Skip to content

July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record

August 2, 2019

By Paul Homewood

 

From Roy Spencer:

 

image

July 2019 was probably the 4th warmest of the last 41 years. Global “reanalysis” datasets need to start being used for monitoring of global surface temperatures.

We are now seeing news reports (e.g. CNN, BBC, Reuters) that July 2019 was the hottest month on record for global average surface air temperatures.

One would think that the very best data would be used to make this assessment. After all, it comes from official government sources (such as NOAA, and the World Meteorological Organization [WMO]).

But current official pronouncements of global temperature records come from a fairly limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends. The global surface thermometer network has three major problems when it comes to getting global-average temperatures:

(1) The urban heat island (UHI) effect has caused a gradual warming of most land thermometer sites due to encroachment of buildings, parking lots, air conditioning units, vehicles, etc. These effects are localized, not indicative of most of the global land surface (which remains most rural), and not caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because UHI warming “looks like” global warming, it is difficult to remove from the data. In fact, NOAA’s efforts to make UHI-contaminated data look like rural data seems to have had the opposite effect. The best strategy would be to simply use only the best (most rural) sited thermometers. This is currently not done.

(2) Ocean temperatures are notoriously uncertain due to changing temperature measurement technologies (canvas buckets thrown overboard to get a sea surface temperature sample long ago, ship engine water intake temperatures more recently, buoys, satellite measurements only since about 1983, etc.)

(3) Both land and ocean temperatures are notoriously incomplete geographically. How does one estimate temperatures in a 1 million square mile area where no measurements exist?

There’s a better way.

 

Full post here.

11 Comments
  1. August 2, 2019 5:35 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

  2. HotScot permalink
    August 2, 2019 6:16 pm

    Do I qualify for a degree?

    I have been banging on for years about buckets over the side of ships, to no defined depth (in fact probably bouncing along the surface) which was probably going on until the early 20th Century as even the Cutty Sark was sailing commercially until, from memory, into the 1920’s.

    In addition, SST samples would have been taken largely across well worn trade routes in the northern hemisphere. Any data in the Southern Ocean and much of the Pacific Ocean would have been virtually nil.

    Stevenson screens were never intended to be part of a global climate network. They were local weather stations and when originally developed, it’s beyond me how they would be calibrated with others perhaps months away by sea. The best possibility, perhaps, would be telegraph.

    Nor are Stevenson screens standard, there were two types developed, a UK and a US version. To their credit however, the designers had a tight specification for both construction and siting criteria, including the timber used and the paint necessary to protect them from rot.

    The problem is, of course, few people had access to “Dulux Magnolia white with a hint of pink” in the Australian outback.

    Then of course there is a the quality of data recorded. No one can convince me that much of it was ‘documented’ by the office junior, or equivalent at the time, when the responsible ‘scientist’, if there even was such a thing, was off on a field trip/having breakfast, lunch, dinner/socialising with the local dignitaries/drunk, or sh@gging the local jam tart.

    Office juniors are notorious for nipping out for a ciggy, to the nearest shelter from the wind/rain/snow and having a guess at stuff like, todays temperature being much the same as yesterdays, but plussing or minussing 0.1C, just in case they are asked.

    Then of course, if we have a nice, healthy, strapping, well nourished 6’2″, well educated ‘scientist’ examining a mercury thermometer, there is likely to be a difference from his 5’4″ native office junior going home to a plate of gruel.

    I believe data homogenisation is the answer to all of this.

  3. Joe Public permalink
    August 2, 2019 6:43 pm

    “Ocean temperatures are notoriously uncertain …”

    Ocean volume: 1,338,000,000 cu km

    Average ocean depth is about 3,688 metres

    As at Oct 2018, there were just 3,982 Argo floats oscillating up and down to only 2,000m

    One per 336,000 km^3

  4. John189 permalink
    August 2, 2019 7:05 pm

    The BBC is already conflating reports of a global record July with record temperatures recorded on one day in the UK. I will be interested, but not alarmed, were the claims for global warmth to bear up to scrutiny, but simply cannot understand the hysteria surrounding “climate change”. Weather and climate are fascinating subjects for study, and the student’s first conclusion must surely be that we cannot control either.

    • Bertie permalink
      August 2, 2019 8:50 pm

      I am so sick of hearing the “”we must do something” mantra, because the numpties who chant it have no knowledge of the flawed science of both the scare and the possibility of a ‘cure’ for it.

    • Lez permalink
      August 2, 2019 9:27 pm

      On page 2 of today’s Telegraph, we have Hilary McGrady, head of the National Trust claiming that ‘climate change is irrevocably altering formal gardens, because the warming climate had caused a springtime drought’.
      I have been a member of the NT for decades, but will not be renewing my subscription as I’m not prepared to support this crass propaganda.

    • Jazznick permalink
      August 2, 2019 9:39 pm

      Alas, John189, students are not being taught to think, they are being taught to conform and to bathe in the mutual acclaim of their similarly brainwashed peers.

      All ‘woke’ together.

      About 30 years ago I concluded that if the self-proclaimed ‘climate scientists’ had to lie to me to convince me of their case they were not worth listening to. Why did they not have a strong case to offer me ? Why all the evasion and cherry-picked data ? Why all the threats ? Why all the hidden data (still hidden) ? Why all the faked surveys ? Why all the conspiracies ?

      The lies and distortions and omissions continue and anyone daring to question the faked data and exaggeration face career destruction or marginalisation and smear by the MSM who have ceased to do investigative journalism and just re-publish hand-outs to maintain their careers or massage their egos.

      Kudos to the hundreds of true scientists around the world who publish peer-reviewed (for what that’s worth) papers; supported by Universities that still do science independent of government or political and idealistic influence.
      In other words, all the science that the IPCC ignores as it includes little or no human blame content and would thus undermine it’s power and political influence worldwide if it ever got into the larger public domain.

      I’m still amazed by people who think that the IPCC was set up to find out the cause of climate change rather than a means to ‘frame’ mankind for all climate variation.

      It is a great pity that due to the desire of our superiors to appear ‘on-message’ that they do not have the guts to rip some of these organisations to shreds, as I’m sure they could if they were not part of the problem.
      Alas, they can see the control, taxation and business possibilities of the ‘Climate Emergency’ if they ‘play along’ with it and allow the Ministry of Truth (BBC) to act as a UN/EU/IPCC pressure group to keep the scam going. You will comply………there will be no exceptions.

      It looks like we shall have to wait for the planet itself to ‘call-out’ the Blob as no-one of any influence is likely to do so one day and still retain that influence the next day.

  5. Arthur Clapham permalink
    August 3, 2019 9:29 am

    Excellent letter Jazznick,sadly you won’t be invited by the BBC to air your thoughts you would have a better chance of winning the lottery!!

    • Jazznick permalink
      August 4, 2019 7:11 pm

      Thanks Arthur,
      I feel that if I ever got invited onto a BBC interview there would suddenly be a problem with the ‘mike’ or the phone line or they would ‘run out of time’ that’s the usual MO with people they feel challenged by….

      Meanwhile greenie Greta Garbage will soon have her own cookery programme no doubt !

  6. swan101 permalink
    August 3, 2019 9:46 pm

    Reblogged this on ECO-ENERGY DATABASE.

  7. Tony Budd permalink
    August 3, 2019 9:49 pm

    Surely the relevant science cannot overlook the fact that the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is not limited to non-rural areas: that heat dissipates in the environment but does not simply disappear. It still raises the overall temperature of both the atmosphere and the oceans, the latter due to run-off into rivers from hot roads and buildings, farmland, sewage discharge and power-station cooling systems. All of the fossil or nuclear fuel burned or processed to date has ended up ultimately as heat in the environment, and even wind- and solar-power transfer energy from one location to another where it may have a larger effect on local weather systems by contributing to the UHI effect. And of course all agricultural land has a much higher heat emission rate than the primeval forests did before they were cleared over recent millennia: a process continuing at a higher rate today than previously. By comparison, the CO2 contribution is probably relatively minor, although of course it helps to slow the rate at which man-made heating radiates away.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: