Temperature in Death Valley Today: 130 Degrees, Earth's Highest Since at Least 1931 (msn.com) 231
The Washington Post reports:
In the midst of a historic heat wave in the West, the mercury in Death Valley, California surged to a searing 130 degrees on Sunday afternoon, possibly setting a world record for the highest temperature ever observed during the month of August. If the temperature is valid, it would also rank among the top three highest temperatures ever reliably measured on the planet at any time and may, in fact, be the highest... The only two hotter measurements include the disputed 1913 Death Valley reading and a 131-degree reading from Kebili, Tunisia, set July 7, 1931, which is considered to be Africa's hottest temperature. But the Tunisia mark also has "serious credibility issues," according to Christopher Burt, an expert on extreme weather data...
The scorching temperature occurred amid a suffocating heat wave which has gripped the western U.S. since late last week, and is forecast to continue into the coming week. On Friday, Oakland hit 100 for the first time on record in August while Phoenix tied its hottest temperature for the month: 117 degrees. Then on Saturday, Needles, in California's southeast desert, soared to 123 degrees, its highest August temperature on record. Sacramento rocketed to 112 degrees Sunday, topping its previous August record of 110...
Scientists have found that the intensity, duration, and frequency of heat waves worldwide are increasing due to human-caused climate change.
And that's creating more problems, the Post continues: The heat has intensified a rash of fires which have erupted in recent days. A blaze in northeast California, between Redding and Reno, spawned a swarm of fire tornadoes prompting what is believed to be the first-ever issued fire tornado warning by the National Weather Service... Climate studies have also concluded that climate change is having a serious effect on wildfire activity in the West and Southwest. The Fourth National Climate Assessment, published by the Trump administration in 2018, warned that climate change had already increased the size of areas burned by wildfires by drying out forests and boosting the availability of wildfire fuel.
The report estimated that the area burned by wildfires in the past decade was twice what it otherwise would have been without climate change, painting a grim picture of the region's future.
The scorching temperature occurred amid a suffocating heat wave which has gripped the western U.S. since late last week, and is forecast to continue into the coming week. On Friday, Oakland hit 100 for the first time on record in August while Phoenix tied its hottest temperature for the month: 117 degrees. Then on Saturday, Needles, in California's southeast desert, soared to 123 degrees, its highest August temperature on record. Sacramento rocketed to 112 degrees Sunday, topping its previous August record of 110...
Scientists have found that the intensity, duration, and frequency of heat waves worldwide are increasing due to human-caused climate change.
And that's creating more problems, the Post continues: The heat has intensified a rash of fires which have erupted in recent days. A blaze in northeast California, between Redding and Reno, spawned a swarm of fire tornadoes prompting what is believed to be the first-ever issued fire tornado warning by the National Weather Service... Climate studies have also concluded that climate change is having a serious effect on wildfire activity in the West and Southwest. The Fourth National Climate Assessment, published by the Trump administration in 2018, warned that climate change had already increased the size of areas burned by wildfires by drying out forests and boosting the availability of wildfire fuel.
The report estimated that the area burned by wildfires in the past decade was twice what it otherwise would have been without climate change, painting a grim picture of the region's future.
Global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Happened in 1931 then.
Re:Global warming (Score:4, Informative)
I personally remember several days of 133+ in Saudi Arabia back in 2004. Not sure why they think this is somehow a record event for the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, as to what your thermometers may have seen- I don't doubt you that you saw 133F.
Here in Redmond, WA- we routinely see temperatures well above the official thermometer in Seatac.
So, to summarize- it's a record because it's the highest (maybe) officially recorded temperature.
It's kind of like a land-speed record. Lots of people claim their cars have gone 180, even though they couldn't breach 160 without strapping a r
Re: Global warming (Score:4, Informative)
degrees in the shade [Re: Global warming] (Score:5, Informative)
The official temperature given is in the shade of of direct sunlight. So it'll nearly always be warmer in the sun on warm days than the forecast.
Correct, but wrong.
The temperature "in the sun" is not the temperature of the air, it is the temperature of an object sitting in the sun. This depends completely on the color of the object, the infrared emissivity, and the convective coefficient and wind. You can easily get to over 100C (212F, for Fahrenheit lovers) with a properly chosen object. It's a property of the object and its environment.
Temperatures are measured out of direct sunlight because we don't want to measure the properties of the object, we want to measure the properties of the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The joys of living in Churchill, Manitoba, the "Polar Bear Capital of the World"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Worked in North Africa in the 80s and it often hit 132 in July and August. I am sure it went even hotter once or twice. 130 was a normal daytime high.
This was recorded by a calibrated thermometer in a Stevenson Screen but still totally unofficial.
Re: (Score:3)
Having a freshly taped to window thermometer show 23C when there was bits of snow outside made me suspect the measurement wasn't sound.
Re: (Score:3)
A few years ago I was in late November sailing in south France, close to Toulon.
At morning about 9:00 the "felt" temperature was close to 0C. We all where wearing thick jackets, scarfs and some even a winter cap. A strong mistral, over 7 bft was blowing, that is why we did not went out sailing right away.
Then we reached the coffee shop, ordered breakfast, sat in a sunny wind proof corner, in T-shirts and were sweating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I personally remember several days of 133+ in Saudi Arabia back in 2004. Not sure why they think this is somehow a record event for the world.
Lots of locations have higher temperatures, due to the construction of impromptu solar ovens - often called "pavement" and "buildings", but there is a reason that meteorologists do not take official temperature readings in solar ovens.
130 F ~ 54,45 C (Score:5, Informative)
For those of us who are not in the US.
54,45 C = 54.45 C (Score:5, Funny)
For those of us who are not in DE.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 54,45 C = 54.45 C (Score:5, Informative)
There are more countries that use comma as a decimal separator than Germany. The dot thing is mainly for English-speaking dudes who rarely know a second language.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more countries that use comma as a decimal separator than Germany.
Yup.
The dot thing is mainly for English-speaking dudes who rarely know a second language.
Yup.
;)
Parent mentioned DE specifically, which I found funny, because I like to rib my German friends over their use of a comma.
I took 3 languages in high school, so I'm plenty familiar with the use of comma as a decimal separator. Doesn't bother me either way.
But end of the day, English is the lingua de franca of the world.... for a little while more, yet. So eat me
Re: 54,45 C = 54.45 C (Score:2)
Yeah, all those English speaking dudes in China and India who don't know any other language...
Re: 54,45 C = 54.45 C (Score:3, Funny)
The comma thing is mainly for European dudes who rarely know anything about how shit works around the world.
Re: 54,45 C = 54.45 C (Score:4, Funny)
There are more countries that use comma as a decimal separator than Germany.
Which doesn't change the fact that it's a really terrible idea.
Re: 54,45 C = 54.45 C (Score:2)
If we consider a comma a pause and a full-stop (or period) a stop, then using the full-stop as separator between the integer and decimal portion makes more sense.
The problem is changing things now could end up causing people financial grief.
Re: (Score:3)
If we consider a comma a pause and a full-stop (or period) a stop, then using the full-stop as separator between the integer and decimal portion makes more sense.
The stop was used instead of the pause because the pause is already used to separate portions of numbers. It doesn't really matter what you use as long as you're consistent... whoops!
It makes dramatically more sense for everyone to use one standard. Alas...
Re: (Score:2)
The dot thing is mainly for English-speaking dudes who rarely know a second language.
It is also for anyone who wants to speak English as a second language properly. Writing English with foreign punctuation is a classic newbie error.
( I tried to make a joke using non-English punctuation, but slashdot's lack of unicode support defeated me.)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it not easy to do a joke about non-English punctuation with a rhetorical question and French punctuation rules ?
The dot is the standard mathematical notation (Score:5, Insightful)
.. for a decimal point and its also used in all japanese/chinese calculators. Its actually the european countries who are the odd ones out.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us use commas and dots! Commas for whole numbers and dots to denote decimals.
1,234,567.890 would be a very large, very exact number.
So if 54,45 is 54 and 45 1/100ths, what if you added another significant digit? Would that still be 54,456? That would be really confusing.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad I read your reply before I went ahead and asked the parent to your message what the heck "DE" was.
I learn something new every day, never knew Germany somehow == "DE".
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. That one is easy to figure out if you know the first thing about Germany. The really confusing one is that VIN first digit "W" means Germany... it stands for Weimar Republic. Naturally a "1" means USA because, you know.
Re: (Score:3)
True story:
Was working on a project for a sales organization driven company. The goal of the project was to process 160GB of data in real time to produce complex metrics. For some reason, the design document listed 160GB as 160,000MB. The lead designer was a German dude that talked to fast, which convinced the CEO that couldn't find her ass with both hands that he must be some kind of wunderkind. He was slightly above average, but not exceptional.
He was going on and on with these great designs, which amo
Re: (Score:3)
Way back in late 70s I visited Germany. I had left California temperature which hit 106 I think (they take temperatures at airports, which is always a few degrees hotter). When I told the people in Germany this, they pulled out their calculators to convert so Celsius. They looked at the number, then computed it again. Then they started arguing about what the correct formula was. Then they finally admitted that maybe it actually was that hot.
Re: (Score:2)
With AGW, Europe will likely find out all about these temps, at least in Spain, greece, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And you Sir have no clue about heat in Western europe ... rofl.
Sure - we have no spot with 130F/54C ATM, but I had in Greece easily +50C already 20 year ago.
Ofc, one could argue it was cheating, a a hot desert wind from north Africa brought the heat.
But that is exactly the same that is happening in death valley.
Both, Karlsruhe in Germany and Paris in France regularly top +40C. I think my highest in Karlsruhe was 46C.
Re: (Score:3)
The only objection I have to the use of Fahrenheit is the fact that the rest of the world has unified on metric measure of temperature, so it's unneeded confusion.
Otherwise, there's nothing inherently superior about celsius from the perspective of the average person; and of course anyone in science and technology is using celsius already and has no trouble converting (All of our HVAC systems monitor and record in C)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
but with regard to terrestrial temperatures, fahrenheit is a far better unit.
No, it is not. It has absolutely no meaning about what is going on around you in nature.
Celsius is more or less perfect, can hardly imagine any other unit that would be in daily life more useful.
And Fahrenheit is in my opinion the worst of all.
However: you grew up with it, that is why you like/prefer it. It is as simple as that.
C rhymes [Re: 130 F ~ 54,45 C] (Score:2)
Nonsense. Half of the positive integer celsius temperatures don't even exist in terrestrial nature, minus trivialities like geysers and volcanoes.
I don't even know what that means. 1 million C doesn't exist in terrestrial nature; nor in Fahrenheit either. All but a vanishingly small number of positive integer temperatures don't exist in terrestrial nature.
Celsius turns out to be convenient if you're interested in whether the weather is freezing: positive is liquid water, negative is solid.
Other than that, Celsius is easy because it rhymes.
30's warm
20's nice
10 is chilly
0 is ice.
Range [Re:C rhymes] (Score:3)
I don't even know what that means.
Sorry- I meant in the normal scale of celsius- 0-100.
I have no idea why you think only numbers between 0 and 100 are useful.
Calendars are "completely nonsensical" because the days only range from zero to 31? Clocks are nonsensical because hours only range from 1 to 12? (ok, 0 to 24 if you're military). Feet are a nonsensical measure because peoples' height only ranges from 0 to 7 (maybe 8 for real giants)? Dollars are nonsensical, because peoples have incomes that need five or six digits to express? Compasses are nonsensical, because a compass heading goe
Re: (Score:2)
I jest, of course. As I said, I use celsius on the daily.
But "it's archaic, stupid, and boneheaded in the context of differing from the rest of the planet" is about the dumbest fucking argument for *anything* I can imagine.
Re: (Score:3)
"Archaic" is possibly not the right word to describe something in relatively recent history. Celsius was only an international standard in 1875, though several countries were using Celsius and Centigrade before then.
Often it is reported that only 3 countries in the world do not use metric. This is highly misleading. There are a lot of countries that are not 100% metric, especially in the English world were adoption was slower. Miles, stones, and pints for instance are still in wide use in in the UK for
Re: (Score:3)
In the midst of a historic heat wave in the West, the mercury in Death Valley, California surged to a searing 130 degrees
Well that immediately tells you it's fake news. Mercury [wikipedia.org] is in Nevada, so there's no way it could have surged in Death Valley, which is in California.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not though. It is not a top priority for them. We have so many other issues here.
Temperature of cooked meat (Score:5, Funny)
I normally target 130F for my medium rare steaks.
Re: (Score:2)
I did a ribeye today in the sous vide at 130 (I'm an import from Europe, but my Anova talks in backwards units).
Re: (Score:2)
Your Anova is adjustable. Holding the start button for 3 seconds will toggle it back to a sane temperature scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Temperature of cooked meat (Score:4, Funny)
Yep the ideal steak should have a nice caramlised crust but should still be revivable by a good qualified vet.
Re: Temperature of cooked meat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Rankine scale? No offense but you should take your steaks out of cryofreeze [google.com] before serving them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
obsolete
For someone who thinks they know some shit, they apparently have no idea what that word means.
oh well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:oh well (Score:5, Funny)
First I read "at least we were warmed".
Re: (Score:2)
+FUNNY :P
Go Solar (Score:2)
Seriously, solar panels are cited to provide a cooling effect on the roofs. It not only produces "free" electricity, but also lowers the cooling costs.
I am not sure how easy it would be, but we need to somehow take out the excess heat from the Earth ecosystem. The nature does that by melting the polar ice sheets, but obviously that is less than ideal. Since the Sun is essentially working for free, a combination of solar panels, plain old water tanks colored dark for showers, some ingenious architecture meth
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure how easy it would be, but we need to somehow take out the excess heat from the Earth ecosystem.
Solar panels ain't gonna do that. They have a very low albedo.
Of course they help in the offset of carbon emissions- no doubt about that. But they're highly efficient at converting shortwave radiation into longwave radiation- what you might know as "the temperature"
Re: (Score:2)
You can get rid of about half of it by giving them a (cheap) surface coat of an infrared-window coupling pigment (such as 8 nanometer glass beads). That's good for about 95 watts of cooling per square meter 24/7 (if the sky is clear), about 2280 watthours per day. Insolation is about a kW per square meter, times about 5 solar hours per d
Re: (Score:2)
Insolation is about a kW per square meter, times about 5 solar hours per day for 5 kW.
Make that 5 kWh.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get rid of about half of it by giving them a (cheap) surface coat of an infrared-window coupling pigment (such as 8 nanometer glass beads).
What does that do? Nothing short of making them more reflective is going to solve the albedo "problem" (which isn't really a problem, merely an important fact in the context of them removing heat from the Earth's ecosystem)
Also paint a little more than the panels' area of something else (like the roof of the building you'd like to stay cool) and you can actually get ahead of replacing the solar panels with mirrors or pure white painted surface.
Definitely.
Coating solar panels should more than pay for itself because slightly cooling the panels makes them generate more power, so it's a cheap way to increase their output rating.
And is probably just a good idea in general, since the heat island effect of large solar installations is documented, and an unwanted side effect.
Re: (Score:2)
we need to somehow take out the excess heat from the Earth ecosystem.
Solar panels ain't gonna do that. They have a very low albedo.
They also have a white rear surface, so most of the heat energy not removed via conduction and subsequent convection is radiated as infrared... upwards. So then the problem becomes GHG, not the solar panels. If there's not a bunch of CO2 or water vapor in the way then much of the energy escapes the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
So then the problem becomes GHG, not the solar panels. If there's not a bunch of CO2 or water vapor in the way then much of the energy escapes the atmosphere.
This planet is an uninhabitable ice ball without GHG. There will *always* be significant heat island effects from large areas of low albedo stuff. Are you seriously trying to argue otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
This planet is an uninhabitable ice ball without GHG.
Irrelevant objection. It's levels of GHG which are the problem, not that they exist.
There will *always* be significant heat island effects from large areas of low albedo stuff.
If the solar panels were laying on the ground and their heat was being absorbed then it would be a substantial problem, as the ground would store the energy. But they aren't, so it doesn't, and therefore it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant objection.
It wasn't an objection- it was context. You stated that the problem is a requisite to human life, which is stupid.
It's levels of GHG which are the problem, not that they exist.
This is flatly false, again, unless we're discussing the context of snowball earth.
If the solar panels were laying on the ground and their heat was being absorbed then it would be a substantial problem, as the ground would store the energy. But they aren't, so it doesn't, and therefore it isn't.
That's some astounding ignorance right there.
Please, educate yourself. [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go Solar (Score:4, Insightful)
Solar PV over ground is foolish. Solar PV over roofs/parking lots is intelligent because light=>90-95% heat,
changes into
light=>20-30% electricity, 30-20% reflection and about 50% heat.
And with it on a roof, it will actually cool the inside of that building a great deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is no unused land anywhere on Earth, every single square meter is needed for crops, which can be grown everywhere, because there is always plenty of water, and unlimited demand, and there are no plants that actually require shading through part of the day (shade houses for plants simply don't exist), or else is critical habitat that cannot be disturbed (with no land category in between)?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not inherently bad to put solar farms on the ground, so long as it's not ground useful for something else.
Putting them in the desert for example is a great idea. You can clean the panels in that environment with mostly compressed air, you don't need much water. And the panels could be collecting the water you will need.
But back on message, until the easily accessible roofs and parking lots are covered, it doesn't make sense to put panels anywhere else. Parking lots in particular are ideal places to put
Re: (Score:3)
I build a solar powered shower for my wife in Thailand.
Just a 200yards long black plastic hose :P
The next step is to build a small tower and indeed put an about 100l plastic tank on it + the hose on the roof.
Re:Go Solar (Score:4, Interesting)
And CA is going to close Diablo Canyon... (Score:2)
WAY TO GO California. Joining Germany, China, Japan, etc in lack of planning and logic.
As it is, California is going through a large number of rolling blackouts due to heavy use of AC and not enough electricity because of closing SONGs and not replacing it with anything but small nat gas plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only good place for California new nuclear would be to add more units at Palo Verde. California is a great placw, so long as you don't let it try to govern anything.
Farenheit only ?? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is really preposterous.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Death Valley is in California
California is in the USA
In the USA we use degrees Fahrenheit
Anyone using deg F for science is dumb. But this is not science. This is just reporting. Fahrenheit is a superior scale for human use. 0 is really cold, 100 is really hot, the average person doesn't need to know where freezing and boiling points are because things are frozen or boiling when they get there. They're not trying to figure out how many electrons they're going to need to pass through a wire to heat their kett
Re: (Score:3)
Fahrenheit is a superior scale for human use
Is it fuck. Water freezing at 0 and boiling at 100 is easily relatable.
But if 0 is really cold, 100 is really hot, 130 is what? Really really hot? How the fuck is that different to 0C is cold, 100C is too hot and 55C is thank fuck I don't live there?
, the average person doesn't need to know where freezing and boiling points are because things are frozen or boiling when they get there
As I said, it's relatable. It helps them understand the scale.
For instance,
having to know that 1g = 231ci = 8.3lb is silly
I concur. Just as silly as having to know that there'll be ice on the roads if the temperature hits 32F. Because 32 is such an obvious number. Everybody knows about 32, it's a naturally o
Article is wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Are the units in C or K ?
Nobody knows.
Article is completely wrong and misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
A US based news source on an english speaking site based in the US. A real head scratcher what units they're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Squashing lighting fires partly to blaim (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All true, but with limited relevance to death valley because of its location. That part of California has never had much tree cover. However, the coast from about Point Sur up well into Canada (and inland to the coast ranges) used to be essentially unbroken redwood forest, and that had dramatic influence on weather patterns for the rest of the state. Some of the first laws on the books in California were to stop natives from setting the fires that controlled the undergrowth, because white people wanted to b
What it costs (Score:2)
Global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hiding Mismanagement (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hiding Mismanagement (Score:5, Insightful)
Prevention of fires accounts for only so much. In some areas the prevention was rigourously done, in other areas there was less prevention. Scientists do know what they're doing, they're not just making shit up like slashdot posters.
Note that California forest management is mostly identical to other states, due to most of the largest forested areas are federal lands anyway. When I was growing up we had a friend who was a forest fire fighter in the summers, and fire fighters would fly to other states as needed. I know there is a right wing trope that California fires are due solely to liberal mismanagement, which is stupid because those policies were around through through many administrations back when California was much more conservative. Just keep repeating those talking points, it gives your brain a rest from thinking.
Re: Hiding Mismanagement (Score:4, Funny)
Its totally mismanagement. Other states like Georgia, Florida, Ohio, and Oklahoma who follow the President's advice have much fewer instances of forest fires than California does. They simply need to rake their forests better.
Re:Hiding Mismanagement (Score:4, Interesting)
I know there is a right wing trope that California fires are due solely to liberal mismanagement, which is stupid because those policies were around through through many administrations back when California was much more conservative.
It's very well known that the fires are due to mismanagement. The natives lived here for over ten thousand years and avoided these problems by setting uncontrolled fires every year. The ones who lived in the forests would fuck off to somewhere else during that period, many of them walking to the coast which only takes a day or two if you have good trails... and they did. This kept down the poison oak as well.
It's not just liberal mismanagement, it's been bipartisan. But it's still mismanagement.
Re:Hiding Mismanagement (Score:4, Insightful)
also pine forests have evolved to handle burns. The issue is with suppression; by continually putting out fires that would otherwise be small (typically to save houses, which is another story altogether), fuel accumulates. So instead of many small fires, we get one huge one.
A fire going through a forest that would otherwise just char the trunks a bit and clear the ground of brush now is able to actually burn the trees down.
Re:Hiding Mismanagement (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's also not just California. This mismanagement in the 50s and such was across the entire country, and was done similarly in other countries as well. Smokey Bear was a federally created symbol during WWII, and the burned bear that was used as a living example of Smokey Bear was found in New Mexico.
The reason California gets the blame so often I think is because it has a much higher population than the other western states and therefore has many more people living in fire prone areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Scientists do know what they're doing, they're not just making shit up like slashdot posters.
No, indeed. Slashdot posters don't collude to falsify data and deplatform people that challenge them.
Re: (Score:2)
So people are seriously claiming forest mis-management had nothing to do with this?
A) they claimed no such thing.
B) Holy shit- I bet they didn't think of that!!!! </sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When there is a disruption in the wind patterns, preventing the cool air from coming in from the ocean, then the temperature goes up. Climate change might contribute 2 degrees to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe climate change is causing more wildfires. But at least in California, the wild fire problem is an issue of mis-management, not climate. Until we start controlled burning or stop building houses next to forests, wildfires will continue to cause more damage.
The problem in California is that too many people live there. Enormous portions of the state are basically irrigated deserts. It uses vast quantities of water to irrigate crops it ships worldwide leaving a fraction of the remainder for an ever-growing population. Before California was developed the central valley of California would regularly get massive floods, and the forest and chaparral would periodically go up in flames. But somehow the native americans living seemed to figure out how to survive.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem in California is that too many people live there.
No, the problem in California is eco-wackos who use the government to:
- block any removal of trees - even dead ones - or clearing of brush, so that the fuel load becomes astronomical and fires become common, large, fast moving, and very hot, cauterizing tree trunks rather than just burning out underbrush.
- close areas to loggers and others, who normally report fires right away, so a fire might build for a day or two before it's no
Re: (Score:3)
No, the problem in California is eco-wackos who use the government to:
The problem in California is that people built homes in places which need to be periodically cleansed by fire, long before there even was an environmental movement.
Re: Icing cold or boiling hot ? (Score:2)
so you expect about three record highs per year. (Score:3)
Ok in fairness records began in 1901.
So at any given place on Earth, with no temperature change trend but just random variation around a mean, you would expect an all-time-record high on one day in 120 - or about three per year. (Substantially more often if you include ties.)