Global warming is usually measured by calculating the global average temperature anomaly of the Earth's surface.

But people do not die just because the global average temperature anomaly goes up. They die if actual local temperatures get too high.

How do we find out what the normal local temperatures are for a location?

The website www.timeanddate.com can be used to find out what the normal local temperatures are for a location. The information shown includes (for each month of the year) the high temperature, the low temperature, and the mean temperature. The diurnal temperature range (DTR) can be calculated by subtracting the low temperature from the high temperature. The information is also shown on a very clear and easy to understand graph.

Here are the steps to find out what the normal local temperatures are for just about any city.

1) go to the webpage https://www.timeanddate.com/weather
2) enter the name of the city that you are interested in into the search box and select that city (it must be a city, and not a State or Province)
3) this will take you to a webpage with a heading like "Weather in <the city that you selected>" or "Current Local Time in <the city that you selected>"
4) go to the menu just below this heading and move the mouse pointer over the menu item "Weather".
5) a drop down menu will appear and you need to click the submenu item "Climate (Averages)"
6) Sit back and enjoy the graph and the information

If anybody has trouble getting this to work then please contact me.

That information comes from climatologists, the same ones who say we're already in AGW. — frank

I am not sure what you mean by that Frank. Does that mean we can trust the information in the lecture, or that we should distrust it.

In the summary table at the bottom of the lecture it says "1850 AD - present : Warming trend". So the lecture is not denying AGW.

Good for you! Shame you missed the previous piece on the AMOC collapse. — unenlightened

The climate change gravy train is rolling along. All aboard !!!

The climate of the Holocene

Here is some information about the climate of the Holocene which climate change fanatics will refuse to believe.

The information comes from a course at The University of Arizona. The course is called ATMO 336 - Weather, Climate, and Society. The course includes a lecture called "The Climate of the Holocene". The webpage for the lecture can be found at:
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall10/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

The webpage for the lecture is well worth reading. It includes graphs, pictures, and a summary table at the end. The lecture includes a general theme that warmth is generally good and cold is generally bad.

Here are some selected quotes:

By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.

During the climatic optimum many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region. 6,000 years ago the Sahara was far more fertile than today and supported large herds of animals.

From 600-900 AD (The "Dark Ages"), global average temperatures were significantly colder than today. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 1100 - 1300 AD has been called either the Little Climatic Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. In Europe during this time:
- The Vikings established a colony on Greenland
- Farming was productive on Greenland (has not been productive again since that time)
- Grape vines were grown in England
- Wheat was grown in Norway (64° North latitude)

A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s. Horrendous floods devastated China in 1332 (reported to have killed several million people).

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1 degree Celsius lower than today. But in Europe:
- Re-advance of glaciers down mountains (valley houses in Swiss Alps were covered)
- Canals in Holland froze for three months straight. This rarely occurred before or after this period.
- Agricultural productivity dropped significantly, even becoming impossible in parts of northern Europe.

I watched this video and saw the following text in the subtitles:

And telling Bob who works over 40 hour weeks
in an office job in a cold and gray City
in a rainy miserable country that he
should no longer take that couple weeks
holiday to somewhere warm to escape his
miserable life because the climate
crisis is all his fault yeah I can see
how that doesn't go down very well

Bob doesn't like the cold. The word "cold" has negative connotations.

Bob likes to be warm. He takes a couple of weeks holiday to somewhere warm to escape his miserable (cold) life.

Bob could just wait a few years and then his "cold and gray" city will be "warm and sunny". All thanks to climate change.

NZ is not best placed for solar. They would do better to concentrate on hydro, wind, wave, and tidal. Australia is a bit sunnier tho, I hear. — unenlightened

In 2022, 87% of New Zealand's electricity came from renewable sources.

This is compared to around 25% renewable generation in neighboring Australia.

The following percentages are for 2023
- 60% of New Zealand's electricity came from hydropower
- 18% of New Zealand's electricity came from geothermal
- 7% of New Zealand's electricity came from wind

According to Google's AI overview:

New Zealand doesn't currently offer government subsidies for solar panels, but there are other ways to support solar energy, including:
- Solar subsidies from banks
- Labour's solar policy (basically an election bribe, but they lost the election)
- Community Renewable Energy Fund
- The Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) has a tool to help consumers assess the economics of solar installations.
- Solar buy-back rates

Of course, subsidies don't help much when the company supplying and maintaining your solar panels goes broke.

Is solar energy a good investment?

SolarZero Limited, New Zealand’s biggest solar energy company, has announced its liquidation, citing unsustainable operating losses and liquidity constraints.

The directors of SolarZero said the decision came after extensive efforts to explore restructuring options. “Regretfully, SolarZero and its key stakeholders were unable to find a viable solution to sustain the business.

Customers posting on SolarZero’s Facebook page were concerned about their contracts being honoured.
- one asked: “Can we please have a heavily discounted liquidator sale buyback scheme? Feels like a liability on the roof now.”
- another wrote: “Our contracts still stand and we still get the second battery free after 10 years, correct?”

Customers of SolarZero could buy solar panels and a battery set-up outright, which often runs to $20,000-plus or, as most did, pay nothing up-front.

The company continued to own all the hardware and the customer paid a set fee per month for “energy as a service”.

Rates varied depending on the set-up, especially the number of solar panels installed.

SolarZero would not provide further comment since liquidators have now been appointed.

if it's feasible, then it's grabbing free energy from the Sun. What's not to like? — jorndoe

Many people live in a fantasy world where they think that they can get energy for free.
- solar power is not free
- wind power is not free
- getting energy from in-space reflectors will not be free. Think about the cost of getting the reflectors into space. Operating the system. Maintaining the system. Salaries need to be paid. The company will want a good return on their assets. The company will want to make a profit (just like oil companies).

Startup Promises to Beam Sunlight from Space — jorndoe

How long until it is used as a weapon?

Respect for life — Seeker25

Promotion of health and well-being. — Seeker25

Coexistence in diversity, tolerance, and dialogue. Encouraging cooperation and minimizing confrontation. — Seeker25

Which forms of life should we respect?
mammals - (eukaryotes - animals)
birds - (eukaryotes - animals)
fish - (eukaryotes - animals)
reptiles - (eukaryotes - animals)
insects - (eukaryotes - animals)
roundworms (eukaryotes - animals)

monocots - (eukaryotes - plants)
dicots - (eukaryotes - plants)

bakers yeast - (eukaryotes - fungi)
fission yeast - (eukaryotes - fungi)

giardia protozoa - (eukaryotes)
malaria parasite - (eukaryotes)
red algae - (eukaryotes)
slime molds - (eukaryotes)

cyanobacteria - (bacteria)
thermus / deinococcus - (bacteria)
aquificaceae - (bacteria)
thermotogales - (bacteria)
protrobacteria - (bacteria)
chlamydiales - (bacteria)
GBF / green sulfur bacteria - (bacteria)
spirochaeles - (bacteria)
actinobacteria - (bacteria)
firmicutes - (bacteria)

crenarchaeota - (archaea)
euarchaeota - (archaea)

Health and well-being of which forms of life?

Minimizing confrontation with which forms of life? Is it okay to raise and slaughter animals for human consumption?

Thesis

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. Therefore, understanding the evolution of our planet can help us establish and explain the foundations for more harmonious and sustainable coexistence. — Seeker25

Alfred Lord Tennyson's phrase "red in tooth and claw" refers to the savage and merciless conflict in nature, or the struggle to survive in the wild. Darwin postulated that living organisms are perpetually embroiled in a "struggle for existence." For him, struggle and violence drove evolutionary advancement.

How do these ideas fit in with your belief that we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify within these evolutionary trends?

Humanity is disoriented and unclear about how to act. — Seeker25

Humanity is not a single entity. It is made up of many individuals who each have their own ideas about how to act.

What is considered "ethical" is highly subjective. Whose definition should be accepted?

I am increasingly convinced that everything aligned with the trends of evolution is good — Seeker25

Is the evolution of the great white shark into a more efficient killer a good thing?

Those Who Do Not Learn History Will Think That Today's Climate Is Different To The Past

New insights from Shakespeare’s England reveal striking parallels to contemporary climate change.

Unprecedented storms and devastating drought. Flash floods and wildfires ignited by the air’s dry heat. This is the experience for many in our modern world. But it was also the experience for those living amid England’s Little Ice Age.

While the causes of the climate change of today are well known, and likely different from that of the Little Ice Age, the experiences of living through both events are at times eerily similar.

In the 16th century, severe rain storms were far more common than cold snaps.

On Oct. 5, 1570, “a terrible tempest of wind and raine” caused flooding from Lincolnshire to London as rivers overflowed their banks, drowning towns, fields, crops and cattle. Storm surges inundated the coastline.

Four years later, towns from Newport to St. Ives suffered “raging floods,” and a “giant sea fish” (whale) washed up in the Thames from a massive surge up river. In May 1594, “soddane showres of haile [and] raine” destroyed houses, iron mills, crops and cattle in Sussex and Surrey. September of that year saw another deluge, with bridges taken down in Cambridge and Ware.

Fire and heat
If colder, wetter weather was a new normal for 17th century Britons, the hot, dry spring of 1666 caught Londoners unprepared. The Great Fire of London was one of the worst disasters of the age, and diarist John Evelyn recounts that “the heate … had even ignited the aire,” a comment reminiscent of descriptions of wildfire spread today.

Yet periods of extreme heat were surprisingly frequent during the previous century, especially in the England that Shakespeare knew. More than a dozen droughts were recorded across England in the 16th century, usually broken by extreme storms or floods. It never rained, it seems, but it poured. The Thames dried up completely in 1592.

As Thomas Short wrote in his Chronological History of English Weather, “an excessive drought, great death of cattle from want of water; springs and brooks were dried up; horsemen could ride the Thames.” Locals went into the mud to retrieve items long lost to the river.

Shakespeare’s hometown of Stratford-upon-Avon was nearly destroyed by fire twice, in 1594 and 1595, due to severe drought and heat. The warning signs were there for Londoners to beware of hot spells in the next century, but frost fairs and wet weather may have bred complacency.

These quotes are taken from:
https://theconversation.com/new-insights-from-shakespeares-england-reveal-striking-parallels-to-contemporary-climate-change-240755

The 2020 chart said that Valencia had a risk of increasing the sea level by 10% by floods, and it is astonishing how that graphic nailed what would happen four years later. — javi2541997

Could you please explain what this statement means. In general the rain that falls causing a flood evaporated from the sea in the first place. So the system is a cycle. It would not increase the sea level.

And there is no doubt about it. The sea is warmer, so more moisture evaporates. There is no doubt. That doesn't mean that every disaster is a record breaker, or else climate change isn't happening. :roll: — unenlightened

I fully accept that climate-change/global-warming (CC/GW) is happening. I don't accept that you can blame everything on CC/GW. When "scientists" blame CC/GW for something it is often hard to prove or disprove it. Many people accept everything that "scientists" say about CC/GW without questioning it.

I think that the way that "scientists" blame everything on CC/GW has made many people skeptical about CC/GW. This probably partly explains why more is not being done about CC/GW.

I was talking about Valencia, not Barcelona. Clever guy, trying to switch the topic when you feel trapped in your own views. — javi2541997

I told you that I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia, but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia

Both Valencia and Catalonia are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. They are not very far apart, about 303 km. Do you know of any reason why flood frequency would be significantly different between Valencia and Catalonia?

You gave none. — unenlightened

Perhaps you avoided my evidence because it disagrees with your narrow-minded prejudice. I will repeat my evidence here for you to read. Compare the statistics for the 2024 flood with the statistics for the 1879, 1957, and 1962 floods. There is only 5 years between the 1957 and 1962 floods. All 3 of these historical floods were similar to, or worse than, the 2024 flood.

Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? — javi2541997

Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse

“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events. — Matt McGrath - BBC

It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.

Background:
A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.

For the October 2024 Spain floods:
- caused the deaths of at least 161 people
- Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
- Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
- after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.

The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
- it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
- the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour

The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
- the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
- in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
- The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
- in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.

The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
- the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
- a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours

They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end. Like I said: just stupid, stupid people. — Mikie

The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.

Do you still have doubts? Agree-to-Disagree — javi2541997

You posted the following quote from the report:

Large changes in flood frequency mean that what is an extreme event today may become the norm by the end of the century in some locations. The frequency of coastal flooding events is estimated (Fig. 4) to increase by more than a factor of 10 in many European locations, and by a factor of more than 100 or even 1000 in some locations during the 21st century, depending on the emissions scenario.

And you said that Valencia has a red dot on the map of "Projected changes in the frequency of coastal flooding".

Barcelona, which is part of Catalonia, also has a red dot on the map. Both Valencia and Barcelona are on the coast of the Balearic Sea. I couldn't find flood frequency data for Valencia but I did find flood frequency data for Catalonia.

From 1900 to 2011, 277 flood events, mainly flash floods, were recorded in Catalonia, and 61 of these events caused catastrophic damage. — Journal of Hydrology

From the beginning of 1900 to the end of 2011 is 112 years. Over this time period there were on average nearly 2.5 flood events per year. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, 25 flood events per year, or just over 2 flood events per month. What would the frequency of flood events be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?

If we just look at the floods that caused catastrophic damage, there were 61 in 112 years. That is an average of just over 0.5 catastrophic floods per year (1 catastrophic flood every 2 years). What would the frequency of floods that caused catastrophic damage be if the frequency increased by a factor of 10? Answer, just over 5 catastrophic floods per year. What would the frequency of catastrophic floods be if the frequency increased by a factor of 100 or 1000?

In summary, it appears that the "scientists" are not aware of the historical flood frequency, or they have overestimated the factor by which flood frequency will increase. What do you think about this? Do you believe that flood frequency will increase by a factor of 10 (or 100 or 1000)?

Just because they could be wrong doesn't mean they are wrong. — frank

Just because they could be right doesn't mean they are right.

I have been in the IT industry for the last 40 years. I have been a programmer, a senior programmer, an analyst, a systems programmer, and for the last 12 years I was responsible for testing software and hardware.

It is very difficult to make complex computer software bug free. Climate models deal with systems that are complex and chaotic. Because they have many iterations a tiny bug can have a very large effect on the result. There is a lot of uncertainty in climate modelling and climate projections.

Here is a good introduction to model uncertainty:
https://www.jbarisk.com/news-blogs/modelling-and-uncertainty-the-extra-dimension

Scientists use super computers to model the climate. — frank

Frank, I think that you have too much faith in "super computers". "Super computers" run programs that are designed and written by people, possibly scientists. If the people get something wrong then the "super computer" will still give the wrong answer, just like an ordinary computer. But the "super computer" will produce the wrong answer faster.

What we really need are " super-duper infallible AI genius computers". :grin:

There is a whole fucking video of justification, you complete cockwomble. — unenlightened

Have I touched a sore point?

I gave plenty of evidence to support my view. Why don't you try to refute my evidence? The answer is obvious, you can't refute my evidence. So you respond with abusive name calling.

What is your point of sharing the history and dates of Valencia's floods? — javi2541997

My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse.

There have been floods as bad as, and worse than, the 2024 floods in the distant past, long before climate change was an issue.

"Scientists" attribute every negative event to climate change. But "scientists" seem to have an agenda and don't want to compare recent negative events to historical negative events. This is because the comparison could show that climate change may not have made the negative event worse.

[Added later]
Please note that I am not downplaying the seriousness of this disaster. I am questioning whether it is justified to claim that climate change made the floods worse.

Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? — javi2541997

Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse

“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events. — Matt McGrath - BBC

It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.

Background:
A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.

For the October 2024 Spain floods:
- caused the deaths of at least 161 people
- Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
- Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
- after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.

The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
- it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
- the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour

The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
- the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
- in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
- The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
- in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.

The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
- the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
- a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours

They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end. Like I said: just stupid, stupid people. — Mikie

The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.

I'm sure politicians and economists are going to take measures to start reducing the rate at which we are increasing these levels really soon, and if they haven't actually committed to reducing our contribution to zero well I'm sure they will be doing that as well one of these days. — unenlightened

When are "scientists" going to start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels? COP29, the taxpayer funded annual holiday for climate scientists, is about to start. How many plane flights and private jet trips will this entail? Climate scientists tell the public that plane flights are very bad for climate change, but apparently that doesn't apply to them. People might start taking climate change more seriously if climate scientists "walked the walk", and didn't just "talk the talk".

A total of 83,884 people attended COP28 in person, plus 2,089 online, taking the total number of participants to almost 86,000. This means COP28 was comfortably the largest climate COP in history – topping COP27 by more than 35,000.

I am sure that "scientists" will start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels soon, or when pigs fly, whichever comes first.

I think that most people suffer from the Dunning Kruger Effect to some degree. Most people overestimate their own expertise. This even applies to "intelligent" people.

So many people think they need a water heater continuously heating so they can instantly have a shower — frank

How long are you willing to wait to have a shower?

A quickie, something for the weekend, to make you me, anyway, smile. — unenlightened

How can they get such good results when they are being destroyed by climate-change/global-warming?

It appears that the threat from climate-change/global-warming can be greatly reduced without the need to stop using fossil fuels. A little bit of adaptation and conservation work can achieve amazing results.

No. they are supposed to smile at the sarcasm. Like this : :grin: — unenlightened

So should we assume that everything that you say is sarcastic?

Herewith, some more lies and propaganda from the new scientist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG_iHwEn33I — unenlightened

Please list the things that you think are "lies and propaganda".

The YouTube video that you link to is a New Scientist weekly podcast (Oct 12, 2024). The discussion about overshooting 1.5 degrees of global warming is based on a paper published in Nature that week. The paper has been peer reviewed.

The authors of the paper are:
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Gaurav Ganti, Quentin Lejeune, Biqing Zhu, Peter Pfleiderer, Ruben Prütz, Philippe Ciais, Thomas L. Frölicher, Sabine Fuss, Thomas Gasser, Matthew J. Gidden, Chahan M. Kropf, Fabrice Lacroix, Robin Lamboll, Rosanne Martyr, Fabien Maussion, Jamie W. McCaughey, Malte Meinshausen, Matthias Mengel, Zebedee Nicholls, Yann Quilcaille, Benjamin Sanderson, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Jana Sillmann, Christopher J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Emily Theokritoff, Rachel Warren, Jeff Price & Joeri Rogelj

But you decided that their work is "more lies and propaganda". Are people meant to take you seriously?

It must be global warming leading to an excess of hot air. :nerd: :sweat: — unenlightened

Exactly !!!

There is an enormous lack of critical thinking when it comes to global warming. Many people are gullible enough to accept what they are told without thinking. :vomit:

There has never been an official nighttime temperature of over 50°C recorded ever anywhere. — Baden

Where is your evidence for this? Have you just made up this claim because you want it to be true? I have done a lot of researching about this and the biggest problem is that they don't specify the time of day that the maximum temperature occurs. So you can't tell if the maximum temperature happened during the day or during the night. Can you prove otherwise?

On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C. — unenlightened

The following information describes how the temperature at night can be higher than the temperature during the day. In certain circumstances it is possible for the temperature at night in Kuwait to exceed 50°C.

Yes, there have been instances where nighttime temperatures have been higher than daytime temperatures, especially in certain climates or weather conditions. This phenomenon can occur in desert regions where daytime temperatures soar due to intense sunlight, but at night, the temperature might not drop significantly due to factors like cloud cover or humidity.

In summary, while it is uncommon, there are specific conditions under which the temperature at night can exceed the temperature during the day. — Quora

This could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century.

On the contrary, the fact that daytime temperatures are reduced by extra absorption of heat by concrete could explain why day time temperatures have decreased on average. Except that they haven't, they have increased in spite of that extra absorption. It does explain why nighttime temperatures have increased though, but not quite to 50°C. — unenlightened

Where is your evidence to support these statements?

So what next, Troll? — unenlightened

You have given me the perfect opportunity to show how leaving out relevant details can create an incorrect picture or impression about what the truth is. In this case it is about global warming.

''The number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century, noted the meteorologist.''

That's significant.

(Research time necessary to discover this: 3 minutes) — Baden

The following information took me 10 minutes of research time. Perhaps you should have spent an extra 7 minutes checking the meteorologist's claim.

There’s nothing they’ve said that’s inaccurate. — John McMannis

That is probably correct. The problem is with what they didn't say.

If the number of days over 50C has tripled since 2000, as was pointed out, then that by itself appears significant. — John McMannis

Yes, that does appear to be significant. But what does it signify?

I am not disputing the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. I am pointing out that there is more information that is relevant to the claim and that the meteorologist has not mentioned it.

The meteorologist's claim creates the impression that global warming has caused record high temperatures in Kuwait. But wait, could there be another explanation for the record high temperatures.

First, a few things about Kuwait:
- with the discovery of oil, Kuwait has undergone a transformative urban boom from a small Arab maritime town to a modern-day metropolis in less than half a century
- Kuwait City itself is a concrete metropolis, and as such, retains the heat

I immediately considered the possibility that the record high temperatures were caused by the UHI (urban heat island) effect, rather than being caused directly by global warming.

There are a number of scientific articles about the UHI effect in Kuwait. Here are 2 of them.

Diurnal and seasonal dynamics of the canopy-layer urban heat island of Kuwait
RMets - Royal Meteorological Society
International Journal of Climatology
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.8560?af=R
From Abstract:
Mean positive UHICL intensities, ranging from 1.1°C to 3.8°C at night, are observed consistently across all months, owing to the prevalence of clear skies from winter to summer. Negative UHICL intensities, indicating a typical daytime urban cool island (UCICL), are most prominent on summer days, exhibiting a mean hourly magnitude range between 0.6°C and 2.6°C that extends into the early parts of the evening.

Spatial Distribution of Land Surface Temperatures in Kuwait: Urban Heat and Cool Islands
National Library of Medicine
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246769/
From Abstract:
During the day, the temperature difference (urban/suburban minus versus governorates) was −1.1 °C (95% CI; −1.2, −1.00, p < 0.001) indicating a daytime urban cool island. At night, the temperature difference (urban/suburban versus rural governorates) became 3.6 °C (95% CI; 3.5, 3.7, p < 0.001) indicating a nighttime urban heat island.

Conclusion
If there is a UHI effect at night of up to 3.6 °C or 3.8°C then that could explain the meteorologist's claim that the number of days per year that see temperatures rise above 50C have more than tripled since the turn of the century. It is not necessarily caused directly by global warming.

Why did you bring up Kuwait? — frank

Kuwait has been in the news recently because of the record temperature recorded from Kuwait's Mitribah weather station. A "staggering" 54°C.

Global-warming/climate change (GW/CC) fanatics have gone wild claiming that Kuwait has become "almost unlivable". In truth it has nearly always been "almost unlivable". But GW/CC fanatics don't want to let the facts get in the way of a good story that they want to hear.

But Mr troll is suddenly the world expert on weather station rules on the basis of a photo. — unenlightened

A picture is worth a thousand words. Are you claiming that the photo is not genuine?

And questioning things is better than accepting them with your eyes shut and your brain turned off.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has officially evaluated temperature record extremes of 54.0 °C at two locations, one in Mitribah, Kuwait, on 21 July 2016 and a second in Turbat, Pakistan, on 28 May 2017.

If the WMO accepts the temperature record from Kuwait's Mitribah weather station, given that it obviously doesn't meet the standards set by the National Weather Service, then I have lost all faith in the WMO. The WMO have shown that they cannot be trusted.

I would have banned, ... — unenlightened

So you want to be surrounded by "yes men". Perhaps you should change your name to Donald Trump.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

The absolute truth about something, without omission, embellishment, or alteration.

One of the things that concerns me about global-warming/climate-change is the omission of some information. This can create an incorrect picture or impression about what the truth is.

Take the recent highest temperature record from Kuwait’s Mitribah weather station, a staggering 54°C.

Now look at the Wikipedia article about Mitribah. Here is the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitribah

Look at the picture of the weather station. It appears to be surrounded on at least 2 sides by concrete block walls.

The National Weather Service says this about the proper siting of a weather station:
"When possible, the shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.). The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface."

Kuwait’s Mitribah weather station does not appear to meet the standards. It should not be used as a reliable trustworthy site for temperature measurements. But it is being used to scare and panic people about global-warming/climate-change.

@unenlightened

The world's hottest city whose coast can burn sea creatures to death and whose streets feature air conditioning has been branded "unliveable".

I thought that you would be able to connect the dots. But apparently I was wrong.

People like you try to create the impression that Kuwait has become "unlivable" because of global-warming/climate-change. The truth is that it has almost always been "unlivable".

Compare these 2 Color Temperature Figures. One is for 2022 and the other is for 1989. A difference of 33 years. They look fairly similar to me, with approximately the same "sweltering" area. So Kuwait is about the same degree of "unlivable" in both years.

https://weatherspark.com/h/y/104331/2022/Historical-Weather-during-2022-in-Kuwait-City-Kuwait#Figures-ColorTemperature

https://weatherspark.com/h/y/104331/1989/Historical-Weather-during-1989-in-Kuwait-City-Kuwait#Figures-ColorTemperature

On the subject of air conditioning. Carrier was the first air conditioning company to be present in Kuwait way back in 1946. Mr. Morad Yusuf Behbehani was appointed as authorized distributor and the first air conditioner was delivered to the then Emir of Kuwait in the year 1946.

Before air conditioning Kuwait must have been like living in the fires of hell. That really was "unlivable".