"There were just 26 stations in 1880, only 4 in the southern hemisphere. Even in 1900, the 664 global stations was on 2.8% of the number in 2000.
Temperatures over oceans, which covered 71% of the globe, were measured along shipping routes mainly in the Northern Hemisphere erratically and with varying measurement methods. Despite these shortcomings and the fact that absolutely no credible grid level temperature data existed over the period from 1880 to 2000 in the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans (covering 80.9% of the Southern Hemisphere), global average surface temperature data estimation and publication by NOAA and NASA began in the early 1990s."
WMO cites media as source! The WMO website itself is citing the media as its source, writing: “Media reports say that researchers logged a temperature of 20.75°C. Mr Cerveny cautioned that it is premature to say that Antarctica has exceeded 20°C for the first time.”
Thermometer data show only 16°C! But according to German Facebook site Klima.Wissen here and its readers, the “all-time record high reading appears to have its origins from the AFP news agency. It was then picked up by the always climate sensational The Guardian. But now the whole story is beginning to appear as just big sensational hoax.
Rule Number One: Any model used in an event attribution study to quantify a linkage (weasel word) between climate change a specific extreme event should also produce accurate historical climate trends associated with the relevant phenomena. The claim that rainfall from Hurricane Florence was boosted 50% by climate change should have raised immediate doubts because observations have not shown an increase in rainfall related to landfalling hurricanes. Any event attribution study that cannot accurately replicate historical trends using the same model and methods is clearly fatally flawed...
Rule Number Three: All event attribution studies should integrate their findings with the traditional approach to detection and attribution of the IPCC. Event attribution studies often result is what is called “attribution without detection.”...
Individual event attribution studies are here to stay. They fill a strong demand in advocacy and in politics. Meeting such demand should be fully compatible with basic standards of scientific quality. For event attribution studies to be conducted with the highest degree of rigor they should (1) demonstrate consistency with historical observations, (2) be the product of preregistered studies, and (3) be fully integrated with the conventional methodologies of the IPCC. Until event attribution studies meet these basic rules, they will better serve purposes of advocacy rather than science.