>Draw a time evolution of all the record numbers and you will see a straight line going up. Ok, to understand this as evidence what you actually need to do is

>Draw a time evolution of all the record numbers and you will see a straight line going up. Ok, to understand this as evidence what you actually need to do is to repeat this process after you have got to ~0.99 many times, this will give you a way to understand the expectation of the evolution of this process, then you will see a curve with an initial rise that flattens as you approach 0.99 - you will have many trials at that level before you can have a expectation of getting to 0.991 So getting to a record level - if the bias of instrumentation is understood - is a surprising and significant thing; it's not something that we should expect. It's an event that can be interpreted as either a rare and surprising coincidence or an significant piece of evidence of a change. As a bayesian it makes me update my priors towards a stronger belief in climate change - but I had strong priors for that already.