By P Gosselin on 9. June 2026
According to Euronews, climate scientists are annoyed about what they call “targeted disinformation about heatwaves” on the Internet.
They say this is leading to a noticeable wave of aggression and harassment against researchers, expecially women.
Image created by P. Gosselin using Grok AI
Germany’s online Euronews has an article and accompanying video report that address the increasing spread of misinformation online following extreme heatwaves and the resulting consequences for the scientific community.
Climate scienists resent high-reach posts by skeptics that circulate on social media that are aimed at discrediting news reports of “unprecendented heat waves”. These reports often reference earlier historical heat periods such as the extreme heatwave of 1921 or the record summer of 1976 in the UK. These historical accounts are often accompanied by comments suggesting that people back then “didn’t make such a fuss” about it, which is intended to imply that today’s temperatures are nothing new and have little to do with CO2 emissions.
More frequent and intense today
Climate scientists vehemently contradict this narrative. They do not deny that severe heatwaves occurred before industrialization. However, the core issue is different, they claim. Due to global warming, these extreme weather events now occur significantly more frequently, intensely, and for longer durations than in the past.
“In the past few years, we have been experiencing heatwaves that are so extreme that some of them would have had near-zero probability without human-caused climate change,” said Sonia Seneviratne, Professor of Climate Science at ETH Zürich.
Climate scientists also resent accusations that global temperature data is being systematically manipulated to artificially sensationalize the climate crisis. That is not true, they insist.
“Harassment”
In the Euronews article, Dr. Zeke Hausfather, climate scientist Berkeley Earth, equates the stream of ccritical comments made by readers to harassment. “Most of the harassment, fortunately, consists of people throwing insults at me online. However, many of my colleagues, especially women, experience significantly worse.”
Oh Pulllleze… skeptics aren’t picking on you because you’re women. They are pointing out extreme flaws in reporting claiming “Unprecedented” when prior events were measurably equal a hundred years ago. It’s not that you’re women, it’s that you present your findings like Toxic Activists. Even the Male Scientists act like Toxic Activists and get their fair share of skepticism.
Any kind of AGW criticism is either harassment, heresy or blasphemy.
And on those rare ocassions they don’t do propaganda, name calling or virtue signalling
they play victim(victim signalling is the proper term).
And especially this kind of victimhoood, as 99% of them don’t know what a woman is while probably 80% of the women got their jobs because of female DEI quotas.
Victimology is a growing trend. Karmelo Anthony supporters claim he was found guilty of murder because he’s black, setting aside the fact that he stabbed Austin Metcalf in the chest with a knife.
Just take a look at OJ Simpson.
I don’t even live in the US and just the basic facts show that he was 100% guilty – yet he walked out of the court as a free man.
And iirc correctly Norm MacDonald was even cancelled from SNL for not going along with the court decision (the killer goes free while his critics get punished )
The problem is that this is not just a trend but became fundamental part of their strategy since Obama to place those who rank highest in the victimhoood-ladder into key position
to stiffle any criticism and get away with everything.
That’s why Kamala started to turn black the day she started to run for president.
Criticising her would have been impossible.
Not only stabbed Austin, but openly admitted it.
His defense was that being pushed by a white guy put him in fear for his life and justified killing said white guy.
(He was in the other teams tent, and according to witnesses, had been told to leave over 15 times.)
He was looking for trouble and he got it.
35 years in prison. He’ll have a long time to think about how he ruined his own life.
Instead of whining and sniveling, they should simply provide data that backs up their statements. Their real problem is that such data cannot be found.
Exactly my thought when I read the quote from Sonia Seneviratne but, of course, that’s just me harassing her.
Give the Democrats a week or two and they’ll manufacture the “Data” necessary to
win an electionsupport the narrativeRemember, it was democrats who purposely lost custody of ALL ballots when they decided to mail ballots to every registered voter and have election month instead of election day. Once ballot custody is lost, no one can guarantee the ordinal “one man, one vote” concept. Not an obscure idea as “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”
Too many crooks spoil the broth!
I’ll bet none of them would even say publicly what a woman is.
And I distinctly recall harassment of Judith Curry for speaking the truth. That harassment is ongoing, especially from simps like Mann.
Could alleviate that problem by changing “Women’s Sports” to “Persons born with a Uterus Sports”. This would exclude non-uteran persons competing against uterine persons.
Ohhhhh, my. I wish it would be so; still there’d be whinning and crying about fairness…or something.
Best solution would be to start a third class of competitors called Trans.
Male Sports
Female Sports
Trans Sports
Let them play/change/shower/bathroom against/with other Trans competitors
“expecially”…good one. They must be exponentially sensitive. Grow a pair or even better: get lost.
Quote from Heartbreak Ridge:
“Don’t go away mad. Just go away.”
There is clearly something going wrong in our educational institutions, when scientists claim harassment for being challenged about their prognostications.
Maybe, they should revisit the core principle of science? Scepticism is a fundamental and healthy essential in the pursuit of truth. Maybe, some in the academic world have forgotten or even never been made aware of that?
Why did an image of Michael Mann come into my head?
“The debate is settled,” and “Climate change is a fact.”
Barack Hussein Obama
January 28, 2014.
Barack was/is wrong most of the time. Like most Democrats.
He was clearly wrong on many occasions, but he was spot on when saying “I am going to make energy very expensive with policies to tackle climate change”.
That interview with I forget who should be made compulsory viewing, shown to anyone that is planning on voting Democrat.
Here is a short clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKzVvKIoLI
The climate does change,
True. The question is, what is the optimum climate?
Metrics defined that are measurable and testable by anyone are critical.
Until then we cannot know if we have departed the optimum or have not yet achieved the optimum.
Based on 50 years of this nonsense, I come to the conclusion THEY want us to believe 1850 was the all time best.
You can’t even get them to commit to 1850 temperatures being the optimal. Any commitment would destroy their message that rising anomilies are THE problem. Actual temperatures are immaterial.
The problem is using incorrect statistics to justify a conclusion. Time series of temperature do not contain an independent variable that has a relationship to the dependent variable. A time series of CO2 is the same. It has no variable that has a relationship to the dependent variable. Yet a conjecture can claim that one causes the other because they show correlation.
Data mining, data homogenization, “bias” corrections are all statistically based. That has become a substitute for doing the work to develop an experimental basis for conclusions. CO2 causes CAGW, give me a break. Don’t show me statistics and correlations, show me the functional relationship developed from the statistical findings!
And they do not even use a “time series of temperature”, but rather an average of an average of… thermometer readings from different thermometers in different places at different times! How ridiculous is that!
Actually, an average of mid-range values.
Thank you.
“Harassed and insulted”, which means that climate skeptics didn’t enthusiastically agree with everything they said. If they are incapable of existing in a system in which they can be criticized, then they are pleading special circumstances and putting themselves on the level of children.
This from people who try to paint sceptics as akin to holocaust deniers.
I’m sure there were plenty of insults from small-minded people. Skeptics get called worse.
“Our most vulnerable…”
“Harassed and insulted”?
Shouldn’t that be, “Challenged and corrected”?
Yes, asking for evidence.. is considered harrassment.
Because you’re too stupid to know the difference between evidence and proof. I’ve called you on it multiple times and you’re caterwauling for “evidence” from people who’ve given it to you dozens if not hundreds of times, yes, it constitutes harrassment.
Well, if I did down votes, I would have to give you one for this comment.
What is the difference between evidence and proof? Maybe I’m stupid too, and didn’t know it.
What evidence has been supplied by anyone establishing that CO2 is doing anything measurable to the Earth’s weather or climate?
There is none. I’ve probably been following this subject longer than you, and I have never seen any evidence that CO2 is anything to worry about and there is no evidence establishing that it is.
If you have some evidence please enlighten me.
The context matters.
In common language/social context derived definitions, evidence and proof are used interchangeable.
In judiciary, there are 3 evidentiary standards.
In logic and math, a proof is a logical progression that derives the conclusion from the initial statement. No evidence is required in a logical proof, although measurements might be included and when that happens, the measurements are “evidence.”
The “evidence” establishing the CO2 is the “control knob” is purely a correlation between increasing CO2 levels with rising “global average” temperatures with the correlation being “proof” of causation. The fallacy of this is correlation, while exists between cause and effect, alone does not identify which is cause and which is effect and furthermore does not prove the correlation identifies any cause and effect relationship.
One could gather data and prove Friday night poker games are the cause of rising “global average” temperatures. Likewise, the increasing number of skimpy bikinis on the beaches is the cause of rising temperatures. (There could be some validity to such a claim. /humor.)
The NH summer is the season for ‘climate crisis’ media beat-ups.
According to the IPCC itself (Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report) there is only “medium confidence” or “low confidence” in human contribution to observed hot extremes in 50% of the world regions since 1950 (Section 2a), there is “high confidence” of human contribution in the other 50%.
Neither “medium confidence” nor “high confidence” suggests “near-zero probability”.
On the other hand the IPCC Report also states that “cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe with high confidence that human-caused climate change is the main driver” but there’s near-zero probability of a media mention of that in NH winter.
Their probabilities are based solely on statistics and have nothing to do with a proven causal relationship. They are absolute gibberish. I could go to the Atacama desert and predict a 90% chance of rain. Of course, it won’t rain, but my prediction would still be true because there was a 10% chance of no rain.
Exactly! That’s the game the Climate Alarmists are playing.
They are only based on the statistics of opinions as rewritten by politicians.
+100 thousand!
Yeah, they have “high confidence”, but they don’t have any evidence backing up their claims.
”CONfidence Levels” are nothing more than opinions.
This is all the Climate Alarmists have: Opinions. No evidence.
Unfortunately 97% of their “Evidence and Data” is manufactured by Climate Models and not by Field Observations.
We had a two day extreme heatwave here in NH Hampshire UK when it was over thirty at the suspect Kew Gardens site. Now it’s 10 degsC rising to 15 today in mid June. I’m
What is a heatwave?
The World Meteorological Organization* defines it as five or more consecutive days during which the daily maximum temperature surpasses the average maximum temperature by 5 °C (9 °F) or more.
website: iipa.org.in/cms/public/uploads/222841610370027.pdf
UK met office no longer use the WMO definition, in 2018 they changed it to:
“A UK heatwave threshold is met when a location records a period of at least three consecutive days with daily maximum temperatures meeting or exceeding the heatwave temperature threshold, dependant on location.” (currently that is just 28ºC max in urban areas, lower in rural areas and no minimum duration)
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/temperature/heatwave
Clearly this is so they can claim that heatwaves occur more frequently, which is an obvious lie if they have to change the definition to make that claim. Of course, this also means they can claim “hottest since records began”, as a new record started with the definition change. The Met office are all in on the globalist’s “climate crisis” scam, designed to rob you of your freedoms and tax you based on the vagaries of the weather. I’m reasonably sure the UK has not seen a heatwave meeting the WMO definition for many years, maybe decades and CERTAINLY NOT this year. We have seen nothing outside of natural variability.
*The WMO has also re-defined heatwaves since this publication, and their website gives this vague description:
“A heatwave can be defined as a period where local excess heat accumulates over a sequence of unusually hot days and nights.”
Translation: ‘it’s whatever we say it is, whenever we say it is’.. it would seem they are now fully behind the ‘climate crisis’ scam too.
Is the opposite of a heatwave a coldwave, defined as five consecutive days or more when the maximum temperature falls 5K below the average maximum temperature? Using the WMO definition, the U.K. has regular heatwaves in the winter. I think the U.K. Met office definition is potentially a better metric as it doesn’t depend on averages, but the threshold is too low as those temperatures are regularly exceeded and have been for decades. A 3K allowance for the UHI is too low, especially since the winter forecasts allow a similar figure between urban and rural areas. It needs to be regional as well, even in an area as small as the U.K. there can be significant temperature variations. I suggest that 30 degrees Celsius for rural areas and 34 degrees Celsius for urban areas with 38 degrees Celsius for RAF airfields and major airports!
The WMO definition relates to continental climates whereas the Met Office refers to a maritime climate, it’s reasonable that the definition would be different. The changes made to the definition in 2022 increased the temperature thresholds required thereby reducing the likelihood of a heatwave!
“Clearly this is so they can claim that heatwaves occur
moreless frequently”(my correction in italics).
“The central map above shows the original thresholds, the right hand one the updated thresholds and, as an additional demonstration of our changing climate, the left hand one shows what they would have been if we had had this definition in place for 1961-1990.”
Too right Sharky,
these thin-skinned professional climate alarmists working for the UK meteorology deserve all the criticism they get because they have fiddled the climate observations to suit their AGW agenda. Apart from the urban heat process, which is real and nothing to do with CO2, their poor siting of stations, dodgy homogenisation techniques and non-standard climate periods for extreme weather all combine to show that the UK weather/climate system is failing badly due to ideology.
Just get back to normal reporting of real weather, have some ethics and stop attempting to scare the population about stupid illicit records no-one cares about, then you won’t have to listen to our criticism, you dummies!
Two days is NOT a “heat wave.”
Nor is 85F a heatwave.
Depends on your location. It could be in places that rarely see it.
Nor is it an existential threat.
Statistically, maybe.
Practically, no. 85F is not that hot. It is not life-threatening.
98.6 (give or take)
““targeted disinformation about heatwaves” “
That is exactly what Zeke his fellow lay-abouts have been doing for years.
As soon as you see Zeke’s name… you know “the con is on”…. He is a “climate shyster”
A bit of digging shows this whole nonsense is closely linked to the farcical “weather attribution” non-science of Ms. Otto
Systematic attribution of heatwaves to the emissions of carbon majors | Nature
“Weather Attribution” (guessing) is all the Climate Alarmists have left.
When you don’t have any proof or evidence, then they just have to make things up out of whole cloth, and claim they know what causes the weather to do what it does.
They claim “unprecedented” when the facts and weather history say otherwise.
If you see people talking about “confidence levels”, go elsewhere for your information.
Attribution is a term and a function long associated with religions and mythologies (aka religions).
It’s funny that the Euronews article hasn’t received a single comment until now. I wonder how much interest the article has really generated.
Summer 1976 was a record summer in terms of T-max, only. By T-avg, summer 1976 was the sixth warmest UK summer and was an extreme outlier for that decade.
The warmest T-avg summer in the UK record occurred last year, 2025. The rest of the top five T-avg UK summers, in descending order, were 2018, 2006, 2003 and 2022.
On average, UK summers have warmed at a rate of +0.3 deg C per decade since 1976
Referring without context to “… the record summer of 1976 in the UK” is rather misleading.
The country needs to go up by a few more degrees for me to be comfortable there, it’s dam cold. I do love the concept of a UK heatwave 🙂
You’re making an assumption that your temperature data is correct and accurate. It probably is about as accurate as the COVID-19 information released by governments.
Where does the author of this article get its temperature data from and how do you know it’s accurate?
Yet you don’t question it.
How do you know the “Heatwave” temperature reported is “Accurate”?
Was it taken at a Class 1 sensor site or a class 5 junk site??
Cut and paste a quote from the article. I find not reference to temperature data.
Nail in the Head probably was responding to multiple “deniers” and was cutting and pasting responses to the wrong comments.
Thank you for pointing out that possiblity.
Good point.
And are the majority of those measurements used to determine T-avg temperatures taken at pristine class 1 & 2 weather stations or from junk class 4 or 5 sites?
T-ave, in spite of nearly universal appeal, is bogus.
t-avg is only meaningful when the wave form is smooth and symmetrical, which daily temperatures never are.
Planetary rotation has that effect, yes.
Summer 1976 was a record summer in terms of T-max, only. By T-avg, summer 1976 was the sixth warmest UK summer and was an extreme outlier for that decade.
That’s good to hear. Next time the temperature in the UK breaks T-max records, you will refrain from attributing it to global warming as T-avg records were not broken
Measured at the heavily tainted Met Office sites, where anything recent is massively effected by airport expansion, bad sites, and “infilled” data.
Although 1976 is often referred to due to its heat what in fact made most notable was the prolonged drought. The summer was the culmination of a 16-month dry spell—the longest recorded over England and Wales since 1727. Reservoirs and rivers hit critically low levels, with some rivers running completely dry. The government passed the Drought Act of 1976 and appointed a Minister for Drought.
The reservoir where I used to fish, during the summer of 76 was so low that the flooded buildings were exposed for the first time since the construction of the dam.
Snow is forecast on the Okanagan Connector and Kootenay Pass highways in southern BC tonight; such snowfalls have been coming later and later in the year over the past couple of decades. Why would one not expect to receive some criticism when claiming that the sky is falling? Some places it’s warm, some places it’s cool; understanding that is scientific behaviour, making a living by promoting panic and impending doom is not.
Isn’t equality what feminists wanted? Males in all walks of life are criticised all the time. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
You mean get back into the kitchen.
Now that’s just mean. And funny-I like it.
Articles like that give women scientists a bad name. The caterwauling is an insult to the many females in science who deliver first rate research,
A-plus post.
The geographical distribution of weather stations is highly uneven, both spatially and temporally (for example, the abandonment of many stations in Siberia after the collapse of the USSR), and they are also affected by the urban heat island effect.
Even if the stations were beyond reproach and the homogenization methods entirely free of the slightest bias, we possess only 170 years of precise measurements, with limitations in geographical coverage, even though that coverage has improved considerably over time. One cannot compare less than two centuries of thermometer records with paleoclimatic archives, which are extremely valuable in their own right but are not comparable to weather station measurements because of differences in resolution. There is therefore no way of knowing whether current temperatures are truly “unprecedented,” since the available resolution is insufficient to determine that with confidence.
Attribution studies use computer programs, with and without anthropogenic greenhouse gases, to determine the probability of a given extreme event occurring with or without the human factor. Models are not test tubes or terrariums; they are tremendously imprecise abstractions of an extraordinarily complex system. Moreover, one of the explicitly stated objectives of attribution studies is to facilitate legal action against oil companies by producing compelling studies that generate impressive and easily understood figures. It is an admirable exercise in communication, but poor science. All of this will make excellent material for theses in epistemology and the sociology of science in a few decades, when the world has not collapsed.
For the most part, extreme events are not increasing, despite what the media and scientists turned communicators tell us when they claim that things are getting worse and worse. Temperatures are rising, which is not surprising given a rebound from the Little Ice Age, likely combined with human influences involving greenhouse gases, land-use change, and urbanization.
Simply mentioning the fact that hurricanes are not increasing, nor are hydrological, ecological, or agricultural droughts (according to the IPCC itself), can be enough to earn a torrent of insults from the Sphinxes of orthodoxy.
Generally speaking, there is rather less cold than more heat, despite certain undeniably impressive weather events, from which one should not draw hasty conclusions about increased probabilities, as the WWA does through the use of its computer models. Heat waves occurred during the Little Ice Age as well, even though it was a period of cooling (and, it should be added, widespread hardship).
People are living better and longer lives. Compare our lives with those of our great-grandparents: there is simply no comparison. The term “technosolutionism,” overused by alarmists, is merely a pejorative synonym for the word “progress.” Vaccines, for example, are a form of technosolutionism, as are waterproof clothing, aspirin, and antibiotics. Pushing the point further, one could say that the wheel itself is a form of technosolutionism, insofar as it is an engineering device designed to make the transport of heavy loads easier. The same could be said of the staircase, which is ultimately nothing more than an “optimized slope.” The point is not to equate the invention of the wheel with the use of vaccines or fossil fuels, but simply to emphasize that all these innovations belong to a continuum, and that rejecting “technosolutionism” is absurd, since if we are having this discussion today, it is because humanity has never ceased to make progress, despite the warnings and condemnations of Malthusians and catastrophists of every kind.
Finally, not a word is ever said about the professional and media harassment directed at skeptics, who are frequently branded as idiots, shills, or “deniers.” This last term draws a parallel with individuals who question, or outright deny, the existence of the gas chambers in which six million men, women, and children were murdered. This grotesque analogy is tolerated, and even socially encouraged (or at the very least, nothing is done to discourage it), solely because it serves to discredit skeptics of climate catastrophe, even at the cost of employing atrocious terminology.
“”” Attribution studies use computer programs, with and without anthropogenic greenhouse gases, to determine the probability of a given extreme event occurring with or without the human factor. [..] It is an admirable exercise in communication, but poor science.
“””
I agree and would like to add that it only takes a look at the uncertainty to make this effort good and valid science.
Unfortunately, that is where attribution statements seem to fall completely apart.
Here is an easy example (way less complicated than attribution)
G. Schmidt presents this graph
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/predicted-arctic-sea-ice-trends-over-time/
And writes
“””
Actually, this isn’t bad. The CMIP6 ensemble mean for September area trends is now -11 %/decade (observed 13 %/decade) and the March trends are spot on.
“””
when in reality the uncertainty shown in the graph indicates simulated trends all over the place. His statement without uncertainty is wrong and potentially intentionally misleading!
And that does not even include model errors found out about after this data was presented (I posted here last months about recent publications on falling ice and dust not being properly represented in CMIP6 and older models).
Graphs can present data in different ways.
It’s possible to hide a trend break or show a trend break in graphs.
Do climate scientists deliberately hide trend breaks?
How many years are needed to confirm a trend break in the Arctic sea ice extent?
Why don’t climate scientists show this graph with a trend break?
How many years are needed to show a natural cycle?
There are several cycles, which cycle are you referring to?
Milankovitch cycles, 11-year solar cycles, little ice age cycles?
Exactly. 30 years does not cover most of them.
Mr. Layman here. As I understand it, 30 years was chosen back in the 1920’s because they only had 30 years of semi-reliable data.
It would be interesting to see what reworking something like LOTI using 60 years instead of 30 years as the average/normal would look like.
(I’m guessing it would still show a slight rise since the end of “Little Ice Age”.)
There are also statistical significance reasons for picking a number in the 20-30 samples region.
There is sea ice minimum data since 1979.
2026-1979=47 years
The sea ice minimum has decreased for 32 years and then increased for 14 years.
30 years was chosen after 30 years of satellite data was acquired.
30 years was the basis for micro climate, the 30 year average of weather in a given locale. Basically it was what you could expect should you choose to move there.
That micro climate was hijacked and redefined, repurposed for a global climate definition, which is bogus.
Since the end of the Holocene Optimum, there has been a warm period every 1000 to 1200 years.
As an estimate, we need good data for at least 3 complete cycles to determine if there is something there beyond these cycles.
BTW, each cycle since the end of the HO has been cooler than the previous. That includes the current one.
Is the broken Arctic sea ice minimum trend line sufficient to investigate the cause of it?
No one knows the reason why the Arctic sea ice minimum trend line is broken.
I’ve often said that a 30yr. base for climate analysis is too short-longer cycles by their very nature will be missed. At my age I have, by the 30yr definition, lived thru 2 full cycles and 2 partials…and all I’ve seen is, well, weather. Some yrs wet, some dry, some hot, some very cold-and I say so what. Show me the beef (to quote a now dead little old lady).
Climate research focused on CO2 costs a lot of money and this research does not lead to any technological development or innovations.
If natural climate variations can be explained by scientists, CO2 can no longer be blamed for affecting the climate.
Given the length of the already known climate cycles, you need at least 300 to 400 years of accurate data to determine whether you have a trend line or just a small portion of a cycle.
My point, but said more succinctly.
If one takes a snippet out of a full sine wave, one can produce a curve that extrapolates to any conclusion one sets out to “prove.”
I thought heat waves were statistically less frequent? We certainly haven’t had heat waves where I live that compare to the heat waves we had when I was younger. We did have a very cold winter and spring this year but they didn’t even mention it.
Well, until they altered the definition of what a “heat wave” is. And “adjusted” the data. And used a larger and larger proportion of poorly sited temperature stations polluted with Urban Heat Island effects.
But who’s counting?
The last really serious heatwave in the U.S. occurred in 2011.
That was a very bad heatwave which included a very bad drought (they go together).
It was so hot (110F to 120F) and dry that I was dragging 400 feet of garden hose around my property to water the trees. This is tick country in the summer, but conditions were so bad that I didn’t get one tick bite while wandering through the woods. It was too hot for the ticks! 🙂
Since 2011, we have had mild summer temperatures for the most part. I hope we never get another 2011. It’s what I imagine it felt like living in the 1930’s around here, although the 1930’s were hot the whole decade, whereas 2011 was the culmination of a two-year long drought and high heat.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/
If they do not want to be “harassed” perhaps they should stop spewing lies.
From the article: “Dr. Zeke Hausfather, climate scientist Berkeley Earth,”
Hey Zeke, how does one get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile out of historic temperature data that has no such “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile?
That appears to be quite a trick since the historic, written temperature data is all you had to work with when you created your bastardized Berkeley Earth Hockey Stick global temperature chart.
Do you know Phil Jones? He lies about the Earth’s temperature profile, too. Did you two get your heads together? You are both telling the same lie.
Please explain yourself.
Btw, is this what you consider harassment?
Zeke did not reply and none of the Climate Alarmists on this website want to jump in and help him out.
Apparently, Climate Alarmists don’t have a good answer for this question, otherwise, they would be eager to engage.
Living a Lie (believing Hockey Stick charts are legitimate). That’s what Climate Alarmists do, and they want us to live that lie ,too. No, thanks. You guys can’t even back up your lie. Why should I believe it? Besides, I know the truth: I’ve seen the regional, written temperature records from all over the world and none of them have a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart temperature profile. They all show it was just as warm in the recent, recorded past as it is today. None of them show unprecedented Hockey Stick chart heat.
THAT is the true situation. The world has been lied to by Temperature Data Mannipulators, causing untold economic and psychological damage to the human race.
‘There is no unprecedented heat today which means there is no CO2 crisis since even with more CO2 in the air today, the temperature are no warmer than in the recent past.
You want to see harassment. If one of these scientists actually started questioning the AGW catastrophe and switched sides the harassment and attacks would be far worse. Just ask Judith Curry.
After 25 years of study of Australian daily temperature data, much of the study related to ‘heatwaves’ however defined, I can conclude that there is next to no evidence that Australia has warmed 1.5 deg C or so since 1910, as is officially claimed. To get this figure requires use of adjusted temperature observations. Even if Australia is ‘warming’ I can find little evidence that such warming is adding to the hottest heatwaves as if there was an underlying baseline shift. There is a plausible limit to how hot heatwaves can get before meeting a ceiling. Ocean temperatures have a ceiling of about 31 deg C before convective processes cause cooling.
By using temperatures that have NOT gone through subjective adjustments, like the ACORN-SAT temperatures that are now in primary use have, the most national warming I can find is 0.9 to 1 deg C since 1900. But hot times happened before 1900.
Then there is the Urban Heat Island problem. The longest weather station records come from the capital cities that are typically closest to weather research academics who love to adjust. There is much credible, published evidence the cities are usually a degree or more hotter than their surroundings.
…….
We are told that the definitive, officially accepted story on Australian heatwaves stems from half a dozen formal publications headed by some women academics from Eastern universities. I do not mention ‘women’ because I dislike women. I do not. But women are better than men at some tasks and vice versa. It is plausible that women let emotion rule their publications more than men do. Some of these particular women have also published or written less formally about how tearful and fearful they feel about the enormity of the global warming threat. Should this emotion affect our judgement of their scientific measurement work? Of course it should. Hard scientific men study these papers, to find that most have cherry picked start dates around 1950 when some data go back to the 1859s. They also use selective definitions of ‘heat wave’ in ways that cause unease about data integrity.
….. Geoff S
Note that the world record high temperature has remained unbroken for 113-years. It appears that the low temperatures, and thus the average, have been increasing, while the highest temps have changed little.
Hmmm, I don’t recall their outrage when the mainstream warm-mongers set their sights at Dr. Judith Curry and called her derogatory terms related to women in pornography. Once again, this faux outrage only seems to go one way. I recall other scientists of note at the time who did not support the narrative losing their jobs over lesser misogyny.
Climate fantasists name calling like pubescent boys?
NO WAY!
Yes, the climate fantasists have called climate realists all sorts of names.
Even said that the realists should be in jail, thrown out of jobs, and similar things.
But we accept that, because we know they are just doing it to avoid arguing the science.
Oh no. My poor BFF Zeke. Boo hoo! Talk about the pot & kettle.
Having a different observation of data is harassment. Data has to be twisted correctly.
Did she report this to the police?
According to just about every Democrat, disagreeing with a person of color proves you are a racist.
Ah. So in addition to being a racist because I am “white and especially white and male” and
in addition to being a climate criminal (excessive carbon footprint) because I am “white and especially white and male” I get to add a badge of honor of being misogynistic.
A few more of the medals of honor and I will no longer be able to stand erect.
If persons in those positions are incompetent or lie and denies they are, they invite whatever comes their way.
Merit and integrity and honesty are values lost in the past, it seems.
Be careful, given the context, of using the word “erect”.
Humor, a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
“… I will no longer be able to stand erect.”
Are you saying “Climate Change” causes slouching? 😎
Nope. Just all the additional “badges of honor” we are “awarded.”
Like the humor. 🙂
These are the same people who with straight faces tell us that all whites are racist and it’s impossible for a person of color to be a racist.
Alarmists aren’t interested in the Truth, they just want to win the argument by any means possible. For them, the end justifies any means.
That sums it up nicely.
T-ave is (Tmax+Tmin)/2 by the definition used.
It is bogus.
The planet rotates. It is approximately a sphere.
At the day-night terminator, a 1 m^2 of surface is parallel to the incoming solar EM wave front and there is no incident solar energy. The surface is coolest.
As the planet rotates, the 1 m^2 slowly rotates. At about 3 hours after sunrise, the surface is approximately 70% of the area when the planet rotates that piece to noon.
From sunrise to noon, the surface warms. That is 1/4 of the day but the average J/m^2 is not 1/4 the incoming solar wave front.
From noon to sunset the reverse is true. As the hours progress the incident solar EM per m^2 reduces based on spherical geometry.
So for that 1/4 of the day, there is solar energy applied too the surface but with decreasing J/m^2. Depending on surface energy loss versus solar incident energy, the surface continues to warm in most places, then starts to cool. My local weather report shows the peak temperature at 2:00 pm.
At sunset to sunrise, 1/2 of the day, there is no solar energy inputting the surface.
Plotting the hourly temperatures and averaging those gives a different value that (Tmax+Tmin)/2.
Calculating the median gives a different number.
The metrics that should be used are the measure Tmax plotted separately from Tmin with the median. The median defines the statistical point where half the measurements are above and half are below.
Tave as it is defined and used is an excessive oversimplification used because the arithmetic is easy.
It is also a hold over from when LIG thermometers were read twice a day, and then converted to Max/Min.
It is tradition. Why is tradition not tossed in the waste can? Statisticians. Statisticians want long records so they can claim that problems with shorter records like Simpsons Paradox (Simpson’s Paradox (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)) wont. Statisticians also claim they can detect bias in 100% accurate stations without calibration by examining different measuring devices over time. Statisticians believe they can diminish measurement uncertainty be averaging different things. They do so by claiming each measurement is a sample so they can divide by the square root of thousands of measurements. They pointedly ignore that the CLT and standard error rely on each sample having a sample size. That makes the √n = √1, not √9500.
Tradition and statisticians should be ignored and only measurements of instruments providing multiple readings per hour should be used.
Thanks for the addition.
Just one change…. Climate Statisticians…
I have suggested disuse of this Taverage for many years now. Simple grounds, you should not average measurements that are observed under different conditions because, for one thing, you could have different sets of contributory variables. All things are not equal for Tmax and Tmin. Geoff S
It is the reason that time series of Tavg shows growth. There is a variance change with Tmin increasing. In order to make sense of what is occurring requires observing the variables individually.
Agreed and your comments have been, over the years, integrated with mine.
Fun trying to use monthly averaged Tmax to construct anything intelligent.