 1998 on the UAH chart. NOAA and NASA claim 10 years between 1998 and 2015 were hotter than 1998.
We need an overlay of the UAH chart and the bastardized NOAA and NASA charts to see the extent of the NOAA and NASA climate change temperature fraud after 1998.
No reply from the Climate Alarmist Peanut Gallery.
I wonder why. No, I don’t. I know why: They don’t want to touch this subject because it exposes the temperature data mannipulation fraud coming out of NOAA and NASA.
Hind casting, as I assume you know, is merely curve fitting.
Fake surface data.. so funny !!
NO, your black line is NOT observations.. it is a fabrication with many adjustments from totally unfit-for-purpose surface sites…
… and has zero probability of being representative of the planet’s real temperature.
1998 and 2016 were the same temperature. (see UAH) Why does your chart say different?
Good question.
Since the models work on a regional basis, they must of been able to replicate the US in the first half of the 20th century and explained the 1940’s to 1970’s cooling?
Didn’t see that anywhere.
The Climate Alarmists pretend there was no significant cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s. Their bastardized Hockey Stick global chart has eliminated that cooling, so Climate Alarmists have to pretend it didn’t exist. You can’t believe in the Bogus Hockey Stick chart and significant cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, at the same time.
All the original, written, historic, regional temperature data shows significant cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s.
Climate Alarmists are such Frauds! Or really Gullible. Either way, they are wrong, wrong, wrong. And they won’t admit it.
The following is from the book ‘Forecasts, Famines and Freezes’ published in 1976 and written by John Gribbin an assistant editor of Nature (When it was still regarded as one of the world’s premier scientific publications)
“Between the mid 1940s and 1970 global mean temperatures fell by about half a degree C, for the five year period 1968-72 the average temperature recorded by the nine ocean weather ships which are stationed between 35 and 66 degrees north was more than half a degrees C below the peak of the 1940s and this local cooling continued in 1973. In worldwide terms, we are in a situation where the Earth is cooling more quickly than it warmed up earlier in the century.
Thanks for that, Dave.
CO2 IS NOT THE CLIMATE CONTROL KNOB
Quantification Against Earth’s Energy Budget
The Coming Retraction Wave?
2025-2026 should herald the Bern Model collapse as a credible forecasting tool, expect ripple effects:
1/Adjustment time = 1/Residence Time + 1/sink time
Case 1: 1000-Year Sink
Case 2:100-Year Sink
Result: The shorter the sink time, the lower the adjustment time — exactly as parallel circuit analysis suggests. Both removal pathways speed up the system’s return to equilibrium.
Temperature is a negative feedback. While temperature goes up linearly, heat radiated away goes up by the fourth power. Climate science doesn’t seem to recognize that the Earth is losing heat even during the day. That fourth power is what helps set the maximum daytime temperature at the surface.
Temperature is not a negative feedback. Temperature is a measurement.
The thermal energy effect in creating EMR is real (T^4).
The definition of feedback is a return of output energy to the input.
If one considers the planetary surface as the output and the sun as the input, then the EMR is the negative feedback, or at least that portion that has a line of sight with the sun.
Nit picking, I know. But words do matter.
Feedback changes the output of a system. One method for doing that is to use a summing node of input and output values. But that is not the only method. A sample of the output can also be used to control the gain/loss of components in the system, e.g. an active resistance element or phase shift element.
The T^4 factor is a direct control on the output of the system, it is not an input to a summing node. It’s like increasing/decreasing the gain of an amplifier rather than decreasing the input value to the system.
So (net) heat transfer is, after all, a function of temperature difference? Just curious, ‘cos you are kinda inconsistent in this topic.
You still don’t understand what the word “isothermal” means. Someday you need to go look it up. Heat transfer does NOT require a temperature differential in order to happen. Heat transfer happens during phase changes in H2O – but there is no internal temperature differential causing it to happen.
It’s so admirable how you love to make a fool of yourself 😉 Again, isothermal doesn’t mean the heat transfer happens between two objects of the same temperature. It means that during heat transfer the temperature of one of the objects remain the same. Heat still goes from the warmer object to the colder one. And this is so simple, and if you mess up these absolutely simple things, you are doomed in any debate.
I can see, old cretin, that you realized eventually how stupid you were here. Just keep this in mind next time when you come up with the next heap of bs.
Did you also produce this pile of gobbledygook, Gorman? It’s now clear why you avoided 8th grade science — too complicated for you.
“Heat transfer does NOT require a temperature differential in order to happen. Heat transfer happens during phase changes in H2O – but there is no internal temperature differential causing it to happen.”
What is discouraging is that these jokers are getting paid for this.
Maybe not for much longer as the adults now have the cheque book.
The adults (Trump) may have something to say about the mannipulation of temperature data and climate change rhetoric:
Story Tip
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/24/no-woke-ai-in-washington-says-trump-as-he-launches-ai-action-plan.html
“A new executive order states that the federal government has the obligation not to procure models that “sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy to ideological agendas.”
end excerpt
Well, it looks to me like that would apply to NOAA and NASA and IPCC climate data, and also to every Woke AI currently operating, as all of them have a Human-caused Climate Change ideological bias.
We are going to have to scrap or modify our current batch of AI’s. They have all been compromised by Climate Alarmists.
The issue really is quality control of the AI input data – a massive task.
“projected for the future by climate models for a wide range of land regions. Not only do the heatwave durations increase,”
EPA heatwave index says that is BS !
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/heat-wave-index-usa&ved=2ahUKEwj2_6vjndaOAxXEhagCHVRwKo0QFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2DREnbMD9Oci5dKM7QHkLe
My guess is they’ll redefine a “heatwave” to be lower in temperature and shorter in duration.
They could start naming heatwaves like they did storms that are little more than heavy rain and hard breezes…
The WMO have gone from:
“five or more consecutive days during which the daily maximum temperature surpasses the average maximum temperature by 5 °C (9 °F) or more.”
https://www.iipa.org.in/cms/public/uploads/222841610370027.pdf
to a vague definition which I can only translate as:
“a heatwave is whatever we say it is, whenever we say it.”
https://wmo.int/topics/heatwave#:~:text=A%20heatwave%20can%20be%20defined,unusually%20hot%20days%20and%20nights.
It appears they already have. Heatwaves used to be 5 days long and now they are 3 days. Possible it is lower temperatures but hard to tell as it varies from place to place.
they’ll redefine a “heatwave”
I would have to look it up, but I remember reading that the definition has been changed. I think I read it here.
I love models! And mine are never wrong, airplanes and sailing ships and tanks and cars. And always correct. Meanwhile, moronic Environistas can’t even figure out what the weather will do tomorrow.
The article is paywalled. It is hard to find the time period used to study heatwaves. It is likely that, as with prior alarmist studies on heatwaves, the study period does not include weather before 1950.
There are large parts of the world where severe past heatwaves happened before 1900. Australia had what might have been its most severe heatwave in 1896. There are other large areas like the US where the worst past heatwaves were in the 1930s, but not included in this paper.
Heatwave properties have “natural” variation shown by these examples. They happened before man-made CO2 was a significant player. For the current paper to be valid, it would be required to include a natural variation factor for years 1950 to now.
I have studied heatwaves (mainly Australian ones) for 30 years now. I cannot accept that the abstract of this paper by Martinez-Villalobos et al expresses valid science.
It should be redacted.
Geoff S
One minor nuanced correction, mate:
They happened before man-made CO2 was DECLARED a significant player.
Point? Anthropogenic CO2 is not a significant player, now, or ever before throughout history.
The good news is that all that additional heat will melt the predicted larger hailstones back down to normal size.
The updraft will be so strong that the hail stones will just pop out of the stratosphere right into space … well, that’s more logical than model forecasts 😀
More comets?
Mathematical self abuse. If they don’t stop doing that, they are going to go blind.
That has already happened. The next progression will be the growth of hair on their palms.
From Portland State University, the most far left enclave in the city of far leftists. Did you expect the climate zealots to denounce their religion and do actual science?
“tomorrow’s temperatures have a dependence on today’s temperature.” Until tomorrow’s storm front moves in – and then all bets are off.
There is a related problem of doing linear interpolation for missing station data when there is a cold front near one of the stations used in the interpolation.
Nonsensical, meaningless word salad, possibly AI generated, or possibly slightly confused human trying to cover up the fact that he doesn’t actually know what he is talking about.
“normalizing by local temperature variability”
Exactly *what* does this mean? Does it mean getting rid of variability by averaging? Does it mean weighting the variability across localities? If so how is the weighting handled? Do localities with high variance get weighted more or less than others?
No modeler and his believers nor financer you can’t bring to heel and reason with a hockey stick. Just beat the living crap out of them until they do so.
Oh beloved ecotards do not agree? Well what is your government induced enforcing of BS policies? Get lost and let us live in peace, if you can’t make a living on an honest buck earned lease a rope or jump off a bridge.
there, this time I used correctly 2 “ff” 😉
Note the subtle use of language to mislead that has been used by the ideologues of climate scientism for decades.
This should read — analysis of physically observable global historical temperature data and a numerical simulated projected temperature created within an artificial version of an earth world.
Spot on.l
“Nonlinear impacts.”
Translation: “Runaway Greenhouse Effect.”
European major heatwaves of 2003. 2006. and 2018 were discretely solar driven, such heat events can be predicted centuries ahead. Kepler first found fame by predicting the extreme cold winter of 1595, by what he described as ‘magnetic angles’ of the planets, he wasn’t wrong.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub