NASA: July 2016 Was Earth's Warmest Month On Record (weather.com)

mdsolar quotes a report from The Weather Channel: Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), operated by the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), calculated the global average July temperature was nearly one-fifth of a degree Celsius higher than previous July temperature records set in 2015 and in 2009. July was also 0.55 degrees Celsius higher than the July average for 1981-2010. Compared to the July average, the south-central part of the United States including Texas and into northern Mexico were the most anomalously warm for North America. Globally, portions of western Russia and the Southern Ocean were warmest compared to average. In Russia, fires and an anthrax outbreak have been blamed on warmer than average temperatures. Each of the last 12 months has been the warmest on record for their respective months. This is due to a combination of global climate variability and human activity according to C3S. July is typically the warmest month of the year globally because the Northern Hemisphere has more land masses than the Southern Hemisphere. (NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) confirms today.)

Comments

Was this before or after adjustments?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was this before or after adjusting the data?

The procedure is outlined here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat.

It's bad news when you have to control for various factors in order to obtain an interesting result. It's also very arbitrary because the researcher can pick and choose which factors to account for and how to do so, in order to obtain the desired result.

These kinds of abuses lead to all sorts of nonsense conclusions like claiming vaccines cause autism. If the warming doesn't show up until you adjust for certain factors, you're doctoring the data.

So, I'd really like to know whether this is before or after the adjustments. The adjustments to the data create the mostly fictional warming.

Re:Was this before or after adjustments?

[MightyMartian]

Climatologists have no reason to lie at all. They will still be involved in that research whether it's global warming, global cooling, or nothing at all.

But you tell me, where does all the extra energy absorbed and re-eimitted as IR by CO2 go? If you think the climatologists are lying, does that also lead you to believe that physicists who have known CO2's properties as far as absorbing certain wavelengths of CO2 for over a century are also lying? Just how many people will you stack into your conspiracy to make the theory go away?

Re:Was this before or after adjustments?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'll get modded to oblivion but "scientists" aren't any smarter or dumber than the average person. They just managed to find a job that pays out more when the headlines aren't positive."

Hey, a Degree from Burger U, (Is that where you got yours?), isn't quite the same as a BS from Columbia and a Phd. from Berkeley. Richard Muller was a Skeptic coming from a perspective far away of yours; A Genuine Skeptic. He is also an Internationally known Physicist, very good a Data Analysis, and he felt the the Data Analysis here wasn't rigorous enough.
The Kochs, not NASA or Greenpeace, funded his studies on Climate Change, and he came back with three conclusions:
-It's real.
-It's pretty bad.
-Much of it is Anthropogenic.

That's pretty much what the Kochs needed to know, and they have adjusted their long-term planning accordingly. As has Bank Of America and the Department Of Defense, DOE, NASA, the World Bank...

"... In every industry, from burger flipping to advanced software..."
I doubt that you have _any_ credentials in the latter; I even doubt any credible capability in the former. Typical Republican these days, not only doubting that two and two can be added, but denying any possibility, against any and all evidence.

Get modded to oblivion; that is just where you belong, you Know-Nothing.

Re:Was this before or after adjustments?

[MightyMartian]

So tell me, how was this comment overrated? How is it that so many science deniers get mod points, and why is it that they choose to use it to punish those that accept the science? Do you think you win debates by downmodding people?

Fuck this place sucks so fucking bad.

Re:Hottest on record ... again

[MightyMartian]

You're wrong because you're constructing statement, and seem to have no interest in the science at all.

Gets popcorn

[wbr1]

See subject.

In all reality, whether you agree with AGW or not, even if it is just GW, as the only sentient, tool wielding species on the planet don't you think we should fucking prepare for the worst?

Re:Please explain

[crunchygranola]

Please explain the following:

1.) When the weather is hotter than normal, it's evidence of Global Warming (or climate change), but... 2.) When the weather is colder than normal, the AGW apologists immediately remind us that Weather is not Climate.

If indeed the Earth is getting warmer, the press sure aren't doing the AGW advocates any favors with stories like the above.

These stories about extreme weather events only reinforce the perception that it's all a scam for political control. It's not helping.

I'll explain under the assumption that this is an honest request for elucidation (but that this is an AC post is not promising).

The article is not stating that it is "hotter than normal". It is stating that is hotter than ever recorded, indeed hotter than any time in the last 100,000 years. July is typically the hottest month so one expect historic records to be broken in July, and the last time the record was broken was - last July. If we go by seasonal records (hottest January, hottest February, hottest March, etc.) the last time was such a record was broken was - last month. And the last time before that was - the month before, and so on and so on.

When was the last time that it was colder globally than ever before recorded? Based on a relatively recent 1961-1990 average the last time we had a cooler than average month was 31 years ago.

Mycology

[Geoffrey.landis]

> I challenge you to find any scientific study that uses raw, unfiltered data.

Im a mycologist and when doing spore measurements we measure the length and width or many spores. Then average the length and average the width. Providing largest measurements, smallest measurements, and average. We don't "adjust" our actual measurements to make sure the spore size meets the expected size.

Possibly you should, since other mycologists do make corrections. Here are some corrections factors noted by Smith et al: "Sources of Variability in the Measurement of Fungal Spore Yields": http://aem.asm.org/content/54/...

"Quantification of the sources of experimental error in spore
production measurements provided a basis for recommendations
concerning the necessary degree of replication"

"to ensure that these precise counts are also
accurate, checks must be made for interference from nonspore
particles in the same size range as spores and for the
clumping of spores. The degree of clumping that we encountered
necessitated a correction factor that was much larger
than that expected from the coincidental passage of conidia
through the aperture, which should have been less than 2% if the
conidia were all separate. Also, our correction factor was
only approximate and probably varied with culture age, as
did the mean weight per spore. "

see also Chapels: "Spore size revisited: Analysis of spore populations using an automated particle sizer" http://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Sydo...