January Smashed Another Global Temperature Record

Confounding

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2016
7,073
1,551
280
Hey AGW deniers, what if you're wrong? What if the scientists aren't actually full of shit? Have you ever thought about the consequences of that possibility?

January Smashed Another Global Temperature Record

The calendar may have turned to 2016, but temperatures are picking up where 2015 left off. January was record warm, according to data released this week by NASA. You may recall that last year was the hottest on record for the globe. And by NASA’s accounting, it ended with a bang. This past December was the warmest December on record and the most abnormally warm month on record, too. That is until now.

This January was the warmest January on record by a large margin while also claiming the title of most anomalously warm month in 135 years of record keeping. The month was 1.13°C — or just a smidge more than 2°F — above normal. That tops December’s record of being 1.11°C — or just a smidge below 2°F — above average. It marks the fourth month in a row where the globe has been more than 1°C (1.8°F) above normal. Incidentally, those are the only four months where the globe has topped that mark since record keeping began.

Large swaths of the globe were painted red by warmth to the point where it’s easier to talk about where the heat wasn’t (that would be Antarctica, Scandinavia, East Africa and a few parts of Russia for the record). The telltale signal of El Niño’s heat in the Pacific continues to be notable, but it’s the Arctic that truly stands out as the most abnormally warm place on the planet. According to NASA, temperatures in some parts of the Arctic averaged up to 23°F above normal for the month. No, that’s not missing a decimal point.
 
Last edited:
I have had 4 snows/ice so far this winter. Wayyy more than I am used to. I aint digging this globalist warming bullshit one bit!
 
picacho8se-looking-se.jpg


An aspiring contestant for the worst temp station evahhhhhh. Brick wall, check. Parking lot, check. Nearby air conditioner, check.

While this station is not part of the USHCN it is part of the COOP network that is used to homogenize other temp stations.

Good stations show less warming than poor ones. Even the bad stations show less warming than the homogenized data.

ushcn-comparisons.png
 
Good stations show less warming than poor ones. Even the bad stations show less warming than the homogenized data.

Poor Ian, reduced to parroting WUWT red herring nonsense.

That's the normal progression of hardcore conspiracy cultists, falling ever deeper into conspiracy mania. There's literally no evidence that can change the minds of the denier cultists now, as they simply auto-define any evidence debunking their conspiracy as being part of the conspiracy.
 
It's been a real warm winter......but then I live in Texas.
And just to poke you poor bastards in the north east....

Wed
sunny.png

75°
47°
Thu
sunny.png

81°
60°
Fri
partly_cloudy.png

80°
60°
Sat
partly_cloudy.png

81°
61°
Sun
cloudy.png

81°
61°
Mon
rain_s_cloudy.png

77°
51°
Tue
rain_s_cloudy.png

66°
44°
Wed
sunny.png
 
Adjusted data + excess heat eaten by the oceans = The Hottest (pick a month or year) EVAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
 
Good stations show less warming than poor ones. Even the bad stations show less warming than the homogenized data.

Poor Ian, reduced to parroting WUWT red herring nonsense.

That's the normal progression of hardcore conspiracy cultists, falling ever deeper into conspiracy mania. There's literally no evidence that can change the minds of the denier cultists now, as they simply auto-define any evidence debunking their conspiracy as being part of the conspiracy.

NOAA said 1997 was actually 4 degrees warmer than 2016

D'OH!
 
Good stations show less warming than poor ones. Even the bad stations show less warming than the homogenized data.

Poor Ian, reduced to parroting WUWT red herring nonsense.

That's the normal progression of hardcore conspiracy cultists, falling ever deeper into conspiracy mania. There's literally no evidence that can change the minds of the denier cultists now, as they simply auto-define any evidence debunking their conspiracy as being part of the conspiracy.

NOAA said 1997 was actually 4 degrees warmer than 2016

D'OH!
but that's because 58 is greater than 62 remember?
 
Good stations show less warming than poor ones. Even the bad stations show less warming than the homogenized data.

Poor Ian, reduced to parroting WUWT red herring nonsense.

That's the normal progression of hardcore conspiracy cultists, falling ever deeper into conspiracy mania. There's literally no evidence that can change the minds of the denier cultists now, as they simply auto-define any evidence debunking their conspiracy as being part of the conspiracy.


There are a myriad ways to construct a temperature dataset. Any that you dislike are considered a conspiracy. You don't have to keep telling me, I know your position already and I could live without the spam.

The CRN was put into place to eliminate the need for adjustments. Watts et al have used the stations that are similarly not in need of adjustments. The dataset built from those stations show less warming, just like the CRN. The warmers prefer to use multiply adjusted data. I get that, it gives them a more favoured result. Unfortunately it leaves a stench of suspicion when most of the warming trend is comprised of those adjustments.
 
Good stations show less warming than poor ones. Even the bad stations show less warming than the homogenized data.

Poor Ian, reduced to parroting WUWT red herring nonsense.

That's the normal progression of hardcore conspiracy cultists, falling ever deeper into conspiracy mania. There's literally no evidence that can change the minds of the denier cultists now, as they simply auto-define any evidence debunking their conspiracy as being part of the conspiracy.

NOAA said 1997 was actually 4 degrees warmer than 2016

D'OH!
but that's because 58 is greater than 62 remember?

only once you adjust the baseline
 
So according to the warmer cult, when again did the world begin? 1970, 1880, 2010. Hell I can't keep up with how many times the world began in their mantra.

I guess the whole Dinosaurs thing is just a myth.
 
So according to the warmer cult, when again did the world begin? 1970, 1880, 2010. Hell I can't keep up with how many times the world began in their mantra.

I guess the whole Dinosaurs thing is just a myth.
It's a conspiracy
 
My word, a whole slew of idiots trying to out stupid each other.

However, it is not just NOAA reporting record warmth for January, but the meteorological agencies of several nations as well. Not that that would make any differance to you fellows, after all, they are just pointy headed scientists.
 
My word, a whole slew of idiots trying to out stupid each other.

However, it is not just NOAA reporting record warmth for January, but the meteorological agencies of several nations as well. Not that that would make any differance to you fellows, after all, they are just pointy headed scientists.
Several Nations that get all their information from NOAA, OLD CROCK!!!!

You should of linked for that, freethinking ain't your thing Old Crock.
 
There are a myriad ways to construct a temperature dataset. Any that you dislike are considered a conspiracy. You don't have to keep telling me, I know your position already and I could live without the spam.

I know your position, Ian, which is to ignore all the real science in favor of what your conspiracy blogs push.

The CRN was put into place to eliminate the need for adjustments.

The USCRN network shows the same results as the "bad" stations, the homogenized USHCN data.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

Evaluating the impact of U.S. Historical Climatology Network homogenization using the U.S. Climate Reference Network - Hausfather - 2016 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

So, the real science says your conspiracy theory is garbage. For the rational people, that settles things. You can keep howling on a message board, but the real scientists still know with 100% certainty that you're peddling a fraud.
 
Hey AGW deniers, what if you're wrong? What if the scientists aren't actually full of shit? Have you ever thought about the consequences of that possibility?

January Smashed Another Global Temperature Record

The calendar may have turned to 2016, but temperatures are picking up where 2015 left off. January was record warm, according to data released this week by NASA. You may recall that last year was the hottest on record for the globe. And by NASA’s accounting, it ended with a bang. This past December was the warmest December on record and the most abnormally warm month on record, too. That is until now.

This January was the warmest January on record by a large margin while also claiming the title of most anomalously warm month in 135 years of record keeping. The month was 1.13°C — or just a smidge more than 2°F — above normal. That tops December’s record of being 1.11°C — or just a smidge below 2°F — above average. It marks the fourth month in a row where the globe has been more than 1°C (1.8°F) above normal. Incidentally, those are the only four months where the globe has topped that mark since record keeping began.

Large swaths of the globe were painted red by warmth to the point where it’s easier to talk about where the heat wasn’t (that would be Antarctica, Scandinavia, East Africa and a few parts of Russia for the record). The telltale signal of El Niño’s heat in the Pacific continues to be notable, but it’s the Arctic that truly stands out as the most abnormally warm place on the planet. According to NASA, temperatures in some parts of the Arctic averaged up to 23°F above normal for the month. No, that’s not missing a decimal point.

Record temps don't mean shit because the dataset is so small.
 
Damn ,that old global warming myth, right now it's twenty degrees warmer than usual and the wind is blowing Mariah. Warmer and dryer for years now. It is hard for me to take these global warming deniers seriously.
 

Forum List

Back
Top