Forgot the obvious names ...
Reddy Mc Red Face & cousins.
The mercury is rising, expected to hit a sizzling 32°C (89.6°F) this afternoon at Vulture Central, and The Register's elite unit of pasty basement-dwellers, otherwise known as editorial, have scurried into the office to make the most of its semi-functioning air conditioning. Yes, Heatwave Clive is here. Or it would be, if the …
Never understood the hate for these ads - even the beach body ready one isn't at all bad. You should see the women they have on these pretty little thing posters plastered all over the tube - honestly the most accurate way to describe them would be the scientific term "thots". Absolute plastic bombshells with impossible proportions in incredibly skimpy clothing - yet apparently these adverts are fine because they have an instagram filter and are advertised towards women. There's lingerie ads around too. Why limit it to public advertising? Is it sexist for Ann Summers to display attractive, nubile women on their shop windows, wearing their latest lingerie? Is it considered too scandalous for incredibly slim mannequins in independent sex shops to be thrust in the store window wearing crotch-less thongs and cup-less bras?
I know this would fall on deaf ears though, considering we've already banned a wide array of fetish pornography as relatively innocuous as facesitting from being produced in the UK, and are about to enforce content controls you have to actively opt out of.
Sort of ironic as our international stereotype appears to be either a cockney, a landed gentleman, or an absolutely perverse degenerate .
Q - Quarto Queniva Quentin Quieton Quintana Quintius Quirinus Quiteria
U - Uriel Uga Ulbert Ulfkell Ulrich Unica Uno Urban Urgellesa Uriah Urith Urraca Ursa Ursilda Urso
X - Xena (warrior princess)
Y - Yael Yolanda Ysoria
Z - Zacharia Zawissius Zbincza Zbygniew Zdeslava Zenobia Zoete Zwentibold
Yes, and the current high pressure front coming up through Europe, bringing the Sahara heat with it, is called Yvonne, which left my daughter being blamed by her colleagues for the current unpleasantly hot weather (we had 37°C yesterday and tomorrow should crack the 40°C mark).
I was going to say something like that. Of your names, Quentin and Xavier were also on the list that popped into my head within about five seconds of reading that in the article. But you missed someone who had fame thrust upon her just a few weeks ago ... (OK, she's foreign, but shares a name with a 'merkin SF author and the wife of the most English of composers).
Anyway, what heatwave? It's a comfy 21-ish and light cloud around here. Yesterday was hotter - mid-20s - but a comfortable dry heat for most of the day. Heatwave "damp squib"?
Ali, Bronagh, Callum, Deirdre, Erik, Freya, Gareth, Hannah, Idris, Jane, Kevin, Lily, Max, Niamh, Oliver, Peggy, Ross, Saoirse, Tristan, Violet and Wyn
An odd list of names. It seems to have been chosen with the laudable intention of including non-English names, but the choices are sometimes puzzling.
- Why the Nordic spelling for Eric? (Freya too, actually - the English goddess is Frige - but that ship has probably sailed.)
- Why include names that some people may not know how to pronounce? No disrespect to people called Saoirse, but I bet you often have to correct people.
- Why are Max and Peggy known by their diminutives?
Q, U, X, Y and Z have proved a bit tricky, hence their omission.
Only tricky for anybody who can't open one of the innumerable Baby Name books or web sites.
Time for some shameless promotion of my own video:
That's my solution for the heat. It works really well. Because British homes are built to keep heat in, not let it out, they tend to be very poorly ventilated and easily heat up well above the outside temperature. A fan, some ducting, and you can duck in nice cold (relatively) outside air, which is a lot more effective than a standard room fan that just circulates the warm air around. It's not as cooling as true air conditioning, of course, but it's still a lot better than a plain old fan.
We have the windows open over night and until about 7 or 8 in the morning, when it starts getting too hot, then we close all the windows upstairs and roll down the shutters. We added new insulation to the roof a couple of years back.
We had temperatures of over 37°C yesterday, during the day, but the bedroom remained in the mid-20s.
Downstairs is a bit more difficult, but we still managed to keep the temperature under 28°C during the day, with the shutters down on the sun-ward side.
I depends how old and or well built the house is.
For those that do not live in the UK we usually build houses with breeze blocks and brick rather than wood.
If you have a very substantial brick house it will take quite a while to heat up all that mass so for brief hot patches (in winter they also take much longer to cool down) it stays relatively cool. Keep sun facing curtains closed, ensure your loft insulation and ventilation is good and for heavens sake close the curtains when it gets dark. Moths are a pain in the arse when they decide your light bulb is the moon.
I also find a cold shower before bed is enough to lower my temperature enough that I can go straight to sleep without having the 'shits on the floor' when it's 100 degrees.
Unusually warm in West Wales (currently 29.9 in the shade outside).
But the traditional Welsh cottage helps here. Stone walls 50cm thick, small windows and (a modern innovation) a very well insulated roof, make it quite bearable. Downstairs is currently 20.5, bit more upstairs.
One of the BBC's suggestions... put your socks in the freezer then wear to bed! Erm, the cold socks will last 10s then the socks will start to do what they are meant to do and keep your feet toasty
Today I are be mostly listening to 'Summer In The City'... (yes, it has been randomly selected from a couple of hundred tunes 3 times in the last week)
The BBC has a habit of providing useful advice. During heavy snow in the US a while back, one of it's suggestions was to use a dog to show the depth.
It could have used more information, like the correct way to use the dog-gauge. Should we tie a rope to it, and drop it out of a window before venturing outside? Seems a bit harsh. Or should there be a formalised dog-scale with handy breed-depth conversions. Obviously 'It's up to his hips' would have different implications depending on whether your dog was a Great Dane or a Dachshund, both for the dog, and their owner.
Yes, Heatwave Clive is here. Or it would be, if the London School of Economics has anything to say about it.
The Times – opting for the marginally more exciting "Alan" – reports that the university's Grantham Research Institute
The 'Grantham Research Institute' is a PR/lobbying outfit that rents space at the LSE and is bankrolled by Jeremy Grantham, aka 'the Bubble King'. He made a lot of money spotting bubbles, and currently 'green' spending like renewables is a very hot one. Hence why the GRI spends a lot of time issuing press releases saying we really need to spend even more money on renewables. It's also home to a chap called 'Bob Ward', who spends a fair bit of time complaining to editors and the PCC about the 'accuracy' of sceptical news articles, and generally loses. The sadly departed Booker was a frequent target.
But why not name warm spells as 'Summer'? Naming them is a bit pointless, but then there's pressure to keep 'global warming' in the news.. And the BBC does a remarkable job of doing just that. So expect headlines of 'hottest evah!'.. Which may well end up being Heathrow again because there are no UHI effects from airports.
Bigger challenge is managing energy, as NY discovered with it's recent blackouts. Increased demand, reduced supply, and why anyone's suprised is a mystery. So is our energy policy in general. So solar's currently doing nicely, but being a hot, calm summer's day, wind.. is not-
So if summer is the new norm, we decarbonise our economy, have a million EVs and more air conditioning... Where does the electricity come from? Intermittent generators like windmills were never the answer.
That's Mike's 'Nature Trick', aka the hokey stick illusion*. So problem with that is it takes a pinch of ice cores, a hint of isotope proxies, a few slices of tree rings and a sprinkling of modern instrumentation data. Which is just one of the challenges with trying to make long-range hindcasts and claim "Scorchio!". Further back you go, the less reliable the records are, and just throwing data together isn't exactly science (other than climate 'science'). It's one of those aspects the mainstream media's 'fact checkers' gloss over. So nice example is the Vostok ice core series. 180,000yrs of climate! Cool! Except it's a record from a single location & from memory, that 180ka is compressed into something like 30 slices.. So not exactly high resolution.
*On which point, the anniversary of 'Climategate' is fast approaching. So the BBC interviewed a couple of the people involved, who as usual, said nasty sceptics cherrypicked data and took stuff out of context. The BBC did nothing to provide context, namely tree ring proxies showed a decline, so instrument records were spliced on to hide the decline, making a synthetic/composite hockey stick. Next up, the BBC will be interviewing Eppstein who'll say evidence against him was also taken out of context..
I think if I had to choose between the scientific consensus shared by about 99% of the scientific community and two paragraphs of whataboutery, I think I'll stick with the former.
Obligatory Einstein Quote- “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”
And it's not 99%, it's 97%. And that famous 97% was originally the result of a poll, so 77 out of 79 gave the right answer, and voila, 97% was spawned. Ok, so that lead Cook et al to get his mates to run a wider literature search (abstracts only), rate those based on their belief and publish more papers confirming observer bias.
Of course if you have a source for your 99% claim, feel free to cite it. If not, there's still some interesting science happening, even if 99% of scientists think it's all settled. One of my favorites being this-
Because initial OCO-2 results showed highest CO2 concentrations in the Southern Hemisphere. Initial attempts to link that to anthropogenic activity blamed it on burning.. But nature produces waaaaay more CO2 than humans. I guess Greta should be telling us to concrete over the rainforests so stuff doesn't grow, die, decay and we disrupt that carbon cycle..
Any "X% agree that..." statement used to settle an argument is political, not scientific. Science simply does not operate this way. On the other hand, this is the very basis of (democratic) political process...
It could be scientific, ie a well conducted survey could come up with a statistically significant 97%. Problem is although the origins came from peer-reviewed publications, the studies were.. flawed. Ok, that's science. Publish and be damned, yet in this case, critics were attacked. Normally there could be an errata, or the paper withdrawn, or a revised paper submitted.. That's the way science should operate.
I also remember a paper about warming on the WAIS* getting the cover of Nature. Yet the warming (and extent) was a processing artifact due to errors in the methodology. A paper explaining & demonstrating this was submitted, and held up in peer review.. Where the lead author discovered that one of the reviewers was the original critiqued paper's lead author. That should be an obvious conflict of interest, yet there was much outcry from certain sections of the climate 'science' community about publishing the reviewer's comments.
Which is why the antics of some climate scientists reflect badly on science in general, and reduced trust in scientists to present the facts. We're used to politicians and lobbyists lieing, but should be able to trust the scientific method.
WAIS= West Antarctic Ice Shelf.
I offer these two versions of a summary; you may wish to pay particular attention to the section "A peculiar kind of science" in the first:
It would also help if they learned a little history. They would then see that it has been hotter in the past - whoops, I forgot they are editing pat high temps out of the record.
History is written by the victors. Possibly with the help of 16yr old savants. Oh, irony vs 'scientific facts'. See also-
"And just for quoting or acting on these numbers, these scientific facts, we receive unimaginable amounts of hate and threats. We are being mocked and lied about by members of parliament and journalists," she added.
and the lede-
Teen activist Greta Thunberg has lashed out at French lawmakers for mocking her in a speech to parliament that was boycotted by far-right politicians.
At least the BBC didn't double down and say 'far-right deniers'. But such is politics. Data is a hot topic though, ie apparent 'adjusting' of data that generally results in reducing past temperatures, which obviously results in exagerated trends. Which is the general problem with cAGW dogma, namely unless those trends are high, you simply can't get to any climate emergency because there isn't enough CO2 based on sensitivity & assumptions. Those are 'scientific facts'.
UHI is more interesting for it's potential effects on data. Assuming thermometers are accurate (usually they are), the data are accurate. Causation is more easily disputed, ie stuff like airport growth leading to a higher UHI element. One certain scientific fact is you should never 'adjust' the underlying data. That got drummed into me in my 1st year of Uni, ie never 'correct' my data in my logbook, but add a note to explain why I thought the data may be wrong.
I think it's also debateable whether fixating on maximum temperatures is the right approach. So dogma* states CO2 absorbs and re-radiates energy leading to 'trapped' heat and the 'greenhouse effect'. So rather than looking at Tmax, it may be better to look at trends in Tmin. In the absence of incoming energy (ie solar insolation), Tmin may be a better variable given it may show the effect, ie night time cooling being 'trapped', and thus rising.
*Ok, bit unfair calling that dogma given CO2's a simple and well understood molecule. So 4 main absorption/emission points, 3 of which overlap with H2O which has a far more dominant effect.. Mainly because the remaining atmospheric window is so narrow. Which is why estimates for CO2 sensitivity have been reducing with each iteration of the IPCC. Which is probably why the 'Green Blob' is lobbying so heavily for immediate action (BBC now saying we've only got 18 months to save teh planet!) and force more spending on junk like 'renewables'.
Extensive historical data shows recent extreme warming is unprecedented in past 2,000 years
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.
Extensive historical data shows recent extreme warming is unprecedented in past 2,000 years
Maybe. But if you cast your eyes over Neukom et al, you'll see one of the problems with this kind of historical denial. Namely the sparsity, resolution and general noisyness of the data. So-
It is only if the reconstructed time series are smoothed over multidecadal timescales (seeMethods), and if global area is shown in aggregate, that the classical picture of a loosely defined LIA and MCA appears
Climate= 30yr averaged (and smoothed) weather. Even the modern temperature record suffers from similar problems because there simply aren't enough (or reliable enough) thermometers around the world to state with high empirical confidence (See Shannon, Nyquist etc for more info) that we're warming. Data are kridged, infilled and 'adjusted' from other data sometimes thousands of kilometers away. That's just the way it goes. Satellites can provide better coverage, but obviously aren't a lot of help over long time scales.
More interesting again is your '99%' claim, because that has nothing to do with the 3 new papers in the article-
But among academics who study the climate, the convergence of opinion is probably strengthening, according to John Cook, the lead author of 'Sceptical Science', a totally unbiased blog promoting John Cook.. Who isn't a climate scientist, but does have some heavily cited papers regarding his 97/99% claims.. many of which are criticising those papers. Richard Tol's are quite scathing..
(Earn bonus thumbs down if you do some digging around Pages2K and Gergis.. And the retractions that followed.)
The problem I have with the current consensus is that they are telling me, not showing me.
In theory, they are.. So the Grauniad cited the papers in question & even has a deal with Nature so we, the great unwashed can read it, and try to make sense of it.. Which in this case needs some fairly hefty data analysis understanding, along with what the data are meant to represent. And ideally some of the history.
Past warming (and cooling) events have always been problematic, both in the scientific & political sense. The original Hockey Stick showed an MWP, but was restricted in scope to the northern hemisphere, because that's where Mann et al found their wood. Since then, there have been a LOT of peer-reviewed papers attempting to quantify magnitude and extent for past warming and cooling events.. Which should be 'normal' science. Peer-review can't catch everything, publication can & does, eg-
Which has some of the same authors and sources as the 3 'new' ones in the Grauniad. But then there's this-
The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a well-recognized climate perturbation in many parts of the world, with a core period of 1000–1200 CE. Here we are mapping the MCA across the Antarctic region based on the analysis of published palaeotemperature proxy data from 60 sites.
Which was also part of a series of peer-reviewed papers looking at this issue in the SH, but drawing different conclusions, despite some overlap in the data sources. A truly sceptical scientist, especially any working in this field should be asking themselves the same question.. But climate 'science' has ended up heavily politicised & polarised, in part thanks to the efforts of non-climate 'scientists' like John Cook. Or produces statements like this-
"This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle," said Prof Mark Maslin, from University College London,
I'm sure the good Prof. Maslin's found time in his busy schedule to conduct his own thorough review of these paper's data & methodology.. And not just throw out insults like 'deniers' because the results match his own beliefs. And he is a busy man. As well as his UCL work, he's also CSO for Rezatec Ltd, Global Cool Foundation and the Sopria-Steria Group and been PI or Co-I on grants worth over £45 million (including 27 NERC, 2 EPSRC, 2 DIFD, 2 Carbon Trust, 2 ESA, 3 Technology Strategy Board, Royal Society and DECC). And older bios show he's also been involved in some carbon trading ventures.
Who says there's no money in academia? But I seem to have sucessfully predicted the location for this year's 'hottest evah!' result, so if there's a prize, can this heatwave be named 'Greta'?
If anyone's interested in a more technical discussion around some of the Pages2k/proxies in general, I recommend this-
The high-pressure and low-pressure areas are already named.
The one currently flowing through Europe, bringing the Sahara heat with it, is Yvonne, for example.
That should cause a new record, here in West Germany, with over 40,5°C tomorrow, we had around 38°C yesterday and it feels warmer at the moment, so it could well exceed 40°C here.
That is at least for west Germany. I know Bavaria has had around the 40 degrees mark a few times. My balcony thermometer went up to 35 once, but I think the official temperature was 40.5
Winter is down to - 12 or so, here in the north, when I was down in Bavaria, we had one day of below - 30. In the summer it would get up to around 40 degrees in extreme summers, but usually mid 30s.
That's all in Celsius.
So we have an average range of over 40 degrees, between a normal winter and summer, in the extreme years, it is between 70 and 80 degrees difference between summer and winter.
Fat fingers and not enough coffee yesterday, 42.6°C, although there was some controversy. The National Weather Centre didn't want to accept the value, as they though the weather station wasn't correctly located, but after some back and forth, the record was eventually confirmed.
What I despair at is just to over the top political correctness and the complaints quoted in that BBC article. It appears that you just can't have any fun whatsoever. I will just have to be offended by all those people being offended at mild lighthearted fun.
Agreed, the hot hubby comeback was brilliant.
The journalists know that if they print someone's idiotic opinion, they'll get read, so they pick the most ridiculous opinions possible. I'm not going to say they make any up, but I'm sure there's temptation to edit them into the most extreme possible interpretation.
"Political correctness gone mad" is favourite of the tabloids, and even the beeb do it now.
Had a A/C unit delivered yesterday, an iGenix.
Comes with WIFI connectivity and an App, also links to Alexa.
I've linked the App and its cool to control from my phone, although its actually easier to just use the front panel.
Looking forward to the patch your iGenix now article from el Reg, although it gives no clue how to do that.
... what with the global warming, you Brits will be able to grow enough food to properly feed yourselves without going bankrupt on imports once Brexit is in the books. Not that you'll know what to do with the bounty, of course ... All y'all had best learn to cook, pronto.
Supposed to be 94F/34C here in Sonoma today. 98F/36C by Saturday. Cry me a river.
When the UK originally got tied into the CAP in the days of European butter mountains and the like, the UK agricultural system could produce a 40% surplus to domestic requirements.
Now BoJo is in and likely to succumb to a trans Atlantic trade deal it will probably never have the chance to get back to that, but the possibility is there.
Supposed to be 94F/34C here in Sonoma today. 98F/36C by Saturday. Cry me a river.
1) We're British. Weather, and grumbling about our weather is what we do.
2) We may beat those numbers. In UHI locations, but hey, we're beating California!
3) Do you still have rivers? I thought California's agricultural policy of exporting it's water as fruit & nuts* was getting rid of those.
4) The LA river. Nice film location, lousy river.
*Of course I'm referring to it's products, not it's politicians..
It was a mere 26C by the sea (note the word sea) however , because of the nature of the coast here theres an awful lot of very shallow water trending to hot mud(depending on the tide) which results in mucho humidity.
Stir in hot machine tools, and protective overalls/steel boots and you have the perfect rescipe for the staff being as badly behaved as possible so that they can then have a strip torn off them by the boss in his nice air conditioned office....
Then he went to lunch/meeting with customer with the result we all sat in his office for the rest of the day while watching for the alarm lights through the office window....
Might I suggest that the low to high 30's is warm and not hot?
Hot is 40+.
Mind you in balmy Britain you don't cater very well for the finer weather.
Few people have AC, almost no one has fly screens, many sleep upstairs in the hottest part of the house and there is a lack of ceiling fans.
Anyway, back to the cold beer.
"Mind you in balmy Britain you don't cater very well for the finer weather."
We dont cater for the opposite either. We get a few flakes of snow and the world stops for us. We dont get enough warm or snowy weather to make the investment worth it so instead we all have umbrellas
Speaking as a Brit who has lived several years in much hotter climes ...
Hot - including Too Hot - here starts at mid-20s. The fact that's not at all hot to an Aussie is irrelevant: your whole environment is much better-suited to heat, and it feels natural there. I don't know why, but 25 in Blighty feels like 40 in Oz or the Med.
Note - Brits complaining of cold can be even more unedifying. We don't get real cold here, any more than real heat.
 Based on a couple of weeks hols, when the only thing I really needed that I don't in Blighty was sunglasses.
 Based on several years in central Italy - yes I do have real experience of hot summers. Needed sunglasses there too.
There is a delightful touch of something warm and whimsical about giving the weather human names.
Especially when they get downgraded -- as they invariably have by the time they reach Blighty -- to the likes of Light Breeze Hannah or Better Put a Coat On Idris .....
I got back home from a long day driving between sites in a mobile oven, to find the local sAad fridges had all given up the ghost, and they wouldn't sell me any refrigerated liquids. I had to buy four squeegy bottles of IrnBru and wop in the freezer at home, and I'm rationing my last drops of milk suffering tea withdrawals.
The mercury is rising, expected to hit a sizzling 32°C (89.6°F) this afternoon at Vulture Central, and The Register's elite unit of pasty basement-dwellers, otherwise known as editorial, have scurried into the office to make the most of its semi-functioning air conditioning.
Well, in Utah, USA it is currently 33°C. I think I am more surprised about the cold temp.
Speaking of Florida, where 22°C is considered cold, they're probably laughing at us
We usually go from around 38°C to as low as -12°C, but I am not laughing. It has cooled off for me this week. We were much higher last week. Thanks for (well kind of) taking one for the team.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019