Well, since Tamino has shown he reads here, and since he has a problem posting replies from "non-believers", I'll simply repeat his post, then ask a question:
"...Since the turn of the millenium, we’ve been struck by some truly notable and very damaging heat waves. Probably foremost in the memory of those who follow such things are the 2003 European heat wave, 2010 in the Moscow region, and just this year in the U.S.
Those heat waves are very hot summertime events. But depending on what one calls a “heat wave,” it can strike at any time of year. The World Meteorological Organization defines a heat wave as when “the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C (9 °F), the normal period being 1961–1990.” By this definition they can happen at any location during any season, even wintertime in Antarctica..."
So, since a heat wave is defined as a period in which "the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C (9 °F), the normal period being 1961–1990", would you say that the record set in Marble Bar (Western Australia) of most consecutive days of maximum temperatures of 37.8 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) or more, during a period of 160 such days from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924 classify as a "...truly notable and very damaging heat wave..."?
If it does classify as such, and if "...heat waves are one of the most dangerous aspects of global warming..." then how is it possible that this record still has not been met or exceeded - 89 years later - anywhere else in the world?
A warmer world = longer heatwaves, yet the 160 day period still stands. Even the source (Marble Bar) hasn't come close, has it? Wouldn't one expect that area (where temperatures in excess of 45 °C (113 °F) are common, and the average maximum temperature exceeds normal human body temperature for 6 months each year) to become even HOTTER?