European heatwaves 'have doubled'

European heatwaves 'have doubled'
By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News



Wildfires during heat waves can ravage countryside
The duration of heatwaves in Western Europe has doubled since 1880, a study has shown.

The authors of the research also discovered that the frequency of extremely hot days has nearly tripled in the past century.

The study shows that many previous assessments of daily summer temperature change underestimated heatwaves in Western Europe by about 30%.

The research appears in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres.

The team found that heatwaves lasted an average of three days now, with some lasting up to 13 days. This compares with an average of about 1.5 days in 1880.

Paul Della-Marta, from MeteoSwiss in Zurich, Switzerland, and colleagues analysed daily maximum temperature data from 54 recording stations across Europe.

We're getting stronger heat waves or perhaps summers that are not so strong in terms of heat - this is a major cause for concern

Paul Della-Marta, MeteoSwiss

Forty-six hold records dating back to the 19th Century; others go back to the early 1900s. The data sets come from as far north as Finland, as far south as Spain and as far east as Croatia.

In the past, however, thermometers were not kept in modern Stevenson screens.

These wooden shelters protect thermometers from direct sunlight and indirect radiation coming from the ground, both of which distort temperature readings.

Once the researchers had corrected for these effects, they found a "warm bias" in observations made prior to the introduction of these screens. In other words, temperatures were recorded as being hotter than they really were.

This in turn meant the increase in temperature over time appeared to be smaller than it actually was.

Hot zone

The authors of the latest study also corrected for other biases in the variability of summer temperatures.


We can expect more extremes of temperature in future
"After looking at the records more closely, we believe... heat waves have been underestimated by about 30% over the entire Western European region," Dr Della-Marta told the BBC News website.

"We see a doubling of the length of heatwaves and we also see a tripling in the frequency of one-off events."

The results support the idea that the western European climate in summer is becoming more variable - that the range of temperatures had increased. "That means we're getting stronger heatwaves or perhaps summers that are not so strong in terms of heat," Dr Della-Marta explained, "this is a major cause for concern."

The heatwave experienced by Europe in 2003 had major adverse socio-economic and environmental effects.

Thousands of elderly people died. Forests were devastated by fire, water ecosystems were strained, and the total mass of Alpine glaciers shrank by 10%.

The authors say we can expect extreme weather events like this to occur more frequently in future.

The paper's other authors were Malcolm Haylock of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK, Jurg Luterbacher and Heinz Wanner, both of the University of Bern, Switzerland.

It's not like I really hate it.. I like it when it's hot, as long as it isn't too hot for too long.

well I don't like this kind of hot, there is no sun just a warmth that makes you sweat with everything you do.

I think they are overreacting... It's occuring both, summers with extreme heat and summers without. That the temperature is rising is just natural and a cyclus of the world. It comes back every many years...

global warming sceptic?

anyway, I have no explanation for the rising temperature. there are 2 parties that both have different facts and I am not able to verify any of them.

A bit XD

It is proven that the same curve appeared many years ago... And it probably means were heading for an ice time or something.

And the other party is a bit overreacting. Exspecially the part with CO2 is mostly rubbish (in my opninion)

Here we go again...

I do think there's something happing in the atmosphere and most likely it's because all the shit we shoot in there( CO2 and CH4 and such). A few months ago I saw something in the newspaper that proved there was such thing as the greenhouse effect.

Many things are proven ^^ But the greenhouse effect does excist. But we need the greenhouse effect without, we would not be here...

But! With the C)2 and stuff WE ARE shooting in the atmosphere we would only get a NOTICEABLE result in many many years! Holland will not be flooded in about 50 years. The world will NOT be 6 degreed warmer in about 50 years. In somewere around 100 years the earth will get around 1 degree warmer because of the stuff WE are trowing in the air. Now I won't denie that there is something changing. And I won't denie that it is getting hotter. BUT! Man are likely to find a doom path for humanity! This does not make it neccesarily true! And the sollucions they are trying to find are not always the right ones! Forests do NOT help, CO2 is NOT the most dangerous stuff. Methane is far more dangerous! AND! Itwould hardly help to reduce gas output of cars, nothing noticeable for our next generation some people would say. BUT! What would help is: Killing all the cows, but no! We need food! What would help!: Cut down all the rainforests! They are the beggest methane producers in the world! (but that was just the reason they were trying to safe those forests, to reduce CO2) But full grown forests do NOT reduce CO2, and by making new forests you will only place the problem some more ahead in the future...

What I'm trying to say: People are to fast to lay every guild with themselves. But, why could there not be a natural cause? It does not have to be man always!!!

Did you know? Somewere in the middleages the temperature was higher??? Well, there were not many humans to produce CO@ were there??? Still, it was worse than it is now!

(sorry if I'm sounding harsh... I'm just a bit too hyper)

the GW-sceptics state "facts" that "prove" something
Al Gore states "facts" that "proves" the opposite.

I am no scientist, so I cannot know which facts are true and which aren't. maybe both side's facts are true but both their explanations are false.
Having an opinion would be useless in this situation

btw the medieval warming period *looked* not even close as the current warming on Al Gore's graph.

ehh, Thommy? I wasn't saying that I believe it'll happen in 50 years, that's just too fast. And CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are far larger than Methane, so it is most dangerous because of it numbers. So don't blame the cows. And explain that about the rain forests, in Biology I learned that flowers, trees and such produce O2 out of our CO2...

Sorry, I'm going to dubbel post to reply on you both...

First Qizm: I have studied those things quite a bit, and the graph gore uses is something that looked WAY different when it was first created... Gore is making it look worse than it is. (on some points I agree with him because people need something worse to do something about it.) But what gor is saying is that it is all the fault of CO2, this is not true... One reason why I do not belief what gore says: 'In tha last somany years no scientist did not agree with me.' Than a scientist of the institute of (how do you say millieu in english) replied, that he is overreacting, that it is not going the way gore is saying it will go. Instead of replying with facts and arguments he made this reply:
'No REAL scientist did not agree with me.' This makes me doubt it really!

The graph gore uses was origionally a graph with many ups and downs, as high and sometimes higher than we have now! It is just altered to make it look worse!

Now to reply on Tenshi:

Did you know CO2 was the most important part of the atmosphere? Without it we would not live! And! That a concentration is bigger does NOT mean it's more dangerous... Did you know trees grow faster with more CO2?

AND! A fullgrown forest does NOT lower the CO2 concentration because the live/death in a fullgrown forest is equel. When a tree dies he puts ALL Co2 he absorbs back into the air. So when life and death are equel, there will be the same amount of CO2 absorbed as there would be put back in to the air.

It is true that they produce O2 out of CO2, but they will just throw back all the CO2 when they die. So in a fullgrown forest it does not matter!

Well to give something else to go against gore's theorie: He sais that all the ice is melting... Well, a part of it is true, there is ice melting. But by far not all the ice! There is ice melting without ground underneath it, without land. So it's just floating... If ice is floating there will be NO higher water levels everywere... And asa matter of fact, there is landice that is GROWING! This does not look like higher temperatures!

So, enough for now ^^ Feel free to reply

And sure I will reply.

No, I did not know that, but if the concentration gets to big, which it is now, it still is dangerous. And that I didn't know either, but then CO2 has some goods effects too.

I guess that's why they kill trees before they die( I don't know if they shoot their CO2 in the air while we're making tables and such out of it, but if they do, then you may have a point).

Didn't you read the newspaper this week? It said a lot that the water is getting higher and that our protection( to lazy to look up the word for' dijk') should be higher because we will have a lot of water on our land. But still I do agree that this will be a matter over hundred years or so and not immidiatly.

my reply:

It still is not too big to get scared like many people are... But I never said it is not dangerous, it is just bu far not as dangerous as they say... But to say it like this, every thing has good and bad sides. And everything is bad when there is to less or too much of it...

No, if you cut trees down all the stuff would still go into the air.. That is one of the reasons that the CO2 is rising. Because in many forests death is now bigger than life.

Hehe, I forgot to finish that part... There is one part of land ice melting that is dangerous for us... That will raise the water. BUT, still that is not going fast enough to make it such a big trouble, I think (yes this is just a guess) that it would still take many years before the water is high enough to make it a risk for the netherlands... If it will keep melting, because the speed of melting is far less than it was a couple of years ago...

People are too scared, I can agree on that...

So it still is human's fault that there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere cause they also cut down good trees, apart from the trees that are already about to die.

I didn't say it would start immdiatly... but people with knowledge about it say that the water is rising, it could be due other causes, but I think ice is most logical. We've always fought with rising water, so we'll just continu. It won't be dangerous now, I think.

It is true that it's human's fault there is more CO2, BUT! It is not yet that dangerous... And were not the only cause though some humans love to say it is.

People with knowledge about it. Do not believe everything they have to say! My opinion: Do not choke everything other people say until you have learned about it a bit for yourself... And those people with 'knowledge' say all the ice is melting! I do not know witch polar it was, but they say that it is melting and that the water would rise because of it. BUt that polar is sea ice! Not land ice! So it's by far not as dangerous as those people are trying to say...

Thommy master of illusion wrote:

Sorry, I'm going to dubbel post to reply on you both...

First Qizm: I have studied those things quite a bit, and the graph gore uses is something that looked WAY different when it was first created... Gore is making it look worse than it is. (on some points I agree with him because people need something worse to do something about it.) But what gor is saying is that it is all the fault of CO2, this is not true... One reason why I do not belief what gore says: 'In tha last somany years no scientist did not agree with me.' Than a scientist of the institute of (how do you say millieu in english) replied, that he is overreacting, that it is not going the way gore is saying it will go. Instead of replying with facts and arguments he made this reply:
'No REAL scientist did not agree with me.' This makes me doubt it really!

The graph gore uses was origionally a graph with many ups and downs, as high and sometimes higher than we have now! It is just altered to make it look worse!

It looks different then another graph people CLAIM to be the original one.

This is the origional if I'm right ^^

present = 1950... that doesnt say much about eh.... THIS present, does it?

This present is a bit higher. But still not as high as it has been... Will look up a more present graph.. (but what I'm trying to say, there were times were it was at least as hot!)

As you can see in this graph. In those 50 years it has only become 0.5 degrees warmer! Not the 2 degrees it needs to beat the worst times... And as you can see in this graph. It's something that is returning!

Or look at this one:

Then again, those people claim that this graph is right, and Al Gore and co. claim their graph is right. There is just no way you can be sure.

It might be a goverment conspiracy

It might ^^

But, the difference is: The ones I agree with do say that the earth is getting warmer. They say man does have influence. But they also say it's not man alone. They say the earth is gfetting warmer, but just not as fast as the other side says. They proof why the earth is not warming up as fast as said by the gore side...

All the gore side says is: They are not real specialists. They are wrong. They lie. The earth will vbe 6 degrees hotter in 30 years. Everyone will die. All the ice is melting. And if you ask why, well look at this graph! With everything they say they pull out that graph, never something else, only that graph. As if all the heat is caused by CO2!!!

so you feel better supporting the anti-side.

maybe you're feeling guilty and are looking for excuses?

No I'm looking for hard facts ^^ And I found them. So that's why I support the anti side!

Do you support the we are all gonna die side?

I support neither. And if you think these are hard facts, boy, then I really envy you, being able to look at live so beautifully simple.

No, I have not shown why they are facts, and stuff like that. It would get to complicated... They have proven in many wayswhy the things they say are, almost certainly, true. But the other saide has not.

global warming was a problem long before mr gore came up with it...Of course it's a problem but indeed not the way he presents it. I think we can't denie that earth is getting warmer...Just have a look at out country. Ten years ago we had springtime and fall bot around the 15 degrees celcius with rain, nog we have them around 20 degrees and lesser rain. We used to have snow in winter, now It's a miracle when it's actually freezing. We used to have 20 to 25 degrees summers, now we have 30 something summers...within 10 years that is a big diffrence...

But I also think that when earth is warming up our body'sd adjust to it. The rate with how it is warming up is slowly and gives us enough time to get used to it.

and, if the maya's where right and the world goes to hell at 2012, oh well, at least we all go together....

and who knows, maybe global warming plays a part in that