2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

you are so certain that you cannot see how little you know.

you cannot possibly examine all evidence and all data. The fact that you believe this is the point I was trying to make

I don’t refer to my expertise, I refer to the scientific consensus. It took the dozens of IPCC scientists thousands of hours to review hundreds of papers that took thousands of hours to produce. But you know better

Automatic stations tend not to get drunk, and the data will be checked before being admitted to the public record

your ‘point’ becomes more esoteric by the day

how many historical records need to fall before you acknowledge the trend?

your position is beyond unscientific at this point, the trends are established beyond any reasonable doubt

You are certain that efforts to get to carbon neutrality are overblown and that we should not take immediate and urgent action to transition to carbon neutral energy

unless you have recently changed your view in which case we are now in agreement

And it was a good bit higher than any other station in the network, with an unusual spike in both temperature and dewpoint yesterday afternoon. The spike in dewpoint would raise questions on sensor exposure as dewpoint should not show a sudden spike like that even if temperature does. No such spikes were evident on previous days so we will just have to see if it passes validation.

EDIT: Actually that blue line is not dewpoint but seems to be the minimum temperature in the (I think) 10-minute reporting period. In any case that's a very sharp spike.

Give it a rest. If goalpost shifting was an Olympic event you’d definitely be on the podium

Highlighting a spike is 'goal post shifting'.

I said yesterday that your talent lay in science. Perhaps I was too quick to judge.

"I am before I think".

Yes, and that was before yesterday. How does that in any way imply that I said the record would never be broken? You too are missing my whole point on severe heat in lower-CO2 times.

So is the new goalpost that climate change isn’t a problem unless the european maximum temperature record is beaten every year?

how many times have I mentioned the shifting of the bell curve in this thread? At least 10 by now. The 1977 record stood for 43 years because it was a rare event. By 2031 we will most likely have a higher European heat record and multiple instances where 48c will have been reached and exceeded

climate change is not all about breaking maximum temperature records, it’s about shifting the ‘normal’ which in turn means that what was once extreme weather becomes normal, and the new extremes are unprecedented events

I'm amazed at Akrasia's absolute hypocrisy. On the one hand he has a go at me for analysing a dataset but yet he questions the Kilkenny reading as "yer man was probably drunk or the sensor was [sic] properly calibrated".

At least the media have jumped on it before it’s verified.

The issue remains with carbon being blamed for local heat spikes. Ignoring other likely factors like deforestation, water management, development and farming.

Media is complete circus, not just regarding weather reporting.

Just in the interest of information, not shifting any goalposts, here is the station in question, about 2 km south of the town of Floridia.

Carbon being blamed for local heat spikes? This isn’t someone leaving an oven door open, it’s a heatwave spanning multiple countries lasting multiple days that may have synoptic causes that are ‘natural’ but have outcomes amplified by the increased energy caused by fundamentally altering the atmospheric composition through ghg emissions

Oh how stupid of me, you said "might have been drunk". Yes, that really makes a huge difference alright. Nowhere near 5-sigma on that one.

Here's the WMO's comment on their nitpicking goalpost-moving check of that reading (from their Facebook page). It's ok if they check it but not me.

You obviously still don't get my point on this heatwave so I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If it was beaten yesterday or may be beaten in the next few days is irrelevant.

I'm confused. You say

When did I discount it? I didn't. I did what the WMO are doing and analysing it.

But then you say there's an anomaly that calls its validity into question, and rightly so? So now I'm right to question it? I can't follow you at all.

By the same note, you're doubting a reading 150 years ago that you know nothing about and are making up a scenario where the observer may/could have been drunk (use semantics all you like, your point remains the same). You're purely doing that because you don't like the number. Whatever about validation checks, but drunk?

And if you want to nitpick, the station was not part of the Italian Met Service network, as you claimed above. Just tidying that one up too.

If that Kilkenny record was deemed anyway dodgy, then Met Eireann wouldn't have it listed in there records page:

Weather Extreme Records for Ireland - Met Éireann - The Irish Meteorological Service

Amazing the arrogance on here from people who think they know better about past weather than experts...