Earth's hot streak continues for a record 11 months

April 19, 2016 by By Seth Borenstein
In this March 14, 2016 file photo, a Sri Lankan man takes a bath from a roadside tap to cool himself off from the rising temperature in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Earth's record heat streak has hit a record 11 months. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Tuesday, April 19, 2016, that March's average global temperature of 54.9 degrees was not only the hottest March, but continues a record streak that started last May. (AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena, File)

Earth's record monthly heat streak has hit 11 months in a row—a record in itself.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Tuesday that March's average global temperature of 54.9 degrees (12.7 degrees Celsius) was not only the hottest March, but continues a record streak that started last May.

According to NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden, the 11 heat records in a row smashes a streak of 10 set in 1944. Climate scientists say this is a result of El Nino, along with relentless, man-made global warming.

Blunden and Michael Mann at Penn State University worry that people will be desensitized to the drumbeat of broken records and will not realize the real effect they have on weather—for example, massive changes in what is supposed to be winter in the Arctic. Greenland had a record early start for its ice sheet melting. The Arctic had its smallest winter maximum for sea ice and it was the second smallest March snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere.

"It's becoming monotonous in a way," said Jason Furtado, a meteorology professor at the University of Oklahoma. "It's absolutely disturbing ... We're losing critical elements of our climate system."

March was 2.2 degrees (1.2 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average. That's a record amount above average for any month, breaking the mark set only the month before. Africa and the Indian Ocean were especially warm, Blunden said.

The first three months of the year were 2.07 degrees warmer than normal (1.15 degrees Celsius) and half a degree (0.28 degrees Celsius) warmer than the previous record start, set last year.

Beyond NOAA, NASA, the Japanese weather agency and satellite tracking measurements have reported that March was a record hot month. Blunden said there's a good chance April will mark a solid year of records. Eventually, she said, the record setting streak will come to an end as the El Nino dissipates.

El Nino, a warming of parts of the Pacific which changes weather worldwide, tends to push global temperatures up. La Nina, its cooling flip side, is forecast for later this year.

For NOAA, this is the 37th time monthly heat records have been broken since the year 2000, but it has been more than 99 years since the last time a global cold record has been set.

NOAA records go back to 1880.

Explore further: January 2016 hottest since records began: NOAA

More information: NOAA: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201603

Related Stories

January 2016 hottest since records began: NOAA

February 17, 2016

Last month was the hottest January in modern times, US data showed on Wednesday, the latest in a string of heat records fuelling concerns over the pace of climate change.

Recommended for you

The world needs to rethink the value of water

November 23, 2017

Research led by Oxford University highlights the accelerating pressure on measuring, monitoring and managing water locally and globally. A new four-part framework is proposed to value water for sustainable development to ...

'Lost' 99% of ocean microplastics to be identified with dye?

November 23, 2017

The smallest microplastics in our oceans – which go largely undetected and are potentially harmful – could be more effectively identified using an innovative and inexpensive new method, developed by researchers at the ...

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
This is one thing we have to do now:

http://www.cnn.co...dex.html
greenonions
5 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
Following the hottest February- https://weather.c...bal-2016 - That followed the hottest January - http://www.climat...rd-20035 That followed 2015 being the hottest year on record - http://www.nasa.g...-in-2015 That followed 2014 as the hottest year on record - http://www.climat...ar-18502
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2016
Green observed:
Following the hottest February- https://weather.c...bal-2016


Now I am waiting for Anti to trot out his WoodForTrees plot to show us the "pause" he still thinks is real...
Shootist
1 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2016
Still waiting for 400 years of wheat and diary farming on the island of Greenland.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (16) Apr 19, 2016
Still waiting for 400 years of wheat and diary farming on the island of Greenland.


Not that it actually happened before, as has been pointed out to you several times. Your old mind is unable to assimilate new (or any) information that does not conform to your dearly held beliefs.

The mark of oncoming senility,
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (17) Apr 19, 2016
Still waiting for 400 years of wheat and diary farming on the island of Greenland.


You gonna be the one who pays for everyone moving there? With your taxes? Somehow I don't think you're the type (actually I KNOW you're not the type to pay for anything)

And if you haven't noticed: droughts are happening now...but Greenland is still in no way, shape or form able to support large scale dairy farming *right now* (if it ever will is questionable because of soil quality. There's more to farmland and pastures for grazing than just "warm and wet climate").

So your argument is naively insane at best and willfully stupid at worst.

is that too hard to graps for you?

antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
Meanwhile in the Atlantic. https://wattsupwi...-decade/

Apparently, no one informed GloBull warming of the Atlantic...no...wait...the Atlantic is not the globe.
http://www.vencor...-to-cold
Maggnus
5 / 5 (15) Apr 19, 2016
Apparently, no one informed GloBull warming of the Atlantic...no...wait...the Atlantic is not the globe.
http://www.vencor...-to-cold


And. of course, the usual cherry-picking of this particularly offensive and puerile poster quoting his favorite denialist blogger. The Atlantic basin had an average hurricane season, albeit a lower than average number of landfalling hurricanes. This deficit was more than made up by the Pacific basin hurricanes. http://www.air-wo...pective/

So, as usual, this puerile manchild cannot distinguish that the Atlantic is not the world.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2016
fixing a broken link: http://www.air-wo...pective/
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
And. of course...

The usual ignorance of the Chicken Little ignoramus. Is this how the evil CO2 works? It completely ignores an entire ocean covering 20% of the globe.
So, as usual, this retard cannot distinguish that the Pacific has been experiencing one of the strongest El Ninos and yet it spews the usual fodder fed to it by the cult...cherry-pick much.
Mark Thomas
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2016
I am always grateful that NOAA and NASA have got my back on this, but it doesn't take advanced technology to realize that it was a shockingly warm winter. At this rate I have to wonder if we will even have a "winter" season 20 years from now. Any real debate about this is over. Let the mass worrying begin.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
The usual ignorance of the Chicken Little ignoramus. Is this how the evil CO2 works? It completely ignores an entire ocean covering 20% of the globe.
So, as usual, this retard cannot distinguish that the Pacific has been experiencing one of the strongest El Ninos and yet it spews the usual fodder fed to it by the cult...cherry-pick much.
bah hahaha, juvenile, puerile & childish. This small minded, mis-informed little manchild doesn't even understand that the reason there has been an overall increase in hurricanes, combined with a remarkable increase in the strength of hurricanes, is not because there was an El Nino, but rather that there was an El Nino superimposed on man-made global warming. The dumdum doesn't seem to know what a "cycle" is.

Talk about selective denial!! Dum dum dum dum, dum dum dum dum....
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
LOL. The Chicken Little retard believes man-made globull warming superimposed itself with the El Nino yet left the entire Atlantic alone.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
The Chicken Little retard believes man-made globull warming superimposed itself with the El Nino yet left the entire Atlantic alone.
And yet again, it shows it's lack of anything approaching "intelligence" by both attributing facts not in evidence and ignoring facts that are.

The Atlantic storms were severely affected by the superimposition of man-made global warming upon the formation of El Nino, as is clearly outlined in the article I cited. High wind shear is a direct result of the phenomena , and acted to blow apart the Atlantic basin hurricanes before they could get wound up - in fact, often before they could even form the tropical lows that lead to named storms!

All clearly understood, all easily referenced, all as expected from man-made global warming.

You are so easy to counter dumdum; clearly with your lack of understanding, you should find a new thing to deny. Might try denying humans are subject to evolution. Although, in your case, it is probably true.
aksdad
1 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
For thermodynamics: data and graphs to show the 17-year pause from the El Niño of 1998 is (was) real.

Satellite measurements:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
http://images.rem...ies.html

Meteorological station measurements:
https://crudata.u...RUT4.png

And if you have trouble reading the graphs, look up statements by leading climate scientists talking about the pause and its implications. Now that the 2015 El Niño pushed temperatures up again doesn't negate the fact that there was a 17 year pause in warming, similar to the 30 year cooling trends easily observable from around 1880 to 1910 and around 1945 to 1975.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
And yet again, it shows it's lack of anything approaching "intelligence" by both attributing facts not in evidence and ignoring facts that are. ....blah..blah..blah...

Uh huh. Directly measured data showing the Atlantic cooling is not fact to the Chicken Little tard.
http://www.vencor...-to-cold
aksdad
1 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
Atlantic storms were severely affected by the superimposition of man-made global warming upon the formation of El Nino


Hmmm... how much of the warming was man-made and how much was due to natural variation? Can't tell? Exactly. Humans are likely contributing to warming but it's impossible to tell how much. Based on climate model projections which all overstate warming, the human contribution is probably much smaller than has been proclaimed by the alarmists. Here's the IPCC AR5 (2013) graph of climate models versus measured temperatures:

https://www.ipcc....S-14.jpg

Based on measurements of sea-level rise which have not shown any significant acceleration in 145 years, we'll see another 6 to 13 inches of sea level rise, well below the lowest prediction of the model scenarios, RCP 2.6 (16 to 62 inches).

http://climate.na...a-level/
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
Uh huh. Directly measured data showing the Atlantic cooling is not fact to the Chicken Little tard.
http://www.vencor...-to-cold
yep, dumdum showing it doesn't understand what a cycle is. What Dorian is saying here, dumdum, is that the AMO might be entering a new cycle of cooler than normal. Absolutely nothing here that counters HGW dumdum.

Oh I see now! Dorian is quoted sometimes by your favorite denialist blogger!! So you think that an article by him will somehow support your argument, even though you don`t understand what you are trying to argue (well beyond "deny deny deny") That's hilarious!

Hey you should quote Tol too!

Pathetic.
aksdad
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2016
For those interested in some perspective on global warming and sea levels:

Earth naturally fluctuates between "ice ages" and interglacial periods over roughly 100,000 year cycles. The global temperature varies by about 13 C (23 F) and sea level by about 125 meters (410 feet).

https://www.ipcc....6-4.html
https://www.ipcc..../072.htm

Sea levels were about 5 meters (16 feet) higher at the peak of the last warm (interglacial) period about 125,000 years ago. They were also 120 meters (394 feet) lower at the peak of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago.

http://www.giss.n...nitz_09/

No one knows how much longer natural warming will continue. Since sea levels aren't as high as the last interglacial, it may go on for awhile. Even if the human contribution to warming adds up to as much as 1 C (1.8 F), it's negligible compared to the 23 F natural fluctuation and certainly no cause for concern.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
For thermodynamics: data and graphs to show the 17-year pause from the El Niño of 1998 is (was) real.

And if you have trouble reading the graphs, look up statements by leading climate scientists talking about the pause and its implications. Now that the 2015 El Niño pushed temperatures up again doesn't negate the fact that there was a 17 year pause in warming, similar to the 30 year cooling trends easily observable from around 1880 to 1910 and around 1945 to 1975.

askdad, perhaps you can state where exactly those graphs support a "pause"? Every graph you have included shows rising temperatures. Or is your argument that because the temperature rise was less than expected, that that somehow means something besides "temperatures continued to rise"?

Why are you ignoring all of the evidence that the "pause" actually wasn't? In 2015 alone there were at least 6 separate studies, all of which reached the same conclusion. What about them?
aksdad
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2016
Not that it [dairy farming] actually happened before, as has been pointed out to you several times...

So the studies were wrong that showed the Vikings who founded the Eastern Settlement and Western Settlement on Greenland around 985 AD during the Medieval Warm Period kept cattle, sheep and goats for the next 2 centuries? That's news to me.

https://en.wikipe...ttlement
https://en.wikipe...ttlement
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2016
Absolutely nothing here that counters...blah..blah..

Yep, we know nothing counters globull warming. When it's hot, cold, dry, wet, not snowing and snowing, to the ignorant Chicken Little it's all man-made.
Tell us. How would you tell when globull warming is over?
aksdad
1 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2016
Maggnus, if you look at the graphs, there is clearly a 17-year pause from around 1998 to 2015. The fact that it warmed before and after that does not erase the pause. It's in the data.

You're getting tripped up by looking at the long-term trend, which is undeniably a warming trend. However in the satellite record, there is no warmer year after 1998 until 2015. That's a pause. You can see pretty much the same thing in the meteorological record too.

Please provide links to the "studies" that tried to erase the pause and I'll be happy to provide links to show that those studies were challenged not only by skeptics, but "mainstream" climate scientists.

Looking at the graphs again, you can see cooling periods from about 1880 to 1910 and about 1945 to 1975 as well. The long term trend, going back 20,000 years is warming, but there is no evidence that will continue indefinitely as the paleoclimate record shows.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2016
So the studies were wrong that showed the Vikings who founded the Eastern Settlement and Western Settlement on Greenland around 985 AD during the Medieval Warm Period kept cattle, sheep and goats for the next 2 centuries? That's news to me
Not in the manner suggested by shootist, and I suggest you actually read your own cites.

There is evidence that they tried to farm, especially at the beginning, but they most assuredly did not have "dairy farms". The evidence suggests that they mostly survived by harvesting indigenous animals along with sheep and subsistence farming that only lasted a few decades. The mistaken notion that they somehow managed to grow flowing fields of grain are wrong.

here's more, if your interested in actual history and not posturing for denialism:
http://archive.ar...eenland/
https://www.washi...ter-all/
aksdad
1.2 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2016
Maggnus, there is only 1 paper (not "at least 6 separate papers") that "erases the pause", published by researchers at NOAA in 2015.

http://science.sc...632.full

It was criticized for arbitrarily manipulating data to make the pause go away, for example by adjusting ship buoy temperature data. Here is a detailed explanation of the problems with the data adjustments used:

https://wattsupwi...st-data/

Setting aside detailed analysis of statistical methods and statistical tricks employed to produce an expected result, anyone with eyes can see that both the satellite and meteorological record shows a pause from 1998 to 2015. One more time:

http://images.rem...ies.html
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
https://crudata.u...RUT4.png
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
Maggnus, if you look at the graphs, there is clearly a 17-year pause from around 1998 to 2015. The fact that it warmed before and after that does not erase the pause. It's in the data.
askdad, do you understand what "pause" means? Why pick an outlier like 1998? Why not 1999? If you do that, almost every single susequent year shows a higher temperature. That is not a "pause"!
You're getting tripped up by looking at the long-term trend, which is undeniably a warming trend. However in the satellite record, there is no warmer year after 1998 until 2015. That's a pause. You can see pretty much the same thing in the meteorological record too
No, you are getting tripped up by picking an extraordinary single year as your starting point. Excluding the El Nino driven warming in 1998, it is a clear and undeniable upward trend throughout the 2000's. There is no pause in that data.
greenonions
5 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2016
aksdad
The long term trend, going back 20,000 years is warming,
No it is not - you are wrong - and don't know what you are talking about. Here look at the graphs - and the discussion from this article. http://grist.org/...ing-new/
It is true that 20,000 years ago the temperature was some 8 to 10° C colder than it is today. But to draw a line from that point to today and say, "look, 20K years of global warming!" is dubious and arbitrary at best.
aksdad
1.1 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
...they most assuredly did not have "dairy farms".

If the farm has cows and you get milk from the cows, it's a dairy farm. The Vikings had cows (and goats) and the historical record shows they did drink milk.

The economy of the medieval Norse settlements [on Greenland] was based on livestock farming - mainly sheep and cattle


Animal bones and other materials collected from archaeological sites reveal Icelandic Vikings had large farmsteads with dairy cattle


Yes, I know you're going to quibble about Iceland versus Greenland, but the point is that it is established that Vikings had dairy cattle and drank milk and it's clear the Vikings on Greenland also had cattle.
aksdad
1 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
greenonions, are you going to argue against the IPCC's own charts that show a warming trend over 20,000 years? Once again:

https://www.ipcc..../072.htm
https://www.ipcc....6-4.html

And NASA scientists?

http://www.giss.n...nitz_09/

What is more dubious and arbitrary? To point to warming from 1975 to 1998 and shout "humans are causing global warming!" or to look at the long-term (650,000 year) record to see what the big picture is? The paleoclimate record shows cyclical periods of warming and cooling and we're at the tail end of a warming trend, exactly in line with previous cycles.

I'm curious how the author the of opinion you linked decided that "ice age" warming "stopped a long time ago"? Pictures of, for example, glaciers in Montana from the early 1900's show they continued to recede.
aksdad
1 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2016
askdad, do you understand what "pause" means?

It means that measured warming stopped for a period. In other words, it paused. In this case, 17 years, from 1998 to 2015, as anyone with eyes can clearly see in the satellite record:

http://images.rem...ies.html
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

and the meteorological record:

https://crudata.u...RUT4.png

If you can't admit what is obvious to the human eye, perhaps your ideology runs deep.

Until the El Niño of 2015, the more alarmist of climate scientists were offering all kinds of explanation for The Pause, which is a tacit admission that there WAS a pause; something that you apparently don't see.

Why that was a big deal at the time is because CO2 levels continued to increase, but temperatures didn't. CO2 is blamed by alarmists for most of the warming of the last 50 years.

http://www.esrl.n...ull.html
aksdad
1 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
By the way, Magnuss, here's something fun. Not only was the period from 1998 to 2015 a "pause" in warming, the satellite record suggests the earth actually cooled slightly; which is what it did from about 1880 to 1910 and from about 1945 to 1975. Look at this graph without a long-term trend line:

http://nsstc.uah...._bar.png

If you draw a trend line, "cherry-picking" 1998 as the start year (the hottest during the 17 year "pause" or "hiatus") and 2015 as the end, the temperature trend is cooling. Alarmists do exactly the same thing by picking, say 1975 as the start year when warming picked up again after a 30-year cooling period. Or 1910 as the start year when warming picked up again after a 30-year cooling period. All of that of course ignores the longer- term record that shows several prior long-term warming periods (Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, etc.).
Maggnus
5 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
Maggnus, there is only 1 paper (not "at least 6 separate papers") that "erases the pause", published by researchers at NOAA in 2015.

Seriously, quoting the denialist Blogger? But i'll come back to that. Here are some of the papers (note they include links to the actual papers askdad, not someone's interpretation of them. Can you review them yourself?)
http://science.sc...242/1469
http://www.nature...rep16784
http://link.sprin...5-1495-y

There's more. Let's talk about these ones in addition to the NOAA one. Now, show me studies that dispute these. Not watts and his rhetoric, actual studies.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
...they most assuredly did not have "dairy farms".

If the farm has cows and you get milk from the cows, it's a dairy farm. The Vikings had cows (and goats) and the historical record shows they did drink milk.
You have clearly never seen a dairy farm. Did you read anything I provided? Or do you just argue for the sake of it?
The economy of the medieval Norse settlements [on Greenland] was based on livestock farming - mainly sheep and cattle
This is, simply, not true. Most of their trade was in walrus, polar bear, seal and narwhal. They traded those things for cattle, sheep and grain - because they could not keep most of what they had alive. They had to keep replenishing, because they could not keep their own stocks (including all of the things you mention) alive.

cont...
leetennant
5 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2016
I am always grateful that NOAA and NASA have got my back on this, but it doesn't take advanced technology to realize that it was a shockingly warm winter. At this rate I have to wonder if we will even have a "winter" season 20 years from now. Any real debate about this is over. Let the mass worrying begin.


In half the world. For the rest of us it was summer. There are no deniers in an Australian fire season. Except the politicians the mining companies bought.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
Yes, I know you're going to quibble about Iceland versus Greenland, but the point is that it is established that Vikings had dairy cattle and drank milk and it's clear the Vikings on Greenland also had cattle.
It is NOT a quibble, there is a HUGE difference between the two. Even now, when they actually do have farms in Greenland.
What is more dubious and arbitrary? To point to warming from 1975 to 1998 and shout "humans are causing global warming!" or to look at the long-term (650,000 year) record to see what the big picture is? The paleoclimate record shows cyclical periods of warming and cooling and we're at the tail end of a warming trend, exactly in line with previous cycles.
So what? What a ridiculous argument. Humans only evolved about 3 million years ago, and as a species we have never seen a truly warming world. How is this so hard for you to understand? The planet won't be affected, we and every species we share the planet with, will!!
greenonions
5 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
Aksdad
greenonions, are you going to argue against the IPCC's own charts that show a warming trend over 20,000 years? Once again:
I am again going to tell you that the earth has not been warming for 20,000 years. I provided support for that. Your support consisted of graphs that covered 600,000 years. The resolution on these graphs is not sufficient to see the detail that I am talking about. You do not know what you are talking about. This is a graph that was referenced in the article I linked - https://en.wikipe...ions.png This graph supports the narrative of the article - I will give you the relevant quote - that shows that you are ignorant of the facts. cont.
leetennant
5 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
Yes, I know you're going to quibble about Iceland versus Greenland, but the point is that it is established that Vikings had dairy cattle and drank milk and it's clear the Vikings on Greenland also had cattle.
It is NOT a quibble, there is a HUGE difference between the two. Even now, when they actually do have farms in Greenland.


This is verging on a "but snowballs exist" argument. It was warm in England in 934! Someone saw grass in Greenland in 1002! A ship once made it through the Northwest Passage in 1924! Geology exists!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2016
askdad, do you understand what "pause" means?

It means that measured warming stopped for a period. In other words, it paused. In this case, 17 years, from 1998 to 2015, as anyone with eyes can clearly see in the satellite record:
Only if you think a upward trending slope somehow means cooling, Other than that, you are just trying to juxtapose your desire on a clearly warming trendline. You must be blind.
Look at this graph without a long-term trend line:
That graph doesn't show anything of the sort! Seriously, if you don't understand the graphs you're referring to, you should at least have someone explain them to you!
...big deal at the time is because CO2 levels continued to increase, but temperatures didn't. CO2 is blamed by alarmists for most of the warming of the last 50 years.
For someone who argues so ardently against the science, you have a remarkably small knowledge of what the science actually says.
greenonions
5 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
cont.
you can clearly see that rapid warming ceased around 10,000 years ago (rapid relative to natural fluctuations, but not compared to the warming today, which is an order of magnitude faster). After a final little lift 8,000 years ago, temperature trended downward for the entire period of the Holocene. So the post-industrial revolution warming is the reversal of a many-thousand-year trend.
leetennant
5 / 5 (14) Apr 19, 2016
Even when the 'pause' was being inaccurately called the 'pause' (and we were all screaming about how it wasn't a damn pause at all), it still showed statistically-significant warming over that period. The argument was that the warming was at the lower band of predictions and therefore there was something wrong with our climate models. The only people who argued warming had "paused" were two-bit bloggers and paid deniers. Only the deranged would argue it was cooling.
howhot2
5 / 5 (14) Apr 19, 2016
No one wants to admit they are wrong and certainly the deniers worship uncertainty. But I think it's now plainly obvious, we are right, and the deniers were wrong. So Al-Gore was right all along about AGW and the only reason for the deniers dislike of him is that he was right and they were wrong. Enjoy your soup deniers.
philstacy9
1 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2016
Climate scientists have been influenced by the success of Marvel comics.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 20, 2016
Yes, phil, apparently everyone thinks on their own level.

Thanks for displaying yours.
Mark Thomas
4 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2016
"In half the world. For the rest of us it was summer. There are no deniers in an Australian fire season. Except the politicians the mining companies bought."

Leetennant, my apologies. I meant that it was an incredibly warm winter (2015-2016) here at my home in the northern hemisphere in North America. I also meant that it was unmistakably warm. Not just a couple warm days, but a couple freakishly warm months the likes of which I have never seen at my northern latitude in my not-so-short lifetime. NASA and NOAA are essentially saying the same thing, but for me personally, this was more of an in-your-face difference. I understand the science of blocking of infrared light by greenhouse gases affecting the equilibrium of heat gain and loss to increase overall temperature. But this winter here required no scientific background to comprehend. Rest assured that no amount of troll talk from the deniers will change my mind on what I experienced firsthand, it was worrisome.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2016
philstacy9 claims
Climate scientists have been influenced by the success of Marvel comics.
Really ?

Where is enthalpy and radiative transfer and greenhouse gas vibrational states in Marvel comics ?

You do know the physics of heat transfer and just why atmosphere is mostly transparent to Sol's visible light and how Earth/Seas convert visible to infra red which radiates up to space interfered with by greenhouse gases ?

This key physics at the core has been known well for > 100years, have you found anything to refute it, has anyone, ever philstacy9 ?

leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2016
No worries, Mark Thomas. I tend to have a knee jerk reaction to Northern Hemisphere centrism that I should reserve for the "But it's cold in Boston" mob.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2016
So Al-Gore was right all along about AGW and the only reason for the deniers dislike of him is that he was right and they were wrong.


No, you don't get it, it's just that Al Gore is not a scientist. I can do Rate of Reaction Equations, AL Gore can't, so why should I as a Scientist/Engineer believe someone who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve?

You vainly imagine credibility has something to do with consensus opinion about the topic under discussion. Ok, so almost all consensus opinion, even on this forum, misidentifies that E=mc² is derived in General Relativity, and they get all bent up in a knot & start it with the name calling routines when you correct them.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2016
So Al-Gore was right all along...blah..blah...

AWWwww. Look what his man-crush pooped out and is so desperate to get back in.
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2016
Yes yes yes, you don't listen to Al Gore because he's not a scientist but then you also don't listen to actual climate scientists because their research doesn't fit your preconceptions and cognitive biases. No contradiction there at all.

But hey, you can do 'rate of reaction equations' and understand the difference between general and special relativity. Which makes you... a graduate of highschool?! I'm impressed.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2016
Benni (B) says
No, you don't get it, it's just that Al Gore is not a scientist
No you don't get it, Gore & others very well positioned, can consult any advice readily

B claims
I can do Rate of Reaction Equations, AL Gore can't
So ? high school but, never proved either.

B says again
.. I as a Scientist/Engineer believe someone who has never seen a Differential Equation (DE) he could solve?
As you claim so often but, never shown, I put Calculus before you often - you run away, just recently instead of tackling it re your hobby astronomy you bark facile complaint since I used an up arrow '^' to articulate exponent Eg 10^5, that's all it took for you to bow out yet *again*

B says
E=mc² is derived in General Relativity, and they get all bent up..
Pardon "bent" Scientist/Engineers don't ever write like you - geesh !

On topic please, its climate change, I ask again 'Benni' show method for solving the radiative transfer DE ?

Not holding my breath
ForFreeMinds
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2016
NASA, or the US government, is to be believed regarding any Global Warming/Climate Change hysteria. They've fudged the numbers, and are a bunch of liars who should obtain their own funds rather than getting funded via taking money from taxpayers.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.