Re: Seguimento Europa 2010
Well I also participated in the Italian forum since you were so eager to discredit me basing my arguments from Italy and the Italians report values higher than that so for Catania definitelly we need to make proper reasearch on it's values even though the 48.5C of Catenanuova is not official and the only official station they have in Catania is far from Catenanuova.
Also in terms of Murcia,well the record is 47.8C last century and indeed it has been officially accepted by AEMET even though it was last century.So there you go Amareleja drops to number 2 position officially in Iberia!
The point is that neither Andalusia nor areas in Portugal have any special dynamic compared to areas next to the sea as we have seen at least at an official level compared to the Athens basin and Murcia Plains.Athens systematically beat any area in Iberia in terms of absolute maximums.
The most important element is that regardless of what you like to notice or not,scientifically the warmest area of Europe is defined in terms of mean 24hour temperature...and as you can see there is no mach for Athens in Europe for this.I doubt that Amareleja can have a mean summer average higher compared to a normal Greek city.In this way I deconstruct the notion that inland areas are more prone to areas close to the sea when it comes to extremes temperatures...Thanks to your example from Antalya and mine from Athens it seems that Iberia with the exception of Murcia is really nothing of substansive importance in the warm climatology of Europe!Athens has seen 48.0C by the sea!Come on,who can really top this by the sea in Europe?I mean who?
Whether Athens is that very warm place or not, is not sure. There is evidence to at least have reserve and not to scream it out in a (to me) sensationalist style.
The reasons for reserve are:
- Peerreviewed research that shows a little effect on the average maxima and a strong effect on the minima by the city heatisle
- Unknown sensorscreen type, unknown surroundings
- You and I have shown that WMO is no guarantee whatsoever (De Bilt, San Pablo and many others).
- And as this is a intercomparison, we need to know equipment en sensortypes are used of both stations when we intercompare. Nothing is known about the greek stations
Your remarks about Murcia:
- If its orography is so special, why did it not reach the same temperature as Amareleja for more than 150 years now. If the orography gives way to superdynamics, is it gone? There is no proof of it
- I do have proof here however that it measures in a Stevensonscreen in a meteorological garden, which is a garden with a large building at about 30 m and a hedge of trees (low trees) at 20 m. Despite that, nothing above 46 C in the last 30 years. Amareleja and Cordoba went above that value various times.
Even if it has been is 0.4 C warmer than Amareleja in 189x and it is correct, is this what extreme dynamics do? Is that what gets you excited. Is it this 0.4 C difference between places that makes one much more capable of reaching 2 C more and the other not?
Then your attitude during discussions and why you discredit yourself. You use facts in two ways:
You mention them on one forum when they suite you and forget about them when they don't. Do you know what a nice description of reason is? It is that you use the same principle in similar discussions.
You don't, you use them when they suite you and that is unreasobale: You use double standards.
Examples are:
- A high maximum average is boring, but a high daytime average is in fact what your comparison is based on and what you seem to be excited about. These two things are in direct conflict with one another.
- You mention Catania as also easily "outperforming" the Guads regions when it comes to extreme maxima, while you in fact asked the Italian metoffice for a definitive answer and it was 45.6 in Bari, not Catania. You mention this in a discussion with some Italian guy, that was the official max according to you. That is lying by omission.
In this discussion you however use unoffical values to prove your point and start talking about Catania. If others use unoffical values, you do everything to discredit them. But it is okey for you to use them whenit suits you.
- You raise eyebrows about remarks of WMO stations measuring totally wrong, while you proved that point yourself already on another forum (San Pablo)and happily stated that this was a ridiculous way of measuring the climate. Which yu did before and during this issue became an argument over here.
Again it is easy to see that it suited you there, but it does not suit you in a discussion where WMO station in general are not accepted just like that but someone (like me) asks for more info about screentype, place in a field or near buildings etcetc....
- You say you don't care about what other think, yet your mission is to deconstruct myths. Myths are things in peoples minds, not buildings. The only thing you are trying is changing peoples minds. It is therefor of the utmost importance what do think, if you want to change a myth..
And this is all is easy to understand why: because it is your goal, as can be read on other forums as well, to get rid of the myth about the heath in the Guadalquivir region. Whenever you can, whenever you can use an argument that suits you, you use it. Catania debunked there, but used as proof here. Average is boring here, but remarkable in Athens etcetc.
Meteorologists and amateurs alike are impressed, for years by the constant daytime maximuma in the Andalusian Guadalquivir basin. I think you stand little chance of changing that. Certainly when I look at the outcome of the various discussions you had on various fora.
