![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. The science is settled! ✍️🤓🫴🧪
The New York Times reports today that the ongoing eastern U.S. heatwave is “virtually impossible without climate change.”
That sounds pretty bad. I'm pretty worried. 😨
The NYT's Raymond Zhong writes,
🗨️ “𝘛𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 '𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦,' 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. 𝘎𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢.”
🔗https://t.co/ZJahy8OD31
So, right off the bat, this analysis (which is executed by, you guessed it, World Weather Attribution) is questionable. For one thing, the heatwave just began and it will continue through Independence Day weekend. Even if you believe in this so-called “attribution science” (I'll address that further down), it is irresponsible to draw robust conclusions like this prematurely. You need to wait days or even weeks to gather all of the available data, then analyze it, plot it, and finally write about it. That's how things work in REAL science, which does not include WWA's witchcraft of climastrology.
🔗https://t.co/A50o2xyWdQ
And not only is this analysis largely a modeling effort (and I ought to remind y'all that model output cannot count as evidence), but it's modeling stacked on top of more modeling because the WWA “scientists” (and I use scare quotes there) employed forecast data to arrive at their bold conclusion, completely ignoring the fact that many numerical weather prediction (NWP) models such as the Global Forecast System (GFS) and European (ECMWF) have warm biases (likely due to their lower resolution compared to, say, the NAM) and predict daily maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures that are too high compared to physical observations. Legendary meteorologist (and my good friend OR “crazy uncle” as he likes to be called) @BigJoeBastardi has pointed out multiple times this past week.
In other words, this WWA analysis and NYT piece that promotes it is largely junk science.
But I digress, let's continue.
🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 [WWA] 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺’𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 0.5 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥.”
So, rather than assessing heatwave magnitude like has traditionally been done (i.e., examining the Tmax values), the WWA used a rather obscure metric that most people don't use, let alone understand, called the “wet bulb globe temperature” (WBGT), which is a composite index that combines the air temperature, humidity level, wind speed, the sun angle, and cloud cover. It was developed in the 1950s.
🔗https://t.co/3xVBhckhE6
The WWA examined WBGT over their study region, the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada, using the annual highest five-day averaged WBGT (WBGTx5x). To do this, they used the ERA5 reanalysis data, which integrates both physical observations and modeled simulations to produce a consistent, gridded, high-resolution dataset of atmospheric conditions globally going back to 1950. That's fine and all, I suppose, but it does not come without limitations.
Unlike most of the handwritten 19th century weather observations (which Dr. John Christy and I are in the process of examining and homogenizing), which contained very detailed notes about cloud cover and wind speed / direction, daily U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) observations (~October 1890 to present) don't contain any data on local cloud cover, dew points, or wind speed / direction. The NWS now has that data (often in five-minute or hourly intervals) for ASOS sites, but said data only go back to the mid-to-late-20th century, at best. 1950 wasn't that long ago.
Without an abundance of real observations to work with, I have doubts about the WWA's high levels of confidence in their conclusions. Cloud area fraction, dew points, and wind directions are mostly guessed by computer model interpolation from scattered observations (which are fewer and fewer the farther back in time you go).
The NYT finally states,
🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙧-𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡.”
And there it is. This analysis, if that's what you want to call it, has not been subject to rigorous peer review or published in an academic journal.
Now, I personally don't care about that, but alarmists always like to point out that nothing their critics say to contest climate hysteria (such as this WWA analysis) matters unless it is published in a journal. So, why are they not holding themselves to the same standards? Why should preliminary findings that haven't yet been published be newsworthy?
Other outlets have reported on this “flash study”, such as The Guardian and Reuters.
🔗https://t.co/u4GCKrlGyR
🔗https://t.co/SStyJzWEh4
Notice that these stories all use roughly the same language. “A rapidly warming world.” “Caused by fossil fuels.” “Virtually impossible.” These are copy-paste stories built from a list of talking points that these so-called “journalists” received in an email. There is ZERO investigative journalism here. They don't question these findings as real journalists should. They don't ask any follow-up questions either. They just nod in agreement because they are paid to push climate propaganda.
I should also regurgitate my point in other posts that I've made that climate change, by definition, is an outcome, not a cause or an accelerant. It describes a change in climate, the latter of which is a statistical description of the mean and variability of Earth's climate system. An increase or decrease in heatwave frequency / magnitude would be evidence of climate change, but climate change itself does not cause or worsen them. You could argue that mankind's slight enhancement of the greenhouse effect has, but that isn't the same as saying “climate change caused this event / made this event worse,” which is an outright false framing.
If we really want to examine whether or not this July heatwave is unprecedented in the northeast, well, the metric used historically to evaluate heatwaves is the afternoon Tmax.
On June 29th, 1853, Washington, D.C. reached 102°F. The following day, it reached 105°F, which is hotter than anything in forecast for D.C. this weekend. It was 106°F in Detroit that day. How did that happen in June of all months? Then, during this exact week in 1911, there was the hottest July 4th weekend on record in the U.S. On July 3rd, 1911, 13.1% of the country reached 100°F and nearly half of the nation was ≥90°F. Much of New England was also ≥100°F. During this week in 1901, much of the eastern half of the country reached 100°F (it was one of the deadliest in history).
While we don't have any dew point data to infer what humidity levels were during these events, from a pure temperature standpoint, there is nothing unprecedented about this heatwave despite the fact the planet is ~2°F (1.3°C) warmer now than it was in 1850. There is no doubt it is hotter than a hoochie coochie this weekend, but this is nothing that hasn't happened several times before. It's summertime; if it were, say, May or mid-September, there'd be a leg for alarmists to stand on here.
All of that to say that this is just another example of day-to-day and week-to-week weather, not climate.
Stay cool with your A/C, don't leave your pets outside, hydrate, and rest easy tonight knowing that your Chevy Suburban did not cause this heatwave to occur.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HMVFBaMWwAAbYno.jpg)
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. The science is settled! ✍️🤓🫴🧪
The New York Times reports today that the ongoing eastern U.S. heatwave is “virtually impossible without climate change.”
That sounds pretty bad. I'm pretty worried. 😨
The NYT's Raymond Zhong writes,
🗨️ “𝘛𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 '𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦,' 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. 𝘎𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢.”
🔗https://t.co/ZJahy8OD31
So, right off the bat, this analysis (which is executed by, you guessed it, World Weather Attribution) is questionable. For one thing, the heatwave just began and it will continue through Independence Day weekend. Even if you believe in this so-called “attribution science” (I'll address that further down), it is irresponsible to draw robust conclusions like this prematurely. You need to wait days or even weeks to gather all of the available data, then analyze it, plot it, and finally write about it. That's how things work in REAL science, which does not include WWA's witchcraft of climastrology.
🔗https://t.co/A50o2xyWdQ
And not only is this analysis largely a modeling effort (and I ought to remind y'all that model output cannot count as evidence), but it's modeling stacked on top of more modeling because the WWA “scientists” (and I use scare quotes there) employed forecast data to arrive at their bold conclusion, completely ignoring the fact that many numerical weather prediction (NWP) models such as the Global Forecast System (GFS) and European (ECMWF) have warm biases (likely due to their lower resolution compared to, say, the NAM) and predict daily maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures that are too high compared to physical observations. Legendary meteorologist (and my good friend OR “crazy uncle” as he likes to be called) @BigJoeBastardi has pointed out multiple times this past week.
In other words, this WWA analysis and NYT piece that promotes it is largely junk science.
But I digress, let's continue.
🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 [WWA] 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺’𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 0.5 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥.”
So, rather than assessing heatwave magnitude like has traditionally been done (i.e., examining the Tmax values), the WWA used a rather obscure metric that most people don't use, let alone understand, called the “wet bulb globe temperature” (WBGT), which is a composite index that combines the air temperature, humidity level, wind speed, the sun angle, and cloud cover. It was developed in the 1950s.
🔗https://t.co/3xVBhckhE6
The WWA examined WBGT over their study region, the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada, using the annual highest five-day averaged WBGT (WBGTx5x). To do this, they used the ERA5 reanalysis data, which integrates both physical observations and modeled simulations to produce a consistent, gridded, high-resolution dataset of atmospheric conditions globally going back to 1950. That's fine and all, I suppose, but it does not come without limitations.
Unlike most of the handwritten 19th century weather observations (which Dr. John Christy and I are in the process of examining and homogenizing), which contained very detailed notes about cloud cover and wind speed / direction, daily U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) observations (~October 1890 to present) don't contain any data on local cloud cover, dew points, or wind speed / direction. The NWS now has that data (often in five-minute or hourly intervals) for ASOS sites, but said data only go back to the mid-to-late-20th century, at best. 1950 wasn't that long ago.
Without an abundance of real observations to work with, I have doubts about the WWA's high levels of confidence in their conclusions. Cloud area fraction, dew points, and wind directions are mostly guessed by computer model interpolation from scattered observations (which are fewer and fewer the farther back in time you go).
The NYT finally states,
🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙧-𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡.”
And there it is. This analysis, if that's what you want to call it, has not been subject to rigorous peer review or published in an academic journal.
Now, I personally don't care about that, but alarmists always like to point out that nothing their critics say to contest climate hysteria (such as this WWA analysis) matters unless it is published in a journal. So, why are they not holding themselves to the same standards? Why should preliminary findings that haven't yet been published be newsworthy?
Other outlets have reported on this “flash study”, such as The Guardian and Reuters.
🔗https://t.co/u4GCKrlGyR
🔗https://t.co/SStyJzWEh4
Notice that these stories all use roughly the same language. “A rapidly warming world.” “Caused by fossil fuels.” “Virtually impossible.” These are copy-paste stories built from a list of talking points that these so-called “journalists” received in an email. There is ZERO investigative journalism here. They don't question these findings as real journalists should. They don't ask any follow-up questions either. They just nod in agreement because they are paid to push climate propaganda.
I should also regurgitate my point in other posts that I've made that climate change, by definition, is an outcome, not a cause or an accelerant. It describes a change in climate, the latter of which is a statistical description of the mean and variability of Earth's climate system. An increase or decrease in heatwave frequency / magnitude would be evidence of climate change, but climate change itself does not cause or worsen them. You could argue that mankind's slight enhancement of the greenhouse effect has, but that isn't the same as saying “climate change caused this event / made this event worse,” which is an outright false framing.
If we really want to examine whether or not this July heatwave is unprecedented in the northeast, well, the metric used historically to evaluate heatwaves is the afternoon Tmax.
On June 29th, 1853, Washington, D.C. reached 102°F. The following day, it reached 105°F, which is hotter than anything in forecast for D.C. this weekend. It was 106°F in Detroit that day. How did that happen in June of all months? Then, during this exact week in 1911, there was the hottest July 4th weekend on record in the U.S. On July 3rd, 1911, 13.1% of the country reached 100°F and nearly half of the nation was ≥90°F. Much of New England was also ≥100°F. During this week in 1901, much of the eastern half of the country reached 100°F (it was one of the deadliest in history).
While we don't have any dew point data to infer what humidity levels were during these events, from a pure temperature standpoint, there is nothing unprecedented about this heatwave despite the fact the planet is ~2°F (1.3°C) warmer now than it was in 1850. There is no doubt it is hotter than a hoochie coochie this weekend, but this is nothing that hasn't happened several times before. It's summertime; if it were, say, May or mid-September, there'd be a leg for alarmists to stand on here.
All of that to say that this is just another example of day-to-day and week-to-week weather, not climate.
Stay cool with your A/C, don't leave your pets outside, hydrate, and rest easy tonight knowing that your Chevy Suburban did not cause this heatwave to occur.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HMVE_3oWsAAPvt7.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Jesper Olsson
@OlssonHJesper
Perspektiven varierar oändligt - att bryta ståndpunkter är en del av resan - X är en av få platser för detta. Välkomnar socialkonservatismens framgång i SE.
Sverige
Joined May 2023
730 Following
402 Followers
10.4K Posts
They don't.
Climate models predict nearly twice as much warming than what has been observed from bulk tropospheric temperature measurements.
The only reason why most of the models in CMIP5 / CMIP6 suites agree with the surface-based data (e.g., NASA GISS, Berkley Earth, HadCRUT5) is because these models are pre-tuned to (i.e., forced to agree with) the surface temperature data, then they are run against that same data.
Climate models are based on circular reasoning.
Next question.
The science is settled! ✍️🤓🫴🧪
The New York Times reports today that the ongoing eastern U.S. heatwave is “virtually impossible without climate change.”
That sounds pretty bad. I'm pretty worried. 😨
The NYT's Raymond Zhong writes,
🗨️ “𝘛𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 '𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦,' 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. 𝘎𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢.”
🔗https://t.co/ZJahy8OD31
So, right off the bat, this analysis (which is executed by, you guessed it, World Weather Attribution) is questionable. For one thing, the heatwave just began and it will continue through Independence Day weekend. Even if you believe in this so-called “attribution science” (I'll address that further down), it is irresponsible to draw robust conclusions like this prematurely. You need to wait days or even weeks to gather all of the available data, then analyze it, plot it, and finally write about it. That's how things work in REAL science, which does not include WWA's witchcraft of climastrology.
🔗https://t.co/A50o2xyWdQ
And not only is this analysis largely a modeling effort (and I ought to remind y'all that model output cannot count as evidence), but it's modeling stacked on top of more modeling because the WWA “scientists” (and I use scare quotes there) employed forecast data to arrive at their bold conclusion, completely ignoring the fact that many numerical weather prediction (NWP) models such as the Global Forecast System (GFS) and European (ECMWF) have warm biases (likely due to their lower resolution compared to, say, the NAM) and predict daily maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures that are too high compared to physical observations. Legendary meteorologist (and my good friend OR “crazy uncle” as he likes to be called) @BigJoeBastardi has pointed out multiple times this past week.
In other words, this WWA analysis and NYT piece that promotes it is largely junk science.
But I digress, let's continue.
🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 [WWA] 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺’𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 0.5 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥.”
So, rather than assessing heatwave magnitude like has traditionally been done (i.e., examining the Tmax values), the WWA used a rather obscure metric that most people don't use, let alone understand, called the “wet bulb globe temperature” (WBGT), which is a composite index that combines the air temperature, humidity level, wind speed, the sun angle, and cloud cover. It was developed in the 1950s.
🔗https://t.co/3xVBhckhE6
The WWA examined WBGT over their study region, the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada, using the annual highest five-day averaged WBGT (WBGTx5x). To do this, they used the ERA5 reanalysis data, which integrates both physical observations and modeled simulations to produce a consistent, gridded, high-resolution dataset of atmospheric conditions globally going back to 1950. That's fine and all, I suppose, but it does not come without limitations.
Unlike most of the handwritten 19th century weather observations (which Dr. John Christy and I are in the process of examining and homogenizing), which contained very detailed notes about cloud cover and wind speed / direction, daily U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) observations (~October 1890 to present) don't contain any data on local cloud cover, dew points, or wind speed / direction. The NWS now has that data (often in five-minute or hourly intervals) for ASOS sites, but said data only go back to the mid-to-late-20th century, at best. 1950 wasn't that long ago.
Without an abundance of real observations to work with, I have doubts about the WWA's high levels of confidence in their conclusions. Cloud area fraction, dew points, and wind directions are mostly guessed by computer model interpolation from scattered observations (which are fewer and fewer the farther back in time you go).
The NYT finally states,
🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙧-𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡.”
And there it is. This analysis, if that's what you want to call it, has not been subject to rigorous peer review or published in an academic journal.
Now, I personally don't care about that, but alarmists always like to point out that nothing their critics say to contest climate hysteria (such as this WWA analysis) matters unless it is published in a journal. So, why are they not holding themselves to the same standards? Why should preliminary findings that haven't yet been published be newsworthy?
Other outlets have reported on this “flash study”, such as The Guardian and Reuters.
🔗https://t.co/u4GCKrlGyR
🔗https://t.co/SStyJzWEh4
Notice that these stories all use roughly the same language. “A rapidly warming world.” “Caused by fossil fuels.” “Virtually impossible.” These are copy-paste stories built from a list of talking points that these so-called “journalists” received in an email. There is ZERO investigative journalism here. They don't question these findings as real journalists should. They don't ask any follow-up questions either. They just nod in agreement because they are paid to push climate propaganda.
I should also regurgitate my point in other posts that I've made that climate change, by definition, is an outcome, not a cause or an accelerant. It describes a change in climate, the latter of which is a statistical description of the mean and variability of Earth's climate system. An increase or decrease in heatwave frequency / magnitude would be evidence of climate change, but climate change itself does not cause or worsen them. You could argue that mankind's slight enhancement of the greenhouse effect has, but that isn't the same as saying “climate change caused this event / made this event worse,” which is an outright false framing.
If we really want to examine whether or not this July heatwave is unprecedented in the northeast, well, the metric used historically to evaluate heatwaves is the afternoon Tmax.
On June 29th, 1853, Washington, D.C. reached 102°F. The following day, it reached 105°F, which is hotter than anything in forecast for D.C. this weekend. It was 106°F in Detroit that day. How did that happen in June of all months? Then, during this exact week in 1911, there was the hottest July 4th weekend on record in the U.S. On July 3rd, 1911, 13.1% of the country reached 100°F and nearly half of the nation was ≥90°F. Much of New England was also ≥100°F. During this week in 1901, much of the eastern half of the country reached 100°F (it was one of the deadliest in history).
While we don't have any dew point data to infer what humidity levels were during these events, from a pure temperature standpoint, there is nothing unprecedented about this heatwave despite the fact the planet is ~2°F (1.3°C) warmer now than it was in 1850. There is no doubt it is hotter than a hoochie coochie this weekend, but this is nothing that hasn't happened several times before. It's summertime; if it were, say, May or mid-September, there'd be a leg for alarmists to stand on here.
All of that to say that this is just another example of day-to-day and week-to-week weather, not climate.
Stay cool with your A/C, don't leave your pets outside, hydrate, and rest easy tonight knowing that your Chevy Suburban did not cause this heatwave to occur.
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. The science is settled! ✍️🤓🫴🧪
The New York Times reports today that the ongoing eastern U.S. heatwave is “virtually impossible without climate change.”
That sounds pretty bad. I'm pretty worried. 😨
The NYT's Raymond Zhong writes,
🗨️ “𝘛𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 '𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦,' 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. 𝘎𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢.”
🔗https://t.co/ZJahy8OD31
So, right off the bat, this analysis (which is executed by, you guessed it, World Weather Attribution) is questionable. For one thing, the heatwave just began and it will continue through Independence Day weekend. Even if you believe in this so-called “attribution science” (I'll address that further down), it is irresponsible to draw robust conclusions like this prematurely. You need to wait days or even weeks to gather all of the available data, then analyze it, plot it, and finally write about it. That's how things work in REAL science, which does not include WWA's witchcraft of climastrology.
🔗https://t.co/A50o2xyWdQ
And not only is this analysis largely a modeling effort (and I ought to remind y'all that model output cannot count as evidence), but it's modeling stacked on top of more modeling because the WWA “scientists” (and I use scare quotes there) employed forecast data to arrive at their bold conclusion, completely ignoring the fact that many numerical weather prediction (NWP) models such as the Global Forecast System (GFS) and European (ECMWF) have warm biases (likely due to their lower resolution compared to, say, the NAM) and predict daily maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures that are too high compared to physical observations. Legendary meteorologist (and my good friend OR “crazy uncle” as he likes to be called) @BigJoeBastardi has pointed out multiple times this past week.
In other words, this WWA analysis and NYT piece that promotes it is largely junk science.
But I digress, let's continue.
🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 [WWA] 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺’𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘭𝘺 0.5 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥.”
So, rather than assessing heatwave magnitude like has traditionally been done (i.e., examining the Tmax values), the WWA used a rather obscure metric that most people don't use, let alone understand, called the “wet bulb globe temperature” (WBGT), which is a composite index that combines the air temperature, humidity level, wind speed, the sun angle, and cloud cover. It was developed in the 1950s.
🔗https://t.co/3xVBhckhE6
The WWA examined WBGT over their study region, the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada, using the annual highest five-day averaged WBGT (WBGTx5x). To do this, they used the ERA5 reanalysis data, which integrates both physical observations and modeled simulations to produce a consistent, gridded, high-resolution dataset of atmospheric conditions globally going back to 1950. That's fine and all, I suppose, but it does not come without limitations.
Unlike most of the handwritten 19th century weather observations (which Dr. John Christy and I are in the process of examining and homogenizing), which contained very detailed notes about cloud cover and wind speed / direction, daily U.S. Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) observations (~October 1890 to present) don't contain any data on local cloud cover, dew points, or wind speed / direction. The NWS now has that data (often in five-minute or hourly intervals) for ASOS sites, but said data only go back to the mid-to-late-20th century, at best. 1950 wasn't that long ago.
Without an abundance of real observations to work with, I have doubts about the WWA's high levels of confidence in their conclusions. Cloud area fraction, dew points, and wind directions are mostly guessed by computer model interpolation from scattered observations (which are fewer and fewer the farther back in time you go).
The NYT finally states,
🗨️ “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙧-𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙚𝙬𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙘𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙘 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡.”
And there it is. This analysis, if that's what you want to call it, has not been subject to rigorous peer review or published in an academic journal.
Now, I personally don't care about that, but alarmists always like to point out that nothing their critics say to contest climate hysteria (such as this WWA analysis) matters unless it is published in a journal. So, why are they not holding themselves to the same standards? Why should preliminary findings that haven't yet been published be newsworthy?
Other outlets have reported on this “flash study”, such as The Guardian and Reuters.
🔗https://t.co/u4GCKrlGyR
🔗https://t.co/SStyJzWEh4
Notice that these stories all use roughly the same language. “A rapidly warming world.” “Caused by fossil fuels.” “Virtually impossible.” These are copy-paste stories built from a list of talking points that these so-called “journalists” received in an email. There is ZERO investigative journalism here. They don't question these findings as real journalists should. They don't ask any follow-up questions either. They just nod in agreement because they are paid to push climate propaganda.
I should also regurgitate my point in other posts that I've made that climate change, by definition, is an outcome, not a cause or an accelerant. It describes a change in climate, the latter of which is a statistical description of the mean and variability of Earth's climate system. An increase or decrease in heatwave frequency / magnitude would be evidence of climate change, but climate change itself does not cause or worsen them. You could argue that mankind's slight enhancement of the greenhouse effect has, but that isn't the same as saying “climate change caused this event / made this event worse,” which is an outright false framing.
If we really want to examine whether or not this July heatwave is unprecedented in the northeast, well, the metric used historically to evaluate heatwaves is the afternoon Tmax.
On June 29th, 1853, Washington, D.C. reached 102°F. The following day, it reached 105°F, which is hotter than anything in forecast for D.C. this weekend. It was 106°F in Detroit that day. How did that happen in June of all months? Then, during this exact week in 1911, there was the hottest July 4th weekend on record in the U.S. On July 3rd, 1911, 13.1% of the country reached 100°F and nearly half of the nation was ≥90°F. Much of New England was also ≥100°F. During this week in 1901, much of the eastern half of the country reached 100°F (it was one of the deadliest in history).
While we don't have any dew point data to infer what humidity levels were during these events, from a pure temperature standpoint, there is nothing unprecedented about this heatwave despite the fact the planet is ~2°F (1.3°C) warmer now than it was in 1850. There is no doubt it is hotter than a hoochie coochie this weekend, but this is nothing that hasn't happened several times before. It's summertime; if it were, say, May or mid-September, there'd be a leg for alarmists to stand on here.
All of that to say that this is just another example of day-to-day and week-to-week weather, not climate.
Stay cool with your A/C, don't leave your pets outside, hydrate, and rest easy tonight knowing that your Chevy Suburban did not cause this heatwave to occur.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HMVFCrAWIAAp_fb.jpg)
Det är ju lite synd att man bara kan säga upp sin prenumeration på SvD en gång.
Fast å andra sidan är det bättre än andra medieabonnemang som inte kan sägas upp alls
@RSorman1 Slutet för nationen?
Vad betyder en "human migrationspolitik" för ett land vars befolkning utgör en promille av jordens alla människor?
Journalisterna rasar över Carl-Oskar Bohlins helt befogade mediekritik, och Anders Q Björkmans pinsamma luftpaj i gårdagens SvD tar priset. 100%:s vd Marie Söderqvist och jag kullkastar kritiken, raserar de rasande och prisar politikers personliga publiceringar.
(Det har aldrig handlat om "oro för demokratin" eller ens "journalistisk integritet". De är bara sura för att de inte får stå oemotsagda längre.)
Trevlig helgläsning: https://t.co/VaKaIzx2np
Journalisterna rasar över Carl-Oskar Bohlins helt befogade mediekritik, och Anders Q Björkmans pinsamma luftpaj i gårdagens SvD tar priset. 100%:s vd Marie Söderqvist och jag kullkastar kritiken, raserar de rasande och prisar politikers personliga publiceringar.
(Det har aldrig handlat om "oro för demokratin" eller ens "journalistisk integritet". De är bara sura för att de inte får stå oemotsagda längre.)
Trevlig helgläsning: https://t.co/VaKaIzx2np
RT @jimmieakesson: Christian skulle se på fotboll och ha en trevlig kväll i Köpenhamn, men kom aldrig tillbaka därifrån. Av rapporteringen…
Att SvD väljer att fokusera på min reaktion istället för att rapportera om vilka de afrikanska mördarmigranterna är som dödat en svensk fotbollssupporter är talande.
Med anledning av att somliga återigen velat göra partipolitik av Somaliabiståndet, vill jag upprepa vad jag tidigare skrivit. Rätt ska vara rätt, i synnerhet i offentligheten:
Jag jobbade som Somaliaambassadör tillsatt av en socialdemokratisk regering (tack för förtroendet). Fortsatte under borgerliga regeringen.
I praktiken allt svenskt bistånd gick till somaliska parlamentarikerlöner, FN-löner, somaliska tjänstemännaditon men mest av allt till att avlöna en regeringsarmé ned till de enskilda soldaternas löner.
Problemet var, då som nu, korruptionen. Även om det gick genom FN. Soldaterna skrev upp sig men många dök inte upp annat än på löningsdagen (lite som Nikolaj Gogols ”Döda själar”).
Så flera svenska och andra västliga regeringar har gjort detta.
Den sittande är den första som kopplat biståndet till återtagande till Somalia av mestadels mycket grova somaliska brottslingar. Innan gavs biståndet utan motprestation.
Bra av polisen. Bra av regeringen. Tog bara fyra år. I höst kan vi påbörja utförslöpan tillbaka till att bli Europas gängparadis. Om inte folk skruvar på huvudet och röstar rätt. https://t.co/xEZlmYeWWb
Less Global Fire
Halfway through 2026, the world has burned at record-low levels for more than three months
Every continent is below average, and Africa, Americas, and Europe are at record lows
Media only showing stuff burning leaves us badly informed
https://t.co/iDqlYckvRT
Flygvapnet fyller 100 år. Arrangemang hålls framför ett monument till minne av de svenska pionjärerna inom flyg som stupat. En kulturskribent ser spöken och svamlar om fascism. Uppbackning från kulturskribent på annan tidning. Baseballigan hade varit avundsjuk på den kårandan.
21 years ago, The Guardian reported that by the year 2020:
1️⃣ The Bering Strait would be open year-round
2️⃣ European ships would routinely pass through the Arctic to reach Asia
3️⃣ Polar bear populations would decline
4️⃣ Snow would disappear from the tops of Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Kenya
5️⃣ Sea levels would start rising by 7 mm / year due to accelerated Greenland ice melt
How have these predictions fared?
Not well, they’re batting zero.
Less Global Fire
Halfway through 2026, the world has burned at record-low levels
Every continent is below average, and Africa, Americas, and Europe are at record lows
Media only shows when stuff is burning, leaving us badly informed on climate change
https://t.co/iDqlYckvRT
@victorsmalm Ska vi förstå det som att inte heller Expressen kultur anser att flygvapnet borde ha haft sin ceremoni framför flygarmonumentet? Det är i sådant fall en upplysning av intresse för era läsare tror jag.
Om jag i namnet av min kristna tro släpper in migranter i Sverige som visar sig vara överrepresenterade i brottslighet och om jag sedan vägrar erkänna kopplingen mellan invandring och brottslighet, gör jag då det goda eller det onda? @BiskopMartin @svenskakyrkan @joelsh
International climate bureaucracies are retreating from their original worst-case scenarios.
Their high-end 5-degree warnings from 20 years ago were used to drive public anxiety and justify massive overhauls to trusted energy systems. These are evaporating under the sheer weight of actual data.
The fear narrative may be ending, but the biosphere is flourishing. NASA satellite data reveal that between 25% and 50% of Earth’s vegetated lands have shown significant greening over the last four decades.
This is an expansion of biomass equivalent to twice the area of the continental United States—and CO₂ fertilisation is responsible for roughly 70% of it. The higher atmospheric CO₂ (hovering around 426 ppm) allows leaf pores (stomata) to stay open for less time to absorb carbon.
This is nature’s built-in water saver, drastically cutting moisture loss and boosting natural drought resistance. As a result, vegetation is actively reclaiming arid fringes of the Sahel, the Middle East and the Australian Outback. Nature is using this extra airborne fuel to thrive in regions once deemed too barren.
Nevertheless, climate bureaucrats are still fixated on economic modeling and their 2050 net zero bank balance target.
The planet itself doesn't care. Yet it demonstrates the profound, biological benefits of elevated CO₂.
@KristerThelin Mikael Damberg vill skapa illusionen av att S inte är ekonomiska socialister - en skattepolitikens Joe Labero - allt i syfte att locka vilsna borgerliga mittenväljare.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
stayme
Seen from Indonesia
pierbi 🔞
Seen from Korea
Türk Ünlü Videoları
Seen from Turkey
cherise
Seen from Indonesia
S4bleng_nade
Seen from Indonesia
PPC
Seen from Philippines
itsazlleaa
Seen from Indonesia
استـ،ـنتاج الافلام 🔥🎞
Seen from Saudi Arabia
ابن البصره💦😋
Seen from Italy
وٌقــت آلَـمــتــعــهّ👄🤤
Seen from Singapore
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.7M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.7M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.6M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.1M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.8M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.8M followers