July was hottest month in recorded history

[UM-Bot]

New data revealed by NASA has shown that global temperatures have been reaching record levels this year.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/297841/july-was-hottest-month-in-recorded-history

[+and-then]

I'm just thankful that we're having a reasonable summer on the Gulf coast this year.  We just set a new record for the longest number of days without a Hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico.  In trade, we got the warmest Christmas on record in 2015.    We definitely are in a screwy cycle of weather but I get really suspect when anyone starts yelling that the house is on fire and they need some of my money to put it out.  If man made climate change IS true then we're all screwed anyway.  The impact of one or two countries bankrupting themselves to stop a problem that is caused by ALL nations will be negligible and pointless.

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, UM-Bot said:

New data revealed by NASA has shown that global temperatures have been reaching record levels this year.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/297841/july-was-hottest-month-in-recorded-history

I urge readers to compare the article above with the actual temperature records which are available here:  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt  This site is the source that the linked article used.  See if you agree with what was written.

If you're not inclined to believe NASA's own data, then you might try a different dataset, like HadCrut4, available here:  http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut4/

HadCrut4 will require some effort to extract the data, but it's in there.

Doug

Edited August 16, 2016 by Doug1029

[Saru]

41 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I urge readers to compare the article above with the actual temperature records which are available here:  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt 

You are confusing the relative increases over baseline for any given month with the overall temperature of any given month.

+1.10 over baseline for December is not hotter overall than +0.84 over baseline for July.

[Doc Socks Junior]

I'll point out, for the edification of the public, that the NASA data is presented relative to the 1951-1980 base period, while the HadCrut4 data is presented relative to the 1961-1990 base period.

[Doug1029]

1 minute ago, Socks Junior said:

I'll point out, for the edification of the public, that the NASA data is presented relative to the 1951-1980 base period, while the HadCrut4 data is presented relative to the 1961-1990 base period.

Good point.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 minutes ago, Saru said:

You are confusing the relative increases over baseline for any given month with the overall temperature of any given month.

+1.10 over baseline for December is not hotter overall than +0.84 over baseline for July.

I beg to differ with you.  The baseline is nothing more than the average temperature in degrees Celsius between January 1, 1951 and December 31, 1980.  Just subtract the average for this time period from any given temperature and multiply by 100 to get the figure listed on the table.  It is a different temperature scale, but it accurately reflects the relative temperatures involved.  If you want to know the temperatures in degrees Celsius, there is a conversion equation listed on the site.

July 2016 was the hottest JULY on record, but there have been a bunch of hotter months.  The headline is wrong, as is the first sentence of the article.

Actually, there are temperature records going back a lot further (In Oklahoma they go back to July 1, 1824.).  But there are not enough of these to give a good picture globally, so NASA doesn't use them.  One COULD develop an estimation model, then use the best-fit stations to estimate global temps.  Don't know just how accurate that would be, though.  I doubt they'd show a warmer month, anyway.

Doug

[Saru]

7 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

July 2016 was the hottest JULY on record, but there have been a bunch of hotter months.  The headline is wrong, as is the first sentence of the article.

There are hundreds of major science news outlets, online journals and other sources carrying this story and they all say the same thing. If you believe that absolutely every one of them is wrong then you are free to do so, but that doesn't mean we are misrepresenting anything.

If in the future it is conclusively demonstrated, to the agreement of the scientific community, that July 2016 was not the hottest year on record at the time this was written, then we will add a correction to the article to reflect that.

[Doug1029]

8 minutes ago, Saru said:

There are hundreds of major science news outlets, online journals and other sources carrying this story and they all say the same thing. If you believe that absolutely every one of them is wrong then you are free to do so, but that doesn't mean we are misrepresenting anything.

If in the future it is conclusively demonstrated, to the agreement of the scientific community, that July 2016 was not the hottest year on record at the time this was written, then we will add a correction to the article to reflect that.

I think you're safe there.  It will take at least months and maybe years for papers to be written and published.  By the time you need to publish your correction, everybody, including you and I, will have forgotten about July 2016.

In the meantime:  always refer back to the original data source (if available) and to the original paper (if possible).  That gets you away from misquotes and copy errors which is what this is.

Doug

Edited August 16, 2016 by Doug1029

[Saru]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

In the meantime:  always refer back to the original data source (if available) and to the original paper (if possible).  That gets you away from misquotes and copy errors which is what this is.

A disagreement between you and absolutely everyone else, is what this is - not a failure to look at sources.

[Doc Socks Junior]

I think that it might be edifying for you to examine the FAQ that NASA provided for the GISTEMP data, Doug. If you do that, I'm sure you'll understand why this isn't a misquote, or a copy error. But hey, maybe not.

(Hint, seasons).

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by Socks Junior

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Socks Junior said:

I think that it might be edifying for you to examine the FAQ that NASA provided for the GISTEMP data, Doug. If you do that, I'm sure you'll understand why this isn't a misquote, or a copy error. But hey, maybe not.

(Hint, seasons).

 

The URL for that is:  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

Looks like I need to calculate the monthly corrections.  That will probably affect my list of warmer months.  My apologies to Saruman and the readers.

 

Update:

I guesstimated the monthly corrections using NASA's graph.  July 2016 just barely edged out June 2014.  I didn't bother calculating the rest because it appears they won't be close.  So the problem was me not correcting for month.

Record or no, it appears that we will soon be pulling out of El Nino.  That should lower temps for awhile.  Maybe - we could still get a record or two before this ends.

Doug

Edited August 16, 2016 by Doug1029

[Jungleboogie]

I see a huge logical gap in this story.

July hottest month in modern history... becomes man-made global warming undeniable.

Big gap there.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Jungleboogie

[Doug1029]

55 minutes ago, Jungleboogie said:

I see a huge logical gap in this story.

July hottest month in modern history... becomes man-made global warming undeniable.

Big gap there.

There is a gap there.  It's El Nino.  We are still under the influence of a major El Nino event.  Until we come out of it, we will not be able to make a good estimate of how much global warming occurred during El Nino.  This is one of those naturally-occurring weather fluctuations that deniers like to blame all warming on.  The difference in this case is, it's real.

What this is really doing is widening the confidence limits of what is considered "normal."  So it is having an effect on climate.

Doug

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Saru said:

A disagreement between you and absolutely everyone else, is what this is - not a failure to look at sources.

Just a thought here:  if one is not willing to risk a disagreement with practically the whole world, then one is not likely to learn much worth knowing.  It's a necessary risk, so the argument carries little weight.  And I have learned a few things in this argument.  Thanks, Saruman.

Doug

[Nnicolette]

So is this figured through overall highs or residual averages throughout the day or what. Because last month was hot but it was 10° less hot than it was here a few years ago and that heat persisted for a much shorter timespan as well.

[Doug1029]

Double post

Edited August 16, 2016 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

7 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The global daily average temperature is estimated by taking the average temp at each of a number (1000, I think) equally-spaced points across the surface of the earth.  The estimated temperature at each of these is a weighted average of station temperatures from within its area.  In turn, global daily averages are averaged by month, year, etc.  Land areas use data from individual stations; ocean surfaces are measured using satellite data.

You get that weighted average by taking each station temp and dividing by the distance to the reference point, then multiplying by the sum of one over each of those distances.

Doug

 

[zeek wulfe]

Interesting comments all, but someone has reduced the whole thing to it's fundamentals.  I ran across something called Somerton's Law which says that ..."if the solution to global warming and climate change was lower taxes, fewer regulations and less intrusive government, the issue would vanish."  I was a believer in global warming until I read this little nugget of wisdom and it opened my eyes.

[Farmer77]

46 minutes ago, zeek wulfe said:

Interesting comments all, but someone has reduced the whole thing to it's fundamentals.  I ran across something called Somerton's Law which says that ..."if the solution to global warming and climate change was lower taxes, fewer regulations and less intrusive government, the issue would vanish."  I was a believer in global warming until I read this little nugget of wisdom and it opened my eyes.

This is where things get sticky, and frustrating for me. Its clear that 'global warming' is being used and has the utmost potential to be manipulated by those in power , particularly those with a globalist/leftist slant. BUT and its a big BUT its also clear we have been destroying the environment for over a century. I think it takes a complete lack of intellectual honesty to claim the damage we have done couldnt or wont have long term negative consequences. Whats the answer to bridging the gap between necessary reform and national interest IDK. 

Anecdotally we saw (unofficially) 130 degrees a couple of times in July ,it definitely was the hottest I have personally ever lived through.  

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by Farmer77

[Doug1029]

13 hours ago, zeek wulfe said:

Interesting comments all, but someone has reduced the whole thing to it's fundamentals.  I ran across something called Somerton's Law which says that ..."if the solution to global warming and climate change was lower taxes, fewer regulations and less intrusive government, the issue would vanish."  I was a believer in global warming until I read this little nugget of wisdom and it opened my eyes.

At least at the moment, so-called "carbon taxes" are counter-productive.  They give people the impression that something is being done when that is not the case.  Carbon taxes just make things with carbon in them cost more; they do nothing about reducing pollution.  If a polluter is willing to pay the tax, he just pays it and the world gets dirtier.

BUT:  by charging a carbon fee at the well-head, mine mouth or port of entry, we can make anything containing carbon cost more.  But that's not good enough - people have to have a way to influence what the market produces; they can do that only if they have money to spend as they see fit.  They can get that money if the carbon fees are redistributed to everybody on a per capita basis.  It's called fee-and-dividend.

Are carbon fees a tax?  No.  If you refuse to pay a tax, the government takes your house, car, bank account or whatever to pay the tax.  If you refuse to pay a carbon fee, nothing happens except that you have to do without whatever it was you were going to buy.  And that's why fee-and-dividend works.  People buy the lower-cost, less-polluting product.  As it stands, "carbon taxes" are only half an answer.

Fee-and-dividend requires very little regulation.  The only penalties are for companies trying to evade the tax.  It's just like any other law-enforcement problem.

 

At least in terms of electricity, market economics is the solution.  Wind and gas-fired turbines are currently the cheapest source of electricity.  But wind is posed for a major increase in efficiency which will drop the price by half over the next five or six years.  Many parts of the country have already converted to wind power and others are in the process of converting.  Solar is also coming down.  It will pass coal this fall, but will still lag well behind oil, gas and wind.

Government could speed up conversion by granting loans for the building of new electrical grids.  But as these grids will mostly carry wind power, the coal industry is strongly opposed.  And as they are major campaign contributors, the government isn't getting involved - so far.

Hillary Clinton is in a no-win situation as regards coal:  if she tries to do anything about warming, the coal interests will oppose her.  But if she tries to help coal, the warming interests will oppose her.  Good luck, Hillary.  And that's just one issue.  The root of all the problems seems to be big money buying elections.

Doug

[Zalmoxis]

Yeah, this summer has been hot hot hot.