The forecast is unmoved by the pleas of those of us looking for change. Simply, there is no realistic opportunity for relief showing up in modeling over at least the next week and perhaps 10 to 12 days.
Here are rain chances over the next 7 to 8 days based on our interpretation of the European and GFS modeling:
There is one wrinkle in the forecast, and that comes on Sunday. A disturbance tracking into the Great Lakes may help erode the northeastern periphery of the ridge of high pressure juuuuust enough to perhaps allow for a weak disturbance to set off a few showers or storms from the northwest.
This seems most likely to occur in Louisiana, but I would say if you live in Liberty County or closer to the Beaumont area, your chances look marginally better than zero for a cooling downpour on Sunday.
But other than that, there’s no reason to make this forecast more difficult than it needs to be. Roughly 100 during the day, roughly 80 at night, copy, paste from now through late next week. Heat Advisories are likely most days with at least a slight chance of us getting put back under an Excessive Heat Warning again at some point. Is there a chance something unforeseen presents itself before next weekend to help cool us a bit? I guess so, but I don’t see where that comes from right now. So expect another week of the same.
It’s the nights that hurt
Throughout this long hot summer, currently the 6th hottest on record, we have set a total of zero record high temperatures at Bush Airport. But we’ve managed to set (or tie) 10 record warm minimum temperatures as of yesterday. How have other parts of Texas fared?
Most places have seen more nighttime low warm temperature records than daytime record highs in Texas. I omitted cities in the Panhandle and East Texas, as they’ve generally seen a bit less heat versus the south, central, and western parts of the state. Del Rio has had a hellacious summer, with 40 percent of their nighttime warm low records since June 1st set or tied this summer alone. Dallas and Houston stand out as the only two cities with no record highs (officially). Dallas largely escaped the worst of the June heat. If we take a look at this chart in a month, I expect that we would see a continuation of this trend of nighttimes being worse relative to normal than days.
Let’s look at this another way. The magic number in Texas for a really gross overnight is about 80° or so. Here is a look at how many 80° nights have occurred in 2023 so far (plus what’s forecast through next Thursday), compared to the annual record for nighttime lows of 80 or warmer.
In San Angelo, Abilene, and Dallas 2011 remains the benchmark summer for nighttime lows of 80 or warmer. Given the relatively cooler June, Dallas has a very long way to go. With more heat, San Angelo or even Abilene could come closer, however. Houston’s record of 26 overnights of 80 or warmer was originally set in 1962, but we should be only 5 days away from matching that by this time next week. For El Paso and Midland, their previous records look to be toast. El Paso’s was set in 2020 and Midland’s occurred previously in 2011. Austin and San Antonio should not be terribly far away from breaking their records for most 80 degree nights. Austin’s record was set in 2019 and again in 2020, while San Antonio’s stands from 2010.
Why does this all matter? Because heat becomes an exacerbated health and infrastructure issue when we do not cool off at night. Air conditioning units have to work harder. If poor climate controlled homes don’t cool down properly, then people (especially the elderly) become more vulnerable to heat illness. You’re simply being exposed to hotter temperatures for longer stretches of time. This is why we emphasize checking on the vulnerable. Don’t forget pets too.
The reason for so many record warm lows outpacing record highs varies from place to place. Some of it is attributable to the urban heat island effect and population growth and sprawl. Locally, the warm Gulf is likely a contributor as well, helping to increase humidity and raise the “floor” that temperatures can feasibly drop to overnight. But it does not explain these extremes entirely. Warming nights (and the warming Gulf) firmly fit the science behind climate change. Yes, that’s part of the reason too. When you put it all together it is making for a pretty rough summer, even by our hearty Texas standards.
Great to see links to actual peer reviewed publications. For many, walking outside is enough of a reminder that we have a problem. For others, I suspect that neither experience nor science will make much of a difference.
It’s a problem we’ve had decades to prepare for – but rather than doing so, “we” preferred to invest the millions into trying to slow, pause, even reverse the evolution of nature. Just one example – low cost energy has never been more vital to survival. But the “experts” knew better, decommissioning countless megawatts from clean burning, hydrocarbon-fueled facilities. Small wonder they merely worsened that problem. The “eco lobby” has much to answer for – but are held beyond reproach by the media.
respectfully, there are no “clean burning hydrocarbon” fuels, only “cleaner than some alternatives.” Nat Gas is certainly better than coal, but it is not zero. I’ll grant that Solar, Hydro, and Nuclear are also not zero, but they’re orders of magnitude better than even Nat Gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
This is true. It’s sad that the corporate “mainstream” media is taking sides on this and many other issues that are affecting the Country right now. We want the truth.
Are you attempting to talk?
Good points and you even have an example in reply to your post.
Evolution of nature, great. What we are beginning to see is the new abnormal, but this will be one of the cooler summers we experience going forward, due to the massive amount of CO2 that we have pumped into our thin atmosphere, and continue to pump into our atmosphere from fossil fuel burning. There is nothing clean about hydrocarbon production and conversion. Global heating can be slowed but we must do everything we can to limit methane and CO2 now. Fossil fuels are not low cost, they must be subsidized, and the true low cost energy sources of renewables have been given tax penalties so fossil fuels can continue to compete economically in Texas.
Fossil fuels are not subsidized unless you are counting the ethanol which was ironically pushed by environmental groups. It is actually the ‘renewables’ that are heavily subsidized to bring them even close to cost effective. Furthermore, wind and solar are no better for the environment. Wind has actually negatively impacted bird migrations which impact the ecological system of south Texas as well as killing 100s of thousands of birds every year. The chemicals used in solar panels and in the recycling process are terrible for the environment which is the same as batteries in electric vehicles which ironically are powered by fossil fuel plants. The only true ‘green energy’ would be to use nuclear power plants but that does not solve the car problem as you would not put a reactor in each vehicle.
Hmm, it’s not like oil and gas industry doesn’t gets plenty of help through tax breaks. And subsidies has helped renewable get cheaper and cheaper. It’s a legitimate policy tool.
Also you don’t think there’s been and will continue to be advancements in production and recycling for solar panels and wind turbines ? Why would those two industries stagnate?
About the only thing you mentioned that’s legitimate is there are no clean sources.
Every source of energy production has a negative impact. I sincerely hope you don’t think wind turbines are somehow the only negative to birds worldwide much less in Texas. And to somehow equate the negative impacts of solar and wind as comparable to fossil fuels is just silly.
Not subsidized?!?!?! Our entire society has been DESIGNED so that you have to drive everywhere you go in your car! Get outta here.
The entire United States is a massive subsidy to teh oil industry, and their partners in crime in the auto industry and relations.
Exactly.
With all due respect, what the IPCC (and the other “sources” cited in the abstract) produces is propaganda and altered data, not science. Nor is an article from the left-leaning Texas Tribune. Anyone who claims that science has proven that there is a measureable impact of human activity (including greenhouse gases) upon the Earth’s climate is not a real scientist. It’s a theory that currently has no actual empirical evidnece supporting it.
Cite your sources
This is one of many:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/05/the_ipcc_radical_climate_change_agenda_is_a_neomarxist_postmodern_value_narrative.html
They are not hard to find if you look and keep an open mind.
Pretty neat that you criticized the Texas Tribune for being left-leaning, but then you cited a source from a website that looks like it hasn’t had a design update since 2005 and unironically has headlines such as ‘Woke Neo-Marxist Hard Left Declares First Amendment a Psychological Disorder’.
Lisa, I’ve tried twice to post a link, and it gets blocked. That’s probably a setting. Anyway, you can start by reading some of the published works by Dr. John Clauser, Dr. Ivan Giaver, and Dr. Robert Lauglin, and try the site called Watt’s Up With That. And, to be clear, I’m not saying the “theory” Matt supports has been disproven; only that it is not proven. Always be aware of scientists who forego the scientific method for hyping the consensus. Pretty soon we will be wearing cloth masks . . . Oh, wait.
By the way, they all have Ph.D. degrees in a hard sience field, and at least two have receivied Nobel Science awards. They still remember how a scientific fact actually gets proved. But, apparently they are “100%” wrong; according to Matt.
No theory is “proven.” But I think a scientific theory with a vast majority support of scientists is probably relatively trustworthy, even if there are a few mistakes here and there. That doesn’t mean it cannot be critiqued, but don’t be too eager to see it as a conspiracy or an elite bubble. There are much more important things to fight over anyway.
Hi. Are you a scientist?
So just to be clear…It’s your opinion that the >100 billion humans that have existed on earth throughout human history, and the >7 billion that exist now, with all of their various levels of waste and consumption, have had no impact on the earth whatsoever. Not only that, but any scientist that reaches the conclusion that >100 billion humans extracting resources to build vast civilizations over many centuries may have had an impact on the planet is “not a real scientist”. Absolute barn burner of a take here, thanks for sharing.
Don’t even try to reason with these people, they are a lost cause. Unless their pastor at church tells them it’s real, they won’t believe it.
Sidestepping the climate change discussion brewing here, I agree with the “it is the nights that hurt” sub-heading 100%.
If the area doesn’t cool off at night, it is just a warmer base for the daytime heating to start from, which means more misery for more people for more time.
Matt
There is no scientific. basis for attributing a single weather event, or even a series of them, to global warming.
I would think weather people are more well studied in climate change than any one of us, unless any of us have doctorates in climatology and other related sciences..Your statement seems to be an opinion, unless you can back it with measurable facts and data…
Yes there is. Tons of it. It’s not even that hard to find.
If the temperatures are constantly in the 100 mark, then evening temps are going to constantly be about 20 degrees less in the evening. Not much science to it. Of course many factors contribute, but that is more or less what we see in this area. If highs are 92-95, lows would still be 77 or so. Unless scientists have daily records going back millions of years, they cannot say what is normal.
True that!!!!
lol someone didn’t pay attention in statistics
Once again Matt wading into climate change while claiming to be ‘hype free’. As a past donor to this site because of the lack of hype and political commentary, I’m out. There is a clear slant and message now being portrayed which lacks any kind of statistical understanding of averages or effect of urban sprawl. Outliers occur and based on Matt’s logic, he would have been screaming we were going into an Ice Age in the 80’s.
g’bye already
That’s not hype. Hype is saying that a storm is going to be huge and devastating when it’s not likely to happen. Hype is making the weather sound worse than it is. Hype is not about saying true things that are widely accepted in the scientific community.
Why does climate change have to be political? I am 33 yr old republican I voted for Bush Jr., McCain, Trump, and it doesn’t take a scientist to figure out things are getting hotter. We have got to try something cloud seeding or carbon reduction things are getting out of hand. This shouldn’t be a right vs left thing
Thank you for getting it. I think when Gore did his thing in the early 2000s, it kind of ruined the discourse. Perhaps he was well-meaning when he did it, but it had ramifications we are still fighting. The science is real and is is not political. The solutions? I think if the topic could be reframed around that, maybe we’d get somewhere. That would be political, but at least it could not distract us from the actual problems. But instead we are still battling the demons of the past. And I think it’s cost us some opportunities to make some beneficial, bipartisan derived changes.
Good. See ya later.
Even Exxon scientists predicted the warming we are now seeing with accuracy.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-01-12/exxonmobil-accurately-predicted-effects-of-global-warming
Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. No one is telling you to do anything or believe anything. But saying that there is no scientific basis for this or that climate science is propaganda or altered data is completely 100% false. If you have doubts about what it actually means going forward, that’s fine. I also mentioned that there are other contributing factors, none of which are inconsequential either! We have told our readers that we will be honest with them about things. And people have asked what is happening this summer. So, we explained what has occurred. To pretend like climate change is not at least a partial factor at play would be dishonest to our readers. It is not hype to say this. Thus, we mention it. We are not a climate change blog, nor will we ever become one. But when people have questions, we do our best to answer honestly without being preachy about it, and that is what was done here. You’re free to disagree, but we are obligated to explain based on the facts and science. Thanks for reading.
the fact that you have to explain this to some people just tells you what is wrong with everything nowadays, many conservatives come here hoping this will be like fox news, where everything is catered to their ideals and beliefs. Guess what? the weather doesn’t adjust to that! Matt thank you for explaining what is going on in details and science. I very much appreciate it.
I appreciate that you’re not backing away from true facts because they’re “controversial.” I like my science scientific! Thank you for all the effort you put into this and it’s sad you (and all of us on this fast-heating earth) have to deal with people who want to make it into a fight.
Wrong Matt. Cite one peer reviewed and published scientific study — not an opinion piece or a “consensus” piece — that proves the hypothesis you are hawking as proven science. And, to be clear, I am not saying that it’s been disproven. Rather, I am saying that it has not been proven, and a professed scientist like yourself should not be spreading the propaganda. The bottom line is that climate has fluctuated back and forth between hot periods and cold periods forever, and there is far too much that we do not know about all the many variables that impact the Earth’s climate to prove that human production of so-called greenhouse gases has had any measureable effect on the global climate. Interesting to note that while we are having this debate the Southern Hemisphere (also a part of Earth the last time I checked) is experiencing one of the coldest years on record. I’ll wait to hear about that study Matt.
It is right, actually. First off, greenhouse gases are real. We’ve known about them for years. The science on that is science, not theory, assumption, or nonsense. It’s basic physics and chemistry. I’d love for you to actually share some peer-reviewed science instead of some “neo-Marxist” word salad. I see nothing in your post that is anything other than opinion. I posted one peer reviewed and published piece in the post. Here’s another that shows “average maximums will rise slightly faster than average minimums (except in the Southeast and Southern Great Plains).” https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ (Published by the Trump Administration, I might add). Peer reviewed and published, and as someone who personally knows some of the authors on this report, I’d be more than happy to attest to their professionalism and integrity. These are not people making things up to advance an agenda. On top of that, these are not people living like Al Gore. These are people on modest salaries who struggle for years as graduate students and post-docs…they aren’t gaining anything here. There’s no end goal that makes them more well off than you. They are following the science where it takes them, and unfortunately that seems to conflict with your worldview. Which is fine, but to call it propaganda is factually inaccurate.
Yes, 1962 holds the record for daily minimum temperatures 80 degrees or above. Climate change was terrible back in 1962, and the city was much bigger in 1962 than it is today, exacerbating the urban heat island effect. Oh, wait… Let me just say this: you guys are meteorologists, not climate scientists, and in fact one of you only has a certificate in meteorology not a 4-year degree in it. If you’re going to discuss global warming, have a climatologist do a guest post, maybe someone from Texas A&M which has a fine Climate Science Lab. Have the guest discuss how climate scientists adjust for the urban heat island effect, and then adjust your historical data appropriately rather than vaguely speculate about it.
what for? even with this you still won’t believe it
Except the majority of climatologists agree. They have been saying it for a long time now. You are free to check in with them.
It’s been over ten years since the urban heat island effect was an effective climate-skeptic talking point.
Prominent climate skeptic Richard A. Muller raised a lot of money from right-wing think tanks in the late ’00s to start his own experiment, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, in order to show that climate data was being skewed by the heat island effect and that climate change was not real.
BEST ended up proving the exact opposite: climate change is real, and the urban heat island effect does not significantly skew or bias the data. Muller published his results and publicly stated “Call me a converted skeptic…humans are almost entirely the cause.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller
https://berkeleyearth.org/archive/summary-of-findings/
That was a decade ago. The time for honest, well-meaning skepticism is long past. The science is clear, and if you don’t think so, then you’re the one with your fingers in your ears.
I have lived here in H Town all of my life. I was born here and am in my mid-60s. It has Always been hot here in the summer. I remember the summer of 1980 well. It was 100 degrees for many days and we lived through it. Also what about last summer 2022? I am simi retired but spend at least 3 days a week outside for about half of the day. Last May {2022} was Hot! And June was very hot!! I remember Matt or Eric commenting in mid June on the brutal heat and humidity in June and implied that it would be like that indefinably. Well July and August were not as hot as June, not your typical summer pattern but I was glad to have it.
One thing that I have noticed is that the local media back in the 1980 did not report on the weather the way that they do today. Too much hype for me and that is why I get all my weather info from Space City. With out the hype please.
It was hot. It’s hotter now. We are breaking more records more frequently than 40 years ago.
The chart shows that Houston is close to its record for 80 degree or higher night time lows, but places like Dallas, Laredo, and Brownsville, which, other than Dallas, already have more 80+ nights than Houston this year, but are nowhere near their records. This means that Houston has been too cool at night and is now getting into pace with the other cities.
We have the benefit of nice Gulf breezes to help us cool off at night, the other cities you mention (other than Brownsville) don’t have that benefit.
Look at all the snowflakes here in the comments crying for a safe space of science-denial. The Earth is getting hotter due to human-related actions, and it’s hilariously ignorant to want weather forecasts that don’t occasionally mention this scientifically proven causality.
I just want to see if I have to bring my umbrella to the office. Didn’t think I’d have to deal with the existential questions of life when I came to see the no-hype forecast but okay.
There are no existential questions here. Only clear data.
Nobody actually believes these fake complaints when the full forecast was covered by literally the third sentence.
But somehow a mention of climate change many many paragraphs after the forecast you were looking for is forcing you to “deal with the existential questions of life when I came to see the no-hype forecast”? Yeah, OK 🙄
BL: “don’t put hype in my weather reports”
Also BL: “omg why are you existentially questioning me???”
I think Eric and Matt provide a balanced hype free view on the weather and global warming. The science indicates man is having an effect on our climate. But the earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. How much of the current warming is natural and how much is due to anthropogenic causes? In addition it seems logical that since most of the heat we our currently experiencing is with nighttime lows wouldn’t most of that be explained by the urban heat island effect? Long and short of it is I’m not denying is happening but I’m not subscribing to the hype and fear either. It’s hot in Houston, always has been. Most of the heat seems to be at night and that’s likely due to the massive amount of urban sprawl….
I’m sure the climatologists who are experts in this area have thought about this plenty and in much more detail than you.
Here’s a graph of how the Earth’s temperature has changed over the last 22,000 years:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
The conclusion about how much of our current warming is natural and how much is anthropogenic is pretty easy to draw.
Your link is nonsense. The medival warm period was warmer than today…
https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf
“It’s hot in Houston, always has been”
Sure, but “hot” is not a measurement. This statement tries to remove statistics from the equation in favor of feelings. Time and time again, The SCW team explains why this heat is different and they back it up everytime with both numerical data and comparative analysis. They account for the addition of the Heat Island effect (did you complete miss that in today’s post??) If you act like any mention of climate change automatically qualifies as “hype,” then you are not taking some neutral high ground as you seem to be trying to portray. You’re intentionally closing your mind off.
I’m curious as to just how much of the current warming observed at night is due to the urban heat island effect and more importantly how anyone comes up with this number? And I most certainly do not act like any mention of climate change is hype. I don’t deny that man is having an effect. I’m skeptical of just how big of a role man is playing in this current warming trend. We have had heat waves worse and for longer in our not so distant past.
It’s tough to quantify it specifically. Estimates have been made, and I did find a fairly recent paper that suggests “3 to 36 percent” of warming can be explained by that, which is both a humorously large band (but that’s science sometimes) and also not inconsequential. But it’s also not the majority of the warming. But this at least lays out a process to get that value and tries to quantify it somewhat, which I know is a question that some well-meaning skeptics want to see. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-020-03889-3
Matt
In several posts you’ve stated that there have been no record high max temps this Summer in Houston, but plenty of record high min temps.
According to the NWS website there was one record high max set or tied at IAH in June and 2 record high max set or tied at HOU.
I also note that the daily average temps in May and first 11 days of June this year were below the ‘normals’ for those days. Then the heat dome set in and the pattern flipped with daily averages since mid June all well above typical ‘normals’.
I spent my career in the oil and gas industry. We were aware that burning hydrocarbons contributes to climate change and were taking steps to reduce our company’s emissions beginning in the early 1990s. Yes, climate change is real and yes, human activities are a factor. Not every single weather event can be attributed to climate change but the overall trend was pretty clear to those of us who worked in the trenches.
How about those Astros……… I am firmly in Matt’s camp on this. Climate change is REAL, REAL, REAL. Anyone that does not think it is real is just a fool. When the concrete roads start to buckle and fail because the expansion joints are not adequate for the amount of absorbed heat, you know it is HOT.
I have two pictures taken about 35 years apart at Glacier National Park in Montana. In the earlier one, the edge of the glacier is about 300 yards away. In the second one, you cannot even see the glacier. It all melted because things are heating up……
If you could take a picture of Glacier National Park 12,000 years ago and compare it 35 years ago you would probably be in shock. The earth has been warming since the last ice age ended. It’s what typically happens in “interglacial” periods. How much of the current warming is natural and how much is anthropogenic?
Well, at least this high pressure dome is helping to deflect tropical development in our immediate vicinity, for now 👉🏻🌀⛔
When the shear & dust begin to diminish in mid Aug, we might be missing this questionable protection and singing another song.
Matt & Eric are doing us all an invaluable service, helping to dispel the confusion and explaining the scary but fascinating weather we’re experiencing now, and as we head up this tropical rollercoaster.
I’m so glad they’ve made these two sites; they definitely make my day better 😉
Stay safe, all
🌬⚘
For the record, my large, over 40 year old magnolia turned brown last summer. It was an old fashioned magnolia with the very large leaves and great big flowers–(as opposed to the “Little Gem” variety which has smaller leaves and flowers and is very popular these days). I did not want to think it was dead, so I called the plant lab at Texas a and m. They said yep–it’s a goner. And they confirmed that it’s hotter and drier here and getting more so every day. I have seen at least six other magnolias like mine that died last summer. It’s sad that global warming is started to kill even native plants. The little gems seemed to have faired much better, but the old southern magnolias cannot live here anymore. The plant lab said don’t try to re-plant; it will not be able to live in this environment. The death of every southern magnolia–just up and turning brown and retaining leaves due to weather stress–is, ironically, living testimony that something has gone very wrong.