Almost As Hot As 1953

Someone left this comment on my YouTube channel today:

Temperatures passed 50 degrees Celsius (122 Fahrenheit) in northern India as an unrelenting heatwave triggered warnings of water shortages and heatstroke.

So, almost as hot as 1953.

12 Jun 1953, 1 – The Daily Oklahoman at Newspapers.com

Same temperature as 1935.

27 May 1935 – TRAGIC HEAT WAVE

And similar to 1966.

p4 – 15 Jun 1966 – The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 – 1995) 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Almost As Hot As 1953

  1. gregole says:

    How soon we forget. It has been hotter in the 1950s and 1930s. Nothing we are seeing now is out of the ordinary.

  2. John F. Hultquist says:

    We were in Tucson many years ago. (1976 ?)
    Temp reached 117°F.
    That’s too hot for me, and an energy-rich society
    can provide coping strategies.

    Your commenter “Board and Tired” – – Is that a Maple board? Or Walnut Board?
    Likely is not well acquainted with the real World.

  3. Gerald Machnee says:

    Tony:
    Here is someone on Quora who cannot understand your correlation graph:
    ——————————————————

    Patrick Banner
    8h ago

    There is no proof in the correlation graph, and to assert so is a logical fallacy.

    I have already addressed the question of measuring warming caused by CO2, and this is the second time I’ve stated that I’ve already addressed it. Go find what I said earlier.

    EDIT: Found it for you:

    I reiterate that Tony himself provided all the evidence you should need that CO2 is the main force behind warming. After all, he provided a graph that showed a very nice correlation between CO2 and (independently calculated, since you have no proof otherwise) temperature adjustments. That kind of correlation is extremely rare, as you said. Evidence.

    If we could just “measure” the effects of individual things like CO2, then there would be no debate about climate change from people who wish to deny reality, such as yourself. Instead you seize on the fact that the field is complicated as evidence that it’s not reality. That’s called a logical fallacy and, in this case, a conspiracy theory.

    • Gabriele says:

      Link to the quora question, please?

      • Gerald Machnee says:

        It started here:
        Is there an explanation for why most Republicans deny the existence of climate change? Is it because of their pro-business leanings biases?
        Obinna Onwuchekwa
        Obinna Onwuchekwa, avid follower of US politics
        Updated May 9

        It’s not true that most Republicans deny the existence of climate change.

        According to a Monmouth poll last year, about two-thirds of Republicans believe that climate change is happening.

        Now why do one-third of Republicans not believe in climate change?

        It’s not because they’re ignorant. It’s actually the opposite.

        The more Republicans know about climate science, the less likely they are to believe in anthropogenic climate change[1] .

        And the more educated a Republican is, the less likely he is to believe in climate change.

        Perhaps this is because Republicans, even educated ones, don’t just read. All that time spent buying guns and controlling women’s bodies mean they don’t have time for reading.

        Except, Americans who doubt climate change actually know more about climate change than Americans who believe:

        So the common claim that Republicans doubt climate change because of ignorance and distrust of science is false. Republicans are actually more scientifically literate than Democrats.

        The reason many Republicans doubt climate change is that they perceive, rightly, that many Democrats want to use it as a Trojan Horse to pass their preferred policies. The Green New Deal is exhibit one. How exactly is a jobs guarantee going to fight climate change? How about free healthcare? How come all the proposed “solutions” conveniently give liberals all the stuff they want e.g. more public transport, higher taxes while stuff like nuclear power is ignored?

        When the left stops trying to use climate change as an excuse to pass liberal policies, Republicans will come around. As Beto O’ Rourke says, we have just 10 years left to address the issue[2]. So Democrats better change soon.

        Footnotes

        [1] Climate‐Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

        [2] Beto: We Only Have ‘10 Years’ Left To Address Climate Change

  4. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Johor says:

    What the solar activity level in 1953? Was there a blocking high creating stagnant air over the Deccan? When the temperature commonly rises above 115 F, 123 is not such a stretch in the right conditions.

    Was desertification an issue at the time? Is it greener now that there is more CO2? That may bring down the temperature several degrees.

    Look at the area around Auroville south of Chennai. Only 50 years ago it was a ghastly desert with a few straggling palms and wasted cattle. Now it is a lush forest – entirely hand planted by Auroville residents as part of a long term plan to reclaim the land from the desert.

    The difference should also be detectable in the Sahel where the northern edge has been pushing into the Sahara for almost 40 years – mow about 500 km north of where it was in 1982. Does greening the desert reduce the daily maxima?

    Good article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *