Apparently, all those people missed the fact that they were looking at the output of a climate model, not actually measured temperatures. Only one news outlet, The Associated Press, bothered to print a sensible caveat…The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration distanced itself from the designation, compiled by the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, which uses satellite data and computer simulations to measure the world’s condition….
The AP updated its story on July 7th to include this single yet very important paragraph: “NOAA, whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said in a statement Thursday that it cannot validate the unofficial numbers. It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called ‘not suitable’ as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records. The agency monitors global temperatures and records on a monthly and an annual basis, not daily.”
So, in the space of two days, we went from temperature data that was “totally unprecedented and terrifying,” to temperature data that was not suitable for purpose.
‘Supposed’ Record Temperature In China Not All It Seems– Paul Homewood: “There is a highly coordinated effort taking place to persuade the public that the world’s climate is somehow out of control, with extreme weather everywhere and heatwaves on every continent.” … “Quite clearly, any record temperature set in the Turpan is meaningless and cannot be compared to other locations in China. It is merely the product of a micro climate. There is also a second issue here. Sanbao has no official listing or any historical data…In short we have no way of knowing whether it has been hotter in Saobao in the past, or whether the thermometer there is even properly sited and maintained.”
Read the whole article here:
via climate science
September 1, 2023 at 01:59AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 