Hot? not!

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 5th, 2017 at 01:58 pm

The Independent’s environment editor, back in April:

The possibility is growing that Britain in 2007 may experience a summer of unheard-of high temperatures, with the thermometer even reaching 40C, or 104F,a level never recorded in history …

This would be quite outside all historical experience, but entirely consistent with predictions of climate change.

So colder temperatures – or even average temperatures – would be inconsistent with predictions of climate change, right? Let’s check London’s predicted maximums for the next few days:

Sunday: 73° F. / 23° C.

Monday: 69° F. / 21° C.

Tuesday: 73° F. / 23° C.

Wednesday: 71° F. / 22° C.

Thursday: 71° F. / 22° C.

Seems about average.

Posted by Tim B. on 06/02/2007 at 02:38 PM
    1. So… thermometers were invented about the same time as writing?  That’s a heckuva lot of historical temperatures to keep track of.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 06 02 at 02:46 PM • permalink


    1. Whenever confronted with unseasonably cold or even average weather, the Gore-bots substitute “climate change” for “warming” without skipping a beat, and the supposedly “right-wing-controlled corporate Media” never questions it.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 06 02 at 03:26 PM • permalink


    1. Spiny:

      right-wing-controlled corporate Media” never questions it.

      Like those RWDB over at National Republican Radio.

      Posted by Thomas on 2007 06 02 at 06:24 PM • permalink


    1. My son, who lives and works in London, has fled to Barcelona for the weekend in the hope of some “warmening”, and “womaning”, no doubt!

      Posted by Gravelly on 2007 06 02 at 06:29 PM • permalink


    1. Now you’re just being childish Tim. As everyone knows, actual temperature outcomes can only be consistent with global warming. Where results differ from those predicted they are in no way inconsistent – they merely reflect the natural variability which is fully consistent with global warming predictions.

      Posted by Francis H on 2007 06 02 at 06:51 PM • permalink


    1. Hmmm. Let’s have a look at those thermometers: “By Appointment to the Queen, Perfectly Accurate Centigrade Optimizers.”

      Posted by paco on 2007 06 02 at 07:02 PM • permalink


    1. That’s as hot as it gets in London?  In JUNE?  They should be praying for globie warmenation to take effect soon!

      Posted by blogagog on 2007 06 02 at 07:26 PM • permalink


    1. We all know that low temperatures are weather and hot temperatures are climate.

      Posted by Mystery Meat on 2007 06 02 at 07:36 PM • permalink


    1. No camellias, then.

      Posted by Dminor on 2007 06 02 at 07:52 PM • permalink


    1. Scientists Rally Around NASA Chief After Global Warming Comments
      WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Jun. 1 -/E-Wire/—“NASA’s top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on NPR radio made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare,” said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute. “Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming,” said Ferguson.

      Hansen of Hockey Stick fame/infamy predictably seethes.

      Posted by phil_b on 2007 06 02 at 08:20 PM • permalink


    1. “Our predictions are perfectly consistent with predictions of climate change. When two sets of predictions agree (Praise Gore) they MUST COME TRUE!”

      Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2007 06 02 at 08:34 PM • permalink


    1. I am the weather girl for Blair news today.

      Sunday: hot, hot, hot, hot fine and hot, hot, hot temperatures will reach 23. C I should know, as I am paid alot to look important when reading the weather.
      .  … …. … … .. .. O <—sun
      “Sun rays” by 1.618
      For Sale $12,900

      It could be the cricket ball like Tim B’s but it’s not.

      Posted by 1.618 on 2007 06 02 at 08:44 PM • permalink


    1. a level never recorded in history …

      And re. #1: Yes, RebeccaH. The first thing I said to myself was, “And I wonder if ‘in history’ means going back to e.g. 1880 (or whenever) Britain first began national, government-approved temperature measuring?”

      Posted by andycanuck on 2007 06 02 at 08:57 PM • permalink


    1. I used to live in Iowa, which is full of cows and where the temperature often exceeds 100 F.

      It would always tickle me to read reports of European ‘heat waves’ in which Danish cows toppled over dead from temperatures that sometimes reached a blistering 85 F.

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2007 06 02 at 08:59 PM • permalink


    1. Any afflictions of the sun in Saggitarius might make them shoot wide of the temperature mark.  They’re also probably under the influence of Mercury, the planet of bad eyesight.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2007 06 02 at 09:07 PM • permalink


    1. The hypocrisy is that, when their is a heat wave, it PROVES global warming, but a cold spell, lightheartedly mentioned in dispatches as contrary data to warmening, can only be described as weather, not evidence of anything, you ignorant fool!

      ps nifty spell-checker folks.

      Posted by peter m on 2007 06 02 at 09:48 PM • permalink


    1. Unheard-of high temperatures would be quite outside all historical experience? Amazing!

      Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2007 06 02 at 09:58 PM • permalink


    1. You know, the problem is, everybody’s always talking about global warming but then they go and do something about it.

      Posted by paco on 2007 06 02 at 09:58 PM • permalink


    1. Note: if any of you have upgraded to Firefox 2.4, it apparently checks your spelling anywhere you post. (Not just on this site—in any text-entry box.) I kept wondering why all these red lines kept appearing under my typos. (This is for peter m—I don’t know if that is the “spell checker” you were referring to, but I thought I’d point it out anyway.)

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 02 at 10:08 PM • permalink


    1. You really go here,

      Hours of fun reading about all the shonky stuff that goes on in climate science.

      The latest is siting of weather stations, next to incinerators, underneath trees and stuff like that.

      It would be funny, if governments weren’t spending gazillions of dollars on the basis of this data.

      Posted by phil_b on 2007 06 02 at 10:30 PM • permalink


    1. And at the risk of hogging this thread, A while back I got into a short interchange with the BBC’s environment correspondent.

      In short, he kept publishing articles that were full of scientific errors and misrepresentations. The guy knew nothing about science.

      I am sure he is representative of environmental reporting in general. And the cause of much of the hysteria we see in the media.

      Posted by phil_b on 2007 06 02 at 10:37 PM • permalink


    1. I regret to say it, but this clown is RIGHT, except for his use of terms… he should speak of probability, rather than possibility.  My extensive research shows that the probability of LONDON becoming a tropical paradise overnight is 0.0000000000000001%.  Now even if the independent dickhead settles on a probability of 0.00000000000001% he is RIGHT……the possibility(sic)of the wormenising in question is growing AND BY A FACTOR OF ONE THOUSAND TIMES.

      You can’t win!! Time to have a cuppa tea, a Bex and a GLD


      Posted by Rod C on 2007 06 02 at 11:03 PM • permalink


    1. The two students I have that are most sure Global Warmening is going to kill us all really soon now also admit that they have taken the minimum of science courses for their majors (usually Rocks for Jocks [Geology 101] or the equivalent) and both took two tries to get through my required intro stats course.  They just KNOW  however that the Goracle is right.

      And I sadly see that Tony Hendra (Thomas’ link) has now slipped entirely into early onset dementia.

      Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 06 02 at 11:10 PM • permalink


    1. In case someone reading phil_b’s comment is wondering why a temperature measurement station under a tree is a problem, it’s mainly because as the tree grows or dies or gets pruned, it’s going to change the micro-climate and introduce an inhomogeneity in the record. As for why having one next to an incinerator or air conditioner outlet is a problem, that’s pretty obvious.

      The biggest problem with the surface record is inhomogeneity. Put simply, they’re looking for a small trend in the data, except the thermometers keep getting moved, or buildings built next to them, or parking lots, etc. and it becomes difficult to distinguish these effects from any actual climactic variation.

      Anyway I heartily recommend anyone who actually cares about finding out the truth – and I mean replicable scientific results – dive into ClimateAudit. It will take a long time to read all of what’s being discussed there, but in the end you will be enlightened, I think.

      Posted by Nicholas on 2007 06 03 at 12:54 AM • permalink


    1. #24 The late, great Fred Daly investigated a case where a temperature station was recenty sited in a natural heat trap in Death Valley specifically to try and get a temperature record for the US – and hit the headlines.

      There already is a long-standing temperature gauge in the same area that had been sited to give a good idea of the true average.  But science was getting in the way of religion, again.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2007 06 03 at 02:00 AM • permalink


    1. #10 Thanks, phil_b. So, all is not well in the state of NASA. As for Prince Hansen, spare us the whole five acts and go straight for “not to be”, huh?

      Posted by Dminor on 2007 06 03 at 04:44 AM • permalink


    1. Tim has previously exposed Peter Garrett as a closet ginger.
      They really are a persecuted minority.

      Posted by chrisgo on 2007 06 03 at 05:40 AM • permalink


    1. #19,

      Hi Andrea,

      wasn’t Firefox, a Clint Eastwood movie?

      Posted by Pogria on 2007 06 03 at 06:01 AM • permalink


    1. I have no idea, I don’t take much notice of Clint Eastwood movies.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 03 at 07:41 AM • permalink


    1. #10, phil_b,

      Quoting his quote:  “Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming,” said Ferguson.

      Excuse me, “rationalist scientists?”  Is this as opposed to rational scientists?  Or perhaps, non-rational scientists?

      That is a very sloppy use of concepts, and indicative of why we are having the problems we are.  While I hope all ya’ll will forgive the picking of nits, but I can only wish those who ought to know better would do the nit-picking before they opened their mouths.  It’d save a lot of time and trouble.

      Posted by saltydog on 2007 06 03 at 07:49 AM • permalink


    1. Dont forget the variety of models that predicted the catastophe would have happened by now, or even years and years ago!

      Posted by Marnee on 2007 06 04 at 08:20 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.