8 ms·

Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records

79 points by web11 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
reportgunner 3y ago
I couldn't find the reference that shows where "U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction" released this record measurement. I found another article[0] that says the measurement is from Climate Reanalyzer[1] that uses the data from CFS/CFSR systems. The Climate Reanalyzer website also says "The increase in mean global temperature since the start of July, estimated from the Climate Forecast System, should not be taken as an "official" observational record." [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/world-swelters-unofficial-hottest-day-record-rcna92598 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/world-swelters-unoffici... [1] https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
mistrial9 3y ago
this is a UC Berkeley-based project with similar records https://berkeleyearth.org/data/ https://berkeleyearth.org/data/
- mistrial9 3y ago
  blog post https://berkeleyearth.org/june-2023-temperature-update/ https://berkeleyearth.org/june-2023-temperature-update/
brink 3y ago
[flagged]
- kgwxd 3y ago
  They get down-voted because they're worse than useless.
  - brink 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - belltaco 3y ago
      I don't think an anecdote against an average makes sense. For example, lets say a study finds Tylenol reduces fevers, an anecdote of 'it never did for me or my friends and family' is somewhat of a relevant anectode because that would be very unlikely if the study was true. Now lets say a study finds 'the average height in 5th grade is 5ft 4in'. And someone responds 'I am in 5th grade and I am only 5ft, the study is a screed and maliciously motivated'. That isn't a relevant anecdote because of how averages work. Just like your anecdote here.
    - ye-olde-sysrq 3y ago
      So because some studies don't replicate or are corrupt, they all are, and we should rely blindly on gut instinct? The whole point is that science isn't a religion. Science is just forming a hypothesis, testing it, and then analyzing your results (often mathematically) to determine whether your hypothesis was supported, rejected, or if the results were inconclusive. It's a best-effort thing using the tools and methods available. It's not infallible, but it doesn't ever ask you to "believe" anything. >blindly trust the study No, nobody here has ever told you to blindly trust anything, I can assure you. You can always look at the study yourself and look to identify why you might not agree with their conclusions, and that's how peer review works! You can review their evidence, and analyze their logic for how they drew conclusions based on the evidence, and if you find a flaw in their reasoning or how they collected their data, then you're free to criticize it and hopefully whoever carries on that research will repeat the experiment but take your feedback into account.
    - Swenrekcah 3y ago
      Ok there’s some confusion here. Some studies being wrong does not make all of them wrong. It certainly doesn’t give anecdotes any special credibility. Furthermore the well established body of knowledge about of human induced climate change is made up of countless studies, predictions, observations and general scientific and engineering knowledge going back almost 200 years. To reject or throw that into doubt because there are a handful of swindlers in science just as in any other human endeavour is like saying all modern medical equipment is probably a fraud because of Theranos.
- brazzy 3y ago
  I'm downvoting you for two reasons: a) preemptively complaining about downvotes, b) calling an existentially threatening development with endless significant evidence and broad scientific consensus a "creed". If you know an anecdote says nothing about a large scale development, why mention it at all?
  - brink 3y ago
    I'm not complaining.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Timon3 3y ago
      It's funny how the ones saying this are always the ones who disagree.
    - bobsmooth 3y ago
      We get it, you're rich and in a developed country. You will be the last person to be affected by climate change.
      - gottorf 3y ago
        On the contrary, people in poor countries with unstable governance will be the most affected by the centralization of power required for the climate undertaking. I posit that long term, more people globally will be harmed by politicians short-circuiting the democratic process to combat the climate "emergency" than by the changing climate itself. The latter is showcased by the fact that in the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, climate-related deaths went to a third, even as the world population more than doubled[0]. That's one-third in absolute number, not per capita! [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989
swader999 3y ago
The 1930's are triggered.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  Pretty sure all of these "ever recorded" records for global temps are only since 1979.
  - brazzy 3y ago
    Pretty sure you're dead wrong.
    - wolfram74 3y ago
      Unfortunately their statement is too vague to be wrong, obviously there are numerous different ways to define global temperature, and different ways to measure it at the time, and different ways to infer it after the fact. amongst all that, probably one of them does only go back to the 70's. Does it make incomparable to any of the methods that go back centuries or millennia? Probably not.
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      The recent headlines are all based on NCEP, a model which isn't exactly super reliable. https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1676391692461547522 https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1676391692461547522 In fact, if you read past the headlines in the articles, they also include the same caveat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/05/hottest-day-ever-recorded/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/0... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-record-heat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-re... The NYT article buries the fact by making it seem like they were only presenting data that far back, but it is literally in the first sentence of the WP article... directly contradicting the very same article's headline.
    - pickledish 3y ago
      (also, just wanted to let you know this comes off as a bit unnecessarily rude -- you might want to phrase it more gently / give some reasons why you believe so next time)
raintrees 3y ago
And we are still building fires in the wood burning stove to keep warm in Northern California. Mid-July.
- SentinelLdnma 3y ago
  So we'll just all become #VanLife nomads and everything will be fine.
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    There is a hotel in Death Valley. People stay there when it's 125. If your home town gets 3 degrees hotter, I think you'll figure it out.
    - terminatornet 3y ago
      looking forward to all of the crops and livestock i need to stay alive figuring it out!
      - talldatethrow 3y ago
        Your area might no longer be ideal. The area that was a little too cool will become ideal. Technically more people die per year from cold than heat. Why do you want more people to die?? /Slight sarc
- barbazoo 3y ago
  The article is talking about averages so there can be local outliers.
josh_today 3y ago
[dead]
kolanos 3y ago
[flagged]
- dimal 3y ago
  I think all the mega fires a few years ago simply removed a lot of the fuel and provided fire breaks. It’s not possible to burn millions of acres every year indefinitely.
- brazzy 3y ago
  The western US had a much wetter than average winter. Meanwhile, Canada is having the worst wildfire season ever: https://www.axios.com/2023/06/29/canada-wildfire-season-worst-record https://www.axios.com/2023/06/29/canada-wildfire-season-wors...
runjake 3y ago
Spoiler: El Niño and climate change. Don't feed the clickbait titles.
- reidjs 3y ago
  New headline suggestion: El Niño and climate change caused last week to be the hottest week ever recorded.
- mike_hock 3y ago
  I mean, I knew that without clicking the link. To the article or to the comment section.
NotYourLawyer 3y ago
> On July 3, the planet sweltered as the average global temperature reached 17.01° Celsius (62.62° Fahrenheit), the highest ever recorded, according to data from the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction. That surpassed the previous record of 16.92° C (62.46° F) from August 2016. I am extremely curious about the error bars on these numbers. Are we really measuring the temperature in enough places around the globe with 0.01 degree resolution to make this a meaningful statement?
- jfengel 3y ago
  The raw data includes satellite measurements, which cover the entire globe. It's calibrated against ground-based weather stations. The raw data is available at: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/ https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/ Putting all that together into a single temperature requires a model. The error analysis of the model is on their web site. There's certainly more than enough data to justify four significant figures. (The weird part: the authors of the report are both prominent climate change deniers. One says that the problems are real but not man-made; the other says that the problems are real and man-made but not actually a problem. They are the guys who run the satellite and integrate the data.) https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/June/GTR_202306JUN_1.pdf https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/June/GTR_202306JUN_1....
- revelio 3y ago
  No. Error bars on satellite measurements are OK (not sure what they are exactly but not too bad), but for anything before the 1970s the error bars are wide. 0.5 degrees at best but more realistically 1-5 degrees depending on weather station. That's government's own CI estimates btw. And that's before you get to the way they rewrite the past in the temperature databases. It leads to problems like this: Jeff Berardelli, WFLA-TV (Tampa Bay) Chief Meteorologist and Climate Specialist: “In case you missed it. The temperature soared as high as 100 degrees in the Northwest Territories on Saturday, the hottest temperature ever measured north of 65 degrees latitude in the Western Hemisphere”. Tough keeping up with all this climate chaos.” https://twitter.com/WeatherProf/status/1678635894021005312 https://twitter.com/WeatherProf/status/1678635894021005312 100 degrees, hottest ever measured in north of 65 degrees latitude. A factual statement? No, because it's not true. It reached 100F at Fort Yukon (66.6 degrees latitude) in 1915, according to government logbooks since erased from their websites: https://web.archive.org/web/20170209162324/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pub/data/special/maxtemps.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170209162324/https://www.ncdc.... This happens because climatologists engage in data fraud. They not only constantly change how they combine individual readings into global aggregates, but also rewrite the temperature history of every single weather station too. It leads to constant 1984-esque dystopian events, like trusted news sources claiming a new record has been broken when you can find records of that "record" having been previously already been reached or exceeded in newspaper archives and old documents.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Lots of discussion last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36595486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36595486
kkielhofner 3y ago
I'd like to say politics could be avoided on this but not knowing anything about the science, historical stats, etc I've always had a simple nagging question on this issue that hopefully someone can help me understand. Elementary school science classes teach basic cause and effect. My question is: How is it possible the planet can be billions of years old, then all of a sudden we discover fossil fuels in the past few hundreds years and start extracting and burning them at incredible rates, releasing them into the atmosphere. Isn't it safe to assume there would be a basic cause-effect relationship here with /some/ kind of consequence? It just strikes me as a "no free lunch" scenario - I don't fundamentally understand how you could all of a sudden start burning all of this stuff and argue against there being negative effects for the overall atmosphere, ecosystem, etc. Can someone help me understand how/why this wouldn't be the case?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  No one can because it's clearly not true. The only people arguing it isn't true are the various think tanks, foundations, coalitions, online PR bots, and the rest funded by the fossil fuel industry - working to persuade those who don't understand the issue, but are sure their opinion is very important. Atmospheric CO2 science has been researched since the 19th century. In the 70s Exxon/Mobil had its own climate scientists making shockingly accurate predictions of what would happen. The IPCC climate change models - produced from 1990 onwards - have usually been conservative. That is the objective reality. Everything else is spin, FUD, and noise. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a...
  - majesticglue 3y ago
    those think tanks really did a number. the climate denialists, have made moving goal of going from denial to climate change is not man made. The amount of americans who can't stand that fact that they were wrong on the matter is incredible.
cpr 3y ago
A global temperature average is utterly meaningless. https://off-guardian.org/2023/07/12/reality-check-no-we-didnt-just-have-the-hottest-week-in-100000-years/ https://off-guardian.org/2023/07/12/reality-check-no-we-didn...
- ben_w 3y ago
  That reads like a rant by someone with an axe to grind, and not just because they put scare quotes around the word "pandemic" in a list of other things they don't believe. Hint: when you're confidently a degree above the temperature range for 100 to 0.05 kya, you don't need to establish two decimal points in that period to say you're exceeding it, only in the recent period where you're closer (which in this case is entirely in the period with global satellite-based temperature data). I shouldn't have even bothered skim-reading given the starting point of trying to argue that "average temperature" is meaningless, given that temperature is literally only a thing at the scale of averages. But then, I have actually used satellite records of global surface temperature, so of course I'd be annoyed at a random blogger who thinks this is done today with a bunch of weather stations.
- r721 3y ago
  >Overall, we rate OffGuardian a Strong Conspiracy and Strong Pseudoscience website that frequently promotes unproven conspiracy theories and false information regarding the Coronavirus. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/offguardian/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/offguardian/

79 points by web11 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

I couldn't find the reference that shows where "U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction" released this record measurement. I found another article[0] that says the measurement is from Climate Reanalyzer[1] that uses the data from CFS/CFSR systems. The Climate Reanalyzer website also says "The increase in mean global temperature since the start of July, estimated from the Climate Forecast System, should not be taken as an "official" observational record." [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/world-swelters-unofficial-hottest-day-record-rcna92598 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/world-swelters-unoffici... [1] https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/

mistrial9 3y ago

this is a UC Berkeley-based project with similar records https://berkeleyearth.org/data/ https://berkeleyearth.org/data/

mistrial9 3y ago
blog post https://berkeleyearth.org/june-2023-temperature-update/ https://berkeleyearth.org/june-2023-temperature-update/

brink 3y ago

[flagged]

kgwxd 3y ago
They get down-voted because they're worse than useless.
- brink 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - belltaco 3y ago
    I don't think an anecdote against an average makes sense. For example, lets say a study finds Tylenol reduces fevers, an anecdote of 'it never did for me or my friends and family' is somewhat of a relevant anectode because that would be very unlikely if the study was true. Now lets say a study finds 'the average height in 5th grade is 5ft 4in'. And someone responds 'I am in 5th grade and I am only 5ft, the study is a screed and maliciously motivated'. That isn't a relevant anecdote because of how averages work. Just like your anecdote here.
  - ye-olde-sysrq 3y ago
    So because some studies don't replicate or are corrupt, they all are, and we should rely blindly on gut instinct? The whole point is that science isn't a religion. Science is just forming a hypothesis, testing it, and then analyzing your results (often mathematically) to determine whether your hypothesis was supported, rejected, or if the results were inconclusive. It's a best-effort thing using the tools and methods available. It's not infallible, but it doesn't ever ask you to "believe" anything. >blindly trust the study No, nobody here has ever told you to blindly trust anything, I can assure you. You can always look at the study yourself and look to identify why you might not agree with their conclusions, and that's how peer review works! You can review their evidence, and analyze their logic for how they drew conclusions based on the evidence, and if you find a flaw in their reasoning or how they collected their data, then you're free to criticize it and hopefully whoever carries on that research will repeat the experiment but take your feedback into account.
  - Swenrekcah 3y ago
    Ok there’s some confusion here. Some studies being wrong does not make all of them wrong. It certainly doesn’t give anecdotes any special credibility. Furthermore the well established body of knowledge about of human induced climate change is made up of countless studies, predictions, observations and general scientific and engineering knowledge going back almost 200 years. To reject or throw that into doubt because there are a handful of swindlers in science just as in any other human endeavour is like saying all modern medical equipment is probably a fraud because of Theranos.
brazzy 3y ago
I'm downvoting you for two reasons: a) preemptively complaining about downvotes, b) calling an existentially threatening development with endless significant evidence and broad scientific consensus a "creed". If you know an anecdote says nothing about a large scale development, why mention it at all?
- brink 3y ago
  I'm not complaining.
- gottorf 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Timon3 3y ago
    It's funny how the ones saying this are always the ones who disagree.
  - bobsmooth 3y ago
    We get it, you're rich and in a developed country. You will be the last person to be affected by climate change.
    - gottorf 3y ago
      On the contrary, people in poor countries with unstable governance will be the most affected by the centralization of power required for the climate undertaking. I posit that long term, more people globally will be harmed by politicians short-circuiting the democratic process to combat the climate "emergency" than by the changing climate itself. The latter is showcased by the fact that in the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, climate-related deaths went to a third, even as the world population more than doubled[0]. That's one-third in absolute number, not per capita! [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989

swader999 3y ago

The 1930's are triggered.

zdragnar 3y ago
Pretty sure all of these "ever recorded" records for global temps are only since 1979.
- brazzy 3y ago
  Pretty sure you're dead wrong.
  - wolfram74 3y ago
    Unfortunately their statement is too vague to be wrong, obviously there are numerous different ways to define global temperature, and different ways to measure it at the time, and different ways to infer it after the fact. amongst all that, probably one of them does only go back to the 70's. Does it make incomparable to any of the methods that go back centuries or millennia? Probably not.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    The recent headlines are all based on NCEP, a model which isn't exactly super reliable. https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1676391692461547522 https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1676391692461547522 In fact, if you read past the headlines in the articles, they also include the same caveat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/05/hottest-day-ever-recorded/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/0... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-record-heat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-re... The NYT article buries the fact by making it seem like they were only presenting data that far back, but it is literally in the first sentence of the WP article... directly contradicting the very same article's headline.
  - pickledish 3y ago
    (also, just wanted to let you know this comes off as a bit unnecessarily rude -- you might want to phrase it more gently / give some reasons why you believe so next time)

raintrees 3y ago

And we are still building fires in the wood burning stove to keep warm in Northern California. Mid-July.

SentinelLdnma 3y ago
So we'll just all become #VanLife nomads and everything will be fine.
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  There is a hotel in Death Valley. People stay there when it's 125. If your home town gets 3 degrees hotter, I think you'll figure it out.
  - terminatornet 3y ago
    looking forward to all of the crops and livestock i need to stay alive figuring it out!
    - talldatethrow 3y ago
      Your area might no longer be ideal. The area that was a little too cool will become ideal. Technically more people die per year from cold than heat. Why do you want more people to die?? /Slight sarc
barbazoo 3y ago
The article is talking about averages so there can be local outliers.

josh_today 3y ago

[dead]

kolanos 3y ago

[flagged]

dimal 3y ago
I think all the mega fires a few years ago simply removed a lot of the fuel and provided fire breaks. It’s not possible to burn millions of acres every year indefinitely.
brazzy 3y ago
The western US had a much wetter than average winter. Meanwhile, Canada is having the worst wildfire season ever: https://www.axios.com/2023/06/29/canada-wildfire-season-worst-record https://www.axios.com/2023/06/29/canada-wildfire-season-wors...

runjake 3y ago

Spoiler: El Niño and climate change. Don't feed the clickbait titles.

reidjs 3y ago
New headline suggestion: El Niño and climate change caused last week to be the hottest week ever recorded.
mike_hock 3y ago
I mean, I knew that without clicking the link. To the article or to the comment section.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago

> On July 3, the planet sweltered as the average global temperature reached 17.01° Celsius (62.62° Fahrenheit), the highest ever recorded, according to data from the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction. That surpassed the previous record of 16.92° C (62.46° F) from August 2016. I am extremely curious about the error bars on these numbers. Are we really measuring the temperature in enough places around the globe with 0.01 degree resolution to make this a meaningful statement?

jfengel 3y ago
The raw data includes satellite measurements, which cover the entire globe. It's calibrated against ground-based weather stations. The raw data is available at: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/ https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/ Putting all that together into a single temperature requires a model. The error analysis of the model is on their web site. There's certainly more than enough data to justify four significant figures. (The weird part: the authors of the report are both prominent climate change deniers. One says that the problems are real but not man-made; the other says that the problems are real and man-made but not actually a problem. They are the guys who run the satellite and integrate the data.) https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/June/GTR_202306JUN_1.pdf https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/June/GTR_202306JUN_1....
revelio 3y ago
No. Error bars on satellite measurements are OK (not sure what they are exactly but not too bad), but for anything before the 1970s the error bars are wide. 0.5 degrees at best but more realistically 1-5 degrees depending on weather station. That's government's own CI estimates btw. And that's before you get to the way they rewrite the past in the temperature databases. It leads to problems like this: Jeff Berardelli, WFLA-TV (Tampa Bay) Chief Meteorologist and Climate Specialist: “In case you missed it. The temperature soared as high as 100 degrees in the Northwest Territories on Saturday, the hottest temperature ever measured north of 65 degrees latitude in the Western Hemisphere”. Tough keeping up with all this climate chaos.” https://twitter.com/WeatherProf/status/1678635894021005312 https://twitter.com/WeatherProf/status/1678635894021005312 100 degrees, hottest ever measured in north of 65 degrees latitude. A factual statement? No, because it's not true. It reached 100F at Fort Yukon (66.6 degrees latitude) in 1915, according to government logbooks since erased from their websites: https://web.archive.org/web/20170209162324/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/pub/data/special/maxtemps.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170209162324/https://www.ncdc.... This happens because climatologists engage in data fraud. They not only constantly change how they combine individual readings into global aggregates, but also rewrite the temperature history of every single weather station too. It leads to constant 1984-esque dystopian events, like trusted news sources claiming a new record has been broken when you can find records of that "record" having been previously already been reached or exceeded in newspaper archives and old documents.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Lots of discussion last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36595486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36595486

kkielhofner 3y ago

I'd like to say politics could be avoided on this but not knowing anything about the science, historical stats, etc I've always had a simple nagging question on this issue that hopefully someone can help me understand. Elementary school science classes teach basic cause and effect. My question is: How is it possible the planet can be billions of years old, then all of a sudden we discover fossil fuels in the past few hundreds years and start extracting and burning them at incredible rates, releasing them into the atmosphere. Isn't it safe to assume there would be a basic cause-effect relationship here with /some/ kind of consequence? It just strikes me as a "no free lunch" scenario - I don't fundamentally understand how you could all of a sudden start burning all of this stuff and argue against there being negative effects for the overall atmosphere, ecosystem, etc. Can someone help me understand how/why this wouldn't be the case?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
No one can because it's clearly not true. The only people arguing it isn't true are the various think tanks, foundations, coalitions, online PR bots, and the rest funded by the fossil fuel industry - working to persuade those who don't understand the issue, but are sure their opinion is very important. Atmospheric CO2 science has been researched since the 19th century. In the 70s Exxon/Mobil had its own climate scientists making shockingly accurate predictions of what would happen. The IPCC climate change models - produced from 1990 onwards - have usually been conservative. That is the objective reality. Everything else is spin, FUD, and noise. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a...
- majesticglue 3y ago
  those think tanks really did a number. the climate denialists, have made moving goal of going from denial to climate change is not man made. The amount of americans who can't stand that fact that they were wrong on the matter is incredible.

cpr 3y ago

A global temperature average is utterly meaningless. https://off-guardian.org/2023/07/12/reality-check-no-we-didnt-just-have-the-hottest-week-in-100000-years/ https://off-guardian.org/2023/07/12/reality-check-no-we-didn...

ben_w 3y ago
That reads like a rant by someone with an axe to grind, and not just because they put scare quotes around the word "pandemic" in a list of other things they don't believe. Hint: when you're confidently a degree above the temperature range for 100 to 0.05 kya, you don't need to establish two decimal points in that period to say you're exceeding it, only in the recent period where you're closer (which in this case is entirely in the period with global satellite-based temperature data). I shouldn't have even bothered skim-reading given the starting point of trying to argue that "average temperature" is meaningless, given that temperature is literally only a thing at the scale of averages. But then, I have actually used satellite records of global surface temperature, so of course I'd be annoyed at a random blogger who thinks this is done today with a bunch of weather stations.
r721 3y ago
>Overall, we rate OffGuardian a Strong Conspiracy and Strong Pseudoscience website that frequently promotes unproven conspiracy theories and false information regarding the Coronavirus. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/offguardian/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/offguardian/