A Different Take on the "Hottest Month on Record."

On the other hand, July was not that hot globally. I have bolded the July reading and the all time record for that data set in each paragraph below for an easy comparison for the four sets that have the July number out below.
With the UAH anomaly for July at 0.28, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369+ 0.28)/7 = 0.164. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 9th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged the July value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.212 and it would rank 5th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.80. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the GISS anomaly for July at 0.47, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.34 + 0.40 + 0.47 + 0.55 + 0.66 + 0.56 + 0.47)/7 = 0.493. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.514 and ranked 9th for that year. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.82. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the sea surface anomaly for July at 0.386, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.386)/7 = 0.292. This would rank it 11th compared to 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.67. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the RSS anomaly for July at 0.292, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.073 + 0.332 + 0.232 + 0.339 + 0.292)/7 = 0.156. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 1.10. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

In reply to Joe Prins (August 24, 2012 at 9:38 pm), that’s a good question. Yes, it may very well make a difference. I don’t work with weather/climate data but I’ve spent quite a long time looking at time series data, including discrete events, periodic sampling aggregates, and end state recordings. It is frequently handy to report on arbitrarily chosen intervals, but it is always a mistake not to do a thorough job of establishing that you do not introduce distortions when you do so.
A very simple example is to look at a bi-weekly payroll by month. You have roughly 26 pay events for each year of 12 months, meaning that a few months each year show a 50% higher dollar total than the rest. That is, of course, unrelated to the real world, unless you have budgetary requirements dictating using the one month interval. But IMHO that’s another kind of artificial constraint on things.
When doing any analysis using arbitrarily chosen intervals, a conscientious analyst will include a description of why that interval was chosen, what other intervals look like, and what the effect of using the particular interval is. I don’t see that very often.

We have had average heat here in NW Oregon this summer. We have also enjoyed a month with no rain which has been great for the stone fruit and according to the predictions I’ve heard possibly two more weeks of dry which would allow us to finish our stone fruit season in fine style. I doubt very much if anyone could classify this as drought as we have had other summers with this type weather and suffered no yearly loss of moisture . It is enjoyable though . On the other hand it does appear that we are in a cooling mode as we have noticed for four years that our season for apples is shorter . We did not have an exceptionaly warm July this year , certainly not the warmist . It was very pleasent and I could enjoy more julys just like it I think .

Joe Prins says “When did the climate decide . . . ”
In 1935. The idea was to have a reference period that an adult could relate to. A person, say age 40 to 50, would have “normals” associated with his or her teenage and young adult years. It seemed to make sense to the folks that were interested in how weather records should be tallied and reported. There was no serious intention that these data would be used in the name of CAGW. I don’t have time to look up the reasoning tonight but you can have a go at it. Here is a start:
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization
. . . was preceded by the (IMO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meteorological_Organization
and (I think) the manner of defining normals (as done in this WUWT post) was established in 1935 at the Warsaw Conference of Directors (see above link for some history).
Note that these are international with many member countries so many folks will have to agree to changes. Also note that this manner or defining and reporting weather data occurred before “all sort of computer power.”
[Back in the 1930s, computers were women: http://www.americanheritage.com/content/girl-computers ]

PS.. I suggest that whenever anyone mentions Global Land Temperature, we all respond by adding the word “URBAN” .. in capitals.
That is what it mostly measures, afterall.

Chris Schoneveld says:
August 25, 2012 at 1:17 am
To be fair, the skeptic argument is more that there is not a valid testable AGW argument (especially when it is based on potentially quite flawed data)
But further, to invoke that a current hottest day.week/month/year indicates AGW is also compeletely false as the correlation is simply unproven (especially when we know the land temp data is largely flawed).
As I see it, David’s post also shows how the alarmist use of the (flawed) data is also misleading.
The whole frickin thing is one circular argument, with no testable measurable indicator of a distinct anthropogenic signal above and beyond the natural temp variability. Saying such a signal can be seen in urban areas is completely invalid due to UHI effects. Hence, the data gridding and averaging and adjusting to ‘see’ the so called anthropogenic signal, and round we go again!.
My personal take is that the majority of any global warming (if significantly present) will be largely natural, and moreover, likely to be within the natural climate variability; a large step change will be required to truly determine any such change above and beyond the natural variability. 30 years, 50 years, 100 years, are all insufficient to detect a definitive change in temps based on the current data we have available.
Sure, with many many thousands of special identical sensors, in identical type (rural) locations, spread at carefully determined spatial and altitudal settings, might, after a few decades, give us a real indication of some upward trend – but even then, that could still be natural variability! Anyone that thinks the climate is or rather ‘was’ in some kind of ‘static’ zone pre-industrial times is delusional in the extreme. One only has to look at ice ages to know that any such ‘static’ zones are actually only ‘temporary’.

Jesse Owens’ world long jump record was unbeaten for 25 years. US July temperature record has held (if measurements are accurate) for 76 years.

Proving, once again, that you can’t, scientifically, have the flam without the flim.

My Mother in NW Kansas, Lived through the Dust Bowl . This is not the Dust Bowl conditions
by any stretch. It was partially exacerbated by poor farming practices. But boy the particulates
the air were amazing. Black muddy rain when it rained, headlights on in the midday. etc. My
Father, on the other hand lived in NE Oregon (Cowboy-Logger). It was dry here too. but,
the worst year in his memory was 1933 when the Tillamook burn and several other big fires happened. Then it was their turn to drive with headlights on in midday. Though it’s a “Far Piece”
from Tillamook to High Lonesome of NE Oregon…

“Senior Meteorologist Stu Ostro (Twitter) says, “Exceeding July 1936 at the peak of the Dust Bowl heat — is BIG.”
Media manipulative sound bites like that help to make Senior Meteorologist Stu Ostro BIG.

Is there anywhere a process in the books on how to unwind the obnoxious Carbon-credits in Australia and elsewhere, once the CO2-hysteria has been proven to be a scam beyond doubt?

Oh my Goooorsh..! HOT? Heat??? WTF! (World Trade Federation)!!!
Doesn’t anyone see the problem? TEMPERATURE…INTENSIVE VARIABLE.
HEAT = Temperature + Humidity + Air Pressure = ENERGY CONTENT PER CUBIC METER.
What where the HUMIDITIES in the 1930’s, WHAT ARE THE HUMIDITIES NOW.
If, say for a trivial simple example, it was 86 F and 60% RH in the 1930’s throughout, it would be
roughly 25% HOTTER IN TERMS OF THE ENERGY CONTENT OF A CUBIC METER OF
AIR than would be 105 Degrees and 10% RH.
Yet, by the IMPLICIT DEFINITION HERE… the 105 DEGREE AVERAGE WOULD BE HOTTER.
Excuse me, must go and bang head on wall now…in frustration.
“An inept language usage can never yield a precise communication.” Annon.
[most folk on here don’t really appreciate the need for shouting to make one’s point . . thanks . . kbmod]

I bristle every time I hear a media meterologist or talking head refer to the present temperature in comparison to “normal”. I absolute fume at the introduction of the word “normal” to describe a mean or median event. The word normal gives people the false sense that things, temperatures, are static events, when really, the “normal” of weather speak is nothing more than a rolling, probably ill contrived, average. This is the kind of crap that gives AGW legs. From “normal” temperature, we get “normal” weather, and therefore “normal” climate, when, in truth there is no such thing.. The AMS, being largely responsible for this, I believe, needs to fix the reporting. Its not over the heads of the audience for the on-air weathertroll to say that today is “85, slightly warmer than today’s 30 yr rolling aveage of 80”. Then perhaps people would begin to understand what weather and climate really is.

Paul Coppin says:
August 25, 2012 at 9:54 am
Good point.

Why would anyone believe that the conditions of 1936 would not occur again? The fact that they occurred once establishes that they are part of natural variability. Everyone knows that the conditions of 1936 will occur again and that the conditions of 2012 will occur again.
The only answer to my question is because there exists a rich and powerful lobby which constantly bombards everyone with the belief that our day is unique in all of human history. They argue that even if 2012 is a repeat of 1936 and was to be expected at some point, the occurrence of 2012 is more evidence that our times are unique. In other words, they take the fact of natural variability for evidence that natural variability no longer operates in our day. Whew!

Paul Coppin says:
August 25, 2012 at 9:54 am
Very well said. Very important. Yes the terminology of TV meteorology was ripe for exploitation by the hysterical warmists and it remains so today. Someone in meteorology should make a name for himself by promoting reforms in terminology. Of course, promoting reform will be tough because TV meteorology serves the pocket book of TV station owners and they thrive on sensationalism. But the task is doable. (It is so sad but telling that so-called scientists such as Hansen exploit TV terminology as a matter of course.)

Lovely bells and whistles and obscure verbiage. However, an easily identifiable point or conclusion would be appreciated – but only in an English translation.

Paul Coppin said (August 25, 2012 at 9:54 am)
“…I bristle every time I hear a media meterologist or talking head refer to the present temperature in comparison to “normal”. I absolute fume at the introduction of the word “normal” to describe a mean or median event. The word normal gives people the false sense that things, temperatures, are static events, when really, the “normal” of weather speak is nothing more than a rolling, probably ill contrived, average…”
To this, I agree. The scientists can’t even agree what the global 20th century average is. So who’s to say if today’s temperatures are above or below “normal”?

Here in Canada, a magazine article openly said that the 1950’s had record breakers, not 2012. Yes, it was hot, but not all of the U.S. was blistering as it was in the 1930’s. Most parts of the States were cool and had rain. It was no Dustbowl. It makes me angry how people say July was a “record breaker”, when it wasn’t even that! People just jump to conclusions. The alarmists no doubt are calling this past July “a shape of things to come” while conviniently calling us “deniers”.
On another note, it seems H.G. Wells’ pessimisms were indeed correct.