Heat waves – signs of a wider problem

Several parts of the northern hemisphere are suffering from heat waves, but raised temperatures are a wider problem.

AccuWeather: Intense heat wave to build across western Europe as wildfires rage in Sweden

A hot July across much of western Europe will climb to another level this week as a heat wave builds from Spain to Scandinavia.

The Guardian: Why is Europe going through a heatwave?

Scientists say this ‘extreme’ weather in the northern hemisphere may soon be the norm

Partly, it’s just the luck of the weather. The jet stream – the west-to-east winds that play a big role in determining Europe’s weather – has been further north than usual for about two months. A stationary high-pressure weather system has left the UK and much of continental Europe sweltering. Iceland, by contrast, has been hit with clouds and storms that would normally come further south.

“The current hot and dry spell in the UK is partly due a combination of North Atlantic ocean temperatures, climate change and the weather,” said Len Shaffrey, a professor of climate science at the University of Reading.

The heatwaves in the northern hemisphere are undoubtedly linked to global warming, scientists say. “There’s no question human influence on climate is playing a huge role in this heatwave,” said Prof Myles Allen, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford.

RNZ: Japan declares heatwave a natural disaster

Japan’s weather agency has declared a heatwave sweeping the country a natural disaster, with at least 65 deaths recorded in the past week.

An agency spokesman warned that “unprecedented levels of heat” were being seen in some areas.

The heatwave shows no sign of abating, forecasters say.

An here in New Zealand we are experiencing another relatively mild winter with signs of an early spring already. This is a virtual repeat of the past few years (here in Dunedin at least).

Leave a comment

86 Comments

  1. Zedd

     /  July 25, 2018

    errrrrrrr.. could be ‘evidence of climate change’… ya think ?

    I still heard recently that there are ‘serious CC deniers’ saying ‘its all just part of a normal cycle’.. oh really.. you often hear later these folks, are employed/funded by the fossil fuel industry, to announce ‘their evidence’ 😦

    btw; when I moved to Otepoti/Dn (about 15 years ago) we had snow to sea level for the first 4-5 yrs.. hasnt been seen in the last 4-5 :/

    Reply
  2. David

     /  July 25, 2018

    England was just fabulous in June, bring on the warming. July has been pretty damn good in Christchurch I just dont see the downside.
    Think of all the CO2 not pumped into the environment as the Poms staycation instead of jetting off to foreign parts.

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  July 25, 2018

      yer right.. lets just boost the CO2 up to 20% then.. of hang on that would equal the O2.. maybe we might all stop breathing at that point !

      wake up…

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  July 25, 2018

      London England March 2018..

      Reply
      • David

         /  July 25, 2018

        Careful Blazer could be seen as an inconvenient truth.

        Reply
        • The only June that I have spent in the UK was bloody cold.

          I spent much of the Dickens Festival diving into coffee bars to warm myself with hot drinks.

          Reply
    • Missy

       /  July 26, 2018

      David, it is even warmer now, and there is (apparently) no end in sight. It has been fabulous, but oh so funny to watch the media hyperbole over how hot it is (I don’t think anywhere has got over about 33). There has been a distinct lack of rain, and what rain there has been has not been enough to break the drought.

      As the trains and buses are unbearable I have been taking the rivers home every night, it gets me home later, but is far more comfortable.

      It is looking like the heatwave will last until the end of August.

      Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 25, 2018

    It hasn’t been a mild winter up here. It’s been colder and dryer. I’ve had a lot more fires and burnt much more wood than usual.

    Reply
    • Not down here in the Waikato. It’s been very mild indeed, although the die-hards who dress by the calendar are wearing their puffer jackets and such things when other people are in shirt-sleeves and dressing for the temperature.

      When it’s been wet, it’s been very wet.

      It’s been good for the power bills, of course. I won’t need a heater this evening, I don’t think.There have been many evenings when I haven’t needed it.

      Reply
  4. David

     /  July 25, 2018

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/28/247-wall-st-coldest-cities/24107481/

    Coldest Winter since 1979 in the US but I guess that is just weather.

    Reply
  5. David

     /  July 25, 2018

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-snow-latest-weather-updates-temperatures-break-record-lows-a8144501.html

    More weather. How come its only climate change when its hot and weather when its cold.

    Reply
  6. Zedd

     /  July 25, 2018

    they renamed it ‘Climate change’ rather than ‘Global warming’ because.. even though the overall temperature does seem to be trending up.. there are other ‘abnormal weather events’ occurring too.. large snow storms, excessive raining & many high strength cyclones etc. etc.

    “just part of the normal cycle’ is it.. oh really ? 😦

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  July 25, 2018

      Yes.. lets all enjoy the ‘warmer weather’ yes until its starts flooding the low lying areas (< 2 meters above current high tide).. inc. my place !

      Its NOT BLOODY FUNNY folks !! 😦 😦 😦

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  July 25, 2018

        hahaha, my place will be water front, bring it on.

        In the winners take all…I win.

        Reply
        • Zedd

           /  July 25, 2018

          oh very funny.. NOT

          Reply
          • Gerrit

             /  July 25, 2018

            Swimming lessons required? 😉

            Maybe we (or you) could always be proactive and take a leaf out of the northern europeans ideas and knowledge. Build some dykes to combat not just sea change but also river flooding?

            Worth a read

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands

            Reply
            • Zedd

               /  July 25, 2018

              PISS OFF !

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              Zedd it is not worth getting upset with an idiot like Gerrit.
              Better to laugh at his stupidity.
              The dikes have been built over one thousand years.The dutch are spending a billion dollars a year to keep them ahead of sea level rise.
              Places like Florida are doomed as the rock is porous and water just flows though the rock and comes up behind any sea defenses built.

            • Zedd

               /  July 25, 2018

              I withdraw & apologise…

            • I’ll be all right on my hillside 😀

              And if there’s a cool breeze, I’ll have it.

  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 25, 2018

    Do the facts support the claims? Here is a counter view with data:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/

    Also most global warming is in night rather than day temperatures. That suggests heatwaves are more likely just weather variants.

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  July 25, 2018

      ‘the voice of reason’ OR denial AW ?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  July 25, 2018

        Are you going to argue with those facts, Zedd?

        Reply
        • Zedd

           /  July 25, 2018

          facts.. can be manipulated.. as is clear on both sides of the debate, but I will not accept that ‘its just part of the normal cycle’ rhetoric.. try looking out the window more often Alan 😦

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  July 25, 2018

            I’m sitting here with two jerseys on, Zedd. It’s cold inside and out.

            Reply
            • Zedd

               /  July 25, 2018

              maybe turn a heater on.. or get a coat :/

              btw; its nippy here too, but sunny out. Not a sign of any snow though, which we did get, about a decade ago

        • Griff

           /  July 25, 2018

          No I am going to point out you just linked to a well know creationist crank though.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  July 25, 2018

            You probably need to link to the ad hominem fallacy now, Griff.

            Reply
            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              Yess Alan the man is a crank
              Lets look at a little of his rant .

              If there was no natural year-to-year variability, and the temperature was increasing at 0.01 or 0.02 deg. F every year, then every successive year would be a record warm year…

              The increase in Dr Woys own temperature series is 0.023F a year well over his suggested range.
              We both know that Spencer’s effort is a lot lower than every other series published .
              The other five series give about 0.035F a year.
              Now why would a man ignore his own work and that of hundreds of other scientists in a blog post?
              Because he is a crank pushing bullshite for the gullible on a whacko blog.

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              Alan
              if Dr Woy is so wrong about one very well supported area of science because of his religious beliefs it is legitimate to point that out.
              Especially as he also claims that climate change will not be bad because god who made the earth would not allow it.

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              I also Dr Woy has a graph from Ljungqvist FC posted on that blog rant without including recent measured temperatures.
              The small issue is Ljungqvist and what he says about his own work

              “Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

              It is now about 0.6 C above 1990 temperatures.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              Spencer: “Am I claiming that there is no such thing as human-caused warming? No. I’m claiming that it is overblown.”

              Unlike yours on this subject, a reasonable voice of reason.

            • I don’t know how credible Spencer’s claims are on climate change, but given his scientific approach to evolution…

              Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as ‘fact,’ I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.”

              In The Evolution Crisis, he wrote, “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. […] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.”

              …I’d be a tad sceptical.

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              Yees Alan I just pointed out a few examples of his lies
              Try to refute them sonny rather than doing a trumpie and claiming a creationist crank with a long history of having his work corrected by others is reliable scientist .

            • Alan., I was wearing a cotton caftan and going barefoot yesterday, and had most of the windows open….

              Tut, tut, what language.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              @PG, none of that has any relevance to the official data he presents in the article I linked.

            • I think it’s relevant to his credibility as a scientist.

              Someone who favours ‘intelligent design’ over evolution and touts it as science is at risk of believing that the climate is a part of that same ‘intelligent’ design.

              Spencer is an anthropogenic global warming denier who believes that climate change is not human caused and will have minimal impact.

              God caused?

              Rebuttal
              “Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet” to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate. … while Spencer’s latest effort doesn’t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder.”

              https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              The man explains himself with his usual restraint. Contrast it with the frothing abuse from climate alarmists like Griff and his heroes.

              http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/science-and-religion-do-your-own-damn-google-search/

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              @PG, your source is a leftwing hit group funded by Soros. Deserving of scepticism itself:
              http://www.groupsnoop.org/Center+for+Media+and+Democracy

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              Roy

              Except that I view CO2 as one of those cases where nature, on a whole, benefits from more of our “pollution”. The scientific evidence is increasingly supporting this position.

              The question is not one of nature it is a question of the effects of climate change on human civilization.

              The scientific evidence for a “creator” is, in my opinion, stronger than the evidence that everything around us is just one gigantic cosmic accident. I have no trouble stating that — and defending it — based upon science alone. No need to quote the Bible.

              What?
              The scientific evidence for god is zero.

              Here is the graph Roy posted in your first link.

              Fig. 6. 2,000 years of Northern Hemisphere temperature variations from an average of a number of temperature proxies. The period of substantial human-caused warming is generally agreed to be only since 1950 (U.N. IPCC AR5).

              Here is the same data including the thermometer data up to 2000

              I dont think failing to show what we have actually experienced is unbiased
              or acting in good faith .
              A deliberate misrepresentation by omission AKA a lie.

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              Here is the published paper that PG’s rebuttal of Roys nonsense paper is based on .
              https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/issues-related-to-the-use-of-one-dimensional-ocean-diffusion-models-for-determining-climate-sensitivity-2157-7617.1000220.pdf
              Abstract
              While simple models of the Earth’s ocean can provide useful information about the sensitivity of the climate to
              increasing greenhouse gases, it is important to ensure that the models are based on realistic physical processes and are
              evaluated with an accurate numerical methodology. In this regard, a number of computational issues are identified and
              addressed to guide the development of simplified models. To illustrate these issues, we examine a previously published
              one-dimensional diffusion model. Treatment of the boundary conditions, advection, ocean depth, and thermal diffusivity
              are addressed. Questionable omission of 30% of the Earth’s surface and the application of a very local phenomenon as
              a global process is also discussed. It is shown that incorrect treatment of these issues can give non-physical results and
              lead to mistaken conclusions about the sensitivity of the Earth to rising greenhouse gas concentration

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              I should just add that my PhD supervisor was a Christian and no doubt believed in some form of Creationism. It in no way affected his research and teaching other than that he retired early to do good in social work via his church.

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              Why did Roy misrepresent temperatures Alan?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              Citing the IPCC is misrepresenting temperature, Griff?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              Neither did he misrepresent the data. He stated 1.1 deg of warming since the industrial revolution. He cited the chart only to show there is a natural warming cycle also involved. You are the one doing the misrepresentation.

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              See were Dr Roys graph says “period allegedly warmed by human activity” Alan
              One who did not know better would think that graph shows the warming due to human activity until 2000 .
              Except Dr Roy is not showing the warming is he.
              This is even pointed out in the abstract of the paper his graph was lifted from
              He is lying to his audience .Why would he do that?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              Why would the IPCC misrepresent the temperature by publishing the chart, Griff? Because that is what the proxy data actually showed. Why doesn’t it agree with Hadcrut? I don’t know, do you?

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              The graph is not from the IPCC Alan.
              Here is what is in the IPCC
              Page 419.. it does not include that graph.
              https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
              The graph is lifted from the paper .
              https://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf
              Roy has clipped the data points showing the decadal means from 1950 to 1990
              The data roy showed ends in 1950.
              Guess when the temperature starts rising ?
              The base line of this from the IPCC is the 1960 to 1990 mean.

              Here is his explanation of the graph.

              Fig. 6. 2,000 years of Northern Hemisphere temperature variations from an average of a number of temperature proxies. The period of substantial human-caused warming is generally agreed to be only since 1950 (U.N. IPCC AR5).

              Why did Roy misrepresent that graph.?
              Why did he delete the data points showing temperatures from 1950 up to 1990 ? Why did he not show temperatures to the present the “human caused warming”?

              Why do you think there is a “natural cycle” involved when the graph does not show the resent temperatures spike right off the top of the chart?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 26, 2018

              The answer to both your question and mine is in the Ljungqvist paper, Griff. The proxy peaks and troughs are likely smoothed out and under-estimated via non-linear proxy responses and uncertainties in dating.

              Therefore the chart indicates trends rather than actual values and it is not relevant to super-impose direct measurements on it. Spencer used it only to show the natural cooling and warming trends and cited the direct temperature data when discussing actual warming.

              There was no misrepresentation except by you and no doubt Spencer’s alarmist enemies.

  8. Zedd

     /  July 25, 2018

    I also hear Devonport (NS Akld) real estate prices are set to jump massively, as it could become an ‘Island resort’ BUT I bet the folks in Cheltenam/Narrow neck (where I once lived) are not laughing about it ?

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  July 25, 2018
      Reply
      • Griff

         /  July 25, 2018

        More dribbling Alan .
        The rise over the last century?

        You claim to have an engineering degree so know you are talking rubbish..
        You placed a straight line trend on a curved data set and projected it forward.

        The sea level rise is presently over 4mm a year and accelerating.

        When high tide and a storm coincide we already get flooding like what wiped out the Thames coast road a few months ago.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  July 25, 2018

          I don’t claim an engineering degree. I was a scientist.

          You forgot you can’t make the data curve until you fiddle it. Salinger obviously hasn’t got to this data set yet. Look at the chart in my link – no curve.

          Save the insults and b.s. for someone who you can impress.

          Reply
          • Griff

             /  July 25, 2018

            Church and White
            Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century

            We estimate the rise in global average sea level from satellite altimeter data for 1993–2009 and from coastal and island sea-level measurements from 1880 to 2009. For 1993–2009 and after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year−1 from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 from the in situ data. The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1. There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year−2, respectively. Since the start of the altimeter record in 1993, global average sea level rose at a rate near the upper end of the sea level projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. However, the reconstruction indicates there was little net change in sea level from 1990 to 1993, most likely as a result of the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

            Statistically significant acceleration = Curve
            John Church and Neil White
            World leading sea level experts .
            Neil White has confirmed that sea level rise has accelerated since this was published.

            This is confirmed by computing The sea level budget using the mass balance for the ice caps and sea temperatures water inpoundment and ground water depletion .

            You are as much of a scientist as I am .
            In fact less so because you have a long history of repeating non scientific rubbish .

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              Hells teeth Griff. With that rate of acceleration in a centurie’s time it will be rising at 3mm per year in Auckland instead of 2mm. You are doomed.

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              math not your strong point?
              you again used the straight line trend over a century and ignored the fact its a curve.
              You are also ignoring the fact Antarctic and Arctic ice cap melt is accelerating.
              Head in sand

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              Maths is certainly not your strong point Griff. I used the acceleration curve you yourself claimed.

          • Griff

             /  July 25, 2018

            You forgot you can’t make the data curve until you fiddle it.

            kaching
            Conspiracy cranks always have to start gibbering the nutty conspiracy nonsense.
            Yes Alan NASA the Royal Society of Science the American national academy etc etc etc are in on a global conspiracy to steel your money using global warming as an excuse.
            Do you buy your tinfoil in bulk ?
            Seen any black helicopters hovering over the house ?
            Thought about medication to help with your paranoia ?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              There must be some excuse for lowering the sea levels around NZ a century ago to fit your global narrative of rise rates. Work on it.

            • Griff

               /  July 25, 2018

              ROFL

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  July 25, 2018

              You won’t learn anything on the floor, Griff. Get up and practice being polite.

  9. Callum

     /  July 25, 2018

    Whether you believe in AGW or not, that last graph is exactly why people are losing trust in the science behind it. Alter your scale above and below the zero point to visually exaggerate the change. That is just poor science.

    Reply
    • Griff

       /  July 25, 2018

      The scales are the same above and below 0 on my laptop.
      Either its a distortion on your screen or you are on LSD.

      Reply
  10. All these colourful graphs are pretty much nonsense as they’ve just cherry picked a relatively infinitesimal amount of years on a planet some 4.5 billion years old.

    The very best scientists can come up with for temps going back billions of years are guesses from taking ice core samples, then creating climate ‘models’ that have parameters constantly changed to suit agendas.

    The planet’s climate comes from a recipe made up of defined ingredients that no model can reproduce. The ingredients are Planet Sun, Gravitational Forces from our Solar System, Cosmic Rays from Stars in Deep Space, Atmosphere, Biosphere, Oceans. The real tricky thing for scientists is this recipe has no constants – the amount of each component is constantly changing – it’s highly complex and chaotic.
    Yet those who call themselves experts in the field of Earth’s climate really have no idea. How can anyone argue their models are images of components in Deep Space?

    It’s interesting this buzzword ‘Climate Change’.
    Climate has been changing through cycles of warming and cooling, tropical ages, temperate ages and ice ages throughout all of Earth’s 4.5 billion years history.

    Climate change is not only real, it’s continuous and has been happening since the beginning of time.

    So to say that ‘Climate Change’ is due to human’s burning of certain products is nonsensical.
    The burning of certain products is merely a part of pollution.

    Reply
    • Griff

       /  July 25, 2018

      The only nonsense is your rant
      CO2 is a green house gas it is opaque to infrared radiation. this has been know for well over a century.
      Burning Hydrocarbon results in releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
      This increases the greenhouse effect so increases the temperature of the globe. Again know for over one hundred years.

      temps going back billions of years are guesses from taking ice core samples

      No ice remains on earth from billions of years ago.

      The ingredients are Planet Sun, Gravitational Forces from our Solar System, Cosmic Rays from Stars in Deep Space, Atmosphere, Biosphere, Oceans.

      The sun is a star not a planet , gravity has little effect on global temperatures, Same with cosmic rays from deep space.

      Atmosphere, Oceans and the biosphere are included in climate models.

      Orbital fluctuations are responsible for ice ages and operate of time scales irrelevant to the the present warming, Sun output has declined over the last fifty years.

      What little that is correct in your garbled rant comes from the climate science that you claim is wrong .

      I see you got a uptick for such gibbering nonsense.
      That shows the intellect of our deniers .

      Reply
  11. What’s that white fluffy stuff in the tiger pic Blazer? Can’t possibly be what we used to call snow – we were told there’d be no more of that after year 1999. Our mountains must be covered in man-made artificial sssnnooowww eh.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 25, 2018

      Can’t possibly be what we used to call snow – we were told there’d be no more of that after year 1999.

      1. Who by?
      2. How long ago?
      3. Based on what data at the time?

      Reply
      • Griff

         /  July 25, 2018

        Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
        Which it is to the extent that shops no longer carry toboggans in the UK and snowfall makes world headlines .

        https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/watersource11/
        An analysis of gridded datashows significant decreases in the number of days of
        lying snow for 1961/62-2004/05, in all regions of the UK, with the greatest percentage decreases in parts of southern and central England and Wales (Perry
        2006). The decreases are still significant when only using data from 1963/64, to
        exclude the potential for the very snowy winter of 1962/63 to skew the results. The
        trends are most significant in autumn but absolute decreases are greatest in winter,
        when most snow occurs. Decreases in both autumn and spring suggest that the
        snow season is getting shorter.

        .

        Reply
  12. Gezza

     /  July 25, 2018

    Aljaz tv has been reporting on this over the last week: couple of items for Japan, which is experiencing unprecedented high temperatures & deaths from it.

    Reply
  13. The UK thinks that 33o is a heatwave….

    Reply
  14. Gezza

     /  July 26, 2018

    I’m not even interested any more in reading swathes of technical reports & graphs arguing about comparatively tiny, though steady, incremental rises in global temperatures given that the data has to be normalised thru various means by various scientists & sundry know-alls copy pasting & trying to out smart-arse each other over.

    Same with arguments over sea level rise & pack ice.

    I’ve just been watching what’s changing around me & around the world & things seem now to be definitely changing. 30 years since I’ve seen ice on street puddles in Welly. Winters are still unpleasantly cold & damp but milder. Summers that used to be in full swing in December now don’t start until late January/early February. Glaciers in NZ have retreated miles up their valleys. Same else where around the globe.

    Weird weather is happening more frequently than it used to with increasing regularity. Known orbital and sun output cycles don’t account for the slow but steady rise in temps. Sea levels aren’t rising around the world at anything like the predicted rates which should be easily visible by now but that just suggests to me the models still don’t account for what happens to water.

    People on the ground or in the sea in Greenland & the Artic can see the changes re continuing ice loss, even allowing for yearly aberrations. So I think that CO2-driven AGW is more likely happening than not, & that this is becoming more & more evident each year.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  July 26, 2018

      Sea level rise due to thermal expansion is immediate. It is hard to reconcile the long-term near linear trajectory of it against the claimed exponential rise of global temperatures via surface measurements especially given the claims excess heat is stored in the deep ocean between El Nino events.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s