July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record | Hacker News Reader

July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record

drroyspencer.com

16 pointsvixen9912 comments

Bear in mind that the author, Roy Spencer:

* has a Ph.D. in meteorology, which is not the same as climatology

* believes that most climate change is natural in origin

* is a Creationist: "I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism"

This doesn't mean his article is wrong. I don't have enough technical knowledge to pick it apart. Just beware that the article might be biased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Thank you for that.

Do any of your points change the facts that he outlined?

No, I explicitly said so in my previous comment.

If I understand correctly he uses a dataset called CFSv2, which goes back to 1979, and then July 2019 is the 4th warmest on record after July 2016, 2002, and 2017.

If these were numbers (range 1979-2019, winning numbers 2016, 2002, 2017, 2019) that could be used to predict the odds of winning in a lottery then I would be very happy to use them and buy a 2020 lottery ticket.

Interesting analysis, but "...it was the 4th warmest on record" would be a good addition to the title. In other words, it was still really warm compared to historical standards. But, interesting article.

Also, it's interesting that 2002, 2016, and 2017 were the warmer Julys than 2019, since 1979.

It's even more interesting that many Julys prior to 1979 were warmer still. Our (humanity's) temperature records aren't very good before 1895, but the long-term (many thousands of years) temperature record shows that much higher temperatures existed within the time frame of human existence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Vari...

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Going back even further, the record shows that it was MUCH hotter before then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.p...

It's a massive red flag to me when these sensationalist articles are still relying on thermometers for data. I thought they'd have enough integrity to rely on satellites at this point. Same as when you have statements like "99% of scientists agree on global warming". Yes,tthey agree that it's happening and that humans are playing some role, not that we're all going to die in 10 years if we don't turn things around.

I am certainly not an expert on global temperature analysis, but from what I have read, 'satellites' does not trivially equate to 'better'. The satellites are not measuring temperature directly, unlike thermometers, so there is significant extra processing involved. Indeed the mapping of satellite data to temperature values has had to be recalibrated in the past. And because of the extra indirection, there are larger uncertainties.

Also if you look at the satellite data, although individual months may differ, the trend overall is the same as the ground based measurements, just with larger errors, which in fact shows thermometer data is doing a pretty good job.

Do they agree that future generations will be dealing with a hot ass climate in 200 years if we don't turn things around?

You'd have to be incredibly selfish to not consider that a crisis.

Of course it is a crisis, but the timescale is crucial as far as the kinds of measures we take. Do we ban fossil fuels altogether, raising the cost of living for everyone and plunging developing countries into poverty while we work out a way to make renewable energy affordable? Or do we have the government put money into renewable energy research, lowering its costs and making it a financially more lucrative alternative? The latter would take much longer but I think it's a better solution than making life more expensive for everyone than it already is.. Or maybe there is some other answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com