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.
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.
