July was Earth’s hottest month in what’s destined to be Earth’s hottest year
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Frankly, the claims made in this article are a bit ridiculous. To anyone with any kind of math or science background, the claim that one can accurately measure the temperature of the earth down to two decimal places is hubris.
But it's even worse when one considers that the distribution of temperature recording stations isn't uniform, that large swaths of the earth have barely any coverage at all, and that the most accurate way of measuring temperature has only been available for the last couple of decades (satellite measurements). And I might add that the article above uses surface temperatures and not satellite measurements.
In many of these temperature stations, temperatures are still recorded by hand, on a piece of paper, by observing a thermometer. One has to deal with different measurements made by different people and equipment as things are replaced or repaired.
Additionally, lots of these temperature stations have had their recorded temperatures adjusted upward. I always wondered why, and I did some investigation and found out that it was because the temperature stations had been moved from an urban environment to a more rural environment. However, the measurements have not been subsequently adjusted down as those new environments urbanized. What we see is a ratchet effect, not in actual temperature but in observed temperature.
What's the upshot? The supposed 0.02 increase in temperature is well within the margin of error for both the surface level temperature measurements and the estimation made in the upward temperature adjustments at many sites.
Here's a fairly comprehensive post[2] with numerous links to publications and explanations. Satellite vs. surface is mentioned explicitly near the bottom.
[1]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469
[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurem...
[3] http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/updated-noaa-temperat...
"K15 have made some relatively minor changes to the bias correction methods, and the result is a large increase in the post-1998 trend.
A. They added 0.12 oC to readings collected by buoys, ostensibly to make them comparable to readings collected by ships. As the authors note, buoy readings represent a rising fraction of observations over recent decades, so this boosts the apparent warming trend.
B. They also gave buoy data extra weight in the computations.
C. They also made adjustments to post-1941 data collected from ships, in particular a large cooling adjustment applied to readings over 1998-2000.
Taken together these changes largely explain the enhanced trend over the past 15 years. So now everybody needs to decide if they think these adjustments are valid.
Perhaps they are. The main problem for us observers is that other teams have looked at the same issues and come to different conclusions. And the post-1998 K15 data don’t match that from other independent sources, including weather satellites."
To put it plainly: if the data doesn't fit, just make some convenient corrections and then suddenly it'll fit exactly what you want it to.
I encourage you to read the whole critique:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possib...
The more I dig into this stuff the more I realize that the data, at least prior to satellite measurements, is just crap and needs to be discarded.
When we start seeing megafauna in Antarctica like we did when dinosaurs lived there, or even any land animals besides penguins and humans, then we can start talking about Earth's hottest months.
We don't seem to have a handle on this warming, and there is no real will to tackle this problem. It seems we are determined to wait for bigger consequences before we'll be convinced to act. At which point it might be easier to just migrate, and keep polluting. That's how we humans roll.
What I noticed mostly is that our forecasts are getting sensibly worse even in the short period. If I had time for a serious research, I'd look more at how some climate change happened to modify the patterns that we previously used successfully in our models because with confidence in forecast simulations dropping is gonna be very hard to make sense of any data. Especially since dire predictions from the seventies eighties and nineties all turned wrong and people is desensebilizing to the problem, even if the risk is about the unknown unknown more than the actual known