No, New York Times, Climate Change Isn’t Causing Modern Heat Waves

The New York Times (NYT) claims in “Without Climate Change, U.S. Heat Wave Called ‘Virtually Impossible’” that the recent Northeastern U.S. heat wave could not have occurred without human-caused climate change. This is false. The NYT bases its entire story on a model-driven analysis from a group whose sole purpose is to connect weather events to climate change, while ignoring the long observational record showing that severe heat waves have repeatedly struck the United States, including New York, for centuries.

“Heat and humidity as severe, prolonged and far-reaching as this week’s would have been ‘virtually impossible’ in the Northeast and eastern Canada before humans began warming the planet, a team of scientists said on Friday,” writes Raymond Zhong, a reporter for the NYT. “Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the burning of oil, gas and coal have trapped more of the sun’s heat at Earth’s surface, raising temperatures worldwide for more than a century.

“Summer hot spells are nothing new, but because of the excess heat around the planet caused by global warming, they can produce higher temperatures today than they once did,” Zhong continued.

Unlike a good journalist, Zhong never questioned the premise, never examined the historical record, never interviewed anyone outside the climate attribution community, and never asked whether the group they cite, World Weather Attribution (WWA), has conclusions that might be influenced by the organization’s very reason for existing. Instead, Zhong presented readers with exactly one narrative: climate change is causing the present heat wave.

WWA exists for one purpose, to determine how much climate change has influenced weather events. That is its mission. Asking WWA whether climate change caused a heat wave is like asking the National Football League whether football is important or Greenpeace whether they think oil spills are harmful. What exactly did the NYT expect them to conclude? That climate change had nothing to do with it?

Of course not. This is not journalism, rather it’s a reporter using a narrative autopen.

The article reports that WWA concluded the heat wave would have been “virtually impossible” before industrialization and cites a probability analysis based on wet bulb globe temperature calculations combined with weather observations, forecasts, and climate model simulations. Yet there is one enormous problem with this approach: climate models are not observations.

WWA begins with climate models, creates a hypothetical version of Earth without modern greenhouse gas emissions, and then compares that imaginary world to today’s modeled climate. The result is not a measurement. It is an estimate built upon assumptions about carbon dioxide driving climate changes, already embedded within the models themselves. The NYT never explains this distinction. Instead, it presents speculative model output as though it were an observed fact. Even more troubling is is the fact that the NYT story ignored heat wave history entirely.

America’s climate did not begin in 1970. Long before anyone blamed carbon dioxide for extreme weather, the United States experienced devastating heat waves that rivaled or exceeded many recent temperatures. Climate at a Glance documents that the most severe period for U.S. heat waves remains the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s, when NOAA observations show far more frequent extreme heat than today.

The historical record extends even farther back. The catastrophic Eastern U.S. heat wave of 1901 killed an estimated 9,500 people. The historic 1911 heat wave brought temperatures above 100°F across much of New England and still holds Boston’s all-time record of 104°F. The Dust Bowl heat waves of 1934 and 1936 produced temperatures that remain unmatched across large portions of the central United States. The devastating heat wave of 1980 in the United States killed thousands and caused billions of dollars in damage. None of these events receives a single mention in the NYT article.

Instead, readers are asked to believe that today’s weather is fundamentally different from any weather experienced in the past, just because one attribution group says so.

The article also ignores the basic reality that reliable nationwide temperature observations span roughly 150 years, while humans have lived in North America for more than 15,000 years. Claiming that a weather event is “virtually impossible” based on such a tiny slice of climate history requires extraordinary confidence, or hubris. A commonly cited scientific saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is often attributed to astronomer Carl Sagan. Yet the NYT provides no extraordinary evidence for the claim that the ongoing heat wave is exceptional or would be “virtually impossible” sans climate change. Indeed, it presents no hard evidence at all, just WWA’s computer model spin. The NYT applies none of the skepticism that journalists normally reserve for extraordinary claims.

The NYT also overlooks another important factor. Much of the observed warming in cities occurs at night, when asphalt, concrete, and buildings slowly release the heat absorbed during the day. This Urban Heat Island effect raises overnight minimum temperatures, precisely when heat-related mortality is greatest. Urbanization can substantially influence long-term temperature records, a known factor ignored by the NYT.

Finally, Zhong quotes a WWA scientist declaring that “the climate the country has today is fundamentally different to the one it had when the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence.” That line makes for dramatic copy, but it is historically false. The Founding Fathers experienced brutal heat waves. The most famous heat wave during the American Revolution occurred during the Battle of Monmouth in central New Jersey on June 28, 1778. Temperatures soared to nearly 100°F (37.8°C) with high humidity, pushing the heat index well over 110°F. Fighting in heavy woolen uniforms under the blazing summer sun, soldiers on both sides suffered severe dehydration and heatstroke. Almost as many American soldiers died of heat exhaustion as died from battle wounds.

Extreme heat in the United States is not a new phenomenon.

Despite this, modern media treat every string of hot days as evidence of a looming “climate catastrophe” while ignoring centuries of evidence that debunks this claim.

The most disappointing aspect of this story is not WWA’s predictable conclusion. Organizations are free to pursue the missions for which they were created. The failure belongs squarely with the NYT simply parroting, without critical examination, a climate advocacy organization’s unverified claims.

Readers deserve good journalism. What they got was sloppy climate advocacy masquerading as news. In this case, The New York Times erred because WWA’s claims are not news and certainly not “fit to print.”

Anthony Watts Thumbnail

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 18 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
66 Comments
Nick Stokes
July 9, 2026 6:04 pm

the recent Northeastern U.S. heat wave could not have occurred without human-caused climate change. This is false.”

Articles “debunking” heatwaves are appearing more and more frequently.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2026 6:10 pm

You used to be better than this Nick.
Nobody is debunking heat waves, they are debunking claims that CO2 is causing them.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  MarkW
July 9, 2026 6:32 pm

But the heatwaves are getting more frequent.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2026 8:14 pm

A cluster of heatwaves over a few years which includes data from ever expanding Urban centres is not a significant trend…

Long-Term Trends (10 to 30+ years): Essential for fields with high variability and “noise,” such as environmental science, ecology, or epidemiology. Identifying reliable, statistically meaningful trends in these areas requires decades of data to account for seasonal or cyclical anomalies.

The very fact that a such a wide (ambiguous) range (10-30 years) (could very well be 50-100) is given shows just how preposterous the throw-away line ”heatwaves are getting more frequent” is.

Reply to  Mike
July 9, 2026 8:26 pm

Lol, deniers have no problem insisting on longer time periods when discussing heat wave frequency trends, yet when it comes to promoting Monckton’s pseudo-pauses, a handful of years suddenly becomes enough.

Funny how the standard changes when the conclusion is more convenient.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 9, 2026 10:23 pm

Ditto for proving CO2 induced CC.
A curious question…
Has the definition (quantification levels) of what qualifies as “Drought Conditions” changed since 1930?
If so, would applying current requirements to past events increase drought conditions in the past??
It seems that where Wind speeds are measured has definitely changed (upped the scale) the quantification of Hurricane categories.

Reply to  Bryan A
July 9, 2026 10:46 pm

Researchers typically define a drought metric and then apply it consistently across the entire period of record.

Changing the definition halfway through the time series would make it difficult to determine whether any observed trend reflects a real change in drought or simply a change in methodology.

Definitions can change over time, but good studies handle that by reprocessing the entire historical record using the new methodology / definition.

That’s one reason peer reviewed climate science is reliable. It can help identify those kinds of inconsistencies when they arise.

Reply to  Eldrosion
July 10, 2026 12:27 am

Changing the definition halfway through the time series would make it difficult to determine whether any observed trend reflects a real change in drought or simply a change in methodology. Definitions can change over time, but good studies handle that by reprocessing the entire historical record using the new methodology / definition.”

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: https://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. This year might reach the threshold, yet to be confirmed. We have seen nothing outside of natural variability.

*The WMO has also re-defined heatwaves since this publication, and their website now 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.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 10, 2026 1:11 am

Not only that, the height temperature is commonly measured as 2 meters. Now lowered to 1.25 meters. In summer land temperature gets very hot. The difference between land temperature and the changing height temperature has reduced. Land temperatures at around 40 degrees C, appear 35 degrees C as air temperature. As was pointed out, changes discredits trends. But publishing trends do not take in account of these changes.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 10, 2026 8:01 am

You completely miss the point that WWA do not do peer reviewed work but mostly use press releases.

Roger Pielke identifies three tricks their supposed ‘attribution’ work entails – mathematical sloppiness, assuming the conclusion that the study seeks to provide, and ignoring the evidence.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 10, 2026 5:28 am

Typical. Lead in with insults.
No point addressing your post as I refuse to engage in flame wars.

Reply to  Eldrosion
July 10, 2026 6:32 pm

Erosion is a denier! Mazing!

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2026 8:19 pm

Didn’t the definitions of “heat waves” get changed / redefined a while back to require lower temps rises and over shorter spells?

What was called a “heatwave” when I was a youngster required 100F over about 4 days as I recall. And we didn’t have aircon.

Now a “heatwave” is temps over 3 days that are “unusual for that location” (whatever that means).

So of course they’re “getting more frequent”.

Reply to  Mr.
July 9, 2026 11:53 pm

The U.K. met office current definition of a heat is three consecutive days with temperatures above 25 degrees Celsius (rural) or 28 degrees Celsius (conurbations). I’m not sure if and when this changed. The problem is that some of the weather stations are located in rural areas like RAF stations. Certainly the first mention of heatwave that I can definitely remember was in 1976, although I know previous summers being warm and sunny, even 1975 despite snow in June. Apparently someone from Coventry University was on the BBC recently and said the current heatwave was due to the jet stream and nothing to do with climate change, the BBC quickly moved away from this person, I didn’t see the programme so I cannot verify it.

Reply to  JohnC
July 10, 2026 12:28 am

See my reply to eldrosion above.

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2026 8:27 pm

Compared to when exactly/ the whole record, a subset of the record? 😉

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2026 10:09 pm

Heat waves…virtually impossible without climate change…sounds more like…
Scientific intelligence has become virtually impossible because of climate change.
Scientific dumbing…just another effect of elevated CO2 induced Climate Change.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2026 10:22 pm

Nick,

I accept the earth is getting warming according to recorded temperatures, although the Met Office data is a shambles.

Improved measurement helps us detect changes more accurately, but the increase is real and driven by warming, not an artifact.

Data limitations mean we should be cautious with precise global numbers from the early 20th century, but the direction since the mid-20th century is well-established.

But rising temperatures alone do not tell us the cause of the rise in temperatures.

My best guess is the various clean air acts have highlighted the rise in temperature since the LIA, plus urbanisation and the growth in population driven my modern technology, not CO2.

Reply to  Redge
July 9, 2026 11:11 pm

Dr. Spencer argues that the Met Office temperature record is not necessarily compromised:

“On the subject of which WMO (or UKMO) class of station is suitable for long-term climate monitoring, I think it’s important to note that a station could be placed in a non-natural, anomalously warm urban environment, but as long as that environment stays the same over time, it can probably still be used for climate change monitoring. 

For example, the urban heat island (UHI) effect of London was described over 200 years ago by Luke Howard. Even if London is significantly warmer than the surrounding rural areas, it might be that there has been little additional UHI warming since then, and so a downtown London weather station might be adequate for monitoring large-scale climate change, since I have no reason to believe that (say) 1 deg. C of large-scale warming will lead to city warming substantially different from 1 deg. C.”

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/12/the-record-hot-uk-summer-of-2025-validation-of-the-ukmo-methodology-but-the-record-was-only-in-tmin/

Is bashing the Met Office a community bonding exercise here? Do you get the denier club membership card after the first Met Office conspiracy theory?

Reply to  Eldrosion
July 10, 2026 6:29 am

I think you’re misunderstanding my argument (deliberately?).

I’m not claiming that every Met Office station is unusable because of urbanisation, nor am I alleging a conspiracy. The fact that urban stations can still be useful for detecting trends is not something I disagree with. In fact, Dr. Spencer’s point is a reasonable one: if a station’s local environment remains broadly stable, it may still track wider temperature changes reasonably well.

However, that doesn’t automatically resolve concerns about station siting, urbanisation, land-use changes, instrumentation changes, homogenisation adjustments, or the representativeness of a sparse historical network. Those are legitimate scientific questions, not conspiracy theories, and they should be open to scrutiny.

More importantly, my point wasn’t primarily about whether warming has occurred. I already stated that I accept warming has occurred. The question is attribution.

Temperature records tell us that temperatures have risen; they do not, by themselves, tell us why they have risen. Determining cause requires examining multiple possible drivers and estimating their relative contributions.

My view is that some combination of recovery from the Little Ice Age, reduced aerosol pollution following clean air legislation, urbanisation, land-use change, and other factors may explain more of the observed warming than is often acknowledged. I accept that CO₂ may play a role, but I am less convinced about the magnitude attributed to it.

You may disagree with that assessment, but disagreement over attribution is not the same thing as denying warming occurred.

Also, characterising any criticism of the Met Office as a “conspiracy theory” seems more like a rhetorical dismissal than a scientific argument. If the data and methods are robust, they should be able to withstand scrutiny without resorting to labels such as “denier”.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 10, 2026 12:15 am

More frequent? Really?

from The Observer, July 18, 1852:

“In 1132 the rivers and springs disappeared in Alsace. The Rhine was dried up. In 1152 the heat was so great that eggs were cooked in the sand. In 1160, at the battle of Bela, a great number of soldiers died from the heat.”

“In 1440 the heat was excessive. In 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541, the rivers were almost entirely dried up. In 1556 there was a great drought all over Europe. In 1615 and 1616, the heat was overwhelming in France, Italy, and the Netherlands. In 1646 there were fifty-eight consecutive days of excessive heat.”

“In 1718 it did not rain once from the month of April to the month of October. The crops were burnt up; the rivers were dried up, and the theatres were closed by decree of the Lieutenant of Police. The thermometer marked 36 degrees Rhéamur…” (36°Ré (or °Re or °r) is 113F. 113F is 45C. In 1718.)

“In 1818 the theatres remained closed for nearly a month, owing to the heat. The maximum heat was 35 degrees” (again it’s °Ré and the equivalent is 110F or 43C.)

h/t Tony Heller

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
July 10, 2026 1:12 pm

The historical record is to climate alarmists what kryptonite is to Superman.

Reply to  MarkW
July 11, 2026 1:35 pm

No scientific papers have appeared debunking the idea that increased atmospheric CO2 is causing heat waves. Watts article doesnt qualify because it’s not a rigorous scientific paper.

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
July 12, 2026 9:38 am

Translation: Unless it passes through the rigged peer review process, it must be ignored.

Great way to ignore any arguments and facts that don’t agree with your religious position.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 10, 2026 5:26 am

I am trying to figure out when you transitioned from an objective observer to and emotionalized activist.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 10, 2026 5:31 am

Climate change does not cause anything.
Climate change is the result of long term changes in weather patterns.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 11, 2026 6:17 pm

And your post is contradicted by 125 years of climate science.

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
July 12, 2026 9:39 am

Actually it isn’t, but just keep pretending that only things that support your position can be counted as being science.

Edward Katz
July 9, 2026 6:11 pm

Here we go again with the present day media never failing to resort to sensationalism, no matter how inaccurate, in order to sell their products. It’s the old story of never letting the facts get in the way of a good story, except the ones cited by Anthony Watts quickly laid the distortions, omissions and outright falsehoods to rest.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Edward Katz
July 10, 2026 5:32 am

+100

Chris Hanley
July 9, 2026 6:57 pm

Climate change is worse than we thought, even the buildings in Manhattan are buckling 🫣 .

July 9, 2026 8:05 pm

never asked whether the group they cite, World Weather Attribution (WWA), has conclusions that might be influenced by the organization’s very reason for existing.

Absolutely correct. It exists for only one reason…. to show that humans are responsible for ”climate breakdown” Showing otherwise would be suicide.

WWA core objectives…

Quantifying Climate Change’s Role: By comparing real-world observations with hypothetical climate models without human-induced warming, WWA isolates the exact fingerprint of climate change on disasters like deadly heatwaves or extreme rainfall.

So, not to show whether humans are responsible but how much.
Therefore, according to them, we are 100% responsible for the northern heatwave – as the headline says. Pseudoscience in it’s purest form.

July 9, 2026 8:37 pm

No increase has been detected in the occurrence of atmospheric blocking patterns that give rise to heatwaves.

It is reasonable to think that the roughly 1.0-and-some-tenths degrees Celsius of warming since 1850 have “raised the baseline” for heat events of all kinds. As for whether every heat event everywhere becomes about 1 degree Celsius hotter, that naturally depends on local geographic and urban conditions.

I have no interest in the “happy frugality” advocated by degrowth supporters. In fact, I don’t believe anyone wants it. It’s so noble, virtuous, and self-congratulatory to die with your mouth hanging open at the age of forty after returning to the (idyllic, needless to say) living conditions of the early nineteenth century. I’d like to send those degrowth economists, sociologists, and activists out to plough the fields with a good kick up the backside. Let them slog through manure and break their backs over the handle of a spade, and then see just how detestable capitalism really is compared with the wonderful “happy frugality.”

Oh, and if, through some unfortunate mishap, they injure themselves with a pitchfork or a scythe, then when their wound becomes infected, someone should tell them that producing antibiotics is just another form of “technosolutionism”—like everything else that stems from the human progress and ingenuity they so readily denounce—and that they should stop whining, because this is the hell they wanted and now get to wallow in.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Charles Armand
July 10, 2026 5:34 am

Those degrowth supporters would never leave their AC cooled dwellings and give up steak and all the comforts of live derived from petrocarbons.

July 9, 2026 8:56 pm

NYT’s own archives from the ’30s should show them what BS this is.

July 9, 2026 9:14 pm

“Extreme heat in the United States is not a new phenomenon.”

Literally no climate scientist is claiming that extreme heat in the U.S. is a new phenomenon.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eldrosion
July 10, 2026 5:36 am

Name one scientist that has a university degree in “climate.”
Not climate studies or some other area.

Literally no climate scientist is an absolute. Absolutes are so easy to overturn as it only takes 1.
Reference Einstein.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 11, 2026 1:43 am

So name one and overturn the absolute. You won’t because you can’t

Mike Larkin
July 9, 2026 10:44 pm

The worst heatwave and drought in Australia, that land of droughts and flooding rains, was in 1840-42 when virtually all the water courses in the NSW Southern Highlands region south south west of Sydney ran dry.

Not something that has happened again, even when the Murray River ran dry which it did 7 times in the first 100 years of settlement on its bank, which included that 1840s drought.

Mr.
Reply to  Mike Larkin
July 10, 2026 5:51 am

The 2 weeks long heatwave in 1896 that killed 492 people hasn’t occurred again either.

With today’s “CO2 saturated” atmosphere, you’d reckon such heatwaves would be a monthly event.

What’s up with that?

July 9, 2026 11:44 pm

Actually none of the hundreds of modeling exercises, the IPCC used to refer to, correctly predicted the frequency/magnitude of heat waves. NYT does exactly the opposite to what they are paid for to do – namely, they implicitly debunk all this modeling garbage and they seem not to understand this at all or not care. Let them continue to openly show their incompetence hoping that readers realize that sooner or later. Thank you.
P.S. Fully agree to your evaluation of the WWA. Attribution has ever been one of the biggest challenges to the IPCC and one of their dirty secrets. Hardly will the WWA be capable of helping the climate “agitprop” out with the challenge that is fundamentally insurmountable.

Lodewijk Vis
July 10, 2026 2:21 am

Without climate change any weather on any day would be virtually impossible. Luckily most of the time the weather is fine.

Sparta Nova 4
July 10, 2026 5:25 am

Historically, attribution was a religious function that attributed an effect to a deity.

“Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the burning of oil, gas and coal have trapped more of the sun’s heat at Earth’s surface, raising temperatures worldwide for more than a century.”

That is ripe for a null hypothesis test. Set up a calibrated thermal measurement system. Put sensors at intervals from surface to some reasonable distance up.

Take temperature measurements.
Dump a lot of CO2, sufficient to double the local CO2 concentration or more. CO2 is generally heavier than the other airborne molecules so it will stay there sans wind.
Periodically take temperature measurements.
Given light travels a c, it should only take a few seconds to record a significant temperature rise is that conjecture/hypothesis is valid.

Probably other experimental controls will be needed, but the basic test should provide interesting results.

Mr.
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
July 10, 2026 5:56 am

I thought that Al Gore did a lab experiment video a while back that indisputably proved how much a slight increase of CO2 caused air temperatures to shoot up.

Whatever happened to that video I wonder. . . .

Reply to  Mr.
July 11, 2026 4:31 pm

Why not check scientific papers — starting with Svante Arrhenius’s paper published in 1896…?

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
July 12, 2026 9:41 am

The one that showed an increase in CO2 might result in as much as 1 degree of warming?
I can live with 1 degree of warming, it’s certainly not worth impoverishing billions and killing millions over.

July 10, 2026 1:55 pm

The original article from WWA on the NE heat wave is linked below. It has major flaws.

For starters WWA used re-analysis data back to 1950 to make their “virtually impossible” claim even though re-analysis data goes back to 1940 (i e., what are they hiding by omitting those 10 years?) and traditional station observatons go back even further.

More interestingly, WWA didn’t use actual observed temperature or dew points from their stated heat wave event period (Jun 30 to July 4). In fact their article was written on July 3rd during the heat wave, and presumably all the research and calculations were figured in the days before July 3. So what did they use? Drum roll … they used ECMWF model forecasts out to 4 days to basically declare that a future heat wave that hadn’t happened yet is virtually impossible without human influence. That’s like claiming a future snowstorm is a world record before the first flake falls.

I think a good scientist would wait for the heat wave to end, collect ACTUAL observations from the event period, and then compare them to a relevant past history. Instead WWA just wants to get the headline out quickly but in so doing sacrifice science.

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/fossil-fuels-are-heating-americas-250th-birthday/

July 10, 2026 4:27 pm

Isn’t it amazing that a well mixed trace gas causes high pressure weather systems to become immobile? Because that is what a heatwave actually is. I also wonder how a 140 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 is affecting the PV=nRT gas law. The New York Times forgot to mention or explain any of this. So much for reliable science reporting.

July 11, 2026 1:46 am

Instead of talking about the study, Anthony tries to change the subject. And all of his sycophants are fooled into looking at the shiny object he dangles away from the topic.

Ridiculously stupid to think a rapidly warming world would have no impact on heat waves

Reply to  Eric Flesch
July 11, 2026 1:47 am

I suppose a step in the right direction that deniers even acknowledge the heat wave existing.

Reply to  Eric Flesch
July 11, 2026 5:47 am

As Right-Handed Shark has pointed out above, some of the worst heatwaves in Europe occurred during the depths of the Little Ice Age (eg 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541). He also notes how the Met Office has changed the definition of heatwaves to increase their frequency.

Maybe read the comments before making yourself look foolish?

Reply to  Graemethecat
July 16, 2026 7:27 am

As Right-Handed Shark has pointed out above, some of the worst heatwaves in Europe occurred during the depths of the Little Ice Age (eg 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541).”

Those dates referred to droughts not heatwaves.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Flesch
July 12, 2026 9:44 am

Nobody has denied that a heat wave exists. The fact that you can make such a claim with a straight face indicates that you are either a blatant liar, or incredibly stupid.
I’ll leave it up to you to decide which.

BTW, Denying that the current heat wave is a record is not the same as denying there is a heat wave. An intelligent person would know the diffeerence.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Flesch
July 12, 2026 9:42 am

Translation: I can’t refute anything written, so I’ll just insult everyone who disagrees with me.

July 11, 2026 11:26 am

As is his normal practice, Watts ignores the voluminous attribution studies showing that the sustained heat waves this summer would not have been as severe without global warming caused by CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. If Mr Watts wants to earn credibility, he should publish his analysis in a reliable scientific journal. I suspect that’s too much to ask for Mr Watts.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
July 11, 2026 1:03 pm

I think Anthony was disputing the claim that the heatcwave would have been virtually impossible without AGW, not that AGW didn’t enhance the heat wave. Significant distinction.

Reply to  Bob Vislocky
July 11, 2026 1:40 pm

He attempts to dispute that claim, but where is his peer reviewed scientific paper?Anthony hasn’t subjected his paper to peer critique, and he has a track record of never doing so.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
July 11, 2026 2:43 pm

Where is the peer reviewed study showing that the heat wave was virtually impossible without AGW? The rapid study by WWA wasn’t peer reviewed, and as per my earlier comment, the study had a couple significant flaws.

Reply to  Bob Vislocky
July 11, 2026 3:00 pm

scientists have published multiple peer-reviewed studies and rapid attribution analyses confirming that severe, recent heat waves would be “virtually impossible” without human-caused global warming.For instance, research by the World Weather Attribution consortium—which utilizes peer-reviewed methodologies has concluded that extreme heat and humidity events in North America and Europe would not have been possible before humans began warming the planet. Studies published in journals such as Nature Climate Change further demonstrate that intensive heat stress and massive-scale heat events have been made hundreds of times more likely because of greenhouse gas emissions

MarkW
Reply to  Bob Vislocky
July 12, 2026 9:49 am

Warren agrees with the results, that’s the only “peer” review any paper needs.

Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2026 3:54 pm

Peer review by PhD experts in the field vs Deniers with high school educations? That would be a sight to behold 😆

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
July 12, 2026 9:48 am

The peer review process is hopelessly broken.
I can remember one of the climate science big wigs declaring that he would block a paper from being published, even if he had to change the definition of peer review.

Papers published at skeptical sites get much better review than provided by any of the once renowned journals.

Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2026 3:51 pm

Sure they do. In your fevered imagination.

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
July 12, 2026 9:46 am

As is his normal practice, Beeton ignores the many significant problems that have been demonstrated with his alleged attribution studies.
As is his wont, he declares that only studies done by climate science approved scientists count.

Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2026 3:50 pm

I haven’t seen any studies done by Deniers, have you? Deniers are usually all over the map, and can’t agree on anything, unfortunately. Least of all, the Science 🤣

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2026 4:46 pm

Yeah well that’s what people captured by ideological religion do.