February may have been the warmest month on record,

[Old Rocks]

Yappity yap yap. So you say. And I am Napoleon's reincarnation, also. We are anonymous on this board, so we can claim anything. The subject is the very recent climate, and the effect it will have on the presently living humans and those that come after us. And we are not ignoring paleoclimatology. In fact, that is where we are learning about how serious the rapidity with which we are changing the present atmospheric composition can affect the climate we depend on for our existance.

To understand the present you must look to the past. You see many instances of rapid change both positive, and negative, but you do not understand why they happened. So to try and use a micro-fraction of the data to come to a conclusion you've determined is certain is foolish.

You cannot separate the past from the present, no matter how hard you try.

You are the one trying to ignore the past. Trying to ignore the North American large mammal extinction from the rapid climate changes at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas, trying to ignore the worldwide extinctions at other times of rapid climate change.

Here, learn something

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies

Paleoclimatology: The Oxygen Balance : Feature Articles

And there is far more available.

It'd probably help your case a lot if I wasn't the guy who points to that period, the Silurian, the Eocene, etc.

Consistently.

And your links are?

Consistently you come across as a blathering knownothing.



(Phys.org) —It's has been know that massive increases in emission of CO2 from volcanoes, associated with the opening of the Atlantic Ocean in the end-Triassic Period, set off a shift in state of the climate which caused global mass extinction of species, eliminating about 34% of genera. The extinction created ecological niches which allowed the rise of dinosaurs during the Triassic, about 250-200 million years ago.

New research released this morning in Science Express has refined the dating of this wave of volcanism. It shows marine and land species disappear from the fossil record within 20,000 to 30,000 years from the time evidence for the eruption of large magma flows appears, approximately 201 million years ago. These volcanic eruptions increased atmospheric CO2 and increased ocean acidity.


Figure 1 – Trends in atmospheric CO2 and related glacial and interglacial periods since the Cambrian (542 million years ago), showing peaks in CO2 levels (green diamonds) associated with asteroid impacts and/or massive volcanism. CO2 data from Royer 2004 and 2006.
Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago. As our anthropogenic global emissions of CO2 are rising, at a rate for which no precedence is known from the geological record with the exception of asteroid impacts, another wave of extinctions is unfolding.

Mass extinctions of species in the history of Earth include:

• the ~580 million years-old (Ma) Acraman impact (South Australia) and Acrytarch (ancient palynomorphs) extinction and radiation
• Late Devonian (~374 Ma) volcanism, peak global temperatures and mass extinctions
• the end-Devonian impact cluster associated with mass extinction, which among others destroyed the Kimberley Fitzroy reefs (~360 Ma)
• the upper Permian (~267 Ma) extinction associated with a warming trend
• the Permian-Triassic boundary volcanic and asteroid impact events (~ 251 Ma) and peak warming
• the End-Triassic (201 Ma) opening of the Atlantic Ocean, and massive volcanism
• an End-Jurassic (~145 Ma) impact cluster and opening of the Indian Ocean
• the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (K-T) (~65 Ma) impact cluster, Deccan volcanic activity and mass extinction
• the pre-Eocene-Oligocene boundary (~34 Ma) impact cluster and a cooling trend, followed by opening of the Drake Passage between Antarctica and South America, formation of the Antarctic ice sheet and minor extinction at ~34 Ma.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-link-co2-mass-extinctions-species.html#jCp

 

[mamooth]

NASA GISS reports a February 2016 anomaly of +1.35C. That didn't just break last month's old record of +1.14C, it shattered it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

 

[longknife]

NASA GISS reports a February 2016 anomaly of +1.35C. That didn't just break last month's old record of +1.14C, it shattered it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

I saw this at five or six sites this morning

 

[jc456]

More proof there isn't any global warming... It's getting warmer and drier in the last 20 years. Overall. But that isn't proof? What more proof do you need? I know I know some of you shoveled 3 feet of snow last week or were below zero once or twice. Really? Because it's not like that for the majority of us.

huh? IPCC stated it was, have you read their AR5 report? Why don't you do your homework. It's called a pause.

 

[jc456]

This is why I refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG. That's Wild Ass Guesses for the clueless.

Oh....you poor clueless denier cult retard....

WHAT 95% CERTAINTY OF WARMING MEANS TO SCIENTISTS
Associated Press
By SETH BORENSTEIN
Sep. 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.

They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous.

They'll even put a number on how certain they are about climate change. But that number isn't 100 percent. It's 95 percent.

And for some non-scientists, that's just not good enough.

There's a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, specialists say.

That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably release a report saying it is "extremely likely" — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to "virtually certain" and 99 percent.

Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn't get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.

But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.

"Uncertainty is inherent in every scientific judgment," said Johns Hopkins University epidemiologist Thomas Burke. "Will the sun come up in the morning?" Scientists know the answer is yes, but they can't really say so with 100 percent certainty because there are so many factors out there that are not quite understood or under control.

George Gray, director of the Center for Risk Science and Public Health at George Washington University, said that demanding absolute proof on things such as climate doesn't make sense.

"There's a group of people who seem to think that when scientists say they are uncertain, we shouldn't do anything," said Gray, who was chief scientist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the George W. Bush administration. "That's crazy. We're uncertain and we buy insurance."

With the U.N. panel about to weigh in on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil, coal and gas, The Associated Press asked scientists who specialize in climate, physics, epidemiology, public health, statistics and risk just what in science is more certain than human-caused climate change, what is about the same, and what is less.

They said gravity is a good example of something more certain than climate change. Climate change "is not as sure as if you drop a stone it will hit the Earth," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's not certain, but it's close."

Arizona State University physicist Lawrence Krauss said the 95 percent quoted for climate change is equivalent to the current certainty among physicists that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

"What is understood does not violate any mechanism that we understand about cancer," while "statistics confirm what we know about cancer," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist. Add to that a "very high consensus" among scientists about the harm of tobacco, and it sounds similar to the case for climate change, he said.

But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that's the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research center.

George Washington's Gray said the 95 percent number the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will probably adopt may not be realistic. In general, regardless of the field of research, experts tend to overestimate their confidence in their certainty, he said. Other experts said the 95 percent figure is too low.

Jeff Severinghaus, a geoscientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said that through the use of radioactive isotopes, scientists are more than 99 percent sure that much of the carbon in the air has human fingerprints on it. And because of basic physics, scientists are 99 percent certain that carbon traps heat in what is called the greenhouse effect.

But the role of nature and all sorts of other factors bring the number down to 95 percent when you want to say that the majority of the warming is human-caused, he said.

a bunch of nothing with colors. Funny. Please, we've been waiting and you still haven't provided the evidence. You can't use opinion to justify your position.

 

[mudwhistle]

but we don’t know for sure — despite reports to the contrary.

I love headlines like this. All that scientific expertise and the experts can't be certain of their “facts.” Here's an excerpt:

But this record stretches back only to 1979. And satellites monitor temperatures up in the troposphere, not on the surface where we live.

Okay, we can now expect all sorts of charts and graphs like the one in the article and it appears that NONE of them will tell the whole story.

Read the full article @ Reports that February was warmest month are premature

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

 

[jc456]

NASA GISS reports a February 2016 anomaly of +1.35C. That didn't just break last month's old record of +1.14C, it shattered it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

meaningless from a group that already stated their data is fudged. So the link fails to demonstrate evidence of anything.

 

[RollingThunder]

but we don’t know for sure — despite reports to the contrary.

I love headlines like this. All that scientific expertise and the experts can't be certain of their “facts.” Here's an excerpt:

But this record stretches back only to 1979. And satellites monitor temperatures up in the troposphere, not on the surface where we live.

Okay, we can now expect all sorts of charts and graphs like the one in the article and it appears that NONE of them will tell the whole story.

Read the full article @ Reports that February was warmest month are premature

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

 

[RollingThunder]

NASA GISS reports a February 2016 anomaly of +1.35C. That didn't just break last month's old record of +1.14C, it shattered it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

meaningless from a group that already stated their data is fudged. So the link fails to demonstrate evidence of anything.

The kind of crackpot, reality-challenged, conspiracy theory myths that denier cult retards like you post, JustCrazy, only serve to greatly amuse the sane people on the forum.

 

[jc456]

but we don’t know for sure — despite reports to the contrary.

I love headlines like this. All that scientific expertise and the experts can't be certain of their “facts.” Here's an excerpt:

But this record stretches back only to 1979. And satellites monitor temperatures up in the troposphere, not on the surface where we live.

Okay, we can now expect all sorts of charts and graphs like the one in the article and it appears that NONE of them will tell the whole story.

Read the full article @ Reports that February was warmest month are premature

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

 

[RollingThunder]

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

It is wildly hilarious that an ignorant retard like you, JustCrazy, imagines that you are in any way qualified to criticize NASA's scientific studies of the climate.....and that you cling to your crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's climate scientists plotting to fool you.....you are SUCH a nutjob!

 

[jc456]

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

It is wildly hilarious that an ignorant retard like you, JustCrazy, imagines that you are in any way qualified to criticize NASA's scientific studies of the climate.....and that you cling to your crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's climate scientists plotting to fool you.....you are SUCH a nutjob!

I pay their salary, so yes I am critical of them. I want them to stop being a leftist wing of the country and post up what the actual readings are. I know they don't use those readings. I also want to know why they throw station data away. I'm entitled to know.

 

[RollingThunder]

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

It is wildly hilarious that an ignorant retard like you, JustCrazy, imagines that you are in any way qualified to criticize NASA's scientific studies of the climate.....and that you cling to your crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's climate scientists plotting to fool you.....you are SUCH a nutjob!

I pay their salary, so yes I am critical of them. I want them to stop being a leftist wing of the country and post up what the actual readings are. I know they don't use those readings. I also want to know why they throw station data away. I'm entitled to know.

The answer to all of your brainwashed delusions and crackpot conspiracy theoies is always the same, JustCrazy....YOU ARE AN INSANE, MISINFORMED, HIGHLY DELUSIONAL, VERY REALITY-CHALLENGED, CRACKPOT-CONSPIRACY-THEORY-BELIEVER NUTJOB!

 

[jc456]

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

It is wildly hilarious that an ignorant retard like you, JustCrazy, imagines that you are in any way qualified to criticize NASA's scientific studies of the climate.....and that you cling to your crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's climate scientists plotting to fool you.....you are SUCH a nutjob!

I pay their salary, so yes I am critical of them. I want them to stop being a leftist wing of the country and post up what the actual readings are. I know they don't use those readings. I also want to know why they throw station data away. I'm entitled to know.

The answer to all of your brainwashed delusions and crackpot conspiracy theoies is always the same, JustCrazy....YOU ARE AN INSANE, MISINFORMED, HIGHLY DELUSIONAL, VERY REALITY-CHALLENGED, CRACKPOT-CONSPIRACY-THEORY-BELIEVER NUTJOB!

I'm insane because I want accountability? Really, what planet do you live on? And the only reason there is a conspiracy is because none of your so called genius' can provide evidence to support their work. It is what is done on this planet. So, call me all the names in the world, i couldn't care less, I am within my rights to ask for the material as a payer into the work. So I hold them accountable. I just do!

 

[RollingThunder]

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

It is wildly hilarious that an ignorant retard like you, JustCrazy, imagines that you are in any way qualified to criticize NASA's scientific studies of the climate.....and that you cling to your crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's climate scientists plotting to fool you.....you are SUCH a nutjob!

I pay their salary, so yes I am critical of them. I want them to stop being a leftist wing of the country and post up what the actual readings are. I know they don't use those readings. I also want to know why they throw station data away. I'm entitled to know.

The answer to all of your brainwashed delusions and crackpot conspiracy theoies is always the same, JustCrazy....YOU ARE AN INSANE, MISINFORMED, HIGHLY DELUSIONAL, VERY REALITY-CHALLENGED, CRACKPOT-CONSPIRACY-THEORY-BELIEVER NUTJOB!

I'm insane because I want accountability?

Nope! You are insane because you deny the validity of the very real worldwide scientific consensus affirming the reality and extreme dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

You are insane because you reject and deny the truly massive amounts of scientific evidence confirming the reality of AGW.

You are insane because, having rejected science, you embrace and parrot the lies, misinformation, and pseudo-science created by the fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers, in spite of their obvious financially-based bias.

You are insane for rejecting science, reason, logic and rationality, and clinging to deranged myths and crackpot conspiracy theories.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

It is wildly hilarious that an ignorant retard like you, JustCrazy, imagines that you are in any way qualified to criticize NASA's scientific studies of the climate.....and that you cling to your crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's climate scientists plotting to fool you.....you are SUCH a nutjob!

I pay their salary, so yes I am critical of them. I want them to stop being a leftist wing of the country and post up what the actual readings are. I know they don't use those readings. I also want to know why they throw station data away. I'm entitled to know.

The answer to all of your brainwashed delusions and crackpot conspiracy theoies is always the same, JustCrazy....YOU ARE AN INSANE, MISINFORMED, HIGHLY DELUSIONAL, VERY REALITY-CHALLENGED, CRACKPOT-CONSPIRACY-THEORY-BELIEVER NUTJOB!

I'm insane because I want accountability?

Nope! You are insane because you deny the validity of the very real worldwide scientific consensus affirming the reality and extreme dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

You are insane because you reject and deny the truly massive amounts of scientific evidence confirming the reality of AGW.

You are insane because, having rejected science, you embrace and parrot the lies, misinformation, and pseudo-science created by the fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers, in spite of their obvious financially-based bias.

You are insane for rejecting science, reason, logic and rationality, and clinging to deranged myths and crackpot conspiracy theories.

Yup, at this rate the planet will be inhabitable in say......150 million years. Give or take a million. I figure in 150 years we'll convert all energy to Dilithium Crystal technology and learn how to build transporters, Phazors, and Proton Torpedos.

 

[RollingThunder]

Bullshit. FEB 2016 was not the warmest. Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

Yup, at this rate the planet will be inhabitable in say......150 million years. Give or take a million. I figure in 150 years we'll convert all energy to Dilithium Crystal technology and learn how to build transporters, Phazors, and Proton Torpedos.

"the planet will be inhabitable in 150 million years" - LOLOLOL.....You poor insane wacko...

Your bullshit got debunked, crudwhistle!

Now you are just spewing nonsense.

Are you retarded?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

It is wildly hilarious that an ignorant retard like you, JustCrazy, imagines that you are in any way qualified to criticize NASA's scientific studies of the climate.....and that you cling to your crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's climate scientists plotting to fool you.....you are SUCH a nutjob!

I pay their salary, so yes I am critical of them. I want them to stop being a leftist wing of the country and post up what the actual readings are. I know they don't use those readings. I also want to know why they throw station data away. I'm entitled to know.

The answer to all of your brainwashed delusions and crackpot conspiracy theoies is always the same, JustCrazy....YOU ARE AN INSANE, MISINFORMED, HIGHLY DELUSIONAL, VERY REALITY-CHALLENGED, CRACKPOT-CONSPIRACY-THEORY-BELIEVER NUTJOB!

I'm insane because I want accountability?

Nope! You are insane because you deny the validity of the very real worldwide scientific consensus affirming the reality and extreme dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

You are insane because you reject and deny the truly massive amounts of scientific evidence confirming the reality of AGW.

You are insane because, having rejected science, you embrace and parrot the lies, misinformation, and pseudo-science created by the fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers, in spite of their obvious financially-based bias.

You are insane for rejecting science, reason, logic and rationality, and clinging to deranged myths and crackpot conspiracy theories.

Yup, at this rate the planet will be inhabitable in say......150 million years. Give or take a million. I figure in 150 years we'll convert all energy to Dilithium Crystal technology and learn how to build transporters, Phazors, and Proton Torpedos.

Yup, at this rate the planet will be inhabitable in say......150 million years.

Nope. We'll build a few of those hugely profitable windmills that break even in 5 months.
We'll use the profits to build giant ice makers, to cool the planet's hotspots.

 

[RollingThunder]

Bullshit.

FEB 2016 was not the warmest.

Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

too funny. how many data stations are they looking at and how many adjustments?

It is wildly hilarious that an ignorant retard like you, JustCrazy, imagines that you are in any way qualified to criticize NASA's scientific studies of the climate.....and that you cling to your crackpot conspiracy theories about all of the world's climate scientists plotting to fool you.....you are SUCH a nutjob!

I pay their salary, so yes I am critical of them. I want them to stop being a leftist wing of the country and post up what the actual readings are. I know they don't use those readings. I also want to know why they throw station data away. I'm entitled to know.

The answer to all of your brainwashed delusions and crackpot conspiracy theoies is always the same, JustCrazy....YOU ARE AN INSANE, MISINFORMED, HIGHLY DELUSIONAL, VERY REALITY-CHALLENGED, CRACKPOT-CONSPIRACY-THEORY-BELIEVER NUTJOB!

I'm insane because I want accountability?

Nope! You are insane because you deny the validity of the very real worldwide scientific consensus affirming the reality and extreme dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes.

You are insane because you reject and deny the truly massive amounts of scientific evidence confirming the reality of AGW.

You are insane because, having rejected science, you embrace and parrot the lies, misinformation, and pseudo-science created by the fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers, in spite of their obvious financially-based bias.

You are insane for rejecting science, reason, logic and rationality, and clinging to deranged myths and crackpot conspiracy theories.

Yup, at this rate the planet will be inhabitable in say......150 million years. Give or take a million. I figure in 150 years we'll convert all energy to Dilithium Crystal technology and learn how to build transporters, Phazors, and Proton Torpedos.

LOLOLOL.....You poor insane wacko...

Your bullshit got debunked, crudwhistle!

Now you are just spewing nonsense.

Are you retarded?

Yup, at this rate the planet will be inhabitable in say......150 million years.
Nope. We'll build a few of those hugely profitable windmills that break even in 5 months. We'll use the profits to build giant ice makers, to cool the planet's hotspots.

Your deranged, gibberish-filled posts are getting more and more disconnected from reality and even more insane, Toad-the-Parrot. You should really seek professional help for your mental breakdown, you poor wacko.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bullshit. FEB 2016 was not the warmest. Last August was much warmer.

Wrong! You are the one posting "bullshit".

NOAA - The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2015 was 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F) and the highest August in the 136-year record.

The NASA data shows that February had a global average surface temperature of 1.35 degrees Celsius above the 1951 to 1980 average, or 2.43 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

Monthly global average surface temperatures, with Feb. 2016 indicated. - IMAGE: NASA GISS

Yup, at this rate the planet will be inhabitable in say......150 million years. Give or take a million. I figure in 150 years we'll convert all energy to Dilithium Crystal technology and learn how to build transporters, Phazors, and Proton Torpedos.

"the planet will be inhabitable in 150 million years" - LOLOLOL.....You poor insane wacko...

Your bullshit got debunked, crudwhistle!

Now you are just spewing nonsense.

Are you retarded?

I'm not the retard that can't spot sarcasm.