From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Hottest day of the year in the urban heat ravaged London, where temperatures are generally around three degrees higher than elsewhere:
Back in 1911 temperatures in London hit 37.8C (100F):
In those days, London was known as “The Smoke” for good reason. Coal power stations, gas works, steam trains and pretty much all industry filled the atmosphere with fumes, blocking out much of the sun’s energy.
There is nothing unprecedented about the weather in the past week.
Just as significant are the temperatures in more rural areas – 98F (36.7C) at Canterbury, Epsom and Raunds in 1911.
This week, the highest temperature at a Class 1 site was 35.5 at Rothamsted, in the Hertfordshire countryside just outside the London urban heat bubble.
The heatwave in 1911 was also long lasting, extending from July well into September. It was also exceptionally dry.
I’ll do a full analysis when summer is over. But the summer of 1911 disproves the notion that we did not used to have heatwaves like this year’s in the past.
Yabut, that was just weather then. Today we have CLIMATE!
On this side of “The Pond” the dust bowl of the ’30s is thoroughly ignored.
Just for fun, the Oklahoma Dustbowl drought was occurring at the same time as major, years long droughts in China, India, SEA, Australia, and South America.
Yes – see above.
And they have not read Steinbeck´s “The Grapes of Wrath” about the devastating years of the 1930s when desolate farmers of Oklahoma had to abandon their farms and escape to California, only to find work at subsistanse pay levels of picking “grapes of wrath”. Several summers of the 1930s saw a series of extremely hot and dry summers, turning fertile farm land turn into dust.
Not at all …
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-22262-5
“The Dust Bowl Drought of the 1930s (1932–39) occurred over the Great Plains of North America and was one of the worst natural disasters of the twentieth century. It was associated with anomalously warm temperatures over the U.S. that have only recently been equaled or exceeded. It is thought that the drought was initiated and maintained by a combination of decadal timescale internally-generated negative sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the tropical Pacific associated with the negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), and positive SST anomalies north of the equator in the Atlantic with the positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The resulting convective heating anomalies in those two basins then forced atmospheric circulation anomalies that produced a naturally-occurring drought over the Great Plains along with anomalous heat and associated heat extremes there“
That means it’s just an assertion, an opinion.
(and as has been forensically observed for millenia, opinions are like assholes – everybody has one)
“That means it’s just an assertion, an opinion.”
It’s a peer- reviewed paper.
Not an assertion.
It is from a model ( OOer God-forbid a Modulz!)
In case you hadn’t twigged it’s the only way this can be attributed seeing as we cant make a replica Earth to fit into a lab..
From the paper ….
“The anomalous heating over the Great Plains in the model experiment in the warm season produces surface temperature anomalies of + 4.4 °C over the Great Plains. But over the U.S. outside the Great Plains the mean temperatures are also significantly warmer with a positive temperature anomaly of + 0.40 °C. There is significantly greater surface warming over the Northern Hemisphere overall (+ 0.15 °C), and over Northern Hemisphere land as well (+ 0.31 °C). Additionally, the global surface temperatures increase by + 0.07 °C while global land temperatures warm by + 0.20 °C, all from a regional drying and warming over the Great Plains in this model experiment. Such a warming from the Dust Bowl drought was one of the major contributors to early century large-scale warming
Peer-review does not change the meaning of the phrase “It is thought that”.
So?
Show me it being published in MSNBC or NYT or WP or any of the US major media outlets?
Oh?
Ignored.
“Ignored.”
As expected
OK, so you have our attention.
Do you for one minute believe that you are capable of and properly equipped to establish beyond doubt that an event in the UK reported in an official document is false, misleading and by inference, proof that the planet earth is boiling due to the use of fossil fuel since the Industrial Revolution?
You know about this site, you are writing on it.
Have you read the entirety of the section which lays out item by item the IPCC predictions based upon nothing other that computer models which one by one have been wrong, and been wrong by a larger margin as time has taken the real world into its measurable state predicted date by predicted date.
Have you the mathematical and intellectual skills of coding to understand that if a computer programme is constructed in such a way that it treats one component of the extremely complex system as the sole causative variable in ANY system then the output will always deliver an answer which is irrelevant to the question, is this component the driver of change in the system?
Do you register that the IPCC is not a scientific body? That it never has been? That is was set up and mandated with the task of proving the assertion it is supposed to investigate?
Are you familiar with the notorious “adjusted” temperature records scandal, a scandal to all true and experienced practitioners of reliable scientific investigation? Have you absorbed the detailed critiques of “thermometers” – mercury bulbs, electrical gadgets unreliably comparable under many circumstances and situations?
There is much more we could say to you, just one of us has wasted his time laying out the above … a tiny fraction of the vast amount of accumulated evidence we are aware of which makes the CAGW a demonstrable hoax.
A document from a Met Office more than a century ago is just one hint that Western Europe has had a heatwave comparable to the current one. An anecdote.
“Have you read the entirety of the section which lays out item by item the IPCC predictions based upon nothing other that computer models which one by one have been wrong, and been wrong by a larger margin as time has taken the real world into its measurable state predicted date by predicted date.”
Yes, I have looked at the “failed predictions” page, and have even replied in a thread that purported to think that the predictions were what the science said.
No they weren’t ….
I challenge you to indicate just one “wrong prediction” made in the IPCC ARs.
There have been many made by individual scientists that have been wrong however.
but you conflate the consensus science with idiots who shot their mouths off and as a result were pounced on by the media to make good tabloid fodder.
IPCC predictions hardly make the front page – not sensational enough.
Just like peeps on here who have/do advocate many different alternatives (many concerning imminent cooling) to the anthro GHG forcing that we actually have – by definition most must be wrong.
People have idiosyncratic tendencies and yes political beliefs and so there will always differences of opinion.
Ideological bias and cognitive dissonance are a thing. I have interacted on here for ~ 15 years and I find it appalling how ignorant many are of the actual science, which remains uneducated as long as they only get the sceptical (sic) side of things.
And yes I worked for the UK MetO for 32 years, 20 as an on the bench Forecaster for the RAF, commercial interests, media and civil aviation.
So I do have expert knowledge of Meteorology.
The point is if there were a flaw in the science do you really expect it not to have been found? And that those doing so garnered a Nobel for revealing it?
Any opinion that requires an accusation of fraud or incompetence before one of many alternatives is championed, is a loser from the get-go.
That to me is just basic common-sense.
So come back to me with a “failed prediction” that is present in print in any of the IPCC’s ARs.
You won’t find any.
If only because they still lie well into the future.
Only in your mind.
Which is informed by the science and not by political ideology.
It’s the epitome of ideology to be captured by expressions such as “THE science”.
Just as religions (ideological belief systems) express their ideological capture with belief in “ONE God”.
(How do we know there aren’t hundreds or even thousands of Gods?
Or none at all?)
Science isn’t constrained to one thread or group of propeller-capped nerds either.
this is a pile of conjectural and worthless tripe dressed up in pseudoscientific language and published in a journal which is not a journal of record of any stature or authority.
You patently have not the slightest inkling of atmospheric physics and the drivers of hemispheric Rossby waves.
As many on here – just wearing your ignorance as a badge amongst the choir, as you make merely a dismissive and content free handwaving statement.
PS: that is why we educate peeps in the sciences so that they know stuff you don’t.
And then you are free, of course, to call what they say “pseudoscientific”.
They would, like me, take that as a damning condemnation from one of their peers. (Sarc).
The hubris bleeds from you.
The BOM in Australia has meteorologists full of the same bloated opinion of themselves and are the laughing stock of real people living in the areas of the land where weather predictions are extremely important for rural agriculture and grazing.
In our local pub, when the weather forecast appears on the TV the assembled farmers and family jeer in unison.
As for myself, I graduated more than 60 years ago in the hard sciences from the best University on the continent. That makes your guess about the level of expertise I bring to the discussion absurd. I need say no more to a fanatic, you can probably never be open to real advances in your knowledge of what you think is infallible truth.
Agree, today we have more asphalt and concrete covering the earth.
Taking daily temperature observations, the mid-afternoon is always warmest…
That suggests anomalies of ascertaining temperature…
This is short and very much to the point…
A recent picture of Kew Gardens weather site.
Basically a junk station, badly maintained, and either side of the screen stand is a box of equipment of some sort mounted of metal plates.
These will get hot and basically create an oven effect just below the screen.
Note .. a fuller commentary of the abysmal state of Kew Gardens Class N (as N tends to infinity) weather site found here.
The lawn looks manicured. You’d think someone could take a minute and knock the grass down to the level of the surrounding landscape. Makes you wonder about the maintenance aspect of the whole thing.
I suspect that Kew Gardens is responsible for the lawns.. but the Met Office is responsible for the site.
Met Office is full of rancid climate activists that will do anything to help the AGW scam along.
Don’t Kew up to make fun of this “measurement!” But he did omit the Cambridge Botanic Gardens record, which might suggest that… readings from temperature sensors in places maintained by the climate establishment tend to support the climate establishment’s views.
And please note that Met Office magicians are somehow able to find 0.1 degrees inside ±4 or ±5 degree data.
Simply amazing.
Please note the WMO statement about the Met Office data:
“The Met Office weather and climate stations, as well as the subsequent data processing, follow international standards. It is important to note that the observing stations numbered siting classification is not an indication of the station quality or suitability for weather and climate monitoring, it is a measure that helps the scientists understand the ability of the station to represent a region.”
The “±4 or ±5 degree data” is a measure of the stations ability to represent the surrounding region not the uncertainty of the temperature measurement. Kew Gardens, for example, is likely to be rather lower than the temperature of the surrounding region since it is situated in a flat grassy area surrounded by a densely built up urban area.
Are its actual readings adjusted / “homogenized” in any ways?
If so, its inputs to “records” are not “data”, they’re “constructs” whose probity is shocking.
Nice word salad.
Total nonsense, a thermometer can only measure the temperature of its location.
Exactly, however the ratings which you and others on here use to criticize the station temperature measurements are based on their ‘ability to represent a region’, not the accuracy by which the temperature is measured in the Stevenson screen.
Nonsense. They may use it to represent a region but that really isn’t possible.
I have a Vantage Pro II weather station properly sited on my property. There are 4 other properties spread out in our region that have the same weather station plus a NWS site about 5 miles from me. We all report different temperatures because of the topography of the area. The NWS site is withing 30 feet of an asphalt road and trees have grown up around it so it is no longer in a clear area.
You are incorrect. One only needs to drive short distances in a car with a thermometer to see temperatures vary, sometimes by a lot. The accuracy of the car thermometer is of no matter, just the variation over distance. I can travel 1/4 miles east or west up hills here and see the difference. If you had ever tried finding the temperature of a stirred water bath you’d know the problem of varying locations.
“The “±4 or ±5 degree data” is a measure of the stations ability to represent the surrounding region”
A +/-4 or +/-5 degree variance makes it an outlier when it comes to representing a “region”. Outlier data typically gets deleted.
Only in real science, not climate science.
Actually, in some of my past work I had to do quarterly monitoring at a landfill and add the data each quarter to their historical data spreadsheet. One of the instructions was that outliers were not to be deleted; they could be left out of calculations but needed at least to be addressed and discussed. In other words, they were not ignored. Such a far cry from “climate science.”
What are they left with after averaging the averages?
Not sure I understand your question.
Many averaging steps are needed to extract temperature “anomalies”, no statistics from these steps are ever provided.
Trouble is, that with sites like Kew, the “-” part doesn’t exist.
Yes that’s why Kew Gardens measuring the temperature in a park consisting of a large grassy lawn is likely to be an underestimate of the temperature in the surrounding urban housing region. Hence the UHI which is frequently mentioned on this site.
Nonsense on a stick. Kew is an appallingly bad and unreliable site.
https://talkshop.blog/2026/06/18/kew-gardens-yet-again-now-beyond-a-joke-the-met-office-has-to-be-held-account-for-this-and-lots-of-others/
If you look at the Kew site as shown above..
… you should see that you are talking a load of bollocks. !
Kew is a classic case of a site that will read much higher than reality in hot weather.
No it is not, in fact due to it being in the centre of a large grassy park it is likely to measure a lower temperature than the surrounding area. Look up UHI!
You are full of crap. the °±4 or 5° is exactly a statement of uncertainty. It defines an interval within which the actual value may lay with the stated value simply being the center of the interval.
Could it be that the actual temperature is 5° higher that stated? You bet. But, HERE IS POINT, neither you, I, or anybody else knows for certain. It is just as likely that the temperature is 5° below the stated value. Comparing it to other stations must take that critical range into account.
You are full of crap. the °±4 or 5° is exactly a statement of uncertainty. It defines an interval within which the actual value may lay with the stated value simply being the center of the interval.”
No in this context it is exactly what I said, it is not a statement of uncertainty!
So at what distance, how many inches or feet, from the thermometer does the ±4 or ±5 degree come into effect? What size or area dimensions is a surrounding region?
Over 30m. If the surrounding region is the Kew Gardens themselves then the measured temperature will probably be a little higher than the park where the shade of the trees will be an influence. When compared with the surrounding urban area (beyond 500m) then the measurement will be rather low.
You really do not know anything about this subject do you?
That is not actually correct. The instruments do NOT conform to WMO standards. The are in naturally ventilated screens which are prone to over heating inside in the low wind/high solar radiation situations that were prevalent at the time. They should be artificially aspirated to overcome this known problem. The PRTs are also not correctly time sampling and averaging. An explanation here with the “Surface Stations Project” header linking to amost 500 reports of mine and 200 of Tim Channon.
https://talkshop.blog/2026/04/26/stevenson-screens-the-aesthetic-and-moral-codes-of-the-suburban-domestic-garden-an-explanatory-report/
I once mentioned the same on the website and received 2 down votes!
I suspect you posted that website URL in response to someone’s post and that person did not like you disagreeing.
Keep posting, mate. Ignore the down arrows. For you, those are badges of honor.
Yes, just above I received -8 and -11 for posting factually accurate statements! So many ‘badges of honor’.
So, what was not worse in 1911 compared to 2026? Energy supply and security.
The Energy Department has taken on staff from Labour’s favourite leftist think tank and the TUC.
Civil servants not sufficiently left-wing?
Guido
TUC – Trade Unions Congress
Interestingly, The socialist boss of Britain’s biggest union is set to remain in post after being reelected, despite being voted for by only seven per cent of its members.
The worse the turnout, the better the left does.
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
Whoa, you just dropped in and laid that on us – you haven’t been paying attention to the site and the contributions and learned publications that run contrary to the myth.
Hundreds of them.
You mean the flat earther commentaries?
Sophistry.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” John Stewart Mill
Yes, you are a flat earther, we get it.
The fact that he actually thinks journal peer-review is about real science is quite hilarious.
No, it isn’t.. Its about if the journal want to print it or not, and to correct basic errors.
You forgot to mention the publication fees paid.
Also, who picks and pays for the peer reviewers.
If you disagree with the scientific arguments showing global warming is a beneficial boon to humanity you can wax lyrical here.
I have to say those lame ‘argumenta ex auctoritate’ are most amusing.
please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific… Gatekeepers.
” … I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail
The models are junk.
” … I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail
In fact the papers in question were in the IPCC report so Trenberth and Jones were unable to keep them out!
It’s the stated intent of wrongdoing that carries the conviction in civilized societies.
Is that the Phil Jones who admitted that nearly all the ocean temperature for most of the Pacific Oceans were “JUST MADE UP” ??
Academia is full of fraud , and anything we submitted would never get looked at . Look at professor Jason Arday of Cambridge university to see the current standards
Well, perhaps if we ponied up the $2500 publication fee…
Plus more bucks to pay the reviewers to actually do a review…
Money, as we all know, talks.
At least you demonstrated that you are not a scientist.
I simply observed that the random commentaries from uneducated bloggers are not science.
I’d like to see you list your scientific and academic credentials here and compare them to many of your so-called “uneducated bloggers.” But you’re a troll and a coward so I doubt you’ll put your qualifications where your mouth is.
I find that opinions about the climate from random nudniks on WUWT are like a**holes — everybody has one. Such opinions are simple minded blather and utterly lacking in scientific validity.
If you have such a low and dismissive opinion of this site and the commenters, why do you feel the need to come here? You seem to have an obsessive need for attention and to demonstrate your self-deluded superiority that borders on the pathological. You need professional help. And if you refuse to provide even a minimal description of your scientific expertise and academic background then you’re still a coward.
A naked narcissist
So no credentials.
You ducked the question about your science education and academic credentials.
You have no standing when you do that after attacking many others here as being uneducated…..
You are your own worst enemy often.
You simply observed that commentaries published here are contrary to your ideology.
Fixed it for you.
Articles published on WUWT get far more “peer review” than basically any propaganda AGW journal article.
In this case, even the grate WB has not been able to contest the content of the post in any meaningful way.
Spot on.
I don’t need a PhD in Marine Biology to realize the ocean is salty.
Education meaning “credentials” is meaningless when it ignores common sense and observational experience.
Aaahhh, the old religious tomes are to be tendered once again?
Is there also one where the ten CAGW commandments are chiseled onto a stone tablet?
If climate activists ever actually get their way, chisels and stone tablets is where they will take us back to.
“Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed.”
I spewed my coffe when I read that.
Of course you did. No one on WUWT gives a flip about scientific validity or accuracy.
“scientific validity . . . “
So, there IS a Null Hypothesis that accompanies the CO2-caused AGW
hypothesisconjecture?I’d love to see it.
Can you point me to it please?
After all, the obligatory Null Hypothesis is a basic principle of the Scientific Method, is it not?
Karl Popper would certainty say so.
Another one who’s going to have to work hard if they want to grow up.
No one is an absolute. Your post is sophistry.
The only one here that does not give a flip about scientific validity or accuracy is the person claiming peer reviewed publication is the be-all and end-all, an appeal to authority.
We have too many documented cases of peer review malfeasance and journal rejection based not on the science or analysis within the report but because it disagrees with the pre-ordained expected conclusions.
“If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming”
The argument *for* global warming are model outputs. Yet the models can’t seem to get the *climate* right. The skepticism is for the model outputs since they are the “climate science” in question.
So far as I can tell, none of the predictions of climate science, supposedly based on the climate models, have come to pass. Still have glaciers, still have polar bears, no mass migration from crop failures globally, New York and Miami streets aren’t flooded, storms aren’t more frequent, etc.
If climate science ever starts doing the statistical analyses right maybe they will get better. Get away from validating by mid-range temperatures that are data *range* driven instead of data distribution shape driven. Start calculating variances for the data from the very base of their pyramid and propagate those variances up the chain. Weight the temperatures based on their associated variances when calculating means and means of means. Properly propagate variances onto the anomalies. Come up with models that actually do *climate* instead of just temperature. Global climate is based on a collection of regional climates, stop using the excuse that the models can’t predict regional climate but can global climates – if they can’t get regional climates correct then how does a collection of incorrect inputs turn out correct outputs?
Warren, you evidently are not aware of the major flaws in the peer review process.
Can the experiments be replicated and produce the same results?
Why do so many journals not attach the names of reviewers and allow comments?
While insisting science must be trusted, why is “critical” information behind a paywall?
Why selective reviewing of papers avoiding papers with nonconformist views?
Why are the guidelines of the brilliant Mathematician, George Polya not followed?
What he wrote is particularly applicable to the study of climate, “In theoretical matters, the best of ideas is hurt by uncritical acceptance and thrives on critical examination.”
“How to Solve It” p100, 2nd ed 1957
Finally a 2021 statement about medical journals but applies to all science journals:
Peer review is only as good as the integrity of the author’s “peers”. Proof of this reality can be seen by looking at the ever-increasing retractions of published articles in recent years. Retracted articles from major medical journals and esteemed medical sources including NIH, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and others triggers justifiable suspicion among readers. A disturbing number of retractions occur not because of honest errors or duplicate publications, but from blatant fraud, overwhelming bias, gross errors in judgment and data, and serious ethical concerns. Add to this the number of corrections and “revisions,” and you might rightly become suspect of every article you read.
Exposing the Fallacy of Peer Review, Steve LaTulippe
If Cambridge University academics could so easily be fooled in a more recent appointment why should we blindly trust the journals that are generously funded by universities like this? (Follow the money!)
Don’t need to. It’s already been done for me.
I’ll never prove it, but I suspect this paper had a lot to do with the RCP8.5 scenario being declared dead and buried. I suspect a lot of climate scientists have decided it might be best to cover their arses after reading this.
The worn-out authority/education fallacy comes again.
Try some new material that isn’t boring.
Summer 2026 is the warmest currently in the CET, and even making a generous reduction assumption for the rest of August, which looks like it will be merely average, 2026 will still likely be warmest by some margin.
Summer average mean/max C:-
1911: 16.99 / 22.16
1976: 17.72 / 23.42
2026: 18.80 / 24.57 (to date)
Jun 2026 av. max. was 3C above 1911.
July 2026 av. max. was 1.5C above 1911.
Aug 2026 av. max. currently 2.8C above 1911.
There’s record cold in many places – including Greenland.
-84C in melting Antarctica – enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
“-84C in melting Antarctica – enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.”
Antarctica does not melt in winter and not at 10,500ft on the Antarctic plateau at any time.
The only place in Antarctica that is “melting” is at the fringes of the WAIS and some glaciers in E Antarctica, where warming ocean waters are eroding glacier noses.
A warming climate does not mean that there will be no record cold extremes – just that there will be less of them and more warm extremes.
The test of a changing climate is not one days/years extreme value it is if it is part of a lengthy trend.
And yes, the Greenland summit did have exceptionally low temps on 24/25 Feb 2026 as was covered by the core of the Tropospheric Polar vortex ….
But was back to it’s more normal place over N Canada 3 days later ….
Oh Noe, it is cold in Greenland!
Run away!
Yes, just like you said it was!
The test of constantly changing climates is in the geological signatures of this planet.
Literally “written in stone”.
Not Mann-made numerical constructs.
You do realise that few people, if any, on here deny the climate is warming. What is not certain beyond reasonable doubt is what is causing that warming and what factors in what proportion are involved.
For example (possible STORY TIP) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62em5lpvnjo suggests that aircraft contrails cause warming “Contrails – also known as vapour trails – are made when the hot exhaust from aircraft engines meets the cold air at high altitude, creating ice crystals.
Many disappear quickly, but in particularly cold and humid conditions they can persist and spread, forming clouds which trap heat that would otherwise escape from the Earth.”
My question is this true? I thought clouds had a cooling effect in summer.
Start with the false expression “trap heat.”
Violates Kirchhoff’s Law.
The GHE does not “violate Kirchoff’s laws”
The heat trapping inolved is a short-hand for it, in that it impedes terrestrial LWIR exit to space.
But of course you knew that and just wanted some sort of a comeback.
I worked in infra-red electro-optic sensors.
It is not nearly as simple as you contend.
GHE is a bogus term.
One cannot trap energy.
Common/social context derived definitions do not warrant serious scientific consideration.
“My question is this true? I thought clouds had a cooling effect in summer.”
Thanks for the question.
Thin Cirrus cloud warms at night and only cools a little by day, with an overall warming effect.
I myself on many, many occasions observed Cirrus warm the ground after encroaching into a clear-sky night. No it has NOT added heat – what happened was that ground heat (flux) to the surface had added more heat than it was losing now that the addded GHE downwelling had tipped the balance of radiation to a clear sky.
Yes, you heard it. Thin ice cloud at ~30k feet had actually *warmed* the ground ….. and in the case of road danger forecasting/monitoring that I was doing for the UKMO, that could meen the difference between an icy road or not.
Did you know that from July 1 to Aug 10 in the high Arctic, 36 of 41 days broke individual day cold records. !!
Do you have some data for the Greenland temperature, it seems fairly average at present?
Also it is winter in Antarctica!
No no no, the globe surface temperature is an all time record in everternity everness evah.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
It appears at least 3 people here have zero sense of humor.
I think it’s wrong to compare any one year’s temperature with those 115 years in the past, does comparing 1911 with 1796 for example actually make any sense?
In those 115 years, the sites used to determine the CET data records have changed, due to changes in land use for example, technology has changed significantly, an analogue mercury thermometer can be read to 1/2 or possibly 1/4 of the smallest division, how accurate is the time of day? Is the sensitivity of electronic devices really proportional to the accuracy of the measurement? I.E. because a device measures to 0.05 degrees Celsius, say, does that mean the measured temperature is accurate to 0.05 degrees Celsius? Is thermal electronic noise in the various components of the measuring instrumentation allowed for, i.e. the SNR? Surely unless the main electronics are actively cooled then there’s a risk of incorrect data.
Paul Homewood’s careless assertion that it is just as hot, that is based not just on comparing 1911 with 2026, but one hottest day, dodgy thermometers and all apparently?
The CET is the best we’ve got, if you won’t accept that is more or less a reflection of reality, there is nothing left to argue over.
There’s never been a year as consistently above average heat in my lifetime, and unlike some, I don’t have a selective memory.
The same thermometers recorded the exceptional cold of Dec 2010 and Mar 2013; but cold has become very rare. Maybe it’s just been hot eh?
I am not arguing for or against the CET but there has to be consideration given to the potential error bars for the individual data points and the sources of those error bars. As it stands the top three years as recorded in CET are 2026 (to be confirmed), 2025 and 1976 in that order.
“I think it’s wrong to compare any one year’s temperature with those 115 years in the past, does comparing 1911 with 1796 for example actually make any sense?”
When the claim is made that a recent weather event is “unprecedented” but it happened before, is it really “unprecedented”?
Even the best stations have a resolution of 0.1°°C. Averaging does not increase the resolution of the data. Only the mathematical calculation can produce information that was not measured which means the average is not an actual depiction of a real temperature it is only a statistical parameter that needs a standard deviation to somewhat define it.
Perhaps we need to wait for the followup of Paul Homewood’s article:
Just as Hot in 1911
And we know he has MET office reports from 1911.
We do have the Central England Temperature data from the 17th century.
O/T
Labour have now gone net stupid.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16060955/Labour-fire-pouring-millions-pounds-pie-sky-Net-Zero.html
On the subject of this post:
“Just as Hot in 1911”
Well no actually ….
No one is saying (with any authority) that there haven’t been exceptional UK summers before.
What is being said is that they are becoming more frequent and the air that is producing them coming from N Africa is hotter than, in this case, the summer of 1911.
Here is chart showing temperatures measured by radiosonde at 850mb (~5000ft) from 12Z on 9th August 1911 at Herstmonceux W Sussex.
It shows a temp of ~14C at that level ……
As it has not yet been transfered to the archive – here I show the SkewT from Herstmonceux on 13th Aug 2026 (last hot day so far this summer).
It shows a temp of 18.8C at that level – a full 4/5C higher than that of Aug 1911 ….
https://meteocentre.com/archive/tephi/2026/08/13 2026081312_03882.gif
“Level Pressure Temp Dew Point Dir Speed Height Theta Mix
Type [MB] [C] [C] [deg] [KTS] [M ] [K] [g/kg]
——– —— —– —– —– – —- ——- —– ——
SFC 1015.0 31.4 13.4 160.0 4.9 52.0 303.3 9.573
MAND 850.0 18.8 2.8 340.0 5.8 1601.9 305.9 5.520
The 1911 air gave 36.7C at Canterbury (45mls NE of Herstmonceaux).
The 2026 air gaive 38.1 at Kew Gardens (London)
And 38.0 at Pershore College.
UKMO:
“Temperatures provisionally reached 38.1°C at Kew Gardens in London, making it the 5th hottest day on record for the UK.
Pershore in Worcestershire recorded highs of 38°C, with a total of 40 locations across central and southern England recording temperatures of 36°C or higher.“
That the 9th Aug 1911 max temp of 36.7C was recorded at both Canterbury and Raunds (Northamptonshire) is a puzzle as it should be [5000′ temp+(5x3C DALR)+Super surf adiabat (3-5C) = 14+15+5 = 34C].
So ~3C above what would be expected and is a puzzle except to say that the MetOs Stevenson screens back then were smaller.
Ayway the point is that now we have N African sourced air arriving over S England that is several degrees hotter than it was back some decades ago,
In fact the 20C isotherm at 5000′ on that day in 1911 only made it as far N ar the Pyrenees, whilst now it flurts with England.
You personally verified and validated all of the data?
Or did you just like the crayons used?
And have you (FI)
“personally verified and validated all of the data?” relating to the Dust Bowl affected temps in the 1930’s. (rhetorical)
Such that you can state (as at least one WUer does) that the US, nay the globe, is no warmer than then!
And no, I’m not using crayons in the logical sense – instead I’m chewing on them to stop me larfing over your oh, so original comeback – that of course completely obliterates my post (sarc)
I did not post anything about the dust bowl.
So you are back to insults and sophistry.
I will only engage with flame warriors such as yourself with ridicule and humor.
You deserve nothing more.
“did not post anything about the dust bowl.”
I know you didn’t !!
I was making the allusion that perhaps you should evaluate the data on things you find appealing ( the dust bowl being a fave here in regard to the supposed debunking of the anthro GHE).
In other words pointing out your hypocrisy in saying…
”personally verified and validated all of the data?”
When I am pretty certain you and most on here never question the dog-whistles posted here.
That is why it is not a “Sceptics” website, err , it is inhabited (in overwhelming part) by ……..
(Answers on a postcard).
Here is chart showing temperatures measured by radiosonde at 850mb (~5000ft) from 12Z on 9th August 1911 at Herstmonceux W Sussex.
Radiosonde in 1911?
“The first successful operational radiosonde flight transmitting real-time weather data via radio took place in January 1930 by Russian meteorologist Pavel Molchanov. ”
I suspect you really meant ERA-20C (ECMWF): a dedicated 20th-century atmospheric reanalysis which covers the period from 1900 to 2010 providing daily and sub-daily global fields at roughly 125 km resolution by assimilating historical surface pressure and marine wind observations as opposed to the second graphic which has significantly higher spatial resolution, perhaps accounting for the flirting with S England.
Thank you for that info
I see the SkewT is missing
Here ….
[“Here is chart showing temperatures measured by radiosonde at 850mb (~5000ft) from 12Z on 9th August 1911 at Herstmonceux W Sussex.”]
Amazing that you believe all that ‘precise detail of air temperatures from Newfoundland to the Urals & North Africa to the Arctic’ could be gleaned from one spot reading taken 18 years before the “radiosonde” was invented !!
( The first true radiosonde to send precise encoded telemetry from weather sensors was invented in France by Robert Bureau. Bureau coined the name “radiosonde” and flew the first instrument on January 7, 1929. )
Seems someone got a Ouija board as well as a few coloured crayons for their birthday.
It’s just a mudelled model purporting to be science … but it’s crap.
“Back in 1911 temperatures in London hit 37.8C (100F)”
Why do I get the feeling that if that had been reported in 2026, Homewoid would be screaming about junk data?
Because that’s the way you think.
Oh look, the averaging magician/trendologist is back…
“Why do I get the feeling that if that had been reported in 2026, Homewoid would be screaming about junk data?”
Good point!
And it was rejected as was recorded in a Glaisher screen.
But it’s OK coz was “hot” in the past, don’t you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911_United_Kingdom_heatwave
“the temperature of 37.8°C (100°F) recorded in London (at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich) on August 9, 1911, was measured using a traditional Glaisher stand. This setup is now considered non-standard because it exposed thermometers to reflected radiation from nearby ground and walls, leading to inflated readings. Modern re-evaluations indicate the actual air temperature inside a standard Stevenson screen at the same site was closer to 35.9°C (96.6°F)”
Yet Kew Gardens is so accurate.. ROFLMAO
Kew Gardens yet again- Now beyond a joke. The Met Office has to be held account for this and lots of others. | Tallbloke’s Talkshop
This is a true reflection of the disgrace that the Met Office sites have now become.
I do not regard Mr Sanders as any sort of authority on the subject of Meteorology, instruments and all.
Of that he has proved to great effect in his interactions with me on these pages.
I’m glad you are not in charge. Your reasoning skills are obviously lacking.
I challenged Sanders on Meteorology.
It was abundantly clear his “skills” on that were “abundantly lacking”.
It is easy to appeal to the choir here, and merely attacking the MetO using a one-track mind devoid of the knowledge of the science they apply is fine as no one is any the wiser (usually) – and then I crop-up and bust his ignorance.
The classic being denying that RAF Benson is a frost hollow and stating that it is representative of the *weather* of the area!
It has a frost hollow exposure to katabatic drainage from the Chilterns and the WMO stipulation is that a station be representative of the lie of the surrounding land not the prevailing weather.
I’m not an ex UKMO Forecaster for nothing and to boot lived for a time not 20 miles from Benson atop the Chilterns.
[“I’m not an ex UKMO Forecaster for nothing“]
How much do you charge ???
David King is trying it on again on LinkedIn, preaching to his green blob acolytes.
Maybe you should send him a link to this and ask him to disprove what you have to say……??
Classic example of warming denial.
Pick a single location on a single day from the distant past and compare it to a single day’s temperature at that same location in the modern era. Then claim “it’s a tie!”
At all costs, ignore trends. Ignore decadal averages.
You can get away with idiocy like this easily enough at websites like WUWT, where you can be confident that very few people will have the gumption to check your claims, just so long as those claims agree with their own biases.
In this case however, even with his cherry-picked location and dates, Homewood still can’t quite find a warmer daily example for August in the UK from the past compared to today.
Instead, he tries to pass it off with a single example from a single day at a particular location in 1911, saying that it was ‘nearly’ as warm on that day, back then as it was on a particular day more recently. (Note that Homewood has no issue with the validity of that particular temperature.)
Homewood and co, will always outright ignore the long-term trends in the monthly, seasonal and annual data, because they know that these will always show up their nonsense for what it is.
They will just focus on the gullible audience they have at places such as right here. An audience that, apparently without irony or self awareness, self-describe as “climate skeptics”.
Ignore trends and decadal averages! You bet. Tell us what your trend tells you. Is a graph of time versus temperature a depiction of a functional relationship. Does increasing time ALWAYS predict increasing temperatures? If not, there is not a relationship. Then what do you have? A time series! Time series analysis is a unique statistical discipline of its own. The first step is determining if you have a stationary trend with a constant mean and standard deviation. If not, then there are variables included in the trend that you must isolate. Good luck.
As to comparing temperatures, here is a page from Dr. John Taylor’s book, An Introduction to Error Analysis.
You might want to think about what it is telling you about comparing two temperatures, especially when their uncertainties are included in the picture. Remember, a value with ±5°C can be considered similar to one that has only a ±2°C uncertainty.
I’ll repeat the opening paragraph in JCGM 100:2008 (GUM).
But this, England:
From Tamino.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/
Hockey stickkkkkkkk
So are temperatures that increase in upward trend invalidated because of a supposed resemblance to a certain sport’s instrument employed to hit a ball, when plotted on a graph? (Sarc)
The 30s were just as warm so no hockey stick
Show us the Global dataset that proves that then.
Assertion is for the converted.
Well the original article was about temperatures in England and Tamino’s graph shows that the 30s were not just as warm, neither was 1911 which was Homewood’s claim.
There’s no surprise that such data is available, but the alarmists will do their utmost to conceal it because it undermines their entire narrative. Then when they get an irresponsible media helping them out, it doesn’t take much more to convince certain segments of governments, academia and green hucksters to get aboard because they smell the opportunity to justify new taxes, academic grants and force mandates on consumers to spend money on unnecessary environmentally products.