
July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record - vixen99
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/
======
luc4sdreyer
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)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_\(scientist\))

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

~~~
luc4sdreyer
No, I explicitly said so in my previous comment.

------
thesimp
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.

------
rossdavidh
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.

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

~~~
ananonymoususer
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png)

[http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm](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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png)

------
crazynick4
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.

~~~
DangitBobby
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.

~~~
crazynick4
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.

