Hottest July Ever?

[xband]

Yes, things average out. This winter is brutal and cold and July will be brutally hot. The Second Law of Thermodynamics should never be ignored.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I would like to know how the AVERAGE temperature is calculated. Is the sampling method consistant from year to year? How can average temperatures prior to 1900 be adequately compared to today’s average temperatures when the sampling methods used must be very different?

We are looking at a very small window of data that is directly comparable.

Well, there's that.

However in recent times we have a lot more data.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."

Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.

"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .

In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."

"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."

"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."

"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."

So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.

However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.

However interpreting what you're reading is important.

Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.

Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.

The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.

Still a small window (time period) of data.

Yes, it is.

And what? They say this is the hottest year ON RECORD. Not the hottest year.

It's STILL an issue with the READERS and not with the people do the research or the people writing the articles.

 

[JoeMoma]

I would like to know how the AVERAGE temperature is calculated. Is the sampling method consistant from year to year? How can average temperatures prior to 1900 be adequately compared to today’s average temperatures when the sampling methods used must be very different?

We are looking at a very small window of data that is directly comparable.

Well, there's that.

However in recent times we have a lot more data.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."

Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.

"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .

In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."

"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."

"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."

"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."

So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.

However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.

However interpreting what you're reading is important.

Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.

Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.

The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.

Still a small window (time period) of data.

Yes, it is.

And what? They say this is the hottest year ON RECORD. Not the hottest year.

It's STILL an issue with the READERS and not with the people do the research or the people writing the articles.

Damn! You are missing the point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I would like to know how the AVERAGE temperature is calculated. Is the sampling method consistant from year to year? How can average temperatures prior to 1900 be adequately compared to today’s average temperatures when the sampling methods used must be very different?

We are looking at a very small window of data that is directly comparable.

Well, there's that.

However in recent times we have a lot more data.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."

Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.

"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .

In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."

"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."

"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."

"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."

So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.

However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.

However interpreting what you're reading is important.

Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.

Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.

The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.

Still a small window (time period) of data.

Yes, it is.

And what? They say this is the hottest year ON RECORD. Not the hottest year.

It's STILL an issue with the READERS and not with the people do the research or the people writing the articles.

Damn! You are missing the point.

No, I'm not.

I'm looking at your point and then making what I see as relevant points.

Do you understand what I'm saying and why?

 

[JoeMoma]

I would like to know how the AVERAGE temperature is calculated. Is the sampling method consistant from year to year? How can average temperatures prior to 1900 be adequately compared to today’s average temperatures when the sampling methods used must be very different?

We are looking at a very small window of data that is directly comparable.

Well, there's that.

However in recent times we have a lot more data.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."

Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.

"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .

In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."

"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."

"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."

"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."

So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.

However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.

However interpreting what you're reading is important.

Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.

Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.

The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.

Still a small window (time period) of data.

Yes, it is.

And what? They say this is the hottest year ON RECORD. Not the hottest year.

It's STILL an issue with the READERS and not with the people do the research or the people writing the articles.

Damn! You are missing the point.

No, I'm not.

I'm looking at your point and then making what I see as relevant points.

Do you understand what I'm saying and why?

I understand what you are saying. However, the point I tried to make is that the calculation for average temperature in 1917 is probably quite different than the calculation of average temperature in 2017, which has little to do with what you are saying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, there's that.

However in recent times we have a lot more data.

Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too."

Lots of places to collect data. From satellites, and elsewhere.

"
Scientists use four major datasets to study global temperature. The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit jointly produce HadCRUT4 .

In the US, the GISTEMP series comes via the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS), while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) creates the MLOST record. The Japan Meteorological Agency ( JMA) produces a fourth dataset."

"The answer to this lies in how the different datasets deal with having little or no data in remote parts of the world, measurement errors, changes in instrumentation over time and other factors that make capturing global temperature a less-than-straightforward task."

"Data coverage has, perhaps, the biggest influence. NASA GISTEMP has the most comprehensive coverage, with measurements over 99 per cent of the globe. By contrast, JMA covers just 85 per cent of the globe, with particularly poor data in the poles, Africa and Asia."

"It’s reasonable then that a missing Arctic could lead to a global temperature that’s lower than in the real world."

So yes, there are concerns about how the data is collected.

However if you measure temperatures all over the world, but miss some places out, and see a rise in temperatures every year, more or less, even though you're missing places out, chances are that the temperatures are rising.

However interpreting what you're reading is important.

Those who take the data and HONESTLY report the data will talk about how global temperature measurements are rising, rather than global temperatures.

Some sites don't understand what they're writing, but usually the problem lies with the READERS of the articles making assumes that they shouldn't, not understanding all the words, missing bits out and coming to a bad conclusion.

The scientists and science reporters can't really control how people read things.

Still a small window (time period) of data.

Yes, it is.

And what? They say this is the hottest year ON RECORD. Not the hottest year.

It's STILL an issue with the READERS and not with the people do the research or the people writing the articles.

Damn! You are missing the point.

No, I'm not.

I'm looking at your point and then making what I see as relevant points.

Do you understand what I'm saying and why?

I understand what you are saying. However, the point I tried to make is that the calculation for average temperature in 1917 is probably quite different than the calculation of average temperature in 2017, which has little to do with what you are saying.

Not at all.

What I'm saying is that people who know what they're reading will understand that in 1917 the ways of measuring things were different.

They don't need someone to hold their hand and say "records aren't always the same".

Hottest on record is just that. You have to understand what it means.

Some people will think "it's the hottest the Earth has ever been", others will think "it's the hottest since records began and we've been using satellites to measure this stuff for hundreds of years" and others will be like "well, records are records, we have to take a lot into account. However we have a pretty fair idea of what has been happening but it's never going to be 100% accurate."

Then you get people who go "d'uhhhhhhhhhhhhh, don't care, what's on TV?" That's the majority of those on this forum.

Again, it's an issue with the READERS and not the writers, which was my point in the beginning.

 

[whitehall]

Ever? Why does the global warming cult assume that the world is only about 200 years old? We know the secret, they put their monitoring devices on blacktop areas that soak up the heat and probably the edges of freaking volcanoes and announce that ....ooh, ooh, it's the hottest month ever. Meanwhile the records set for cold are ignored. Keep that federal grant money coming in or we might have to lay off some cult leaders.