By simple random odds (which given that weather stations are few and far between, simple odds of micro-climates can shift temperature slightly), even with zero influence of global warming or any other effect, it's entirely possible to break records set over such a short period. I'm far too lazy to calculate random odds right now, but setting a new high at a 17 year interval doesn't seem remarkable. It is in the context of global warming, but in isolation it really doesn't mean much.
This isn't an anti AGW comment, and it's unfortunate that it's impossible to even state something so fundamental without it becoming religious, but the truth is that we've been recording our planet for a very short period of time, with growing accuracy and coverage every year.
Imaging we have a coin that I claim is biased. (Just pretend that front-page story about how it's impossible to bias a coin didn't happen.) I've flipped it dozens or hundreds of times and nearly every time it comes up heads.
After I've done this for a while, I start saying, check this out, I'm pretty sure this coin is biased. I provide my data to support the claim. But it's an ongoing investigation, so I'm still flipping the coin, and it keeps coming up mostly heads. Every so often I publish a confirming tidbit, like, "I just flipped the coin 5 times and every time it came up heads. This is even more confirmation that it's biased."
What you're doing is basically taking that statement and saying, that doesn't mean anything, a fair coin would produce 5 heads in a row 1 out of every 32 attempts.
Then I do another experiment, flip the coin four times and each time it's heads. Your reply is that it's meaningless because a fair coin would reproduce this 1 out of every 16 attempts.
Another experiment. Six heads. You say it's meaningless, because a fair coin would do this 1 out of 64 times.
And we keep on going. With each announcement you point out, correctly, that this specific, individual result could pretty easily occur by random chance. And yet each of your responses is useless and misguided, because it ignores all the other results.
Setting a new high is not remarkable. Doing it repeatedly starts to get more interesting. Doing it while average temperatures have been rising steadily for over a century is more compelling. Put all the data together and, while each little piece can be said to mean little because it could have happened by random chance, the sum total is highly compelling.
Do you really think you want to understand? Again, the irrational histrionics of so many to this discussion (such as the conflation of billions of years with a period of time that is a tiny, tiny sliver of human history, much less periods of the Earth). It is impossible to discuss nuances without the predictable, boorish stomping of feet and announcing of positions. People must make everyone know how firmly and strongly they believe in global warming.
And the funny thing is that I fully and completely believe in and understand AGW. It isn't a religion, however, and I'm not waving a flag or announcing fealty, or angrily posting over the top responses to anything that is other than full-fledged Belief. It is the most toxic, bottom-feeding discussion going.
You're right, the discussion is mostly awful. Climate change has been turned into a political issue, and awful discussion is a predictable result of that.
On the other hand, I don't see how your comment improves that any.
People acting outraged about a simple statement of fact like "since 1880", or the notional, obvious statement that a sporadic high or low is, by itself, not compelling, diminishes everyone.
You're right of course, that a single record high is not compelling. Even when it's a global, monthly record high. My point in my original reply is that pointing this out is irrelevant and annoying.
Was your point merely that this data point, by itself, is not compelling? If so, my original comment, which you complained about missing the point, was exactly about that. Was it something else? If so, I'm having a seriously tough time figuring out what your point is supposed to be.
Exactly the same principle applies.
Look at the title of this submission. Stop and before you knee-jerk a response, contemplate that this isn't "it's hot, yo, and getting hotter". It is specifically that July was the hottest month "ever recorded", which someone quite rightfully noted was since 1880.
> zealots such as yourself
Stuff like this breaks the HN guidelines, and there is much of it in your comments. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all, even when others are wrong. In fact, especially when others are wrong.
Variation at a point is high. Variation for a period of a single day is high. Samples are taken frequently. Thus new records will be set regularly.
Variation for the entire globe is low. Variation for a period of an entire month is low. There are twelve samples per year. Thus new records would not be expected to be set frequently.
Again, what exactly is your point?
For regional records, you're tracking 365 events per year. Each one is compared with that day on prior years.
For global records, you're tracking one event per year (since July will always be the warmest month).
Thus, if you'd expect to set a new record every 50 years, then you'd see on average one global record every 50 years, but you'd see about seven daily regional records every year.
Also consider that you should be seeing both record highs and record lows. Record lows continue at a good pace for regional daily records, but there hasn't been a global record low for well over a century.
But I'll also note that you haven't even bothered to go back and compute the probabilities in the first place.
It was one thing to make this argument in the 90's, but two decades of data later it's plainly ridiculous and it doesn't take nuanced data analysis.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201506.gi...
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201506....
AGW is reality. The disciples of AGW are profoundly intolerable, however.