Home/Blog
Our paper entitled Death Valley Illusion: Evidence Against the 134 Deg. F World Record has been published as an early online release in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The authors are myself, Dr. John Christy, and climatologist and storm chaser Bill Reid.
Several meteorologists over the years have questioned the plausibility of the 134 deg. F world record hottest temperature recorded at Greenland Ranch, California, on July 10, 1913, but quantitative evidence has been lacking. We used 100 years of temperatures recorded at higher-elevation (and thus cooler) locations to find a range of temperatures that most likely occurred on that date.
The answer was 120 (+/-2) deg. F, typical for Death Valley in July, and well below the world record value of 134 deg. F. I have previously blogged on the evidence against this value and how and why it might have been recorded.
While I remain a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change being a net threat to human health and welfare, unlike some other skeptics I have never considered a temperature on a single day (especially over 100 years ago) as being any kind of evidence related to climate change. We follow the data, which is what we did in this new study.
NOTE: If you are commenting here for the first time, your first comment will need to be approved by me before it appears. That might take a day or a week, depending upon how busy I am, so be patient.
Dr Spencer.
“While I remain a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change being a net threat to human health and welfare, unlike some other skeptics I have never considered a temperature on a single day (especially over 100 years ago) as being any kind of evidence related to climate change. We follow the data…”
Climate is the statistical distribution of weather over time, characterized by its mean and variability. The linked image illustrates this principle: as the average temperature rises, the entire probability distribution of daily temperatures shifts toward higher values. This shift increases the likelihood of hot and extremely hot events while reducing the frequency of extreme cold events, even though occasional extreme cold days still occur.
The concern is not merely about warmer averages but about the increased probability of extremes (heat waves, droughts, heavy rainfall, and related impacts) that accompany this shift. These extremes are what drive most of the net risks to human health, infrastructure, and welfare. Thus, the changing distribution of weather statistics, not isolated daily records, constitutes clear and consequential evidence of climate change.
See the image here: https://ibb.co/B28PLBxj
Regards.
Arkady you just completely ignored Roy’s two non-uah posts last month.
the surface radiant forcing model you posted is incorrect. we know it is incorrect by observations. Not just Roy’s but many others.
First we know that the mainstream forcing model is 2/3rds feedback from water vapor and increased water vapor’s moist air forcing model is different from a dry air model. A moist model will make for cooler days and warmer nights. Roy’s last month posts show a new wrinkle in that the most extreme events are not occurring consistent with the shift in radiant forcing your chart represents. it’s like you missed a lot of lectures and want everybody to start the last 25[40 years science achievements over again and stop believing our eyes. my suggestion would be to start believing what we are seeing and seek out the correct explanations . . .what ever they are. my immediate preference would be for a renewal and continuation of Milankovic’s work especially at the time scales we are most concerned about (i.e. Holocene/Anthropocene climate variations)
There is no such phenomena as anthropogenic climate change because most of the earth is water, rocks, sand, ice and snow. Activities of humans are not going to effect the climate of the vast Pacific ocean, the Andes mountains or the Sahara desert. However, activities of humans in urban areas can effect local climate due to the UHI effect. In some countries, humans can cause local desertification by stripping the land of plants for firewood and for food for animals.
One extreme weather event are Atlantic hurricanes
, the frequency of which has greatly declined since 1900. So far this hurricane season has been a bust.
Harold,
There certainly are impacts on the environment by people. Whether it’s the changes in Albedo from farming and the build environment, or from urban heat islands to pollution.
There is zero chance that the climate is going to kill billions by the end of century. There is little evidence that the billions of people will be climate refugees, more like economic migrants.
We might as well enjoy the mainly natural climate change and ignore the pearl clutching socialists.
Bill,
Ark not only talks the talk but walks the walk. He has wind and solar power at his home and rides a horse and buggy to work. Then when he gets home, he eats from his backyard garden and washes his clothes in his creek. Then he reads himself to sleep by candlelight every night but only after he posts his inspirations here.
I’ve always treated raw data as… “it is what it is”. It seems like you’re putting a lot of effort into discrediting a single measurement and you still can’t even say for sure that it’s wrong.
It’s not just a “single measurement”. It’s a WORLD RECORD. đ And it’s been the subject of considerable debate among many people.
Outlier event>:
The potential for observer error but note that the 134°F measurement could have been the result of a very rare, localized meteorological event, such as a dust storm creating superheated air near the thermometer.
Reliable modern records:
Many climate scientists prefer to cite more recent, reliable measurements from Death Valley, such as a reading of 130°F (54.4°C) in August 2020, as the highest confirmed temperature on Earth.
Previous record:
For 90 years, the world record was held by a 1922 reading of 136°F (57.8°C) in El Azizia, Libya. However, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) invalidated the Libyan record in 2012 due to observer and instrumentation errors, reinstating the 1913 Death Valley measurement as the world record.
some summer days in the desert are very hot because of low humidity, which allows the sun’s energy to build up rapidly in the air and on the ground. Additionally, there is often a lack of cloud cover, which would otherwise reflect some of the sun’s energy back into space.
That is weather, not climate.
CO2 is not the primary cause of naturally hot summer days in a desert,
Skeptika, all data ought to be checked and validated. Any extreme data that sets a new record should automatically be subjected to robust validation. The max record might be correct, but to automatically accept without proof is tantamount to confirmation bias.
In the UK one of the max records was immediately suspected of being wrong because it was recorded at an airfield. The UK Met office still believe it is an authentic record. Others posit that the 3 jet fighters taxing near the weather station would corrupt the reading, especially as the before & after temperature was a few degrees cooler.
Dr Spencer, I don’t like “homogenization” of data, especially when the documentation of the program is the program itself. My understanding of your approach is that you disregarded the offending 7/10/1913 measurement and replaced with a “homogenized” value. I hate when the Met Office does that, I hate when you do that. I can only hope that you did your homogenization very carefully.
Yes, I suppose you could use the “H word” in regard to this. And, yes, I was careful. This was not a blanket statistical black box to use on thousands of stations over many decades. It was a single even with 100 years of evidence that the reading was outside the realm of plausibility.
Dr. Spencer, I remembered that a friend of mine, a geophysicist, once told me about an anomalous magnetic reading measured in the middle of flat fields near Dymokury(?), Czechia. The way to get the measurement into an official record was to present it at a meeting of a commission. They were about to agree on a deletion of the measurement, when a commission member remembered that two months earlier they deleted an anomalous gravity reading at the same location. They did a detailed mapping and discovered a textbook small anomaly at the location. So they included both anomalous readings as well as the detailed mapping.
Although we did not go into this, there is no physcial mechanism by which such a hot temperature would occur in the presence of strong convective mixing. Plus, we have evidence of the observer putting in bogus temperatures (usually integer multiples of 5) in other years, so we know he was no stranger to fudging data.
“Plus, we have evidence of the observer putting in bogus temperatures (usually integer multiples of 5) in other years, so we know he was no stranger to fudging data.”
Could you expand on this “evidence” or point to a reference?
Never mind, you’ve addressed it in the paper, which, in retrospect, is the obvious place to have looked.
The UAH data was under a lot of pressure from the peanut gallery because UAH data was called an outlier. It was about 0.13C per decade and the RSS data sets were about 0.20C per decade. Lately, the peanut gallery has calmed down a bit. Dr. Spencer and friends have spent the last couple of years pointing out problems with the RSS data sets. It seems the Death Valley people like their notoriety and mainstream media will use it to push an agenda. Dr. Spencer and friends seem to be the only ones out there tackling these issues. I’m glad for that.
“‘Death Valley Days’ May Be Over for Global Temperature Record”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/14/death-valley-days-may-be-over-for-global-temperature-record/
GROK for ARK
And all of it Scientifically Robust!
“Comprehensive List of Media Headlines Claiming Climate Tipping Points Reached
Media coverage of climate tipping points “reached” or “crossed” spans decades, with spikes tied to scientific reports, extreme weather, or UN events. “Major” instances involve widespread coverage (multiple top outlets like Guardian, NYT, CNN, BBC; 10+ headlines per wave) and reference consensus science (e.g., IPCC, Global Tipping Points Report). “Minor” instances are outlet-specific, regional, or less corroborated claims.
This list compiles ~25 major waves and ~40 minor instances from 2000â2025, drawn from archives (e.g., Google News, LexisNexis). Exact totals exceed 500 headlines globally, but these highlight peaks. Language often sensationalizes (e.g., “doomsday,” “point of no return”), though most cite peer-reviewed thresholds. Skeptics note “failed” past claims (e.g., 2030 ice-free Arctic predictions), but recent ones align with data like 1.4°C warming.
Major Instances (High-Impact Waves)
Year/MonthKey Headlines & OutletsTipping ElementsTriggerCoverage Scope2007 (Nov)”Climate change ‘tipping point’ may be reached” (BBC); “Global warming nearing point of no return, scientists say” (Guardian)Arctic sea ice, permafrostIPCC AR4; early Al Gore film tie-inGlobal; ~20 headlines; first mainstream “tipping” buzz.2012 (Mar)”Scientists warn of irreversible tipping points” (NYT); “Planet Nears Climate ‘Tipping Point'” (WSJ)Planetary-scale (ice, oceans)Barnosky et al. Nature paperU.S.-centric; heatwave link.2015 (Dec)”Earth on track for irreversible climate change” (CNN); “Tipping points could be closer than we think” (Guardian)AMOC, ice sheetsCOP21 previews; Paris AgreementPre-1.5°C focus; 15+ outlets.2018 (Oct)”UN: Climate change could reach tipping point by 2030″ (ABC, Fox); “Irreversible damage ahead” (Reuters)Multiple (reefs, Amazon)IPCC SR1.5 leakSensational; “12 years left” meme origin.2019 (Aug)”World may have crossed climate tipping points” (Guardian); “Tipping points crossed, say scientists” (CNN, WaPo)9 elements (Antarctic, Amazon, corals)Lenton Nature paperViral; 50+ headlines; “hothouse Earth.”2021 (Jul)”Tipping points toppling like dominoes” (Guardian); “Irreversible thresholds crossed” (BBC)Greenland ice, AMOCWinkelmann study; heat domeEurope/U.S.; cascade warnings.2022 (Mar)”Amazon nearing tipping point to savannah” (CNN, NYT); “Dieback inevitable” (Guardian)Amazon rainforestStaal Nature studyDeforestation data; 20+ headlines.2022 (Sep)”Five tipping points reached or imminent” (Guardian); “Disastrous thresholds crossed” (NYT, BBC)Ice sheets, permafrost, Amazon, corals, AMOCScience paper (Armstrong McKay)Landmark; “1.1°C enough”; global echo.2023 (Oct)”Five catastrophic tipping points crossed” (Guardian); “Planet on verge” (CNN)Same as 2022 + updatesGlobal Tipping Points ReportAnnual update; bleaching events.2024 (Apr)”Coral reefs pass tipping point” (BBC); “First global threshold breached” (Guardian)Warm-water coralsBleaching records; Lenton updateOcean heat focus; 15+ outlets.2025 (Jun)”Fossil fuels hit phase-out tipping point” (Independent, Bloomberg)Positive (renewables, EVs)IEA report; adoption curvesOptimistic spin; policy shift.2025 (Oct)”First global tipping point: Coral collapse” (Guardian, CNN, TIME, Independent); “Irreversible reality” (NYT)Coral reefs2025 Global Tipping Points ReportMassive; 84% bleaching; “new era.”
Minor Instances (Outlet-Specific or Regional)
These are less amplified but still use “reached/crossed” phrasing, often from studies or events:
2003: “Tipping point for climate change?” (New Scientist) â Early ocean circulation fears.
2006: “Arctic tipping point reached” (National Geographic) â Ice melt acceleration.
2009: “Corals cross bleaching threshold” (Sydney Morning Herald) â Great Barrier Reef event.
2010: “Permafrost thaw hits tipping” (Mongabay) â Methane release reports.
2013: “West Antarctic ice passed point” (Livescience) â Regional glacier study.
2014: “Boreal forests at tipping edge” (CBC) â Canadian wildfire link.
2016: “Monsoon systems tipped” (Hindustan Times) â India drought.
2017: “Thwaites Glacier doomed” (ScienceAlert) â “Doomsday Glacier” moniker.
2020 (Jan): “Australia fires push ecosystems over” (The Conversation) â Biodiversity loss.
2020 (Sep): “AMOC weakening past safe limits” (New Scientist).
2021 (Aug): “Siberian permafrost crossed” (Yale Climate Connections).
2022 (Jun): “LA wildfires signal urban tipping” (LA Times) â Local adaptation failure.
2023 (Feb): “European rivers hit dry tipping” (Euronews) â Droughts.
2023 (Jul): “Canadian forests beyond recovery” (Globe and Mail).
2024 (Jan): “Himalayan glaciers passed threshold” (Down to Earth).
2024 (May): “Sahel greening reverses to tipping” (Al Jazeera).
2024 (Sep): “Blue Ocean Event in Arctic” (Arctic News blog, echoed in Vice).
2025 (Mar): “Mangrove die-off irreversible” (Mongabay).
2025 (Aug): “Thwaites full collapse claimed” (LiveScience update).
Plus ~20 regional (e.g., Indian media on monsoons, Australian on reefs) and blog-amplified (e.g., DeSmog, Skeptical Science rebuttals).
Should now read, 2025 none of the above occurred, beware false prophets,
Been a very long time since I’ve commented here.
In regards to that temp, I think it’s just micro site bias like all stns.
If I could, I’d put another stn at that same exact spot, and see if temps could get even close to that 134F.
Have great guys đ
Brian D
I agree!
There was a station at Cow Creek, quite in the near, which was located about 8 km away from Greenland Ranch
USC00042092 36.5333 -116.8833 -46.0 CA COW CREEK
i.e. even nearer to it than the recent USCRN station Stovepipe Wells:
53139 36.6020 -117.1449 25.6 CA_Stovepipe_Wells_1_SW
which is about 30 km away.
*
But unfortunately, for this station, GHCN daily has only data for the period ‘1934 1961’. Seems to have been its lifetime.
{ There was also till around 2018 a private station installed at Badwater (communicated by bdgwx) which I also compared to Death Valley NP and Stovepipe Wells for the period 2004-2018. }
*
Last year in November there was already a bunch of threads posted on this blog about Furnace Creek’s 134F; at that time I made some charts, e.g.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GMdw5fxNUtKE6KsVrdHTl0Hy0SZKKdia/view
As you can see, Cow Creek was very near to Greenland Ranch, and if it had existed in 1913, all this stuff doubting the worldwide record possibly would never have been written.
*
I’m preparing a lot of graphs showing station data comparisons based on daily anomalies, and hope to get it finished.
Bindidion,
Have you ever done any serious data comparisons in your life?
Surely a person with your intellect wouldn’t struggle too much with generating a proper graph.
QAnon
Why aren’t you able to simply tell us exactly wht is not ‘serious’ in may graph (if you were able to understand how and why it has been designed) ?
Bindy,
Plotting 3 stations must be pushing your ability or its accidental obscurification.
Try calculating how close the data tracks across the sites and whether the “record” is reasonable. Personally I would check if there was monthly or seasonal differences as well, or even slight shifts over the decades.
I thought you claimed before that you were an expert in data with all computer languages that you are fluent in. Or am I getting you confused with Willard?
QAnon
You are really a shallow and pretentious person, suffering from a superiority complex to the point that instead of first asking questions about what I’ve done, you allow yourself to make vague, false assumptions, and even more, give me useless advice.
I wonder if you have read, with due attention, Roy Spencer’s numerous blog posts about Greenland Ranch 1913/07/10 since November 2024, as well as the article he published with Christy and Reid.
Look at the graph below, try to understand how redundant your advice is, and consider the relationship between these two graphs made for the period 1949-1960 and the ones that will soon be published for the period 1911-1922.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w7Dvd-b5TY3DzVFhaW90UI0Bak7JKP93/view
Your are today really, really at Robertson’s level…
Biddy,
So it is Willard who is more knowledgeable than you.
To make it even more simple for you. Plotting July max temperature is not really comparing anything useful, especially over many decades. Producing a graph that shows the likelihood of site A being within a temperature band of site B on a daily basis would be more useful. False max records would be very obvious. Doing the same over different time spans would highlight local changes etc
But you seem only to be able use Google graphs for simplistic lines. Well as t least I know your impressive expertise has no bounds.
QAnon
First
” Personally I would check if there was monthly or seasonal differences as well, or even slight shifts over the decades. ”
then
” Producing a graph that shows the likelihood of site A being within a temperature band of site B on a daily basis would be more useful. ”
*
Yesterday this, today that; tomorrow thu?
The best part is that while you’re desperately trying to act like a condescending elementary school teacher, you’re actually such an incompetent braggart that you couldn’t even tell that this daily, data-driven analysis is exactly what I’ve been doing for quite some time in various contexts.
*
You obviously wouldn’t even have been able to see until now that I’m trying to investigate a few days in July 1913 with unusually high readings at the Greenland Ranch station, and that I’m doing exactly that here by compiling time series consisting only of July days, based first on absolute temperatures, then on daily anomalies calculated with respect to station-local baselines:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_iZ7uuLfdgJVga2OkNs8K3pWfWGu-wSi/view
*
And only from these anomaly time series can one determine which station(s) can be compared with the anomalies at Greenland Ranch.
*
Why don’t you try to do the work yourself that you so shamefully discredit in other people?
By the way: aren’t you the brazen coward who defamed me as a ‘script kiddy’ on this blog last year?
If so, your behavior doesn’t surprise me at all. In memoriam Frank Zappa: ‘One size fits all’.
And since you’re really getting on my nerves with your arrogance, I’ll be shielding your posts from view with the help of Elliott Bignell’s wonderful “Tarderase” add-on.
Biddy aka Script Kiddy
Typical that you spent the day creating another graph to show how you were right all along.
” Typical that you spent the day creating another graph… ”
Typical that you boaster once more allegate egomaniacal nonsense instead of asking.
The graph was created in November 2024 and was recently subject to a tiny modification.
You behave like a duplicate of Robertson, Clint R and a few others: you merely discredit, denigrate, insult and lie instead of technically or scientifically contradicting.
Pfui Deibel, Krauts would say.
While you – like a lot of other arrogant twats – luckily disappeared when I use Firefox, I still see you in TOR.
*
I suddenly see one of your stupid lies:
” But you seem only to be able use Google graphs for simplistic lines. ”
You are such a brazen braggart, QAnon…
I don’t use Google to make graphs, of course: what you see and – as usual – trivially misinterpret, is Google’s Drive I use to upload graphs produced in Libre Office Calc, into which I in turn upload foreign data together with what I generate out of own software.
I tested Gnuplot and Python’s plot lib, but preferred to keep the good ol’ spreadsheet option.
*
On the one hand, you are only capable of polemical discrediting; on the other, you cleverly create the impression of possessing high technical skills and scientific knowledge, of which we have not seen the slightest trace in this blog so far.
Breaking News:
The rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last year has increased by over 30% (second derivative of concentration over time). If that is projected forward, the way many people like to do, it is clear that we all doomed! (yes, sarcasm for those who do not get it).
But that is not the bad news. A more obscure story is that AI represents a huge consumption of power. The growth of AI requires a growth of electric demand. Modern computer chips have become more efficient, but all computation consumes power. Electric current must flow. It is a similar story with Bit Coin.
Breaking News:
The rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last year has increased by over 30% (second derivative of concentration over time). If that is projected forward, the way many people like to do, it is clear that we all doomed! (yes, sarcasm for those who do not get it).
But that is not the bad news. A more obscure story is that AI represents a huge consumption of power. The growth of AI requires a growth of electric demand. Modern computer chips have become more efficient, but all computation consumes power. Electric current must flow. It is a similar story with Bit Coin.
“Interestingly, from one side of the Atlantic to the other, or, specifically, from the coasts of New York to the coasts of France, mean sea level rise has been stable, not accelerating, since 1960.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/10/19/new-study-contradicts-the-alarmist-narrative-that-says-the-amoc-is-catastrophically-collapsing/
“A comparison of tide gauge data from The Battery, New York, and Brest, France, corrected for land subsidence using GPS measurements, reveals a negligible difference in absolute sea level rise between these locations, reinforcing the stability of the AMOC within the period 1960 to 2024.”
Good stuff, Richard. I kinda miss you schooling Binny on statistics but I guess you got tired of talking to the wall.
RLH,
Both on different tectonic plates. The french one will be stable as well, not so certain about the new York one as I thought the area was sediment rock or sediments, which could be affected by construction and ground water.
But at a guess there will be some who will still be panicking.
Once again, the blog’s scanner refused many times in sequence despite changes to accept a comment for some unknown reason. I thought this was a thing of the past!
So, all that remains is a link to a PDF file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iUCS-coKEVKgJt68UCkZTkLOuB-Ia9JW/view
*
I’m glad by the way that ignoramus-in-chief Robertson once again believes RLH could ever teach me statistics: RLH himself admitted that he only ‘learned simple statistics’; compared to a professional statistician, his knowledge in this field is exactly the same as mine: zero.
All of RLH’s attempts, for example, to claim that the median of hourly data in daily time series is always better than the mean of tmin and tmax, failed, as he was never able to contradict my contrary evaluations of German and US hourly data.
Take it up with the paper I was reporting,
Blindsley H00d
You are really blind and stubborn, aren’t you?
Didn’t you understand what the people told in the article I was reporting?
One result can destroy your theory.
Theory?
Which theory? I just showed the evaluations of observed data; my only personal implication was to (unscientifically) mitigate alarmistic tones about AMOC
“unscientifically”
“Which theory?”
The theory that the AOC is changing.
AMOC
Blindsley H00d
You are, as usual, opinionated and dishonest.
You wrote above:
” One result can destroy your theory. ”
My theory?
Where did I express ‘my‘ theory?
Always you try to misinterpret others by omitting what is relevant.
According to the paper, the AMOC is not changing according to previous theories. That is the theory I am noting.
And the sea level is not rising which refutes your theory expressed here frequently.
Blindsley H00d
” And the sea level is not rising… ”
Where is the proof for this ‘theory’ ?
Who claims this should, for example, scientifically disprove recent work done by Frederikse et al. or Dangendorf & al., published in 2019 and 2017 respectively.
Show us something! Please avoid Heartland- or GWPF-driven posts from WUWT or the TrickyZone and post links to valuable articles.
*
” … which refutes your theory expressed here frequently. ”
My theory?
What is this repeated nonsense for, Blindsley H00d?
My only contribution to the sea level discussion has nothing to do with theoretical work of any kind.
I’m neither climate nor meteorology specialist, hence restrict my contributions to comparisons of various tide gauge data evaluations, including mine, which is not a ‘theory’ but the output of own software.
1. Various sea level time series (tide gauges and sat altimetry)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Or0jeeNG9Or1dPvxzb48QtrsUgeNE8GJ/view
All evaluations take of course care of considering vertical land movement (subsidence or isostatic rebound).
2. 5-year distant running trends showing the trend increase in tide gauge data from 1900-2015 till 1995-2015
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dvz115qfZXH95nkoIXF091JJsaasaAEn/view
While the worldwide average trends starts for 1900-2015 at about 1.5 mm/year, it ends for 1995-2015 near 3 mm/year, what matches the global trend for satellite altimetry data in the same period.
Around 1975-2015, my evaluation ‘leaves the consensus’: it shows an acceleration from 1960, but none from 1993 :–)
Thus for alarmistas I’m plain wrong. So what!
One result can destroy your theory.
The world second highest temperature record is 131 °F (55 °C), which was measured in Kebili, Tunisia, on July 7, 1931.
I wonder if that reading is plausible.
August 1973. one week in Gafsa was enough for me ,spent one week at an oasis where temperatures reached 50c plus every day, yes Tunisia is hot, but if i remember,i think the Lut desert in Iran holds the hottest ground temperature record taken by satellite.
USC00043603 CA_GREENLAND_RCH______________ 1913 7 10 56.7 (C)
USC00043603 CA_GREENLAND_RCH______________ 1913 7 13 55.0
August 1973. one week in Gafsa was enough for me ,spent one week at an oasis where temperatures reached 50c plus every day, yes Tunisia is hot, but if i remember,i think the Lut desert in Iran holds the hottest ground temperature record taken by satellite.
Ian…whereas I have only experienced about 45C, I know what you mean. We were camping by a river here in BC, Canada and it was so unbearably hot, and still, that we had to move on.
A local, who owned a hotel, told me they’d put a thermometer in the direct sunlight and make bets on how high it would rise. It went as high as the mid 50s.
That raises the question as to why in roughly the same parallel, the Sun can heat regions that high yet 150 miles away it is a moderate 20 -25C. Seems convection plays a large part and Lindzen claimed, without convection, temperatures on Earth could rise to 70+ C. It was remarkable on the day I mentioned that nary a whiff of a breeze could be felt. Just hot and very still.
There is no way a trace gas can vary temperatures like that. We’ve had heat waves claimed based on climate change due to CO2 but there’s no way CO2 can raise temperatures 10 to 20C above the norm. Personally, as I have stated, it cannot vary temps more than about 0.06C, it’s mass percent.
Gordon,
Air temperature is supposed to be measured in the shade. Hence the Stevenson screens, which should but not typically be white and clean.
Agree about a trace gas that is supposed to be evenly spread across the atmosphere. My thought is that CO2 is about as impotent as Bindidyion. Location is more important.
anon…I may have mislead you. I am aware of Stevenson screens and the need to shield thermometers from direct sunlight, The hotel owner I referenced was joking about putting them in direct sunlight.
Location is everything. I have explained several times how temperatures and climate vary markedly in my location of Vancouver, Canada over 150 miles. On the coast, at Vancouver, we have a rain forest-like climate. About 150 miles NE the climate is desert-like, with sagebrush and small cactii as normal vegetation.
Drought has been normal in these regions yet alarmists are blaming forest fires and drought in those regions on climate change.
That is real climate change, due to location. On the coast, there is little in the way of mountains to affect moist air coming off the Pacific Ocean. However, inland, there are several mountain ranges that drain the moisture from the air by forcing precipitation on the side of the mountains between inland and the ocean. By the time the moist clouds get over several mountain ranges they lack the moisture needed to supply precipitation, hence the desert-like environment.
Ian Brown
Your hint on the Lut desert is correct, but the extreme temperatures measured there (over 80 C) were by IR sounding devices aboard satellites when they move above very great backrock surfaces lying there.
This is not the same as when you measure at 2 m above ground.
Hi, i already new that, i just could not remember the numbers, as for 2 meters, many boxes are nearer 4 feet from the ground in the UK.
Ooops?!
I posted hours ago a reply to RLH’s post about this nonsensical article linking the difference between gauge data in NY and Brest to AMOC stability, but nothing to see… what a pity.
See above.
Same again this month.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-10-20.gif
To make it permanent,
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-10-23-cfsr.jpg
I claimed above that location is everything for both climate and temperature. More specifically, here in Vancouver, Canada, the weather, climate, and temperatures have not varied significantly either recently or in the past 30 years.
A couple of months ago we were experiencing temps between 25Cand 30C depending on the elevation of the locale and its distance from the ocean. Two months later, the temps are ranging from 10C to 15C. a drop of roughly 20C. We know what causes that, the Sun, our position in the Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of the Earth’s axis relative to the Sun. It has absolutely nothing to do with a trace gas.
During the summer months we were claimed to be having drought conditions here in Vancouver, a condition hitherto known as summer. We have had summer droughts as far back as I can remember. Temperatures were ranging between 25C and 30C around here. Since we converted to metric everything seems amplified, with rainfall now being measured in millimetres, producing the illsuon of flood each time it rains.
30C in degrees F is 86F. We did not normally have temperatures extending into the 90F region but 150 miles northeast that was not uncommon. However, there were exceptions.
According to Google AI, the highest temperatures ever recorded in Vancouver, Canada were…
-City of Vancouver: 35.0C on July 31, 1965, August 8, 1981, and May 29, 1983.
-Vancouver Airport: 34.4 C on July 30, 2009.
AI appears to have gotten the data from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver
I am sure Binny will be around to claim a different record based on NOAA’s fudged temperatures. I mean, how can you rely on an outfit who in 2014, claimed that year the hottest temperature ever…based on a probability of 49%? NOAA, GISS, and Hadcrut have been fudging temperatures retroactively to fall in line with their global warming propaganda.
Earth’s surface energy input is the “after albedo” solar flux multiplied by Earth’s “disk” area (A), ie, 960A Joules.
Earth’s surface energy output is supposedly the S/B flux for a 288K surface (0.97 emissivity, 378 W/m²) multiplied by Earth’s surface area (4A), ie 378(4A), or 1512A Joules.
According to “climate science”, Earth is outputting about 1.6 times more energy than it receives!
This is what cult kids believe….
” More specifically, here in Vancouver, Canada, the weather, climate, and temperatures have not varied significantly either recently or in the past 30 years. ”
*
Robertson was told at least twice how false his allegation was.
But, as I wrote in the provious thread:
” I have responded to his incredible lies at least once, but Robertson doesn’t bother with replies to his posts (no matter what they were about), discards all those replies, and starts his lies all over again. ”
*
But let’s first have a look at his claim about highest temperature in his corner.
How is it possible to write
” City of Vancouver: 35.0C on July 31, 1965, August 8, 1981, and May 29, 1983.
Vancouver Airport: 34.4 C on July 30, 2009. ”
when upon a search for ‘highest temperatures in Vancouver’ you obtain from Google AI:
” The highest recorded temperature in Vancouver was 40.6 degree °C (105.1 degree °F), set in West Vancouver on June 27, 2021. This occurred during a severe heatwave that led to record-breaking temperatures across British Columbia. ”
The 40.6 value looks quite correct, as it exactly matches GHCN daily data:
CA001108824 BC_WEST_VANCOUVER_AUT_________ 2021 6 27 40.6
though it was in fact superseded by
CA001106178 BC_PITT_MEADOWS_CS____________ 2021 6 28 41.4
I have no idea why Robertson always has to try to bend and cover up reality until it fits his egomaniacal blabber.
*
By the way, this heatwave in 2021 was really heavy: of the 10 highest temperatures in/around Vancouver, 9 were recorded in that year.
*
” I am sure Binny will be around to claim a different record based on NOAAâs fudged temperatures. ”
Although Robertson always dismisses other people’s comments on the grounds that they ‘appeal to authority’, he has never had a problem appealing to the authority of incompetent bloggers such as E.M. Smith (and earlier, Steven Goddard aka Tony Heller), who both never stopped to discredit GISS and NOAA.
*
I have already demonstrated – using exactly the corner around Vancouver – how near NOAA’s Climate at a Glance time series centred at Vancouver’s coordinates is to both my GHCN daily average:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tybkryQS0YDNisurUdAv9Gb62QZCSc6Z/view
and – yes – even UAH 6.1 LT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FAsAClcQcrJz6R-o5_IWCbmwTab-iUNu/view
*
Some trends for various periods, in C / decade
1. 1937-2024
NOAA: 0.10 +- 0.01
GHCN D: 0.15 +- 0.02
2. 1979-2024
NOAA: 0.16 +- 0.03
GHCN D: 0.15 +- 0.02
UAH LT: 0.13 +- 0.04
3. 2000-2024
NOAA: 0.30 +- 0.08
GHCN D: 0.40 +- 0.10
UAH LT: 0.23 +- 0.10
4. 2010-2024
NOAA: 0.42 +- 0.08
GHCN D: 0.53 +- 0.24
UAH LT: 0.54 +- 0.23
*
In each period, NOAA data keeps in trend below the average of raw GHCN daily station data.
There is no better way to demonstrate Robertson’s incompetence, superficiality, stubbornness and, above all, his eternal tendency to polemically discredit instead of technically contradicting (what he anyway never was able to).
*
But Robertson of course won’t care about all this above, and soon claim again: no planet warming, let alone in Vancouver!
And Binny wonders why I started calling him an ijit.
Your source is completely haywire. It has never exceeded 100C in the Vancouver area. In fact, on the day in question, June 27,2021, we had a heat dome parked over us from June 24 till July 1st.
That day was during an outlier for the Vancouver area where a heat dome parked itself over the city and extended as far south as Portland, Oregon and as far north as Prince Rupert. At no time did we receive reports of 30+C temps in the Vancouver area. We were whining about 30C temps and anything approaching 40C would have crippled us.
I am claiming the report of 40+ C in West Vancouver is as egregious an error as Roy’s claim about Death Valley’s claimed max.
According to this official source from Environment Canada, in the Historical Record, the max that day at Vancouver Airport was 30.5C at 2 pm.
https://tinyurl.com/mr33mdtx
West Vancouver is so local to YVR, and on the water like YVR, that it is simply not possible for it to have been 10C warmer. In fact, at the Vancouver Harbour station it was 32C and that location is just across the water from the West Van station, no more than 2 miles as the crow flies.
Whatever caused the error in Death Valley caused the same error in the West Van station. Likely human error.
Once more, like earlier, comment refused. Reason? Unknown.
Part 1
*
But ignoramus Robertson on the other hand won’t wonder that I name him since years an arrogant and ignorant braggart.
*
This is probably one of the dumbest statements of him since his first appearance on the blog:
” Your source is completely haywire. It has never exceeded 100C in the Vancouver area. ”
The only place in my comment above is this:
” The highest recorded temperature in Vancouver was 40.6 degree °C (105.1 degree °F), set in West Vancouver on June 27, 2021. This occurred during a severe heatwave that led to record-breaking temperatures across British Columbia. ”
It’s always the same with this dumb~brazen guy: instead of reading comments and sources calmly and attentively, he constantly steps from a place he dislikes to the next; everything in between is skipped over, even a single letter ‘F‘.
There’s only one haywire thing here: Robertson’s obviously retarded brain.
And during those so-called record breaking temperatures, it was no more than 32C in all other areas local to West Vancouver. West Van is on the water, Burrard Inlet/Georgia Strait, as is downtown Vancouver and Vancouver International airport yet it was claimed to be about 8C warmer.
I am trying to tell you, heat wave or not, that temps in the Vancouver City area have never exceeded 40C, or even come close to it.
Reason for the error…
1)faulty thermometer
2)mistake reading the thermometer
3)heat island effect
4)a mistake in the fudging methods used by Environment Canada, based on the NOAA/GISS fudging methods, whereby they use mathematical interpolation and homogenization to CALCULATE temperatures mathematically.
Another reasaon, the hot air effect. West Van is a typically snooty neighbourhood featuring the wealthy. Obviously the hot air emanating from the locale, just as in Binny’s locale, has affected the thermometers.
As one gets further from the water here in Vancouver, temperatures tend to rise in summer. However, locally, that is never more than a few degrees C, never 8C or more.
Biddy,
Perhaps you need to understand how temperatures are measured in the first place. Or do you need a script to help you understand what had data is?
Perhaps a yellow book would be useful
Once again, a completely pointless post from QAnon, who should first learn to write understandable, comprehensible English posts instead of his usual vague insinuations.
Btw, QAnon writes English that reminds me of the way German far-right extremists speak German.
Weiter so, QAnon!
Robertson should try to invent something new while reading this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qp_HfzqT3fBS_Gv3tzyaljyLIaRPWQEU/view
Melissa is already a major hurricane, and it does not look good:
RAINFALL: Melissa is expected to bring total rainfall of 15 to 30
inches to portions of southern Hispaniola and Jamaica into
Wednesday, with local maxima of 40 inches possible. Additional
heavy rainfall is likely beyond Wednesday; uncertainty at that time
range precludes exact storm totals. Catastrophic flash flooding and
landslides are probable across portions of southern Hispaniola and
Jamaica.
For eastern Cuba, total rainfall of 6 to 12 inches, with local
amounts to 18 inches, are expected into Wednesday resulting in
life-threatening flash flooding and landslides. Additional heavy
rainfall is likely beyond Wednesday; uncertainty at that time range
precludes exact storm totals.
STORM SURGE: Life-threatening storm surge is becoming more likely
along the south coast of Jamaica during the next few days. Peak
storm surge heights could reach 9 to 13 feet above ground level,
near and to the east of where the center of Melissa makes landfall.
This storm surge will be accompanied by large and destructive waves.
There is a potential for significant storm surge along the
southeast coast of Cuba late Tuesday or Wednesday.
I am not as concerned about hurricanes as I am about the human mentality related to them. People lose their homes and lives to them then rebuild using the same inefficient construction techniques.
The only building that will resist hurricane force winds is a re-enforced concrete building. Even at that, the building has to be built to endure flooding and have shutters that can resist high winds.
Hurricanes in certain regions are fact and humans can do nothing about them. If you live in a hurricane region, you must take steps to survive, both life and property.
Just imagine what the huge amounts of cash wasted on a none existent climate problem could have done for the people living in Hurricane zones,but why waste good money improving the homes in countries like Jamaica, when we can spend billions putting their country back together after the event, it might not be so bad if the trillions spent world wide had achieved anything or improved any ones life,but sadly the have not,its a game and people are suffering as a result .
It seems that again, my last comment won’t be published, for reasons unknown to me… strange.
Uploaded on Google Drive as pdf file:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qp_HfzqT3fBS_Gv3tzyaljyLIaRPWQEU/view
What a mess.
“What a mess.”
Of your own making.
Oh what a wonderfully sissyish remark, Blindsley H00d…
You know all about “sissyish”.
Not at all, Blindsley H00d, not at all.
I didn’t know this word until I noticed a common, recurring style and tone in many of your replies to my comments, which reminded me of how Germans call men who display negative aspects of women: “weibisch,” a word that’s difficult to express in French. A translator web site finally suggested “sissyish” for English.
Now with the sexist vibe.
No, sorry, Blindsley H00d. Nothing to do with sexism here.
“negative aspects of women”
Yes, sure.
SINCE YOUR POSTS ARE TOTALY REDUNDANT AND USELES ITS NO LOSS TO US
Aaaah! The all-time ankle-biting Eben dachshund is here again, with his usual aggressive, MAGAmaniacal pseudo-skeptic attitude.
*
By the way, he seems to have adopted the horrible, primitive habit of the Trump~ing Boy of writing everything in capital letters.
Looks perfect!
By the way, he seems to have adopted the Trumping Boy’s horrible, primitive habit of writing everything in capital letters.
Soon the Trump~ing boy will benevolently appoint the dachshund as Under Secretary of State for Air Traffic.
To determine that burning fossil fuels does not cause or even contribute to climate change:
More experiment is not needed. At least five âexperimentsâ have already taken place and the data all already exist.
Models arenât needed. The analysis consists of simple arithmetic on the existing data. The average global water vapor increase, as limited by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and rational compounding producing the 6.7 % per degree factor, is calculated from the average global Surface Temperature increase.
The observation is that the measured average global WV increase is up to substantially (about twice or more) more than possible from just average global SST increase. Because the only significant effect that CO2 could have on climate is temperature increase, CO2 is ruled out as a significant contributor to climate change.
Thatâs it. There are probably several factors contributing to climate change but CO2 (burning fossil fuels) isnât one of them.
https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
This is big news. I am a registered editor at Wikipedia. It means nothing. The primary editor of any page has ultimate discretionary authority. The policy of always requiring a reference is fake news. If you pick and choose the reference material it is pure bias.
https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-wikipedia-grok-grokipedia-4dab7c6ebb16cc7718b231adae4aac95
Wikipedia fights back:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia
These are the theses:
https://grokipedia.page/nine-theses/
This one is important:
“3. Abolish source blacklists.
Wikipedia maintains a list of âPerennial sources,â which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources. You canât cite the New York Post or Fox News, or you, on Wikipedia. The blacklist should be abolished; diverse sources should be cited with acknowledgment of how different groups assess their credibility.”
This is obvious BS from TS, as usual.
Of course you can cite NYP and Fox, and of course the primary editor of any page has no discretionary authority.
Here’s more on Langer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger
The same fate awaits teh Grok pedia as the other Sanger’s pet projects.
Anyone who fears it should already send 1T to Elon.
The links I posted are real. My experience as a Wikipedia editor trying to post strictly technical information in the investigation of an industrial accident was a real eye opener. The editor who dismissed my expert analysis and my links was clearly on an anti-industry agenda and could care less about technical accuracy or the truth. It was not just one person. They are anonymous, rude, and will openly admit they have control. They are unchecked by reality. They can do what they want, and they have the power to cancel the privileges of anyone they disagree with at any time. I was told to stop posting accurate material from a technical reference or they would cancel me. It became obvious to me why so much of Wikipedia is just politically biased crap. It does however explain why you like it so much and want to defend it. how much do you donate?
“The links I posted are real.”
Irrelevant. Focus on finding a real argument.
“My experience as a Wikipedia editor”
State your real name, or take it back.
“They are anonymous, rude”
Tone policing that doesn’t address anything said.
“They are unchecked by reality.”
Bad metaphor that serves as peacockery.
“politically biased crap”
No, U.
***
It’s obvious you have no idea about the five pillars.
Neither does the libertarian freak you just discovered.
Okay, my mistake for responding to a fool. Whoops.
Once again, it is reasonable to assume that Willard does not understand what is being discussed in any way.
My apologies to anyone who was looking for discussion of the temperature record. I thought my comment was worthy of posting here. I guess it should have gone to the previous topic where the rest of the creeps are commenting off-topic along with Willard.
Our Ivy League pretender’s passive aggressive showboating won’t win him any friend on thy wiki, and it’s obvious that he’s just echoing a famous bingo square:
https://climateball.net l/but-debate-me/
Troglodytes love to whine about how reality, who has a liberal bias, mistreats them.
And so, like Donald, they constantly try to play the ref.
Tim,
Seems Grokpedia is a bit more balanced at first glance.
Remember that both Willard and Binddonion are both liberals.
Lacking
In
Basic
Education
Reasoning
And
Logic
You should be ashamed to waste an I and and A like that, anon.
Here’s how we do it:
Trog as he was, sleeping soundly each day,
Rude thoughts of a winner his deep slumber fill,
Outside, the sun shone, though now less in its way,
Giving plants all their own,
Leaving him in the dark with such might.
Only bats were allowed to attend this soul’s plight,
Drooling for Donald, believing he must always win,
Yawns echoed within the cavern’s cold night,
Till he thought with a grin,
Epstein’s strange story made him softly weep.
Willard, at least you have a sense of humour.
tim s …”Wikipedia maintains a list of âPerennial sources,â which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources”.
***
For the longest time, wiki had William Connolley as a climate editor. He was also a principal contributor at realclimate, a known alarmist rag. Connolley assured the faithful at wiki that only alarmist crap would get posted.
I recall him going after the likes of Fred Singer, a highly educated man who was a skeptic. He gave no scientific reasons, just that he did not seem to like Fred.
This is common amongst certain environmentalists groups is that they act against improvements to people’s life styles. It’s never based on science, or evidence it’s based on emotional guilt.
Nuclear power should be a solution, but instead they run scared. It’s as if they don’t understand science.
You live in a world that is dollar driven,science never comes in to it,why eliminate a problem, when you can make billions pretending one exists in the first place.
Follow the money on who sponsors the environmental charities. It’s a billion dollar industry and very questionable donors.
What Global Warming emergency?
The averade temperature of Earthâs oceanic waters
entire volume is ~3,5 °C !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com