![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 𝘳𝘦𝘤����𝘳𝘥𝘴 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 𝘤𝘭𝘪��𝘢𝘵𝘦, 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 𝘵𝘩��𝘺 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 𝘳𝘦𝘤����𝘳𝘥𝘴 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 𝘤𝘭𝘪��𝘢𝘵𝘦, 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 𝘵𝘩��𝘺 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
Tim Wilson
@TimWilzon
“Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?”Alexander Hamilton 1788
Joined February 2014
599 Following
563 Followers
23.1K Posts
Pinned Tweet
To the flag burners and those who disrespect the flag - watch this video right through. You might learn the meaning and insult your behavior conveys to those who fought for your freedom to do what you do!
https://t.co/Srys0BOaUo
@ChrisMartzWX Chris,
Have you noticed how the “climate change” crowd’s predictions all resolve to catastrophic global warming (ignoring the proof that caused them to change the name - to wit global warming is NOT happening)?
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 𝘳𝘦𝘤����𝘳𝘥𝘴 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 𝘤𝘭𝘪��𝘢𝘵𝘦, 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 𝘵𝘩��𝘺 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 𝘳𝘦𝘤����𝘳𝘥𝘴 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 𝘤𝘭𝘪��𝘢𝘵𝘦, 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 𝘵𝘩��𝘺 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)
80% of DSA members have a college degree.
60% work professional jobs.
Just 4% are blue-collar.
85% are white.
This isn't a working-class movement but an elite one, for whom "Free Palestine" and "Abolish ICE" operate as a smokescreen for class privilege—just like climate and trans activism and identity politics once did.
Who to follow
Rick Holmes
@rhol51
H.R. Consultant, MAGA, Build the Wall, conservative grandfather
Bingo Bango Bongo
@tdmalone1016
US Navy vet - retired. C-130T flight engineer w/ 4000+ flight hours and 85+ countries visited. UPenn grad. Single father of 2 beautiful ladies: SINGLE! ITS ME!
Jeremy Kinsey
@JeremyKinseyLV
🇺🇸
Important!
🚨 WOW! President Trump is CRUSHING the "experts" and Big Pharma, listing off medication prices being SLASHED a JAW-DROPPING amount!
Blood thinner: $750 to *$16*
HIV: $1,500 to $217
Hep B medication: $1,400 to $413
Hep C: $25,000 to $2,500
THE FAKE NEWS WON'T ADMIT IT! They're too terrified to show Americans the truth.
"All prices are like that, because we're bringing them down to the world's lowest price. EVERYTHING."
This is absolutely enormous for every American family!
Trump actually fighting Big Pharma for the people?
A. YES
B. NO
Hey, Alex. Three things.
1) We d/n give a crap what you think about our use of A/C.
2) Attempting to float the garbage argument that man-caused global warming is why Europe is hot is both laughable and moronic simultaneously.
3) Note the temps in Europe in the mid-1700’s and explain to me how mankind caused the similar temps as you’re experiencing now.
I’ll wait.
Somehow an entire city council now consists of all people from Somalia in Buffalo, New York, who then raised a foreign flag on U.S. soil and canceled 4th of July fireworks...
This is an invasion. We give you an opportunity and this is the thanks we receive. It's time to wake up and kick these people out of OUR country.
I would start by auditing their elections.
@malone_te Most people don’t understand that, lack the maturity to even grasp that concept. All emotions
Tig’s opinion:
This is not self-defense. It’s not standing your ground. It’s a needless death caused by stupidity and bad decisions from both sides.
If you’re truly in fear for your life, you draw and fire. You don’t walk around cars with your gun drawn, step toward the person multiple times, and keep re-engaging. She already had the gun out and pointed, advanced on him more than once, briefly lowered it then raised it again, and shot him as he came around the car. His movement and demeanor didn’t change or escalate right before the shot.
After she shot him, she gestured the gun at him again, slammed it on the car, and kept yelling while staying on the phone the whole time. That’s not someone who was fighting for their life.
Both of them were stupid. This is a classic FAFO moment on both sides. It also shows how bad the tension in our society has gotten people are escalating minor disputes into deadly confrontations over nothing.
Always Move Forward
Rules for thee not for me:
“Temperatures inside City Hall plunged as low as 54 degrees Thursday during the heat wave—despite Mayor Mamdani urging New Yorkers to set their air conditioners to a balmy 78.”
Marxists always live better than their serfs.
Lots of people on this site like to smear me a as a “fossil fuel lobbyist,” but when I press them to actually bring the receipts of me advocating for increased coal or O&G production and/or use OR advising lawmakers to subsidize said industries with our tax dollars, they come up empty every time.
Alarmists refuse to debate me in good faith and cannot do so without resorting to logical fallacies, so they use smear tactics and slander like the vast majority of modern left-wing trash do, then trot around like monkeys and declare victory when you refuse to play along.
As I have said before, I am indifferent to fossil fuels. If engineers develop better technologies that are affordable, then okay, whatever (hence why I am pro-EV by consumer choice). I have no financial stakes in these energy wars.
But if you are someone who is actively campaigning against fossil fuels, then you are the lobbyist in the discussion (one for Big Green), not me, and quite frankly you should be tracked down by authorities and have your access to fossil fuels revoked, and by force if necessary.
@factpostnews And they paved over the Rose Garden 😂🤣
We've Never Tried 'Real Social Housing': Hall Of Eternal Shame https://t.co/wzt3fqgr66
Required reading for those who want to understand why many of us deeply object to the solar panel and windmill fascination of the "Climate Change" scammers (like @SenSanders ) and their interminable attempts to throw money at it (thus tilting the market by subsidies taken from unwilling and unwitting taxpayers 👇
@ChrisMartzWX purely FYI 😆
Today, the world gets just 14.2% of its energy from renewables -- far below the long-term average of 47% since 1800.
In the past, renewables mostly meant burning wood, crop waste, and dung. Today, trillions of dollars are being poured into wind and solar. But these technologies are far from green.
Each turbine requires hundreds of tons of steel, concrete, and rare earths.
Each solar panel relies on energy-intensive mining and toxic chemical processing.
Scaling this up to replace fossil fuels would mean billions of tons of new mining, scarred landscapes, and enormous fossil energy inputs just to manufacture the equipment.
At the current pace, even with the trillions invested, the world wouldn't hit 100% renewables until the year 2392.
In reality, the renewable revolution is astronomically expensive, painfully slow, and environmentally destructive.
The reason the power grid isn't up to snuff is that the govt has been pouring money into renewables while failing to maintain the existing infrastructure... including the bone-headed move of shutting down NY's reliable Indian Point nuclear plant in 2021.
You know, the one that was reliably providing 1,000 megawatts of electricity onto the grid - enough power to run 750,000- 1,000,000 average homes.
🚨 NOW: President Trump has arrived in Washington, DC, with the new Air Force One completing her MAIDEN VOYAGE out to North Dakota
The pilots are even flying an AMERICAN FLAG out the out of the cockpit to commemorate this
An absolutely majestic machine.
Today, the world gets just 14.2% of its energy from renewables -- far below the long-term average of 47% since 1800.
In the past, renewables mostly meant burning wood, crop waste, and dung. Today, trillions of dollars are being poured into wind and solar. But these technologies are far from green.
Each turbine requires hundreds of tons of steel, concrete, and rare earths.
Each solar panel relies on energy-intensive mining and toxic chemical processing.
Scaling this up to replace fossil fuels would mean billions of tons of new mining, scarred landscapes, and enormous fossil energy inputs just to manufacture the equipment.
At the current pace, even with the trillions invested, the world wouldn't hit 100% renewables until the year 2392.
In reality, the renewable revolution is astronomically expensive, painfully slow, and environmentally destructive.
BREAKING
Brown County, Wisconsin, mailed duplicate absentee ballots to voters — a SECOND time this year!
After mailing 152 duplicate ballots in April, Republicans filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
“The WEC found probable cause that Green Bay City Clerk Celestine Jeffreys violated state election laws by mailing duplicate absentee ballots to over 150 voters ahead of the April 2026 Spring Election.”
At what point does incompetence or negligence become intentional?
📍Green Bay, WI
🚨 BREAKING: Speaker Johnson has just informed Sen. Mike Lee the SAVE America Act *WILL* be forced into the base text of the NDAA, which puts massive pressure on the Senate to pass it once the House sends it over
GREAT NEWS! Thank you MAGA Mike!
MIKE LEE: "He assured me that MIRV process will guarantee the two bills are merged and received in the Senate as one bill, with the SAVE America Act in the base text."
"@SpeakerJohnson is as committed as ever to ensuring it becomes law, including keeping it on the NDAA (a “must pass” bill) as it comes over from the House to the Senate, and fighting for it thereafter."
All hands on deck for secure elections 🇺🇸
@BasedMikeLee
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
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
✨
⭐
💫