WunderBlog Archive » Weather Extremes

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Hottest Reliably Measured Air Temperatures on Earth

By: Christopher C. Burt, 10:45 PM GMT on July 22, 2016

Hottest Reliably Measured Air Temperatures on Earth

As Jeff Masters mentioned in his recent blog, a temperature of 54.0°C (129.2°F) was observed at Mitribah, Kuwait on July 21st. According to the Kuwait Meteorological Department this was the hottest temperature ever measured in the country (a reading of 54.4°C/129.9°F observed at the same site on July 16, 2010 has been disallowed as a result of a faulty sensor). The 54.0°C reading also is a new record for Asia and ties a similar reading at Death Valley (on June 30, 2013) as the hottest reliably measured temperature on Earth. The key word here is ‘reliably’. Many hotter temperatures have been reported from around the world in years past. However, all of these have credibility issues. In that vein I am going to revisit a blog I first posted on WU in October 2010 listing all the various claims to temperature readings at or above 54°C (129.2°F). In the years since I made that post I’ve learned more about some of these claims and have thus updated my entries and ‘validity’ scores as a result.



A scorching week in Mitribah, Kuwait culminated in a 54.0°C (129.2°F) reading on July 21st (high temp data on the chart is for the previous day). This is arguably, (along with a similar value observed in Death Valley on June 30, 2013) the hottest temperature ever reliably measured on Earth. Table from OGIMET.

There are just a handful of regions in the world that have the potential of recording temperatures of 54°C (129.2°F) or more (excluding heat burst measurements).

1) Death Valley, California and the Colorado Desert in the southern part of the state (where anecdotal temperatures as high as 130°F have been reported and temperatures as hot as 126°F (52.2°C) officially measured (at Thermal on July 28, 1995 and Mecca on June 26, 1990). Also, the Colorado River Valley from the southern tip of Nevada to the Gulf of California can be as hot or even hotter, with a reading of 128°F (53.3°C) measured at Lake Havasu City, Arizona on June 29, 1994 (this reading is now suspect given problems with temperature observations at many sites in Arizona during the late 1980s and early 1990s. See: this report concerning Tucson)).

2) In 2010 I thought that possibly some portions of the western Sahara Desert, specifically the Tidikelt Depression in Algeria, and lowest areas of northern Mali and northeastern Mauritania might be capable of producing temperatures in excess of 54°C. I no longer believe that to be the case. No reliable temperature above 51°C has ever been measured anywhere in North Africa. There are a few weather stations in these areas, such as In Salah, Algeria and Araouane in Mali but they have never seen temperatures above 50°C in their modern history.

3) Areas around the Persian Gulf. The populated areas along and just inland along the shores of the northern Persian Gulf have measured official temperatures as high as 54°C as we have just recently witnessed at Mitribah, Kuwait, and 53.9°C (129.0°F) at Basrah, Iraq today (July 22nd), a new national heat record for Iraq. Unofficial temperatures of 129°F (53.9°C) have been reported from southwestern Iran as well.

4) The region along the lower Indus River of Pakistan centered around Jacobabad. Temperatures as high as 128.3°F (53.5°C) have been measured here (Moen-jo-Daro on May 26, 2010) and 125° is reached almost every year during May in Jacobabad. We can speculate that at some point 129°-130°F may be possible.

5) Other regions of potential extreme heat include the eastern part of the Dasht E Lut Desert in Iran (no records). MODIS satellite measurements have reported extremely hot surface temperatures in the Lut Desert but there are no weather stations in the immediate vicinity (although I hear such are planned). Further down the list are the Dead Sea area of Israel, Palestine, and Jordan (where temperatures up to almost 126°F (52°C) have been measured, and the central-western inland coastal region of Saudi Arabia (around Jeddah) where 126°F (52°C) has also been measured.

Studies by geographer Mark Jefferson (1926) and by Hoffman (1963) conclude that the highest possible surface air temperature on earth (measured by standard modern instruments) would be in the range of 131-133°F (see Weather and Climate Extremes by Dr. Paul F. Krause and Kathleen L. Flood, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Topographic Engineering Center paper TEC-0099, September 1997. This is an old report and does not take into account AGW. Nevertheless, as of right now, I think this assumption still holds true.



The ‘World Survey of Climatology, Vol. 10: Climates of Africa’ reproduced the above map of possible absolute extreme maximum temperatures back in 1972, but it is based upon the dubious maximums recorded during the colonial era, and, in fact, no temperature above 124°F (51°C) has ever been recorded in North Africa in modern (post-WW II) records.


Compilation of Reports of Temperatures at or Above 54°C

Below is a list of all both 'measured' and 'anecdotal' absolute maximum temperatures on record above 129°F (54°C). The lists are not completely comprehensive so far as many European colonial measurements made in Africa prior to 1950 in places like Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, and Mali. Multiple readings of 54°-55°C were reported in these countries between 1900-1940.

VALIDITY SCORE: I have rated all the below records on a score from 0-10: (0) Zero means completely unreliable to (10), indisputable.

136.4° (58.0°C) Sept. 13, 1922 Al Azizia, Libya

SOURCE: R. Ufficio Centrale di Meteorologia e Geodinamica; Osservazioni dell anno 1922 Rome, Italy

NOTES: See WMO invalidation of this report.

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


134.8° (57.1°C) July 12, 1936 Tindouf, Algeria

SOURCE unknown, perhaps Service Meteorologique, Dakar

NOTES: The hottest temperature measured at Tindouf in modern records is 118° (47.8°C) in July 1998. The older records (1925-1950) as reported in Tables of Temperature, Relative Humidity and Precipitation for the World, British Meteorological Office, 1967 show an absolute maximum of 122°F for Tindouf. An anecdotal reading of 57.1°C was also reported from Ouargla, Algeria on Aug. 27, 1884. It is not climatologically possible this site (or Ouargla) could have recorded such a temperature given its altitude near 2000 feet.

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


134° (56.7°) July 10, 1913 Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA

SOURCE: Monthly Weather Review, June 1915, U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture.

NOTES: This site reported several other 130°F+ readings during this heat episode (130° on the 12th and 131° on the 13th) but never again after this July of 1913 event. Many in depth articles have been written about the validity of the measurement. See:

Monthly Weather Review June 1915 pp. 278-280

The climate of Death Valley by Steven Roof and Charlie Callagan, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, December 2003.

Weatherwise magazine, 134°, by David Ludlum, June 1963 pp. 116-117

Death Valley’s 134°F Record Temperature Study by William T. Reid, August 29, 2013.

This record has been scrutinized perhaps more than any other in the United States. I don't have much more to add to the debate aside from my belief it is most likely not a valid reading when one looks at all the evidence (see Mr. Reid’s in depth discussion noted above). Normally when Death Valley observes its hottest temperatures they occur during region-wide heat waves. On July 10, 1913 the next highest temperatures recorded in southern California (aside from Greenland Ranch) were just 119° at Heber and 118° at Mammoth Tank. Las Vegas was just 112°. I give a 2-point validity to this only because it still deserves a thorough scientific investigation by an official organization in order to put the record to bed once and for all.



The instrument shelter at Greenland Ranch in 1926. (Photo from Bancroft Library Collection, Univ. of California, Berkeley).



The COOP form for Greenland Ranch in August 1924 shows some very suspicious readings with 16 nights above 100° including a 12-day consecutive stretch of such, including two at 110°! The modern (post 1934) record for Death Valley has never had more than 3 consecutive nights above 100° and a hottest night ever in modern records was 107° on July 12, 2012.. P.S. A low temperature of 41.6°C (106.9°F) was measured at Hoseyniyeh, Iran for the night of July 21-22. This is probably the 2nd highest night time temperature ever measured on Earth (if one discounts the erratic measurements from Death Valley in 1924).

VALIDITY SCORE: 2


131° (55.0°C) June (sometime between 1924-1942) Ghadames, Libya

SOURCE: Libyan National Meteorological Centre

NOTES: Errors in keying in data for all of the 50°C+ recordings at Ghadames have been uncovered by the Libyan National Meteorological Center. For instance, a report of 54.2°C in June 1975 was actually 45.2°C and a 54.0°C reading in May 1969 was actually 45.0°C. Data for Ghadames prior to 1955 is considered unreliable because of instrument exposure issues. The highest reliable temperature measured at Ghadames is 48.4°C (119.1°F) in July 1977. Ghadames is not a particularly hot location in spite of what the old colonial temperature data shows. It has a good long record and the hottest modern (post 1960) temperature using good instruments has been, as mentioned above, just 48.4°C.

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


131° (55.0°C) date unknown Ben Gardene, Tunisia

SOURCE: World Survey of Climatology: Vol.10, Climates of Africa, p.42

NOTES: This site is on the Jefara Plain along the Mediterranean Sea as is Al Azizia, Libya and subject to the Ghibili (foehn-like) wind phenomena. However, no modern temperature above 124°F (52°C) has yet be measured here. The older recordings by colonial stations used thermometers and shelters that probably cannot be accepted today. Furthermore, the modern records from this site do not support the possibility of such a high reading. See note below for Kibili.

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


131° (55.0°C) July 7, 1931 Kebili, Tunisia

SOURCE Service Meteorologique, Tunis

NOTES: There is a disconnect between many of the old (pre 1950) French and Italian colonial temperature records from many African weather stations versus the modern records at these same sites. Kebili is one of those. Between 1920-1933 Kebili reported 50-55°C maximum temperatures almost every summer. But since 2000 its absolute maximum has been only 48.5°C (119.3°F). The older recordings by colonial stations involved thermometers and shelters that probably would not be accepted today. Furthermore, the modern records from this site do not support the possibility of such a high reading. A brief period of modern records from 2000-2010 has a 48.5°C (119.3°F) reading on July 26, 2005. But this is a long way from 55°C (131°F) measured during the 1920-1935 period of record. I give the Kebili record a single point only because at least we have a date and source for the reading and so it could be investigated more closely. The WMO currently accepts this reading as the record for the continent of Africa.

VALIDITY SCORE: 1


130° (54.4°) Aug. 17, 1885 Amos (Mammoth Tank), California, USA

SOURCE: Climatology of California, U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture Bulletin L, 1903

NOTES: the Southern Pacific Railroad maintained several weather stations in the Colorado Desert region of southern California during the 19th century as watering stations for trains using their lines. It is likely that the thermometers and shelters and, most importantly, exposure location of these, was not up to official standards. Mammoth Tank, recorded 128°-130°F every summer between 1883 and 1887. After 1887 it would appear that there was some change in the instruments or shelter exposure since no temperature higher than 122° was reported (from 1887-1903). The old sites of Volcano Springs and Salton (now submerged under the waters of the Salton Sea) once reported temperatures of 129° (June 23, 1902) and 128° respectively. Instruments were most likely overexposed.

VALIDITY SCORE: 1


130° (54.4°C) June (sometime between 1931-1940) Araouane, Mali

SOURCE: Service Meteorologique, Dakar

NOTES: Timbuktu has also supposedly recorded 130°F in the past (its modern record is 47.8°C/118°F in May 1958). Once again, there is a disconnect between the colonial era temperature measurements and the modern-era ones (see Kibili, Tunisia note above). There is no weather station in Araouane now, but the hottest modern and reliable temperature in Mali is 48.2°C (118.8°F) at Gao in May 1988. The older recordings by colonial stations involved thermometers and shelters that would not be accepted today.

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


129.2° (54.0°C) June 21, 1942 Tirat Zvi, Israel

SOURCE: Bio-Climatic Atlas of Israel by Dr. D. Ashbel, Central Press, Jerusalem, 1950, p.125

NOTES: The thermograph trace recording this temperature peaked at 53°C (127.4°C) not 54°C (and two other nearby stations supposedly recorded 52°C/126°F). Somebody wrote on it with an arrow pointing at the peak, '54°'. They misread the thermograph as anyone can see on close examination. However, the Israeli Meteorological Service claims that a standard thermometer was also in the temperature screen along with the thermograph and that it registered 54°C. The problem is the data sheet for this site rounded all its high/low daily temperatures off to the nearest full 1°C. Therefore, theoretically, the high temperature could have ranged anywhere between 53.6°C to 54.4°C. Since we will never know just exactly what the temperature was that day it is difficult to accept the 54°C on face value. The IMS apparently made an investigation of the figure on its anniversary in June 2012. They concluded that the measurement of 54°C was valid but refused to make the details of their investigation public. On those grounds it is not possible for any climatologically minded person to accept the figure. Temperature records expert and climatologist Maximilliano Herrera concludes that the highest reliably measured temperature in Israeli during the heat wave of June 1942 was 51.2°C (124.2°F) at Qalya on June 22, 1942 (and that this is the true record high for Israel).



The thermograph trace recording the June 21, 1942 temperature at Tirat Zvi, Israel, shows that the temperature peaked at 53°C (127.4°C) not 54°C. But somebody wrote on it (with an arrow pointing at the peak, '54°'. They misread the thermograph as anyone can see on close examination. Image credit: Bio-Climatic Atlas of Israel by Dr. D. Ashbel, Central Press, Jerusalem, 1950, p.125.

VALIDITY SCORE: 2


129° (53.9°C) July 7, 2007, July 20, 2005, July 18, 1998, and 129.2°F (54.0°C) on June 30, 2013 Furnace Creek, Death Valley, California, USA and also at Greenland Ranch, Death Valley on July 20, 1960

SOURCE: United States Weather Bureau (USWB), National Weather Service (NWS)

NOTES: These readings were the highest reliably (and undisputed) temperatures yet recorded in the world until the Mitribah reading on July 21st. The measurements were made under standard conditions using modern shelters and instruments. Of interest is that on June 30, 2013 the thermometer actually peaked at 129.2°F (54.0°C) as photographic evidence showed. This reading, therefore, ties the recent 54.0°C measured at Mitribah, Kuwait as the highest reliably measured air temperature on Earth.



To quote Jeff Master’s recent post: A photograph of the official Furnace Creek, Death Valley maximum recording thermometer at time of observation on Monday morning July 1, 2013 (which was for the maximum temperature measured on June 30). The photo shows a maximum of 129.2°F was reached, tying it with the 129.2°F reading at Mitribah, Kuwait, on July 21, 2016, for the highest reliably measured temperature on Earth, according to wunderground's weather historian Christopher C. Burt. Observations at the site are made only at 4 p.m. and 7 a.m. daily. The shelter door is not opened at any other time in order to not affect the ambient air temperature inside the shelter. You may have seen a different image of this same thermometer on the NWS-Las Vegas web site posted July 1, 2013 that shows the temperature just shy of 129°. That is because THAT photograph was taken after the thermometer had been removed from its shelter and turned vertically, which caused the mercury to slip down the tube about 0.3°F. This photograph was taken prior to the thermometer being removed from the shelter. Photo courtesy of Death Valley National Park and NWS-Las Vegas.

VALIDITY SCORE: 10


Anecdotal Temperature Reports


188° (86.7°C) June or July, 1967 Abadan, Iran (heat burst)

SOURCE: News clip, no further info available.

NOTES: This obviously is an apocryphal record. The highest official temperature during the months of June or July 1967 at Abadan was 48.9°C (120°F) on July 15. Not an unusual temperature for this area at this time of the year. Let’s think a moment just what kind of thermometer could have registered 188°F. An oven thermometer?

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


158° (70.0°C) July 6, 1949 near Lisbon, Portugal (heat burst)

SOURCE: News clip, no further info available.

NOTES: The news reports of this event at the time claim this reading was made in the sun not shade. So it cannot be considered a reliable figure. Well something amazing happened here this day but, again, just what kind of thermometer registers up to 158°F?

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


152° (66.7°C) July 10, 1977 Antalya, Turkey (heat burst)

SOURCE: News clip, no further info available.

NOTES: The official maximum temperature at Antalya on July 10, 1977 was 43°C/109.4°F (and for that month 44°C/111.2°F on July 16). There is no reliable record concerning this 152° figure. No evidence physical or otherwise about this event.

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


140° (60.0°C) June 15, 1960 Kopperl, Texas, USA (heat burst)

SOURCE: Tornadoes, Dark Days, Anomalous Precipitation and Related Weather Phenomena, William Corliss, Catalog of Geophysical Anomalies, 1983. See Extreme Weather; A Guide and Record Book, by Christopher C. Burt, and Freaks of the Storm, by Randy Cerveny, for more information on this event.

NOTES: A thermometer outside Kopperl's Bait and Tackle Shop reportedly measured this temperature around midnight following the collapse of nearby thunderstorms. The reliability of the thermometer in question is not known however very few common thermometers are capable of registering a temperature of 140°F. Physical evidence (burnt crops) indicates an amazing heat burst occurred here, but the only thermometer to register it is in question.

VALIDITY SCORE: 1


140° (60.0°C) August, 1953 Delta, Baja, Mexico

SOURCE: Weather and Climate Extremes, Krause and Flood, US Army Corps of Engineers Technical paper TEC-0099, 1997

NOTES: The thermometer used for this reading was considered badly overexposed and this record is invalid. We know it was a hot day and this region could perhaps record some incredible temperature. But 140°F?

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


140° (60.0°C) date unknown Rito, Sonora, Mexico

SOURCE: Weather and Climate Extremes, Krause and Flood, US Army Corps of Engineers Technical paper TEC-0099, 1997
NOTES: The thermometer used for this reading was considered badly overexposed and this record is invalid. We know it was a hot day and this region could perhaps record some incredible temperature. But 140°F?

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


136.4° (58.0°C) Aug. 11, 1933 San Luis, Baja, Mexico

SOURCE: World Almanac 1980

NOTES: The thermometer used for this reading was considered badly overexposed and this record is invalid.

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


136° (57.8°C) July 11, 1909 Cherokee, Oklahoma, USA

SOURCE: Monthly Weather Review, USWB, July 1909 p. 337

NOTES: No information is known about the thermometer used for this reading and the temperature is therefore dismissed in the Monthly Weather Review mention of the event. Physical evidence (burnt crops) indicates something amazing happened here that night, but the thermometer validity is a big question mark

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


135° (57.2°C) July, 1989 Al-Amarha, Iraq

SOURCE: News clip (undetermined)

NOTES: The official maximum temperature measured at Al-Amarha for the month of July 1989 is only 49°C (120.2°F) on July 24. The 135°F reading is obviously a press exaggeration or was made in the sun. No evidence whatsoever to support this

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


133° (56.1°C) June 17, 1859 Santa Barbara, California, USA

SOURCE: The Coast Pilot of California, 1859

NOTES: There is no record of who made this measurement or exactly where it was made in Santa Barbara. Some later sources say it was made on a U.S. coastal geo-survey vessel. IF that is the case then the temperature is not possible since the waters off Santa Barbara in June are never warmer than about 70°F and any wind blowing over the ocean would have its temperature modified by the cool water no matter how hot the air. This report is singular and there is physical evidence (burnt crops and dead animals) that something amazing happened here this day, but the temperature record is impossible to validate.

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


131° (55.0°C) Jan. 21, 1845 Interior of New South Wales, Australia

SOURCE: Monthly Weather Review, USWB, May 1930 p. 208

NOTES: This temperature is mentioned in passing as part of a discussion concerning hottest recorded temperatures from around the world. There is no further information known. Old record and impossible to validate.

VALIDITY SCORE: 0


Conclusions Concerning Anecdotal Temperature Reports

All of the above observations have never been corroborated by any official meteorological organization and are (for the most part) the result of unofficial estimates or measurements made during heat bursts. They are all unreliable for one reason or another and cannot be accepted as valid measurements.


Conclusions Concerning Measured Record Temperature Reports

It would appear Death Valley, California and Mitribah, Kuwait jointly hold the best authenticated value of 54.0°C (129.2°F) as the hottest reliably measured temperatures on Earth. I think it also worth emphasizing the problems of the disconnect between old and modern temperature data from Africa (and elsewhere around the world). There can only be two explanations for this;

1) The climate has become much cooler over the past 50 years in northern Africa, or,

2) The instruments and their shelters/locations during the first half of the 20th century were not as accurate as those used during the last half of the century. At least now we have the ability to double check suspicious data since it comes to us in real-time. Unfortunately, the old errors are harder to fix.

BTW, I will post a follow up to this blog in August with a list of just what are the hottest reliably measured temperatures on Earth now that I've covered which records are not credible.


Christopher C. Burt
Weather Historian

Extreme Weather Heat heat bursts Temperature

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

What a fantastic entry filled with data and judgement. The most comprehensive description of hot weather records I've ever seen. Well done!
In 1964 while a new employee at the (Then) National Weather Records Center in Asheville, NC, I had the opportunity to review the hard copy of the Death Valley cooperative observer form for July 1913. I noted that the 134 deg max was surrounded by 2-3 days on each side of the 134 reading with max readings of 129 degrees. At that temperature, it is quite possible that the observer simply read the thermometer five degrees off, as I'm sure he didn't want to hang around any longer than he had to. So, "129-129-134-129-129" seemed suspicious to me at the time, and still does! More recent 129 degree readings as extreme highs would seem to validate that theory. Thank you for an excellent blog post.
How cool thormey!
Quick quote from your entry:

"A low temperature of 41.6°C (106.8°F) was measured at Hoseyniyeh, Iran for the night of July 21-22 2016.

41.6°C converts to 106.88°F or 106.9°F. Pedantic, I know.
Thanks!

I fixed this error.

Quoting 4. BaltimoreBrian:

Quick quote from your entry:

"A low temperature of 41.6°C (106.8°F) was measured at Hoseyniyeh, Iran for the night of July 21-22 2016.

41.6°C converts to 106.88°F or 106.9°F. Pedantic, I know.
Thanks for this 'thormey'!

I also had a good look at the DV COOP form for July 1913 when invited by NPS-Death Valley to partake in the 100th anniversary of the record in July 2013. Here is a documentary about my role in overturning the Azzizia record and my time in DV looking at the documents. Although in the film, I appear to accept the DV record, I was, in fact, just being polite to my hosts. No apologies here. At the time (July 2013) I was still not really sure if I believed the DV 134° temp or not (although suspicious). I've since come to the conclusion the record was not valid thanks to research by William T Reid and Dr. Court that I was not aware of at the time.

You and other WU readers may find this film interesting (hope the Youtube URL works!):..let me know if it doesn't!

The documentary should be here.

Chris

.
Quoting 2. thormey:

In 1964 while a new employee at the (Then) National Weather Records Center in Asheville, NC, I had the opportunity to review the hard copy of the Death Valley cooperative observer form for July 1913. I noted that the 134 deg max was surrounded by 2-3 days on each side of the 134 reading with max readings of 129 degrees. At that temperature, it is quite possible that the observer simply read the thermometer five degrees off, as I'm sure he didn't want to hang around any longer than he had to. So, "129-129-134-129-129" seemed suspicious to me at the time, and still does! More recent 129 degree readings as extreme highs would seem to validate that theory. Thank you for an excellent blog post.
Actually I was very surprised when I saw the documentary for the first time. I thougt, that You believe in 1913 record and that doesn't match with your previous opinion. So it's good to know, that you didn't believe in it.
There are lots of weather stations in the Dash el Lut, at different elevations.
What we don;t have is a professional weather station in its lowest point around 250m aslm.
But weather records from WS just 100m above that elevation shows maximum temperatures of 52.5C (recorded in 1998).
Dash el Lut is handicapped to compete with the Death Valley and the plains between the Iran-Iraq and Kuwait borders, because its minimum elevation is not near sea level.
It would win hands down in case it had a small depression, but there aren't.
The old stories of the satellite temperatures....OMG ! After 20 years i still read that BS ! Satellites have "read" more than 70C in Arizona too and 53C in Southern Norway and there are still clowns around thinking they are fit to read correctly temperatures at 2m above the ground in specific points of the earth's surface.
The number of fools is infinite.

Tidikelt Depression ? Which depression ? There are no depressions there, Tidikelt is all above sea level and it has never recorded temperatures above 51C. Its name is misleading , in fact they should be called Tidikelt plains. Africa has never witnessed an isotherm at 850hpa higher than 33.8C (July 2002) and there are no places there capable of reaching much more than 51C, even under the most extreme conditions.

The Continental temperature limits are grossly the following: 54C for North America and Asia, 51C for Africa and Australia (slightly more for Africa), 49C for Europe and South America (slightly less for South America).

The people who know nothing about climatology are the ones who spread ridiculous and clearly impossible numbers around and that includes the folks at WMO and NOAA.

Regarding the Tirats Tsvi' s scam , we can say Al Azizia station was fantastic compared to that horrible station, Tirats Tsvi data was overestimated by as much as 10F, , just have a look to its complete POR: in many occassions it was recording temperatures as much as 7-8C above any other stations, including the good Deganya station at just 2 miles of distance from it.

But I see that some people never learn the basics and they keep repeating the same falsities over and over again.

There are dozens of more interesting places (like the small plain near Turbat) in terms of absolute maximum temperature potential than the ones mentioned in this blog -some of which wouldn't rank even within the first 1000 hottest spots.

There is nothing new here: always the same old stories without a trace of any innovative climatic and technical analysis.



Thanks, great update ; I'll be waiting for the next one in August. This answers a lot of questions I had about highest temperature readings on Earth. It seems both continents are having heat problems at the same time :

Middle East in the grips of a major heatwave
Al-Jazeera - July 23.

"(...) The extreme heat is said to be having an impact on the refugees displaced by the assault on Fallujah. Shortages of drinking water and electricity were reported in the camps at Habbaniya and Amiriyat al-Fallujah.
El Nino has now died out, so an explanation for the heatwave probably lies elsewhere. 2016 is already shaping up to the warmest year, globally, since records began in 1880. Although a small portion of this warming is due to the El Nino earlier in the year, a much more likely cause is the continuing emissions of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as a result of human activity.
Temperatures are likely to remain extremely high in the coming days and there is even the possibility of further records being broken towards next weekend. (...)"

The Middle East heat wave and climate change
Janice Sinclaire - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The heat waves baking much of the United States are certain to result in speculation about the connection between global warming and extreme weather. To help clarify what science says about this situation, Chris Mooney at the Washington Post has written a helpful piece, "What science can tell us about the links between global warming and massive heat waves." As Mooney points out, scientists are increasingly willing to connect climate change to extreme heat waves, at least those "that appear out of the norm in some way." (...)
Quoting 6. weatherhistorian:

Thanks for this 'thormey'!

I also had a good look at the DV COOP form for July 1913 when invited by NPS-Death Valley to partake in the 100th anniversary of the record in July 2013. Here is a documentary about my role in overturning the Azzizia record and my time in DV looking at the documents. Although in the film, I appear to accept the DV record, I was, in fact, just being polite to my hosts. No apologies here. At the time (July 2013) I was still not really sure if I believed the DV 134%uFFFD temp or not (although suspicious). I've since come to the conclusion the record was not valid thanks to research by William T Reid and Dr. Court that I was not aware of at the time.

You and other WU readers may find this film interesting (hope the Youtube URL works!):..let me know if it doesn't!

The documentary should be here.

Chris

.


They made nothing new.
I made those researches more than 10 years ago. A piece of cake indeed, since the "record" is so false that you don't need much research to prove it.
There is no need to search much about that clearly ridiculous and clearly physically impossible fake record (together with about 20 years of unreliable data).
There are tons of climatic, meteorological, physical and even statistical evidence against it.
Only people without any minimal knowledge of the basics of meteorology would believe to that ridiculousness.
Who is gonna waste more time for the "scam of the century ?
This is a joke, not even the worst of my students would buy it for a minute.

Anyone notice since a new tower was installed at Summit Greenland that the outside temperature no longer reflects a variation between daytime and nighttime temps? The new average temperature from the site will now show a higher . mean temperature than the former data collected from the site. More manufactured data to support global warming...
Quoting 11. retiredweathercop:

Anyone notice since a new tower was installed at Summit Greenland that the outside temperature no longer reflects a variation between daytime and nighttime temps? The new average temperature from the site will now show a higher . mean temperature than the former data collected from the site. More manufactured data to support global warming...
Oh, you poor little thing! It seems you seem to have posted your vacuous comment in the wrong forum. Worn-out anti-science conspiracy theories won't gain much of a toehold here; you'll likely find a more welcoming home for them way down on the right...the *far* right.
Awesome post! The fact that I'm physically very close to these world heat records is amazing. I'm working in Kuwait and at the moment, it's quite breezy with blowing dust and the temperature is relatively cooler than the last couple of days. I lived in Las Vegas, NV and frequented Lake Havasu City, AZ with family but this heat is relentless! There's got to be a good chance somewhere in this region, the record number of consecutive 100F days has been reached or surpassed. I believe the current record is 160 days at Marble Bar in Australia. Also, I haven't heard much mention of any extreme dewpoints yet. I have seen some stations on WU in UAE and one in KW that had 90F dewpoints and temperatures over 100F briefly. Even at KWI Thursday, the dewpoint was well over 80F for a few hours in the afternoon with temperatures over 110F. It's exciting to be here and experience this but it's also very humbling and demands respect. Thanks again for your great post, Mr. Burt!
Nicely done, Mr. Burt. As usual, your in-depth research and painstaking pursuit of climatological truth have paid off in a big way.

I'm with you in agreement that the July 1913 Death Valley "record" of 134F is very likely invalid, and for all the reasons you've stated. I think that, given the limitations of satellite readings and the fact that we can't have thermal sensors covering every square centimeter of land on the planet, we'll always be able to say of a certain temperature that it's the most extreme ever measured, but we'll never be able to accurately declare this temperature or that one as the most extreme ever, period.

However--and this is a big however--we can definitely see long term temperatures trending toward those extremes at most stations with a lengthy POR. That is, of course, more important, even if less interesting. ;-)

FWIW, here's a graph of this week's maximum highs at Mitribah courtesy of the State of Kuwait Meteorological Department:

Quoting 11. retiredweathercop:

Anyone notice since a new tower was installed at Summit Greenland that the outside temperature no longer reflects a variation between daytime and nighttime temps? The new average temperature from the site will now show a higher . mean temperature than the former data collected from the site. More manufactured data to support global warming...

There are numerous issues with your comment and I do not have time to list them all. I will suggest, however, that you start by looking up what "homogenization" is, and why it is very relevant to your claim.
The reality is many of the old heat records aren't comparable to today. Look back in the archived pictures - some Stevenson screens would be no more than 2-3' off the ground. Obviously, there would be a problem with surface radiation at those sites. Moreover, many of the bigger cities had their shelters installed on rooftops in the downtown area. They subsequently moved to airports, with modern fan-aspirated ASOS temperature gauges, carefully cited over grass and away from any external heat sources. How can we compare today's records with those of the past?

The funny thing is the deniers want us to believe today's records are warm biased compared to those of the past! Yet, their own research on the effects of poorly maintained shelters, siting on rooftops, and in cities, etc. would support the opposite conclusion. Even despite this, the adjusted data sets show an unmistakable warming trend which is confirmed by numerous other metrics.

Nevertheless, the old data causes many problems and leads to a poorer understanding of climate change. Yet, the NWS splices these data onto modern airport records to create a long-term record for many cities spanning 130+ years. In fact, the procedure has been expanded under the ThreadEx program in recent years. A good case in point is here in Pittsburgh. The records were taken downtown (most likely rooftop exposure, it's not really clear where the exact records were taken) until about 1935, then at Allegheny County Airport from 1935-1952 in West Mifflin (SE side of the city), and since 1952 at Pittsburgh International Airport in Moon Township (15-20 miles NW of downtown). Elevation downtown ranges from roughly 800-900' while the airport locations are 1200'. This alone is sufficient to account for about 1-2 degrees of warming, but the enhanced UHI downtown adds probably another 2-3 degrees of warming. And this can be seen in the period of overlap when unofficial records were maintained downtown, while official records moved to AGC (temps downtown were usually a good 2-5 degrees warmer). So how they can justify splicing these records is beyond me. I regularly see these data misattributed to imply there is a local cooling trend or that global warming is not as bad as stated in the media. The reality is these data do not support such a conclusion whatsoever, but the general public does not understand this. Has the NWS ever commissioned a study regarding how the ThreadEx policy affects public understanding of local and global climate changes?
Quoting 8. maxcrc:

The people who know nothing about climatology are the ones who spread ridiculous and clearly impossible numbers around and that includes the folks at WMO and NOAA.




Maybe you are right, but the problem is, that these people have a power to dictate what is true and what not.
For example every year around the anniversary of 1913 stupid 56,7 C Death Valley number I try to write on every site where they say that is the highest temp in world, that is it a false number. Last 2 year they erase my quotes from Czech official FB site. They really do not want to hear anything, they blindly trust whatever WMO people write or say.
Quoting 8. maxcrc:
There are lots of weather stations in the Dash el Lut, at different elevations.
What we don;t have is a professional weather station in its lowest point around 250m aslm.
But weather records from WS just 100m above that elevation shows maximum temperatures of 52.5C (recorded in 1998).
Dash el Lut is handicapped to compete with the Death Valley and the plains between the Iran-Iraq and Kuwait borders, because its minimum elevation is not near sea level.


The lowest point in the Dasht-e Loot I found, lies at about 130 m a.s.l., it's approximate location is around 30 20' 55.38'' N, 58 39' 13.02'' E. So with adiabatic heating one can expect 54,7 C (excluding over-adiabatic heating).

Quoting 8. maxcrc:

Tidikelt Depression ? Which depression ? There are no depressions there, Tidikelt is all above sea level and it has never recorded temperatures above 51C. Its name is misleading , in fact they should be called Tidikelt plains. Africa has never witnessed an isotherm at 850hpa higher than 33.8C (July 2002) and there are no places there capable of reaching much more than 51C, even under the most extreme conditions.




The lowest height I found for the Tidikelt Region is around 120 m a.s.l., by 26 25' N and 1 15' E
For comparison: Reggane lies at 220 m a.s.l, Adrar at 260 m a.s.l. and Ain-Salah at 290 m a.s.l., so maybe 52 C are possible in some uninhabited places there.

Quoting 8. maxcrc:

There are dozens of more interesting places (like the small plain near Turbat) in terms of absolute maximum temperature potential than the ones mentioned in this blog -some of which wouldn't rank even within the first 1000 hottest spots.

There is nothing new here: always the same old stories without a trace of any innovative climatic and technical analysis.






Interesting place, are the 53 C as the absolute maximum reliable, if yes, one could expect 54 C in the nearby plain, lying around 100 m deeper.
http://www.geoclimat.org/p/records-nationaux-de-t emperatures.html
Quoting 18. ChateauChalon:



The lowest point in the Dasht-e Loot I found, lies at about 130 m a.s.l., it's approximate location is around 30%uFFFD 20' 55.38'' N, 58%uFFFD 39' 13.02'' E. So with adiabatic heating one can expect 54,7 %uFFFDC (excluding over-adiabatic heating).



The lowest height I found for the Tidikelt Region is around 120 m a.s.l., by 26%uFFFD 25' N and 1%uFFFD 15' E
For comparison: Reggane lies at 220 m a.s.l, Adrar at 260 m a.s.l. and Ain-Salah at 290 m a.s.l., so maybe 52 %uFFFDC are possible in some uninhabited places there.



Interesting place, are the 53 %uFFFDC as the absolute maximum reliable, if yes, one could expect 54 %uFFFDC in the nearby plain, lying around 100 m deeper.
http://www.geoclimat.org/p/records-nationaux-de-t emperatures.html



You're right about Dash el Lut minimum elevation at a whole,but the lowest point in the Dasht el Lut you mention is not exactly in its hottest point.I should have been more precise on that.
According to Iranian Meteorological Service studying based in nearby professional stations and sporadic measurement taken in the lowest points of the Dash el Lut with not professional stations , the hottest area is slightly south, to the east of the village of Keshit,near a river delta ,located at 250m asl.
They plan to install a weather station there, but the area is subjected to flooding in winter (a small amount is enough to flood all the area).

It 's not always possible to apply a standard adiabatic coefficient without taking into account the local topography. Some areas are subjected to strong subsidences , in some cases the hot air flows above a lower level of cooler air ,like it happens regularly in Western Pakistan. As a result , with southern winds, we have higher temperatures in highlands than at low elevation.
In those situations some records of temperatures at high elevation are similar to those at a lower elevation.
Applying a standard coefficient to a single temperature peak in an exceptional event to attempt to calculate a record in a lower elevation might draw faulty conclusions, because the atmospheric conditions to set those records (at different elevations) are different.

Those are example of extreme Tmax recorded in some areas of Pakistan , which are unreachable anywhere else in the world at the same elevations :

51.4C 843m
48.1C 1265m
46.3C 1501m
41.0C 2226m
35.4C 3500m

Highest temperatures in stations at 500-600m in nearby areas with PORs of over 1 century are in the range of 46-47C.
So you can see from those example you cannot always apply a standard coefficient because there are many local variables in the equation,when the conditions to reach certain temperatures are different and dependent on the local topography.
Some areas might need "personalized" atmospheric configurations to reach record conditions, in those cases a standard adiabatic coefficient wouldn't work. Topography messes up with that.
It's much easier when you have flat plains.
Every case should be studied according to the local microclimates and the atmospheric and meteorological analysis of the events which brought those records.

This is one of the reasons of so many false myths , when people hastily speculate about exaggerated (aka impossible ) temperatures being reached in remote places. They didn't take into account many factors.









Are you sure Western Australia does not qualify for some record breaking temperatures ?
Quoting 20. jrosman:

Are you sure Western Australia does not qualify for some record breaking temperatures ?


Its limit is around 51C, similarly to some areas between South Australia and Northern Territory.
The word "record" is relative to something.
If you mean it to be relative to a world Tmax, ...yes, I am 101% sure it doesn't qualify to beat or get even close to it.
But one day it might grab the record of highest temperature in the Southern Hemisphere. It got close in 1998.
You see what you want to see, I am not a denier of global warming. Data can be manufactured by methodology without a necessary intent to lie. The numbers derived from scientific method I hope are repeatable and if there repetitive generation occurs by stringent controlled testing then the number data is valid. That validity is however is only good for as long as the same methodology is used. Catching temperature for any atmospheric records is all about location,elevation, latitude Atmospheric Isolation,1 time of day,season, albedo and specific heat transfer characteristics of the given environment. As our technology has improved like it or not the methodology has changed. This blog seems to be more intent in comparing apples to snow grapes. Pat your selves on your collective backs and keep your isolated ideas about a fractional temperature record change in less then 200 years limited temperature record collection. Promote coherence loss by this narrow focus on maximum atmospheric temperature. While limiting the heterogeneities of this blog by attracting only like minded ideologues, that rebuke any that question their faith.
Quoting 22. retiredweathercop:

You see what you want to see, I am not a denier of global warming. Data can be manufactured by methodology without a necessary intent to lie. The numbers derived from scientific method I hope are repeatable and if there repetitive generation occurs by stringent controlled testing then the number data is valid. That validity is however is only good for as long as the same methodology is used. Catching temperature for any atmospheric records is all about location,elevation, latitude Atmospheric Isolation,1 time of day,season, albedo and specific heat transfer characteristics of the given environment. As our technology has improved like it or not the methodology has changed. This blog seems to be more intent in comparing apples to snow grapes. Pat your selves on your collective backs and keep your isolated ideas about a fractional temperature record change in less then 200 years limited temperature record collection. Promote coherence loss by this narrow focus on maximum atmospheric temperature. While limiting the heterogeneities of this blog by attracting only like minded ideologues, that rebuke any that question their faith.

You misunderstood the blog.
It's not about global warming, but about temperature records and the total invalidity of many bogus records which are still "official" because the ineptitude and/or lack of action of the WMO, NOAA guys and many national institutes of meteorology.
GW is mentioned only for statistical purposes when the author says "the forecast by two late climatologists regarding the highest possible temperature on earth doesn't take into account GW"
This sentence makes sense because STATISTICALLY given an average higher temperature, in the LONG TERM you have more chances to set higher temperature records too.
If you can't understand this, it's because you don't fully understand statistics.
Statistics is a fundamental part of climatologist and in my 27 years of climatic research, I can never avoid to take it into account.
Quoting 18. ChateauChalon:



The lowest point in the Dasht-e Loot I found, lies at about 130 m a.s.l., it's approximate location is around 30� 20' 55.38'' N, 58� 39' 13.02'' E. So with adiabatic heating one can expect 54,7 �C (excluding over-adiabatic heating).



The lowest height I found for the Tidikelt Region is around 120 m a.s.l., by 26� 25' N and 1� 15' E
For comparison: Reggane lies at 220 m a.s.l, Adrar at 260 m a.s.l. and Ain-Salah at 290 m a.s.l., so maybe 52 �C are possible in some uninhabited places there.



Interesting place, are the 53 �C as the absolute maximum reliable, if yes, one could expect 54 �C in the nearby plain, lying around 100 m deeper.
http://www.geoclimat.org/p/records-nationaux-de-t emperatures.html


As i mentioned below regarding Pakistan, we can apply the same thing in most of the record cases.
Record events should be considered singularities, exceptions.
I have been studying carefully the atmospheric conditions of hottest spots on earth and in particular of the record breaking events.
The dry adiabatic coefficient you are applying wouldn't work in 90+% of those cases for the same reason,it would result in a overestimation of the effective temperature at the lower elevations.
For example,
Morocco has recorded more than 49.5C at over 400m in 2012, but temperatures at low elevations (like at Taraudant) were lower, Southern Algeria has recorded temperatures of more than 40C at 1400m, 44C at 1000m but on plains between 100m and 200m the extreme peaks in those areas have not exceeded the 48-49C.
And so on, we can follow until next year talking about thousands of record events allover the world (not necessarily in the world's hottest spots) like the July 1983 heat wave in Europe when temperatures as high as 37C were recorded at 1000m on eastern Alps but at low elevations were inferior, because the sublevation of a mass of hot air above a layer of cooler air. (highest T were recorded around 600m asl).
In July 2002 I estimate a Tmax around 51C in the bottom of the Tidikelt instead 52C:wind, pressure and humidity conditions were similar to other cases of rather thermal uniformity between Northern Niger/Mali and Southern Algeria (see for example Tessalit in Northern Mali reaching similar Tmax of Menaka despite being at higher elevation).
Anyway, when i summarized estimated temperature limits of 51C for Africa and Australia i had also said (slightly more for Africa). That was a very "summarized" estimation compressed in 2 lines.
We could extend it much more specifically, filling books or one whole library of more than 25 years of studying of those areas. I can't rule out, one day, with a record 34+C isotherm ,52C being touched in the Tidikelt plains or even -for short moments during chergui winds ,if the relative humidity drops near zero- in points west to the Atlas chain.

Thanks for the blog Chris, really interesting. We have our own share of problematic early observations in Australia, though all appear to sit below the 54C threshold here. Having thermometers exposed to direct or indirect sunlight is the most common problem.
As an aside, we set a significant winter heat record here with 38.3C at Kalumburu in Western Australia on the weekend. This broke the old national record of 37.6C at Wyndham for July (i.e., mid winter). 
Through nothing other than good luck we've avoided breaking the Australian summer record of 50.7C from Oodnadatta (South Australia) which dates from 1960. Given our mean temperature has risen by nearly 1C since then, it does suggest that we could now see a temperature nearly 52C under the most extreme synoptic set-up. Oodnadatta is quite elevated (117m) with lower land to the east including a small area below sea level around Lake Eyre. It suggests to me that a we could plausible see a 53C now in that region.
On the contrary, GW was not the point. The change in instrumentation at Summit is going to produce records, those records in one of the coldest of places on this planet will show new high temperature records for the Summit site. Better methodology of the instrumentation will be more accurate but that GW is not the necessary cause, better data collection is. I am sure that in your 27 years of climatic research STATISTICALLY speaking you never read the book Lies, Dam Lies and STATISTICS.
I would like to defend those guys as you say” ineptitude and/or lack of action of the WMO, NOAA guys and many national institutes of meteorology” Side by side comparison of the old and new methodology for data collection would resolve most if not all of the issue of past records. I find that politically correct questions seldom lead to workable solutions. What I don't understand is how allegedly educated climatologist are stuping to belittling at the mire scent of GW objectivity. The total invalidity of past data and bogus claims can be sorted out and evaluated but your arrogance is another matter. Please stand on your laurels and block the way to knowledge.
27. oaww
I believe that Ethiopia/Djibouti (Terrritory of the Afar and Issas), Particularly the Afar Triangle is certainly the hottest place on earth. Almost no documentation. A measuring station located in the Black lava formations at below sea level elevations, near the equator, would give temperatures exceeding anything seen elsewhere.
28. oaww
I believe that Ethiopia/Djibouti (Terrritory of the Afar and Issas), Particularly the Afar Triangle is certainly the hottest place on earth. Almost no documentation. A measuring station located in the Black lava formations at below sea level elevations, near the equator, would give temperatures exceeding anything seen elsewhere.
Official record temperatures are always taken in the shade. What if you are out there 20 miles from the nearest shade, and it seems kinda hot? Well then, anyway you take the temperature, everyone is going to say, "That not official!"

The official record stations are always where people live - not out in the hotter barrens.

Do you really think the Death Valley weather stations are in the hottest parts of the valley, or is it near the Greenland Ranch within a couple of hundred meters of irrigated plants?

If you are there, then the weather is what affects you. As a kid, I worked on a wheat harvest crew, and the only shade was big dump trucks that hauled the wheat into town. We would take the temperature in shade under the truck and it would 10 or 15F higher than the local official temperature. However, the temperature that we were exposed to as we worked in the sun was 20 or 30F warmer than it was in the shade. Thus, the temperatures that we actually endured while working were much hotter than what was reported in nearby towns.

As a health safety office at facility in Saudi Arabia, I took the dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures, right out there, standing in the sun, on the tarmac where my guys were working. It was the temperature they were exposed to, and it was the temperature I used to calculate their water requirements, how long they could be out in sun, rather than resting in the shade. If I had used the official "in the shade temperatures" from the official airport weather to calculate work/water, those guys would have suffered kidney damage.

Sometimes there are jobs that have to be done out in the sun. We have to be realistic about actual heat conditions for outdoor jobs that have to be performed.
Quoting 28. oaww:

I believe that Ethiopia/Djibouti (Terrritory of the Afar and Issas), Particularly the Afar Triangle is certainly the hottest place on earth. Almost no documentation. A measuring station located in the Black lava formations at below sea level elevations, near the equator, would give temperatures exceeding anything seen elsewhere.


The highest record maximum temperature was 48.9 °C, which is not really remarkably high, maybe you can expect 50 °C or slightly more in some other places of the Afar Depression.
Instead, Dallol stands out worldwide relating to its average temperature.

Did I read something wrong or did the 2013 article used to refute the 136.4° (58.0°C) Sept. 13, 1922 Al Azizia, Libya temperature state that the 134° (56.7°) July 10, 1913 Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA was declared the hottest on record.

This article says that the 134° temp in Death Valley only has a validity score of 2.

Someone's research seems to contradict itself.
Hi bjswx,

I'm assuming the 2013 article you are referring to is that penned by William T. Reid. The DV temperature of 134° back on July 10, 1913 became (by default) the 'new' officially recognized world's hottest air temperature by the WMO as a result of the disallowed (by the WMO) Al Azizia, Libya 58°C reading from 1922. My 'validity' score of the old DV record is a personal and purely subjective one based on the kind of evidence that Mr. Reid submitted in his article. Many others in the meteorological community share this same disbelief of the credibility of the 134° DV figure. So I don't see any contradictions here.
Quoting 31. bjswx:

Did I read something wrong or did the 2013 article used to refute the 136.4° (58.0°C) Sept. 13, 1922 Al Azizia, Libya temperature state that the 134° (56.7°) July 10, 1913 Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA was declared the hottest on record.

This article says that the 134° temp in Death Valley only has a validity score of 2.

Someone's research seems to contradict itself.
Quoting 31. bjswx:

Did I read something wrong or did the 2013 article used to refute the 136.4° (58.0°C) Sept. 13, 1922 Al Azizia, Libya temperature state that the 134° (56.7°) July 10, 1913 Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, California, USA was declared the hottest on record.

This article says that the 134° temp in Death Valley only has a validity score of 2.

Someone's research seems to contradict itself.
Quoting 32. weatherhistorian:

Hi bjswx,

I'm assuming the 2013 article you are referring to is that penned by William T. Reid. The DV temperature of 134° back on July 10, 1913 became (by default) the 'new' officially recognized world's hottest air temperature by the WMO as a result of the disallowed (by the WMO) Al Azizia, Libya 58°C reading from 1922. My 'validity' score of the old DV record is a personal and purely subjective one based on the kind of evidence that Mr. Reid submitted in his article. Many others in the meteorological community share this same disbelief of the credibility of the 134° DV figure. So I don't see any contradictions here.
Weatherhistorian -
But the WMO accepts the Death Valley reading (which has been studied and accepted as accurate) while disputing the Al Azizia reading as inaccurate, which would lead me to believe your validity numbers just arbitrary figures created to support an invalid argument.
No, the WMO has never investigated the DV record with the same rigor that it investigated the Libya record.
Quoting 33. bjswx:


So, now the TOP6 ever reliable temperatures are:
1. Mitribah (Kuwait) 54,0 °C; 21.7.2016
1. Death Valley, Furnace Creek (USA) 54,0 °C; 30.6.2013
3. Basra airport (Iraq) 53,9 °C; 22.7.2016
4. Basra centre (Iraq) 53,8 °C; 22.7.2016
5. Sulaibya (Kuwait) 53,6 °C; 31.7.2012
6. Mohenjo Daro (Pakistan) 53,5 °C; 26.5.2010

As far as i know, these 6 locations are also the only ones that reliably surpassed 53,0 °C mark. All these records were set in last 7 summers. It is not question if, but when we will break the 54,0 °C mark.
Hello and thanks Chris (and Max), for your updated compilation and insights on extreme maximum temps.

Always piques my interest to know more details behind such record extreme reports and station location, such as Mitribah. Rather amusing as I read other news stories parroting this report, referring to the "city", "town" or "community" of Mitribah. Perhaps should be clarified it's simply a remote weather station in the rugged desert terrain of NW Kuwait. LOL, I searched in vain using available (imprecise) coordinates - no "Hotel Mitribah" to ponder booking a visit with, nor any identifiable town or village, nary a bedouin in sight, kept coming up with barren sand… Appears we can confidently rule out UHI influence this time. ;)

Anyway, couldn't find anything resembling a weather station at rough coordinates here or from other sites (incl here and here - while comparing neighboring station data). But, after gazing about I think I found the station, at least a tower and possible instrument housing using itouchmap site (zoomed in at max 20 meters) at these fine tuned coordinates -- +29.824454 / +47.359614 -- entered under "Show Point from Latitude and Longitude" - if anyone's curious … EDIT / Update, found Kuwait Met Center AWOS station list, coordinates decimally gives same, a few meters diff - +29.824675 / +47.35982 - perhaps marking the actual Stevenson Screen… FWIW…

Given the ridging / subsidence the region was under (view ESRL analysis, Mid East, July 20-22) and this location, the 54C certainly is a potentially valid record. But of course, whether it is a hottest reliably measured remains to be validated by WMO or other agency QC checking the station. Particularly in lieu of the station's history of instrument, exposure or calibration failure in July 2010 erroneously yielding an overexposed 54.4C. And the nearest Kuwait stations next hottest reading during this recent scorching blast was reported as 52.8C at station 40552 Jal Aliyah on July 22nd. That said, the readings at Basrah lend support to Mitribah's 54C.

Ha! - More locations I'll add to my list of worse places to live than the relatively tolerable heat / humidity of SE Louisiana.
Cheers,
Randy

Excellent comment Doc in the swamp!

Indeed, the Mitribah reading has yet to be verified by the Kuwait Dept. of Meteorology. The WMO has already begun the process to look into this. Beginning, of course, with a verification from the KMD. Unlike the 2010 issue with the observation at this site, we do at least have some other readings that lend some credibility to it this time around.

Quoting 36. DocNDswamp:

Hello and thanks Chris (and Max), for your updated compilation and insights on extreme maximum temps.

Always piques my interest to know more details behind such record extreme reports and station location, such as Mitribah. Rather amusing as I read other news stories parroting this report, referring to the "city", "town" or "community" of Mitribah. Perhaps should be clarified it's simply a remote weather station in the rugged desert terrain of NW Kuwait. LOL, I searched in vain using available (imprecise) coordinates - no "Hotel Mitribah" to ponder booking a visit with, nor any identifiable town or village, nary a bedouin in sight, kept coming up with barren sand… Appears we can confidently rule out UHI influence this time. ;)

Anyway, couldn't find anything resembling a weather station at rough coordinates here or from other sites (incl here and here - while comparing neighboring station data). But, after gazing about I think I found the station, at least a tower and possible instrument housing using itouchmap site (zoomed in at max 20 meters) at these fine tuned coordinates -- +29.824454 / +47.359614 -- entered under "Show Point from Latitude and Longitude" - if anyone's curious … EDIT / Update, found Kuwait Met Center AWOS station list, coordinates decimally gives same, a few meters diff - +29.824675 / +47.35982 - perhaps marking the actual Stevenson Screen… FWIW…

Given the ridging / subsidence the region was under (view ESRL analysis, Mid East, July 20-22) and this location, the 54C certainly is a potentially valid record. But of course, whether it is a hottest reliably measured remains to be validated by WMO or other agency QC checking the station. Particularly in lieu of the station's history of instrument, exposure or calibration failure in July 2010 erroneously yielding an overexposed 54.4C. And the nearest Kuwait stations next hottest reading during this recent scorching blast was reported as 52.8C at station 40552 Jal Aliyah on July 22nd. That said, the readings at Basrah lend support to Mitribah's 54C.

Ha! - More locations I'll add to my list of worse places to live than the relatively tolerable heat / humidity of SE Louisiana.
Cheers,
Randy


38. NoeV
Well done!
Ad Unssen:

1. We have five reliable 129 F readings in Death Valley (these are four more - 18 July 1960 at Greenland Ranch on 17 July 1998, 19 July 2005 and 6 July 2007 at Furnace Creek)
2. There is a problem which I have with the rounding in US system. 129 F could be 53.7 but also 54.1 C
3. Yes, I have seen the photograph which show 129,2 F reading. But it is simply not official number. So the problem is that you can not say exactly that 129 F is 53,9 C.
4. Maybe the 54 C line will be broken. But there is no possibility to break wrong reading of 134 F. So we can only wait next 20 years. Maybe people who can believe in so silly number will be replaced.
Well stated. That is why I hope the WMO or at least the NCEC (the NCDC state records committee) might take a hard look at the old DV record. Of course it is very unlikely that any official weather site in the world will ever (in our lifetime) see a 134F° matched again.

Quoting 39. MichalBogar:

Ad Unssen:

1. We have five reliable 129 F readings in Death Valley (these are four more - 18 July 1960 at Greenland Ranch on 17 July 1998, 19 July 2005 and 6 July 2007 at Furnace Creek)
2. There is a problem which I have with the rounding in US system. 129 F could be 53.7 but also 54.1 C
3. Yes, I have seen the photograph which show 129,2 F reading. But it is simply not official number. So the problem is that you can not say exactly that 129 F is 53,9 C.
4. Maybe the 54 C line will be broken. But there is no possibility to break wrong reading of 134 F. So we can only wait next 20 years. Maybe people who can believe in so silly number will be replaced.

Quoting 4. BaltimoreBrian:

Quick quote from your entry:

"A low temperature of 41.6°C (106.8°F) was measured at Hoseyniyeh, Iran for the night of July 21-22 2016.

41.6°C converts to 106.88°F or 106.9°F. Pedantic, I know.

Is the highest low temperature ever recorded: 107 degrees
Why not consider the real test for global hot spots as the nocturnal highest low temperature.
Since official diurnal records temperatures are always taken in the shade. I refer to and thank David Kroodsma for his article Published: August 2nd, 2011 at http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/record-warm-ni ghttime-temperatures-a-closer-look.
Opinion on validity of temperatures records recorded in or near major urban areas. I believe that because of the global Heat Island effect of cities where most temperature recording stations are located the generation of the higher temperature trends will continue as cities grow around the world.

The subtleties in asking a question reveals the answerers bias.
I had to adjust my own personal record heat temps. also due to exposed locations. My old record was 107 F on July 17, 1980 at the exposed location, to 102 F on July 12, 2012 at my official sheltered location. Great post Mr. Burt about this subject.
I had never before seen anyone who identified themselves as a "weather historian." If I understand, your job is to look at old records and determine which you think might be true. I notice that the content of your blog seems to support the more recent high temperatures and discount reports of higher temperatures in the past. I'm sure that this has nothing to do with advancing the "man made global warming" agenda, as I have been assured by politicians and the media that the "science is settled." I am hoping, though, that you can cite for me a place where I can find this science. A computer program, or model, is not science (unless that is what is now being taught as the scientific method). I can write a computer model which will spit out every winning lottery sequence, as long as I am able to determine the conditions which validate my "model."
Quoting 43. beelbym:

I had never before seen anyone who identified themselves as a "weather historian." If I understand, your job is to look at old records and determine which you think might be true. I notice that the content of your blog seems to support the more recent high temperatures and discount reports of higher temperatures in the past. I'm sure that this has nothing to do with advancing the "man made global warming" agenda, as I have been assured by politicians and the media that the "science is settled." I am hoping, though, that you can cite for me a place where I can find this science. A computer program, or model, is not science (unless that is what is now being taught as the scientific method). I can write a computer model which will spit out every winning lottery sequence, as long as I am able to determine the conditions which validate my "model."


There is a lot to unpack here, so bear with me as I do so. First, there is no "man made global warming" agenda. There are, however, two competing things at play. The first being what the science has said, which has been overwhelming in regards to evidence to human CO2 emissions being the leading driver of the current warming, and the ideologically driven antithesis to this concept, which has born no compelling competing theory which accounts for all current observations. To address the science, Skeptical Science has compiled a great resource, with citations to the relevant literature. Disregarding your extreme social constructionist critique of models for the time being, there is a direct line of empirical evidence linking physical properties of CO2 to the current energy imbalance which can be found here. Essentially, we have measured an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy, that imbalance is at the wavelengths of CO2 and other GHG's. We have also seen the warming of the troposphere and a corresponding cooling of the stratosphere, tell tale fingerprints of GHG induced warming. We know the CO2 is human made due to the isotope type and the corresponding decrease in atmospheric O2 from combustion. Now, on to model concerns. I stated previously that your critique is a poor social constructionist argument. You imply that models are unreliable, and imply that the temperature record in unreliable. On the contrary, the models have preformed extremely well, however, the mistake is in assuming the models are what the science is based on, or even the main contributor to our knowledge of human caused global warming, and besides that, is a standard poorly thought out argument. Secondly, the insinuation the the temperature record is unreliable is another poor argument attempting to discredit the realities of global warming, the data is actually in very good agreement using different methodologies.

Based on your statement, I am sure none of these links will have much of an impact, as your mind seems to have been made up before you clicked on the post comment button, but I do implore you to take a step back and look at the actual published science and history of how we arrived here. Every major scientific organization in the world accepts the premise of human caused global warming, there is no competing hypothesis that addresses all the observations (incoherence in counter-argument), and overwhelming agreement among actively publishing climate scientists. This isn't the politicization of global warming, nor the nebulous "media" response. It's real, it's based on the basic properties of a gas, that's physics and chemistry.
Looks like my favorite site for Northern Hemisphere weather and temperature prediction has gone dark to the public for now, if anyone knows of a public alternative to this now restricted site http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/
Please post. It was a great data site.
Wait! Why is it when someone questions "the Science" of man made global warming it is always a just trust us because we are Scientists? Your theories are affecting everyone in the United States , in Job Losses, cost increases and higher taxes. Hell yes we are gonna ask questions and you have to prove to us that this is affecting us as individuals. This country is not a dictatorship, this country is by the people and if you can't prove to all of us there is a problem even though we do not see these problems in the places we live then you guys have the problem not us. I am a college educated Computer Scientists, when you tell me to trust the models I question it because I know those models are only as good as the data input. I live in a rural area 50 miles from Dallas where the temps are taken. I live 10 miles from the nearest "official" weather station. All three are never within 5 degrees of each other. It is always cooler the more rural you are because of heat islands or elevation or water bodies near by. I have been interested in weather my whole life because my family are farmers and ranchers. I see the weather patterns of heat, drought and so on. When there is a lack of moisture the temps are always higher in the summer. In Texas we have had a cooler than average summer because we had a lot of rain. As an educated person that took the classes I think the only real data you have to work with started when these climate change models and theories started. Using any temps prior to these "new" government funded studies should be thrown out. You are all government funded correct?
My personal record high in Texas was in July 1980 at 116 degrees. My grandmother told me she remembers a 117 and 119 degree marks in the 20's and 30's. These were the back porch shaded Mercury thermometers. Yes, we have had heat waves but it seems the all time highs during these heat waves have gone down over the last 80 years. Just the facts I see in the same area in Texas.
The challenge and the struggle the climate change "scientists" have is proving that the CO2 readings are affecting temps and weather patterns. Why haven't we set all time record highs every summer in Texas? Ours is still 1980 and 1929. I see nothing out of the ordinary, nothing. Texas weather has always and still unpredictable. It's hot in the summer and nice in the winter with extremes every once in 20-30 years. One interesting thing is to plot lakes levels with temps, heat, waves and cool weather. You will see a very cool relationship between heat and moisture. Now plot those same numbers against the el nino and nina years. Very interesting stuff. Now we know temps taken more than 30 years ago are pretty flaky.
The roasting of the Middle East: Infertile Crescent - More than war, climate change is making the region hard to live in

From the article: " Last month Basra’s temperature reached 53.9ºC (129°F), a record beaten, fractionally, only by Kuwait and California’s Death Valley — and the latter figure is disputed."
Not to beat a dead horse, but the Afar Triangle is at too low of a latitude to be the hottest place on earth, even with the low elevation. It is at about 10N. At that latitude, they don't get the extra summer hours of daylight that you see in places like Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Death Valley. An extra one or two hours of daylight per day can make a huge difference.

Quoting 28. oaww:

I believe that Ethiopia/Djibouti (Terrritory of the Afar and Issas), Particularly the Afar Triangle is certainly the hottest place on earth. Almost no documentation. A measuring station located in the Black lava formations at below sea level elevations, near the equator, would give temperatures exceeding anything seen elsewhere.
I've seen a 133 F recorded for In Salah as well.
Quoting 47. Proveit:

My personal record high in Texas was in July 1980 at 116 degrees. My grandmother told me she remembers a 117 and 119 degree marks in the 20's and 30's. These were the back porch shaded Mercury thermometers. Yes, we have had heat waves but it seems the all time highs during these heat waves have gone down over the last 80 years. Just the facts I see in the same area in Texas.

Nobel Prize for granny.
Quoting 43. beelbym:

I had never before seen anyone who identified themselves as a "weather historian." If I understand, your job is to look at old records and determine which you think might be true. I notice that the content of your blog seems to support the more recent high temperatures and discount reports of higher temperatures in the past. I'm sure that this has nothing to do with advancing the "man made global warming" agenda, as I have been assured by politicians and the media that the "science is settled." I am hoping, though, that you can cite for me a place where I can find this science. A computer program, or model, is not science (unless that is what is now being taught as the scientific method). I can write a computer model which will spit out every winning lottery sequence, as long as I am able to determine the conditions which validate my "model."


For some reason I can't "like" your comment, but I do like it.
Wouldn't CO2 reflect as much from the sun(or more) IR as it traps, since the sun is emitting much more IR than the Earth reflects? Same thing with methane. Also, the atmosphere/ocean system actually cools the Earth's surface, similar to how a car radiator cools a hot engine. You can look at the Moon and see that with no atmosphere, it gets much hotter after 2 weeks in the sun (150C) compared to any place on Earth. Sun shines on the polar regions (about at a 30 degree angle) for several weeks in summer, but temperatures stay around 15C to 25C... due to the so called "greenhouse" laden atmosphere reflecting much of the solar IR back into space.

I say the Earth is much more resilient than we currently understand. It has withstood billions of years with huge meteor strikes and worse, and the climate has stayed relatively stable supporting life. The magnetic field is unique to this planet (due to iron core) and protects the Earth from solar wind... whic is what kept Mars, Venus from supporting a hospitable climate for life.
Quoting 44. Naga5000:



There is a lot to unpack here, so bear with me as I do so. First, there is no "man made global warming" agenda. There are, however, two competing things at play. The first being what the science has said, which has been overwhelming in regards to evidence to human CO2 emissions being the leading driver of the current warming, and the ideologically driven antithesis to this concept, which has born no compelling competing theory which accounts for all current observations. To address the science, Skeptical Science has compiled a great resource, with citations to the relevant literature. Disregarding your extreme social constructionist critique of models for the time being, there is a direct line of empirical evidence linking physical properties of CO2 to the current energy imbalance which can be found here. Essentially, we have measured an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy, that imbalance is at the wavelengths of CO2 and other GHG's. We have also seen the warming of the troposphere and a corresponding cooling of the stratosphere, tell tale fingerprints of GHG induced warming. We know the CO2 is human made due to the isotope type and the corresponding decrease in atmospheric O2 from combustion. Now, on to model concerns. I stated previously that your critique is a poor social constructionist argument. You imply that models are unreliable, and imply that the temperature record in unreliable. On the contrary, the models have preformed extremely well, however, the mistake is in assuming the models are what the science is based on, or even the main contributor to our knowledge of human caused global warming, and besides that, is a standard poorly thought out argument. Secondly, the insinuation the the temperature record is unreliable is another poor argument attempting to discredit the realities of global warming, the data is actually in very good agreement using different methodologies.

Based on your statement, I am sure none of these links will have much of an impact, as your mind seems to have been made up before you clicked on the post comment button, but I do implore you to take a step back and look at the actual published science and history of how we arrived here. Every major scientific organization in the world accepts the premise of human caused global warming, there is no competing hypothesis that addresses all the observations (incoherence in counter-argument), and overwhelming agreement among actively publishing climate scientists. This isn't the politicization of global warming, nor the nebulous "media" response. It's real, it's based on the basic properties of a gas, that's physics and chemistry.


There's a lot to unpack here, so bear with me as I do so. First, there IS an agenda, but that doesn't mean the "science" is wrong. Folks like Al Gore and the vast majority of the other "Green Energy" folks have millions of their own money invested in "green" energy and then use government money to force tax/carbon credit money into their pockets. Also note the recent witch hunt by those AG's, there's definitely political motivation to push this, but again, that doesn't mean the science is wrong.

Regarding your two competing lines of thinking, there are two, and they are both politically and financially motivated. One buys scientists and has them produce results they are looking for, the other pokes holes in the science being produced and calls out grossly misrepresented statistics. 97% of the hand-picked scientists selected agreed that humans had an impact on climate change, but not that we were the main cause or even one of the main causes. Also, continued alterations of past models, and very selective sampling of data to make a false point (temperature rise from 1970 as an example, go back to 1950's temps, which is where we are currently). It's completely reasonable for scientists to question the results of other scientists. Actual science is repeatable, and predictable. When our current climate models start making the right predictions, the science will be more believable. Considering all predictions have been wrong, the credibility of these scientist is low.

Regarding competing theories, the "other" side has long maintained the environment is changing but that there are literally thousands of factors in it and humans are only one, and we believe a small factor. All the facts that get brought up by actual scientists, observed warming of other planets, that the earth was 4 degrees warmer than today within the last 700 years, etc. all get conveniently pushed aside as unreliable. Yet the same ice cores that are "proven" unreliable for temperature analysis are suddenly reliable enough for carbon analysis. That's not what actual science would allow for.

One of my favorite points, you talk about GHGs. Carbon Dioxide, at best measures make up about 1% of GHGs. Water vapor is the highest at 96%. Conveniently lines up with what other people have observed about temperature, no?

Another fallacy, and this where the irony gets really rich "actively publishing climate scientists"... do tell, where is their funding coming from? I'll applaud you for accurately citing that, but not for taking it at face value. Any scientist that purports to understand the climate as well as they do, all the while continually producing models that fail again and again but they're still getting paid, should ring some alarm bells in your head.

You may be one of the guys that think this kind of stuff can't happen, but look 40 years ago and the "low-fat" diet inception, nay-sayers had "empirical evidence" that sugars were the cause of obesity, not fats. Media blitz ensued, several highly respected scientists were blasted and their careers destroyed. We look back now, see the low-fat diet which made many scientists a lot of money, actually is directly associated with a marked rise in obesity across the globe. It took 40+ years for scientists to say "whoops, we were wrong" but this change is still in the process despite decades and decades of studies. The whole movement started on the flawed premise that diets given to study participants were both low in fat and sugars, but 'fat' was chosen as the culprit. All studies proving the opposite were blasted and discredited. The money trail should have been followed then, and the world would be far healthier.

The same thing is happening here. Climate scientists have a confidence unbecoming of any actual scientist. Hubris has no place in science. They are being bought, and the sad part is that I do believe we should be making strides towards a more responsible way of living but the way we're doing it is all wrong. We're doing it at the cost of 90% of the population to help out 1%. We are inflicting so much damage on our own country while the rest of the world flourishes, all for changes that we have almost no control over. We can't possibly cut our CO2 emissions enough to offset the rest of the world, but as long as the few profit, they don't care. They'll continue to push the agenda.
Nice try, #55, but you're going to need some citations and evidence to back up those baseless assertions. Yawn. Not even worthy of a response at any point.
Quoting 54. colty77:

Wouldn't CO2 reflect as much from the sun(or more) IR as it traps, since the sun is emitting much more IR than the Earth reflects? Same thing with methane. Also, the atmosphere/ocean system actually cools the Earth's surface, similar to how a car radiator cools a hot engine. You can look at the Moon and see that with no atmosphere, it gets much hotter after 2 weeks in the sun (150C) compared to any place on Earth. Sun shines on the polar regions (about at a 30 degree angle) for several weeks in summer, but temperatures stay around 15C to 25C... due to the so called "greenhouse" laden atmosphere reflecting much of the solar IR back into space.

I say the Earth is much more resilient than we currently understand. It has withstood billions of years with huge meteor strikes and worse, and the climate has stayed relatively stable supporting life. The magnetic field is unique to this planet (due to iron core) and protects the Earth from solar wind... whic is what kept Mars, Venus from supporting a hospitable climate for life.


Here is a basic primer on global warming in video lecture form, before making arguments such as the above, this should be watched and understood.


Take notes, dubs854. It would help that unfocused abomination you tried to use as an argument.
Quoting 56. Naga5000:

Nice try, #55, but you're going to need some citations and evidence to back up those baseless assertions. Yawn. Not even worthy of a response at any point.


I just notice a lot of hand wringing by some posters regarding so called greenhouse warming. Wanted to point out things such as the fact that most of the US states record highs occurred before 1950 (38 out of 50)... and for every continent, the all time heat records for each one was set in the 1800s to mid 1900s. These are facts you can look up.
Quoting 58. colty77:



I just notice a lot of hand wringing by some posters regarding so called greenhouse warming. Wanted to point out things such as the fact that most of the US states record highs occurred before 1950 (38 out of 50)... and for every continent, the all time heat records for each one was set in the 1800s to mid 1900s. These are facts you can look up.


Hand wringing? You must be reffering to the silliness you just expresed regarding global warming being measured by state level record high temperatures.
Quoting 56. Naga5000:

Nice try, #55, but you're going to need some citations and evidence to back up those baseless assertions. Yawn. Not even worthy of a response at any point.


If I was bested and couldn't respond, I'd come up with something similar to above to save face. Except my response would'nt have sounded so whiney. Oh no, I wouldn't have as I'm a man. I'd have either came back with some facts or bowed out with class.

That's the thing about science, it's up to the scientist to prove their theory, not up to others to prove it invalid. The proof and models have all failed to accurately predict thus far, so clearly there isn't actual proof there, only additional flawed models. Take your head out of the normally heated sand that is just as hot now as it was 20 and 40 and 80 years ago.
Quoting 58. colty77:



I just notice a lot of hand wringing by some posters regarding so called greenhouse warming. Wanted to point out things such as the fact that most of the US states record highs occurred before 1950 (38 out of 50)... and for every continent, the all time heat records for each one was set in the 1800s to mid 1900s. These are facts you can look up.


Precisely. Because they are lucky enough to be Americans, they believe their theories are also innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof falls on the scientist to show the existing understanding is wrong. Any ACTUAL scientist would love to get questioned on their theories, it makes the conclusion more valid. The hubris displayed by these political scientists show all we need to know about their confidence in what they're reporting.

I can't wait for 10-15 years down the road, and responsible actions we're taking now, like replanting the trees we're cutting down, more responsible logging, etc. and the CO2 levels drop and the climate patterns still don't change. For a while it'll be 'oh it's too late, we've already ruined everything' and then it'll get to 'oh, never mind. guess we're ok after all.'

For the record, THAT's the common-sense actions I believe needs to be at the forefront. Not the ones that decimate our economy, cause the most anemic recovery we've ever seen. Actual change that provides far more good than it costs. Green energies, at best estimates will account for less than 10% of energy used by 2040. Let's plant the natural CO2 killers. They're basically free, and will do far more good on every level than green energy will. That said, green energy has a place in our future but it should be driven by capitalism, not the government.
Quoting 60. dubs854:



If I was bested and couldn't respond, I'd come up with something similar to above to save face. Except my response would'nt have sounded so whiney. Oh no, I wouldn't have as I'm a man. I'd have either came back with some facts or bowed out with class.

That's the thing about science, it's up to the scientist to prove their theory, not up to others to prove it invalid. The proof and models have all failed to accurately predict thus far, so clearly there isn't actual proof there, only additional flawed models. Take your head out of the normally heated sand that is just as hot now as it was 20 and 40 and 80 years ago.


You provided no evidence. There was literally nothing to respond to, only your opinion, which so far has lacked any credibility or coherence.
Quoting 62. Naga5000:



You provided no evidence. There was literally nothing to respond to, only your opinion, which so far has lacked any credibility or coherence.


Not opinion, I've done the research, which is why I'm careful to not be asserting a single cause. Only a fool would assign a primary cause in an environment so complex. If you had done the same research with an open mind, you'd realize that it's far beyond our ability to measure and model and ultimately predict.

If you want to research and refute those, as I frankly don't care enough to find them and cite them for you, you have my permission to do so. If you can refute those points with facts, I'll gladly update my theory to fit new facts. I'll even give you credit for changing my opinion and say "my theory and understanding were wrong". What I see from climate scientists is the opposite, twisting facts to a fit a theory, i twist my theory to fit the facts.
It is so much fun reading comments from non-scientists whose opinions differ. :)
Quoting 63. dubs854:



Not opinion, I've done the research, which is why I'm careful to not be asserting a single cause. Only a fool would assign a primary cause in an environment so complex. If you had done the same research with an open mind, you'd realize that it's far beyond our ability to measure and model and ultimately predict.

If you want to research and refute those, as I frankly don't care enough to find them and cite them for you, you have my permission to do so. If you can refute those points with facts, I'll gladly update my theory to fit new facts. I'll even give you credit for changing my opinion and say "my theory and understanding were wrong". What I see from climate scientists is the opposite, twisting facts to a fit a theory, i twist my theory to fit the facts.


Yes, opinion. Youve still yet to provide a shred of anything to support your assertions. A waste of everyones time. Nothing but an obfuscator. That may work on other forums, but there is a much higher burden of proof than simply your word here. Enough of your baseless bull. I posted my links to support my argument. Your facts are meaningless without support. You wouldnt even make it out of my undergrad class with that approach. Have fun pretending.
Quoting 46. Proveit:

In Texas we have had a cooler than average summer because we had a lot of rain...
You don't say. July is part of summer, right? Let's look at the state temperature and precipitation rankings for July so we can see just how cool and wet Texas has been:




Hmmm. Okay, well, that's just one month; let's go back and look at the last three months--May through July. That should give us a better look at this cold, wet Texas summer, no?




Well, that's not going to work. Bu that's not thin month, is it? Surely a cold, wet August has cooled things off and moistened things up; let's have a look at some preliminary F-6 data from the state's larger cities:

San Antonio? No...


Dallas? No...


Houston? No...


El Paso? No...


Oh, dear.

It seems facts would indicate that your above statement is invalid--which says a lot about the many other statements that came before and after it.
Earth's average surface temperature sets absolute new record in July
Copernicus Climate Change Service - Aug. 9.
...12th month in a row to set an absolute new record.
Quoting 65. Naga5000:



Yes, opinion. Youve still yet to provide a shred of anything to support your assertions. A waste of everyones time. Nothing but an obfuscator. That may work on other forums, but there is a much higher burden of proof than simply your word here. Enough of your baseless bull. I posted my links to support my argument. Your facts are meaningless without support. You wouldnt even make it out of my undergrad class with that approach. Have fun pretending.


No interest to make it out of your undergrad class.. been there, done that. make lots of money now and have no interest trying to do that again. cute that undergrad is a point of pride for you, real high life goals right there. good luck being broke with a bunch of student loans and no job with your self-righteous attitude. i'm not trying to prove you wrong, i've got better things to do with my life, sad that you don't.

since you seem to be as sharp as a bowling ball... whether I post links or not doesn't make it any less of a fact (or fallacy, but certainly not an opinion. ANYTHING but an opinion). Secondly, those interested, like me, should do their own research not believe information sent by random people online that link to very specific conclusion they are trying to reach. I'd have to provide links that are 5+ layers deep in dependencies to prove my point and based on our interaction I am quite sure you'll get distracted before the second article and I'll have wasted my time.

If you're going to try to step up to the big leagues, at least come prepared with the basics. You have all the competence of a gnat. Can't discern fact from opinion, clearly can't understand that I'm not going to be posting links for anyone, and equally as stupid, you feel that posting links on an extremely biased subject such as this will make any difference. I've already established my opinion on it, I fully admit to not knowing all of the causes of climate change and I have stated based on very obvious and easily verifiable facts why I feel that way. You and other clowns that are proud of passing an undergrad class think because they've read two articles that say the same thing are suddenly experts and have a deep understanding. Come back when you've provided value to this world.
Chris... You mention an old 1997 Climate Extremes report by Krause and Flood on maximum temperatures and say that it doesn't take AGW into account. How would such a report do that...unless by AGW you mean urban heat?
Quoting 68. dubs854:



No interest to make it out of your undergrad class.. been there, done that. make lots of money now and have no interest trying to do that again. cute that undergrad is a point of pride for you, real high life goals right there. good luck being broke with a bunch of student loans and no job with your self-righteous attitude. i'm not trying to prove you wrong, i've got better things to do with my life, sad that you don't.

since you seem to be as sharp as a bowling ball... whether I post links or not doesn't make it any less of a fact (or fallacy, but certainly not an opinion. ANYTHING but an opinion). Secondly, those interested, like me, should do their own research not believe information sent by random people online that link to very specific conclusion they are trying to reach. I'd have to provide links that are 5 layers deep in dependencies to prove my point and based on our interaction I am quite sure you'll get distracted before the second article and I'll have wasted my time.

If you're going to try to step up to the big leagues, at least come prepared with the basics. You have all the competence of a gnat. Can't discern fact from opinion, clearly can't understand that I'm not going to be posting links for anyone, and equally as stupid, you feel that posting links on an extremely biased subject such as this will make any difference. I've already established my opinion on it, I fully admit to not knowing all of the causes of climate change and I have stated based on very obvious and easily verifiable facts why I feel that way. You and other clowns that are proud of passing an undergrad class think because they've read two articles that say the same thing are suddenly experts and have a deep understanding. Come back when you've provided value to this world.


The undergrad class I teach. Seems this bowling ball has quite a bit on you. Thanks for the laugh as always. And again, no evidence just assertions. This will make a great example of Dunning Kruger to show in class.

I've written about climate science denial, I've given presentations on it at conferences, I teach my students how to evaluate resources and form arguments backed by legitimate research. You are going to need to bring more than your opinion, insults, and overstated importance to this forum. My point, which you missed, was your tactics and lack of citations to support your argument (which, yes, makes it just an opinion, and an ill informed one at that), is not even good enough to make it through a basic undergrad course in 2016. Unless you have any evidenced based refutation to my original post, I will not be engaging with you further. Toodles.
Quoting 66. Neapolitan:

You don't say. July is part of summer, right? Let's look at the state temperature and precipitation rankings for July so we can see just how cool and wet Texas has been:




Hmmm. Okay, well, that's just one month; let's go back and look at the last three months--May through July. That should give us a better look at this cold, wet Texas summer, no?




Well, that's not going to work. Bu that's not thin month, is it? Surely a cold, wet August has cooled things off and moistened things up; let's have a look at some preliminary F-6 data from the state's larger cities:

San Antonio? No...


Dallas? No...


Houston? No...


El Paso? No...


Oh, dear.

It seems facts would indicate that your above statement is invalid--which says a lot about the many other statements that came before and after it.


Just for the record...In July of 1934 the US Weather Bureau listed the Texas monthly average at 85.5°F... 0.6° above the 2016 value. And, in Washington and Oregon it was 2.4°F and 3.5°F warmer in 1934 than last July.
Quoting 71. Jawja:

Just for the record...In July of 1934 the US Weather Bureau listed the Texas monthly average at 85.5%uFFFDF... 0.6%uFFFD above the 2016 value. And, in Washington and Oregon it was 2.4%uFFFDF and 3.5%uFFFDF warmer in 1934 than last July.

Sorry Jawja, Proveit, but honestly I don't get it. What's your point ? Why argue about monthly statistics from one, two or even three states, and why carefully pick a given year to compare it with another carefully picked year ? Just curious...

Source.
Quoting 72. 999Ai2016:


Sorry Jawja, Proveit, but honestly I don't get it. What's your point ? Why argue about monthly statistics from one, two or even three states, and why carefully pick a given year to compare it with another carefully picked year ? Just curious...

Source.


It's typical straw man argumentation. They simply cannot grasp what a change in variance and mean temperature looks like to the observer. Like this probability density function of climate change:
Somebody asks: "I don't get it. What's your point ?". The point was to show how much the monthly temperatures in the US...every state (except California?), have been lowered seasonally, not only in 1934, one of the warmest years on record, but all the years from 1921 up to at least 1940. What's the point in that? Texas was thrown in because of some discussions about the temperatures in Texas. The data for the comparisons are those that NOAA put out this past July and those that the U.S. Weather Bureau put out every month in their "Condensed Climatic Summary". You can also see the record highs for each month, in each state, for comparison with new record highs and lows.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-0 7-0260.pdf
Quoting 74. Jawja:

Somebody asks: "I don't get it. What's your point ?". The point was to show how much the monthly temperatures in the US...every state (except California?), have been lowered seasonally, not only in 1934, one of the warmest years on record, but all the years from 1921 up to at least 1940. What's the point in that? Texas was thrown in because of some discussions about the temperatures in Texas. The data for the comparisons are those that NOAA put out this past July and those that the U.S. Weather Bureau put out every month in their "Condensed Climatic Summary". You can also see the record highs for each month, in each state, for comparison with new record highs and lows.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/062/mwr-062-0 7-0260.pdf


You should probably read the methodology used for adjustments. Essentially your argument boils down to: "but the data are adjusted", and that is a very poor argument considering the above rationale and methods for making adjustments. I'l never understand why accuracy is frowned upon, but seemingly only when it can be used for evidence against global warming. I thought accurate data was important. Regardless, global warming is not the change in record temperature reading for certain locations, it is a change in the mean values and variance of temperature over larger scales. Regional variability certainly still exists.
Indeed, I phrased that comment poorly! The 1997 Krause and Flood report was simply citing the Hoffman report which was published in 1964. So it is that report (the 1964 Hoffman one) that I was referring to so far as "not taking AGW" in to account when Hoffman speculated that the maximum possible temperature was in the 131°-133° range.

Quoting 69. Jawja:

Chris... You mention an old 1997 Climate Extremes report by Krause and Flood on maximum temperatures and say that it doesn't take AGW into account. How would such a report do that...unless by AGW you mean urban heat?
Quoting 75. Naga5000:



You should probably read the methodology used for adjustments. Essentially your argument boils down to: "but the data are adjusted", and that is a very poor argument considering the above rationale and methods for making adjustments. I'l never understand why accuracy is frowned upon, but seemingly only when it can be used for evidence against global warming. I thought accurate data was important. Regardless, global warming is not the change in record temperature reading for certain locations, it is a change in the mean values and variance of temperature over larger scales. Regional variability certainly still exists.



The question here was about the accuracy of record high temperatures. This should apply to others? But, this is not a denial of the fact that the globe has warmed almost a full degree C. It does seem strange that all older temperatures have been lowered and done in a very seasonal manner. This tends to make that warming a bit more recognizable. It also makes such things as "warmest year on record" change. For example, In 1946 the US Weather Bureau listed 1934 at 55.4°F. Today it's 54.10°F.
Quoting 70. Naga5000:



The undergrad class I teach. Seems this bowling ball has quite a bit on you. Thanks for the laugh as always. And again, no evidence just assertions. This will make a great example of Dunning Kruger to show in class.

I've written about climate science denial, I've given presentations on it at conferences, I teach my students how to evaluate resources and form arguments backed by legitimate research. You are going to need to bring more than your opinion, insults, and overstated importance to this forum. My point, which you missed, was your tactics and lack of citations to support your argument (which, yes, makes it just an opinion, and an ill informed one at that), is not even good enough to make it through a basic undergrad course in 2016. Unless you have any evidenced based refutation to my original post, I will not be engaging with you further. Toodles.


hahahhahahahahaha. even better, a broke college professor, far overpaid for the amount of value provided.. if it wasn't for the government subsidizing student loans far beyond market value for tuition, your pay would be commensurate with the value you provide. probably around 20k.

use it an example for anything you want, hopefully some of your students will be critical thinkers and sucking on the governments teet like yourself.
Quoting 70. Naga5000:



The undergrad class I teach. Seems this bowling ball has quite a bit on you. Thanks for the laugh as always. And again, no evidence just assertions. This will make a great example of Dunning Kruger to show in class.

I've written about climate science denial, I've given presentations on it at conferences, I teach my students how to evaluate resources and form arguments backed by legitimate research. You are going to need to bring more than your opinion, insults, and overstated importance to this forum. My point, which you missed, was your tactics and lack of citations to support your argument (which, yes, makes it just an opinion, and an ill informed one at that), is not even good enough to make it through a basic undergrad course in 2016. Unless you have any evidenced based refutation to my original post, I will not be engaging with you further. Toodles.


Also, I didn't know they used 'toodles' in India. Take care Nagarajan, good chat.
As citizens, it is our right to know the truth about global temperature data.
Quoting 78. dubs854:



hahahhahahahahaha. even better, a broke college professor, far overpaid for the amount of value provided.. if it wasn't for the government subsidizing student loans far beyond market value for tuition, your pay would be commensurate with the value you provide. probably around 20k.

use it an example for anything you want, hopefully some of your students will be critical thinkers and sucking on the governments teet like yourself.


That literally makes no sense. Education is priceless. The value Naga provides is priceless. How about I take all of your money and your assets and give it to Naga? He will generate far more growth, and more economic return by instilling skills into his students than you can ever do sitting here trolling the blog away.
Quoting 81. Astrometeor:



That literally makes no sense. Education is priceless. The value Naga provides is priceless. How about I take all of your money and your assets and give it to Naga? He will generate far more growth, and more economic return by instilling skills into his students than you can ever do sitting here trolling the blog away.


Its all good. Its anti-intellectualism run rampant. First Im an idiot college student, now Im a broke teacher. You cant win with these fools. :)
No ones a fool!
Except perhaps the one calling another a fool.
We all have different experience that brings the individual to their world view
Education is but one of these experiences and it comes in all forms.
The scope of modern education is to produce specialist with a skill set that fill a need for business of the State,Society ETC. In general the more obtuse that skill set is, the more likely few will follow the vocation. Take banking for example. If I were to say I loved the macro and micro economics course I attended at the university, you may think me dull. Now if I created the market of derivatives that made you quite wealthy, even if it was at the expense of the real economy, you would think I really had something on the ball. I could talk about cap and trade and carbon credits but depending on your life experience that would only illicit more diatribe from the narrow scope of your specialty. I can't fault you for the education you have since the State made you that way to fill it's needs I do fault you collectively for all the focus on the wrong facts. It is not about you but the future.
Quoting 83. retiredweathercop:

No ones a fool!
Except perhaps the one calling another a fool.
We all have different experience that brings the individual to their world view
Education is but one of these experiences and it comes in all forms.
The scope of modern education is to produce specialist with a skill set that fill a need for business of the State,Society ETC. In general the more obtuse that skill set is, the more likely few will follow the vocation. Take banking for example. If I were to say I loved the macro and micro economics course I attended at the university, you may think me dull. Now if I created the market of derivatives that made you quite wealthy, even if it was at the expense of the real economy, you would think I really had something on the ball. I could talk about cap and trade and carbon credits but depending on your life experience that would only illicit more diatribe from the narrow scope of your specialty. I can't fault you for the education you have since the State made you that way to fill it's needs I do fault you collectively for all the focus on the wrong facts. It is not about you but the future.

"Now if I created the market of derivatives that made you quite wealthy, even if it was at the expense of the real economy, you would think I really had something on the ball. (...) I do fault you collectively for all the focus on the wrong facts. It is not about you but the future."

Whaf kind of future ? Just curious...
Quoting 84. 999Ai2016:


"Now if I created the market of derivatives that made you quite wealthy, even if it was at the expense of the real economy, you would think I really had something on the ball. (...) I do fault you collectively for all the focus on the wrong facts. It is not about you but the future."
br>Whaf kind of future ? Just curious...

Whaf kind of future ? Just curious..
The original non-polemic argument was the hottest Temperature on Earth While the technique of rhetoric AKA Strawman that you suggest others of , you in fact do We all in fact do! You took my quote out of context in such a way as to distort its meaning. I spoke of the future of this discussion/ argument in order to find common ground. You strawmanned me by asking me a generality about the future
Since you can not prove that by my taking your course would make me stupid. Therefore taking your course will make me stupid. Is the kind of argument both sides fall into here. Ask the right question in the context that they are made so you have answers that are valid. I am more worried about Nut Picking Cherry Picking and Weakman argument made by the gatekeepers to the establishment of knowledge, then I am worried about the weather. Invite me into a futurist Blog and see how little I can see. Otherwise just try and be polite even to those you disagree with, don't flame the fire of their hostility.
At this point it's just weather.
Here's a dime, call me in 30 years, let me know what the climate is like.
Quoting 87. 999Ai2016:

Climate to inspire exodus from Middle East, North Africa in coming decades
UPI - May 2.

It is not all about Climate change in the Middle East and North Africa according to the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life the population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years.If thats not enough to disturb you The Ratio of Projected Population Size in 2050 compared to Population Size in 2001 for some of the countries can be found athttp://www.prb.org/images/4ratio-of-popsize2050. gif
weatherhistorian has created a new entry.