Submitted via IRC for Bytram
July was world's hottest month on record, World Meteorological Organization says
The latest data from the World Meteorological Organization shows the month of July "at least equalled if not surpassed the hottest month in recorded history" — and it followed the hottest June ever, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Thursday.
The UN chief told reporters that "this is even more significant because the previous hottest month, July 2016, occurred during one of the strongest El Niño's ever," which was not the case this year.
An El Niño is a natural warming of the ocean that once it interacts with the atmosphere often warms up the globe and changes rainfall and temperature patterns, making some places wetter and some places drier.
Guterres said the latest weather data, including temperature-shattering records from New Delhi and Anchorage to Paris, Santiago, Adelaide, Australia and the Arctic Circle, means the world is on track for the period from 2015 to 2019 "to be the five hottest years on record."
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @06:25PM (30 children)
See here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ [drroyspencer.com]
What data "product" are they using?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @06:30PM (18 children)
Don't see it in Gistemp either: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Monthly_Mean_Global_Surface_Temperature/graph.html [nasa.gov]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @06:53PM (13 children)
Looks like it is the output of a climate model...
https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-single-levels-monthly-means?tab=overview [copernicus.eu]
They manually choose which data to include:
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/elibrary/16646-part-i-observations [ecmwf.int]
I didn't read further, but this "dataset" looks largely made up.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @07:01PM (2 children)
and I thought it was Illuminati and Globalists? And what about the Chem Trails!!?!?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @07:07PM
Keep fighting the good fight, you are a great help.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday August 05 2019, @09:50PM
Clearly it was a fleet of malevolent ice cream trucks all parked so that their exhaust was heating every thermometer in the world. Because it certainly couldn't be because of anything that The chemtrails are just secret signals to help the drivers coordinate.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 05 2019, @08:04PM (9 children)
I followed your link and skimmed down through the file. There are a couple pages which give details on how the "blacklist" works. They list all sorts of reasons why data is excluded in advance -- things like miscalibrated equipment, new equipment where calibration status is unknown, malfunctioning equipment that provides incomplete data, incomplete datasets with missing header or other info, etc., etc. I'm pretty sure that the majority of criteria for exclusion here are common to almost all lab-collected datasets (at least where the analysts are competent). Hardly reason to claim the dataset is "largely made up."
Now, there are a few other more ambiguous categories for exclusion. And there are a few reasons for exclusion after analysis has begun -- mostly having to do with solar activity causing biased readings. I honestly don't know enough right now or care enough to learn what all of this is about just to disprove your conspiracy theory that the scientific group the EU has hired is simply cherry-picking data it likes. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that the particular dataset is biased.
Now I need to go back to other things, rather than wasting time reading a document for an AC on the internet who doesn't want to be bothered to support his own conspiracy theory.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @08:16PM (2 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 06 2019, @02:46AM
You know what? I'll bite. You know why my "name recognition" sometimes "carries weight"? Because I bother to read stuff and try to contribute thoughtfully to discussion, so sometimes my comments get modded up. I'm sure I spent at least as much time reading that document as the orignal AC (who may or may not be you).
You want to experience that? Log in and contribute positively to discussion. If you have a reputation for caring and trying to evaluate evidence, rather than cherry picking a sentence that sounds bad out of a long document ("ooh.. blacklist!"), maybe others will pay attention to you. I'm perfectly willing to believe that some climate scientists may be biased and may sometimes -- deliberately or subconsciously -- make decisions that bias their decisions about analysis. Most scientists do sometimes, because they are human.
But if you're going to assert an entire reputable scientific body is just making up a dataset based on cherry picking, it's up to you to back it up with something beyond a half-assed argument based on a sentence that was pulled out of a document deliberately to be misconstrued.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @03:49PM
You too could benefit from this strategy, you whiner
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @09:45PM (1 child)
Here is what I learned from my experience collecting data: there is always (100% of the time) a legitimate reason to drop any given data point.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @06:13AM
That wasn't data you were collecting. It was stds.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @09:50PM (3 children)
I linked to two separate datasets that agree with each other but not this one showing record high temperatures. Why do they not have to explain why they have the different results?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @02:02AM (2 children)
Neither of your sources agree with each other and one of them doesn't have July data. Also, they measure different things.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @02:08AM (1 child)
They both agree that June was not the hottest June ever, which is the relevant claim in the article... God you retard ACs are so annoying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @05:35AM
No, you just can't read graphs. Here it is in tabular form, where you can't obfuscate: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt [nasa.gov] As you can see, the latest June is the hottest by far. That spike you are claiming is June 2016 is the February and March of that year.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @06:54PM (3 children)
That only has data until JUNE. Nice try though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @07:00PM (2 children)
TFA talks about June as well, it does not match up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @01:21AM (1 child)
From 2016: Sorry deniers, even satellites confirm record global warming [thinkprogress.org]:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @01:37AM
And what is your problem with the monthly raw data... and GISTEMP that shows the same thing? The only dataset showing these records is this weird European one no one has heard of before.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @06:43PM (2 children)
Based on the 4 year old peeps I have on my window sill, July was pretty hot. Hot enough for a few of them to soften enough to be eaten.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 05 2019, @07:05PM
Sorry, your observations don't count unless you work for the government or one of its corporations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @02:38AM
https://archives.erfworld.com/Book+1/15 [erfworld.com]
Parson, is that you?
(Score: 2, Troll) by FatPhil on Monday August 05 2019, @08:15PM (7 children)
The nice thing about the site you link to is that if you want to sniff into the questions like whether it's the sea warming or the land that's warming (the latter is a better indicator of global warming, as it has more thermal ballast), you can do, as plenty of raw data is there.
Also the nice thing is that the graph prominantly on that page does clearly show long term slow and steady global warming. Being scientific about things, ooops, sorry, I think you guys call us "skeptics", which you also seem to spell n-a-z-i p-u-p-p-y m-u-r-d-e-r-e-r-s, doesn't mean denying global climate change.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Monday August 05 2019, @08:38PM (2 children)
I think you got "sea warming or the land that's warming (the latter ... has more thermal ballast)," backwards. I believe the sea has much more thermal ballast than the land...unless your meaning of "ballast" is one I don't understand.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @01:26AM
It wouldn't be such a tragedy if that's the only point he got backwards. On a second though, you can discard his whole comment without any loss, so no tragedy at all.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 06 2019, @11:39AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @01:23AM (3 children)
Is there anything of value in your post?
Seems more like a declaration of "I'm a climate warming skeptic and you are shite if you disagree with me", but maybe you actually made a point I couldn't detect.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @07:10AM (1 child)
Ware ist khallow! Und, Eich miss frojack. Best obfuscating climate change denier ever. Wrong, but subtle.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 06 2019, @09:53AM
Hi. Is there some reason I should be posting?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 06 2019, @11:52AM
Note - The above statement says nothing about non-scientifically-minded climate change skeptics, one might even say that those who are sufficiently unscientifically minded don't even deserve the moniker 'skeptic', and yes I do feel the need to emphasise that, as even applying high-school levels of reading comprehension is too much effort for some.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Troll) by donkeyhotay on Monday August 05 2019, @07:21PM (4 children)
...where I live the last few years have been more temperate and milder at both extremes. I know that's purely anecdotal, but actual data is hard to come by, let alone an explanation for the observations. It seems like nobody wants to talk about climate, outside of some political narrative.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday August 05 2019, @08:36PM
If it doesn't get them re-elected, they don't care. It's like the teacher telling you what's going to be on the test. The student doesn't care, if it's not on that list.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Funny) by pipedwho on Monday August 05 2019, @10:14PM (1 child)
So true. I have a friend that likes to go down to Bondi beach and surf at 5am every morning. She said she froze her arse off a few weeks ago in (July) as the water was damn cold, and there was a -3 degree (Celsius) wind chill blowing. She works for the government too (office admin at the local bus depot), so surely that holds additional weight. If the world was really warming, how is it that she needed a dry suit just to catch a comfortable morning wave? Seriously, this proves that these climate change reports are all full of crap.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday August 06 2019, @03:07AM
That's the latest in shark protection for the NSW govt employees: chill the water, no sharks. Unfortunately, they need to dump the heat somewhere, and this year they did it over west Europe.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Wednesday August 07 2019, @07:37PM
Responding to my own post because someone mod'd it as "Troll". I don't see how anyone can read what I said as trollish. Who was I trolling? I admitted that my experience was purely anecdotal. I did complain that actual data for my region is hard to come by. Is that "trolling"? How? I literally cannot find any sort of temperature trend for my part of the world from the National Weather Service. If that data is available, where is it? Seriously, the only time I ever see any "data" is from biased articles and such. It's not really data, rather it's more along the lines of, " says about the climate". If it's "trollish" to want to know more about the data, then I would like to know how I am supposed to be even remotely scientific about something.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 06 2019, @12:04AM (3 children)
If the global warming zealots hadn't pinned their hopes on Al Gore and his hockey stick, some of us wouldn't be so skeptical today. Thanks to Al Gore, we are always looking for the gimmick in the data.
Thanks to the recent heat wave in Europe, a few million people are primed to believe whatever is thrown at them, regarding imminent doom. Gotta get this stuff out while the audience is paying attention, right?
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @03:20AM
Ha!
Well, at least you're now open to realizing the seriousness of what is going on. Al Gore deserves only credit for pushing against the political climate of the time, enduring the endless character attacks and pursuing his quest regardless.
The "hockey stick" was controversial because the average person is so science illiterate that the "jump" of .5C seemed ludicrous and when zooming out you could hardly see the bump in the data. That .5C was very important, the beginning of this trend we've watched continue unabated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @07:41AM
It wasn't just Big Al and his vague hockey stick. I have yet to hear a single warmist condemn those 'scientists' whose leaked emails exposed how they plotted to suppress inconvenient data, not because the data was wrong, but because it wasn't, and because it did disagree with their agenda.
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Wednesday August 07 2019, @07:48PM
The point about Al Gore is one I have also made. Back in the mid 80's, he chose to turn global warming into a political issue. I lived through that time. Was very much an adult at that time. I remember the speeches, with his screaming and spitting, trying to rally the crowds. Ever seen Al Gore on a rant? He makes Donald Trump look like a milquetoast.
I don't know; perhaps it was the media's fault. Maybe they just never showed those quiet moments where he reached across the aisle looking for compromise. At any rate, from what I saw, there was never any attempt at compromise. Far too many people were immediately put on the defensive. When you politicize an problem, you tend to lose all hope in solving it.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @02:32AM (1 child)
Didn't they stop doing nudes then went busted or something?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @04:14AM
Kind of. Now they have nude trannies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @04:16AM (1 child)
I'm usually suspicious of rank as a metric. It comes up a lot when people are comparing the US to various countries. "OMG, we've slipped from 3rd to 11th in that", but if you look at the absolute metric as opposed to rank, we've gone from 93.5 to 92.6. Panic time... not.
So what if July is the hottest month? What's the granularity? If it's 1C, we're literally baked. If it's 0.1C, cause for concern. If it's 0.01C it takes 100 months to go up 1C--you have 100 chances to be the "hottest month on record" when you've only gone up 1C, whereas if you're talking 0.1C there are far fewer chances so it means more.
In other words, the number impact and the frequency of 1st rankings depends on the precision of your measure, and that's subject to manipulation, and not terribly meaningful.
I'm sure the trend is up, but it's trends that matter--not ranks, and absolute trends that matter, not ranking trends because as I said... ranking can be made to look more important than it is, simply by changing the precision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06 2019, @06:18AM
How will we ever find out? *weeps*