Last week, the BBC reported that seawater along the tip of Florida had exceeded “hot tub” temperatures of 37.8°C (100°F) in recent days, “making it potentially the hottest ever measured”. The Guardian was in fine alarmist form noting that the Florida recording posed a threat to human food supplies and the livelihoods of those working in the water. Similar hysteria was to be found across most of the mainstream media. Alas, curiously missing from all this excitable coverage was a note that just 48 hours later the temperature plummeted to around 85°F.
The reading was taken from a buoy in Manatee Bay which is managed by the Everglades National Park, and located north of Key Largo. The upper left graph below shows that the temperature moved between 90-101°F on consecutive days, then fell away rapidly to around 85°F.
Examining the ‘record’ on the climate site Watts Up With That?, the former ecology lecturer Jim Steele observed that water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than rising CO2. Steele noted that the Manatee Bay buoy measuring the water temperature was in a small embayment surrounded by landform and this forms a natural hot tub. Low winds and a high pressure system further helped heat the bay, while muddy waters darkened the water enhancing solar heating.
Steele noted that the science of solar ponds has shown that when fresh water overlayed saltier water, heat gets trapped, and temperatures can be as much as 60°F hotter than the surface at depths between five and 10 feet.
To maintain the “crisis hoax”, Steele suggests it’s also important to ignore conflicting data. Southern Florida has several buoys, some measuring water temperature, some air and some both. Just 56 miles to the south-west of Manatee Bay, the VAKF1 buoy measured water temperatures that were 10°F lower than Manatee Bay on those same days, as shown in the lower left graph (above), which then cooled to 86°F. Manatee Bay lacked air temperature data but VAKF1 reported a high air temperature of 91°F (lower right graph) which then cooled to the low 80°Fs, even dipping to 76°F. “These air temperatures don’t even approach being unprecedented,” said Steele.
Jim Steele has a lifetime’s experience in working for environmental education projects. For 25 years he ran the Sierra Nevada Field Campus for San Francisco State University. As part of one monitoring project, he studied the effect of regional climate change on bird populations in the Sierra Nevada.
Mainstream media are now clearly in the grip of a climate catastrophisation mania where activists scour the world for any unusual weather event or recording. Normal reporting standards seem to have been abandoned in the rush to scare populations to comply with the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Top level politicians encourage widespread panic with Al Gore ranting about “boiling oceans”, while a deranged Antonio Guterres claimed earlier this week that we live in an age of “global boiling”. At a stroke, the UN Secretary General seems to have retired the Guardian’s ‘Global Heating’ invention. Last year’s Nobel Physics Laureate Dr. John Clauser says the climate narrative has corrupted his beloved science. Meanwhile, global boiling is promoted as global surface temperatures are retrospectively adjusted upwards by state-funded bodies, while the accurate satellite record shows a near nine-year pause. In the U.K., the Met Office happily uses corrupted station temperature data that the World Meteorology Organisation states has a error estimate of up to 2°C. The British weather service still seems inordinately proud of its 60-second U.K. heat record last year, despite evidence that three Typhoon jets were landing around the time on the runway next to the measuring devise at RAF Coningsby.
On Wednesday, the BBC’s Georgina Rannard wrote a story asking if the Gulf Stream could collapse by 2025. This is pure Day After Tomorrow sci-fi territory, promoting fears of catastrophic cooling in the northern hemisphere, with widespread impacts across the planet. Again the story was all over the mainstream media with USA Today reporting the Atlantic Ocean currents could soon collapse, adding, “how you may endure dramatic weather changes”.
The story originated from a recently published scientific paper and was pure clickbait for impressionable activists. The claims are based on limited observation evidence producing computer model projections. The authors state “with high confidence” that the change will occur between 2025-2095. However, the paper does contain this massive caveat, which went unreported in any of the media coverage: this prediction is only valid “under the assumption that the model is approximately correct, and we of course, cannot rule out that other mechanisms are at play, and thus, the uncertainty is larger”.
Needless to say, the story went around the world and was reported in blazing headlines. However, it seems eyebrows are starting to be raised about this sort of guff, even in alarmist circles. The climate alarmist’s climate alarmist is Professor Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann of Penn University, but rerunning the Day After Tomorrow script was not wholly to his taste. According to USA Today, he said: “I’m not sure the authors bring much to the table other than a fancy statistical method. History is littered with flawed predictions based on fancy statistical methods; sometimes they’re too fancy for their own good.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Oh the irony of Michael Mann saying “History is littered with flawed predictions…(etc)”. Is he really saying this with a straight face, or is he having a little dig at himself? Somehow I doubt he is.
Michael Mann was and is a full blown liar.. and taken to the cleaners by an honourable man.. Dr Tim Ball who called him out about his hockey stick graph by simply asking for the data. Mann refused to give it of course.. I wonder why.. The Canadian court found in Tim Balls favour..
Hockey Stick fraud was disproven 15 years ago. But there he is the little fat Mann with his millions, doing the bidding of ‘the powers’ to quote one of his emails. Hide the decline fat boy. And oh, yeah never make your code, source data, data schemas, business logic available for review….you know the science.
There are many things to dislike about Mann but I don’t think salaries US universities run into the millions and he never struck me as particularly fat.
The equally odious Michael Moore however is both.
Boiling Ocean Update: Florida Sea Temperature ‘Record’ Drops 15°F in just 48 Hours
You need to be careful Chris.. that’s f
ightingcancelling talk amongst certain types..‘Last week, the BBC reported that seawater along the tip of Florida had exceeded “hot tub” temperatures of 37.8°C (100°F) in recent days, “making it potentially the hottest ever measured”.’
There is abundant research which shows that the BBC is posing a serious threat to the mental health of many susceptible people (particularly young people), causing clinical depression, and even amplifying the experience of physical pain – according to the BBC.
From this BBC website:
‘catastrophising: a mental habit in which you overestimate the chances of something bad happening, and exaggerate the potential negative consequences of that scenario.
“It’s a negatively skewed way of thinking, which elevates the intensity of emotions to levels that are hard to manage, and in some cases they are overwhelming,” explains Dr Patrick Keelan, a psychologist and certified therapist in Alberta, Canada.
Abundant research shows catastrophising can pose a serious threat to mental health, and may also amplify feelings of distress accompanying conditions such as chronic pain’
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220725-catastrophising-how-toxic-thinking-can-lead-down-dark-path
And this BBC website:
“Unhelpful thinking patterns such as imagining the worst – also known as over-generalising or ‘catastrophising’ – can also contribute to a downward spiral into depression.”
http://wwwnews.live.bbc.co.uk/science/0/22020430
The BBC needs to take its own advice.
‘On this year’s Earth Day, a man named Wynn Bruce set himself on fire because of his despair about climate change. In April 2018, David Buckel performed a similar act by dousing himself in gasoline, saying in an email beforehand, “My early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves.”
In July 2020, a young woman, Linda Zhang, took her own life because of climate despair. Linda wrote to the New York Times that she no longer wanted to be “reciting poetry even as the world is burning.”
At the French Open tennis tournament last month, another young woman tied herself to the net by the neck, protesting climate change by wearing a shirt stating, “We only have 1028 days left.”
These may seem like extreme acts and demonstrations, but in Canada, ER Dr. Lori Adamson reported that kids are coming in due to attempted suicide from the fear of climate change. Additionally, she reported that at least three young patients attempted a drug overdose because of climate distress. Altogether, 75% of young people fear that “the future is frightening” because of climate change.
How do people become so anxious about the climate? First, they learn to be anxious at school. The EPA has provided climate change resources for educators to use in classrooms that foment an exaggerated sense of urgency, which teachers reinforce…
…Instead of using fear over the most extreme weather scenarios, our media, leaders, parents, and teachers should communicate to our young people the complete story of fossil fuels and the benefits of affordable and reliable energy.’
https://www.texaspolicy.com/the-new-trend-plaguing-young-people-eco-anxiety/
That statement by the BBC does need a fact check. The temperature was recorded at one point only; in topography a point can’t be along anything.
The worst case mental health problems create symptoms such as gluing yourself to the street, climbing onto bridges, blocking traffic, throwing paint over precious paintings, and invading high profile sporting events. This has always been a serious problem when people are led to believe things that are either not true or are grossly exaggerated. In the case of climate change they are grossly exaggerated for political purposes but those who fall ill are convinced it is all about science. They are overcome with faith and emotion and need prescribed a 2 week course of fact and reason.
The BBC needs to be closed down.
Globaloney Ice Aging and Cooling (1970s).
Globaloney Warming (1980s)
Globaloney Weather Weirding (2000s)
Globaloney Changing (2010)
Globaloney Boiling (2023)
And lest we forget Climate Gate 2009, 2010, 2019.
Not one single prediction from these lying arselings has proven true. In all cases their claims were and are the opposite of reality. Follow the $ to get to the fake science.
Slightly off topic:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66352286
HS2 is unachievable.
Can we have our money back please?
That’s gone Hux.. sitting comfortable in an offshore tax haven no doubt.
Record temperatures are always going to happen at places which are typically hotter than surrounding measurement stations such as airports (for air) or secluded, protected bays (for water). That is obvious. They are still records. The question is whether the record is significant or not. Is it just a statistical outlier or was the area as a whole actually hotter than ever before. So in the case of Coningsby about 30 stations in the UK broke the previous UK record of which six went over 40C. Four of those were airports (including Coningsby) – but that is my point – we expect airports to be a bit hotter than other places so obviously they would tend to have the highest temperatures on a record breaking day.
The Florida record is harder to assess because the temperatures of the water at other nearby locations are not easily available (the air temperatures are beside the point – it was the sea water temperature that was the issue).
As a statement of the blindingly obvious your comment would be difficult to improve on.
Well done.
Not so well done in entirely missing the point.
The BBC and so many others, in reporting these ‘records’ are attempting to reinforce a narrative of impending global doom through climate change.
That is just plain silly.
I am sorry. I should have explained my point more clearly.
As I read it, the main point of the article is that the BBC, Guardian etc are being deliberately deceptive by posting stories about record temperatures from places and times that are exceptional (airports, enclosed bays).
My point is that almost all records, whether deceptive or not, will come from places and times that are exceptional. So you cannot use that as evidence that the records are deceptive. Records are deceptive if they are statistical freaks but not if they are a part of a larger event. The Coningsby record was clearly part of a larger event. I haven’t seen any data to determine if the Florida record was part of something larger or not.
The BBC’s motives for publishing these records are another topic.
As I say, you entirely missed the point:
‘The Guardian was in fine alarmist form noting that the Florida recording posed a threat to human food supplies and the livelihoods of those working in the water. Similar hysteria was to be found across most of the mainstream media. Alas, curiously missing from all this excitable coverage was a note that just 48 hours later the temperature plummeted to around 85°F.’
But well done anyway…..not really.
In science, when taking a series of readings it is customary to reject extreme results (they are referred to as outliers I believe, although outliars (sic) might be more appropriate).
Additionally, especially with temperatures, instantaneous values are also treated with suspicion because of the thermal inertia of the medium (water in this case) prevent instantaneous changes, therefore the recorded value is considered an artefact.
The concept of a record value doesn’t exist in science.
Oh, and the only larger event Coningsby was part was squadron manoeuvres and Similarly, as I have mentioned elsewhere, the Florida event was at one particular point and wasn’t replicated further afield.
Funnily enough I agree. Records have little scientific importance in this context. They are just indications of something that may be happening. So why all this fuss about whether the record is at an airport or whatever?
Why do these records get so widely and prominently publicised?
For the average consumer of news, is the takeaway from such stories that something may be happening or that something is happening?
Because they can be ways of highlighting what is happening without reaching the status of scientific evidence.
‘…the Florida recording posed a threat to human food supplies and the livelihoods of those working in the water.’
Do you agree with that?
Yes – in the sense that it suggested that the water may be warming in such a way as to affect their livelihoods as explained in the article.
Well then, that is just plain silly, as explained above…….
‘…the Florida recording posed a threat to human food supplies and the livelihoods of those working in the water.’
No…
‘…..Steele noted that the Manatee Bay buoy measuring the water temperature was in a small embayment surrounded by landform, and this forms a natural hot tub. Low winds and a high pressure system further helped heat the bay, while muddy waters darkened the water enhancing solar heating.
Steele noted that the science of solar ponds has shown that when fresh water overlayed saltier water, heat gets trapped, and temperatures can be as much as 60°F hotter than the surface at depths between five and 10 feet.
To maintain the “crisis hoax”, Steele suggests it’s also important to ignore conflicting data.
Southern Florida has several buoys, some measuring water temperature, some air, and some both. Just 56 miles to the south-west of Manatee Bay, the VAKF1 buoy measured water temperatures that were 10°F lower than Manatee Bay on those same days, as shown in the lower left graph (above), which then cooled to 86°F.
Manatee Bay lacked air temperature data but VAKF1 reported a high air temperature of 91°F (lower right graph) which then cooled to the low 80°Fs, even dipping to 76°F.
“These air temperatures don’t even approach being unprecedented,” said Steele.
Jim Steele has a lifetime’s experience in working for environmental educations projects.’
Why not write to Mr Steele if you are still confused?
Why not write to Mr Steele if you are still confused?
I am not confused and I doubt he would reply. I just draw different conclusions from you from his observations.
The question is:
Is there evidence that the waters around there might be significantly warmer than they normally are for the time of year. (No one seems to be challenging that if they are then that is a threat to human food supplies and the livelihoods of those working in the water.)
There is scope for quite a lot of debate about the level of evidence. One buoy on one occasion does not amount to proof. But the BBC says two other buoys also registered very high temperatures (although not ove 100). It does at least raise the question why has this buoy given this temperature when it has not done so before. All the conditions that Steele mentions will certainly have happened before and did not produce such a high temperature.
Steele points to another buoy but it is 56 miles away. He also points to many air temperature measurements but they are irrelevant. We are concerned with sea temperatures not air temperatures.
So I think “threat” is a reasonable description. A threat does not necessarily mean the danger is probable, possible is sufficient.
Clearly you are confused, plain for all to see.
To comprehend what is written, first you have to read it….
‘Jim Steele observed that water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than rising CO2.
Steele noted that the Manatee Bay buoy measuring the water temperature was in a small embayment surrounded by landform…..
Steele noted that the science of solar ponds has shown that when fresh water overlayed saltier water, heat gets trapped, and temperatures can be as much as 60°F hotter than the surface at depths between five and 10 feet.’
This is key:
‘To maintain the “crisis hoax”, Steele suggests it’s also important to ignore conflicting data.
Southern Florida has several buoys, some measuring water temperature, some air and some both.
Just 56 miles to the south-west of Manatee Bay, the VAKF1 buoy measured water temperatures that were 10°F lower than Manatee Bay on those same days, as shown in the lower left graph (above), which then cooled to 86°F.
Manatee Bay lacked air temperature data but VAKF1 reported a high air temperature of 91°F (lower right graph) which then cooled to the low 80°Fs, even dipping to 76°F.’
This is even more key:
“These air temperatures don’t even approach being unprecedented,” said Steele.
‘In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.’
‘A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming’ Jan 2022
I don’t understand why you think copying and pasting parts of the article makes them more compelling. I have read it and offered some reasons to be critical of it. All you do is repeat it and say I am confused. I think maybe that it is time to draw a line under this.
Because you clearly must have serious problems of reading comprehension; confused.
I will repeat it again:
‘Water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than CO2’
‘….the science of solar ponds has shown that when fresh water overlayed saltier water, heat gets trapped, and temperatures can be as much as 60°F hotter than the surface at depths between five and 10 feet.’
‘These air temperatures don’t even approach being unprecedented’
I repeat it not for you but for others to see that you are behaving in the same way as a child sticking fingers in their ears and shouting ‘nan nah na nah nah! I can’t hear you!’
The thing is copying and pasting some text doesn’t make it true or relevant.
Why did you bring it up in this context then?
Because Monroe asked me if I agreed:
‘…the Florida recording posed a threat to human food supplies and the livelihoods of those working in the water.’
That is my answer.
MTF, PhD in Straw Clutching from the University of Bedwetting. Give it up mate. You said it yourself: “The question is whether the record is significant or not”. Quite so, for crying out loud. That’s all anyone is asking. And the answer is No, It Sodding Well Isn’t. Do you think you’ve had a bit too much sun?
We could have a discussion about the significance of temperature records in general and these records in particular. But maybe it is simpler to declare you are right and fling abuse at the opponent.
AKA the MTF approach
The increasingly hysterical and unhinged propaganda is an indication that the pillars supporting the Net Zero edifice are crumbling.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/pillars-supporting-net-zero-crumbling
Remember this and others from back in the ’80s? The difference was very few took them seriously back then (some did of course), but most accepted it was tongue-in-cheek nonsense.
WTF happened? Have we all turned into gormless slack-lipped buffoons?
The BBC, SKY NEWS and it’s “Climate Show”, the Independent, the Guardian etc etc should all have a truth filter fitted to them to reduce emissions of manufactured climate alarmism entering the atmosphere. ——————-Oh and on the issue of Mann can I suggest people read Andrew Montford’s version of what happened with the Hockey Stick graph in his book The Hockey Stick Illusion and how Mann refused to provide his data, computer code and methodology to Statistician Steve McIntyre so he could check his work for himself. Eventually like a dog with a bone McIntyre showed it to be false after 5 years of work. ——–This is what we find in almost every aspect of the so called settled science of climate change. It is all a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for which no evidence exists.