Climate Change

2016 Hottest Year Since Good Record Keeping Began in 1880, Says NOAA and NASA

16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001

|

BestThermometerMeryllDreamstime
Meryll/Dreamstime

The folks at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who are in charge of the satellite temperature dataset that starts in 1979 declared 2016 as the warmest year in that record earlier this month. Now the researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA have released their data and both also report that 2016 is the hottest year in their land and sea datasets stretching back to the 19th century. From NOAA:

During 2016, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.69°F (0.94°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 137 years in the 1880–2016 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.07°F (0.04°C). The first eight months of the year had record high temperatures for their respective months. Since the start of the 21st century, the annual global temperature record has been broken five times (2005, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016). The record warmth in 2016 was broadly spread around the world.

During 2016, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 2.57°F (1.43°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 1880–2016 record, surpassing the previous record of 2015 by 0.18°F (0.10°C). …

During 2016, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.35°F (0.75°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 1880–2016 record, surpassing the previous record of last year by 0.02°F (0.01°C).

NOAATemp2016
NOAA

From NASA:

Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.

The 2016 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2016 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data.

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. However, even taking this into account, NASA estimates 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty. …

Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record — in all three cases, behind records set in 2015.

According to their data, the NASA researchers report most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. While now all three U.S. temperature records show this past year as the hottest, researchers disagree on its significance. For example, in a statement NOAA researcher Gavin Schmidt observes: "2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series. We don't expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear." On the other hand, in a press release satellite temperature UAH researcher John Christy asserted, "The question is, does 2016's record warmth mean anything scientifically? I suppose the answer is, not really. Both 1998 and 2016 are anomalies, outliers, and in both cases we have an easily identifiable cause for that anomaly: A powerful El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event. While El Niños are natural climatic events, they also are transient. In the study of climate, we are more concerned with accurately identifying long-term temperature trends than we are with short-term spikes and dips, especially when those spikes and dips have easily identified natural causes."

Interestingly, the UAH folks report a global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 of +0.12 C per decade. The NOAA researchers find that the globe has warmed at a rate of +0.17 C per decade over the past 45 years.

NEXT: Minnesota court on the Fifth Amendment and compelling fingerprints to unlock a phone

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 2016 Hottest Year Since Good Record Keeping Began in 1880, Says NOAA and NASA

    I’m assuming you meant 1980?

    1. who are in charge of the satellite temperature dataset that starts in 1979

      Anything before this is not what I would consider “good” record keeping, unless you’re referring to faithfully recording not particularly complete or reliable data.

      And, if you make 1979 the onset date for reliable and reasonably complete global data, then what you’re saying in this article is that “this half of a dataset shows warmer temperature than the other half”.

  2. Paging JackAss. JackAss to the white courtesy comment board please…

  3. Questions you should always ask about NOAA:

    What do the reference stations report? What’s the raw data look like? Without those, we can’t even begin to evaluate a report based on adjusted data.

    The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century.

    The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5?F, which is the claimed warming in the article.

    http://realclimatescience.com/…..tampering/

    1. That site is obviously run by deniers who are bought and paid for by Big Oil. There is no need to look at any of the deniers’ data, or even consider any of their denier arguments. Everything these deniers say is wrong because they are deniers in the employ of Big Oil. Did I mention that they are deniers?

      1. Yeah, but you forgot KKKoch Brothers..

    2. Steve Case says:
      December 28, 2016 at 2:19 pm
      The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.

      But Tony, it was extreme mildness.

      Heh.

      1. Extreme? It was the worst mildness of the last 100 years.

    3. This. I sure wish there was some raw data we could look at. Too bad there isn’t any because the decline hiders destroyed it all and then claimed that they “lost” it. Sad!

      1. NOAA raw data is available. The datasets that were destroyed were from the East Anglia CRU.

        1. Because East Anglia was totally doing science. That’s how you do science, right? Destroy your data?

          1. Hey now, hard drives are expensive and shit. You don’t get grants for stewarding data, you get grants for making hockey stick predictions.

            1. You don’t get grants for stewarding data, you get grants for making hockey stick predictions.

              Yet another of Trump’s hilarity of unintended consequences; suddenly, data redundancy, replication, and data security are a thing to the climate change community.

          2. Look fuckboi, the planet is heating at a catastrophic pace and you’re complaining about missing ones and zeroes? There’s not time for disclosing datasets!

        2. You guys are arguing the wrong thing in a losing battle. The warming data is undeniable. You look foolish and are immediately discredited if you argue that the Earth is not warming. It most assuredly is.

          No, the argument to be made is that we don’t have proof to what extent the warming is man-made, and, even more importantly, that such warming is catastrophic.

          1. Nothing I said involved any “denial” of trends evident from data.

          2. The warming data is undeniable.

            Well, yes and no. Its not that simple, because science.

            I think the satellite data is probably solid, although one wonders about partial coverage of the planet and how that affects the analysis.

            I think the raw data is what it is, and shows no warming in the US. I think the reference data is what it is, and shows, again, no warming in the US. As these don’t seem consistent with the satellite data, one wonders how to reconcile the two.

            I think the adjusted data generally used by NOAA for surface temps is highly compromised and should not be relied on. It shows a hockey stick that should raise your antenna, as hockey sticks are famously discredited in this area.

            1. Are our weather satellites more or less accurate then the ones we had in 1880?

          3. +0.17 (C per decade over the past 45 years)

          4. There are records of glacial retreat going back into the early 1700s. Its interesting that this data is never brought up. Kind of like they want to pin it all on human activity in the 1900’s.

          5. Look, ALL of you…
            Data doesn’t mean SHIT unless it can lead you to determining WTF is CAUSING the changes you’re observing!

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/0…..5LPgl.dpbs

            Is one of the…first reports I’ve seen since this MMGW shit hit Gore’s Hockey Stick. Give it a read.

            No, it’s probably NOT the ‘last word and ‘settled science’ of the alleged discussion’ but it looks like something that objective, rational people should consider BEFORE running around like headless chickens and proposing or implementing “solutions” that may be irrelevant to Root Cause.

            imnsho.

    4. The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century.

      Having to clean the data is not in and of itself enough to claim that the data are fake.

      An example I am more familiar with – the cosmic microwave background data from satellites like WMAP and Planck reveal tiny fluctuations in the ‘afterglow’ from the Big Bang that can be used to study properties of the Universe on the whole, like the density of matter and dark energy. But the raw data contain huge foreground signals (like emission from our own Galaxy) that completely swamp out the tiny fluctuations of interest. To extract any meaningful science those foregrounds have to be be subtracted off. I won’t get into the details but a lot of effort and independent checking goes into making sure that the foregrounds are modeled and subtracted correctly. When they aren’t, people point it out (see the since-retracted claim of the BICEP2 experiment regarding CMB polarization and its implications for inflation).

      I know almost nothing about the temperature data, but it’s certainly possible to faithfully correct raw data to account for foregrounds or other contamination so that you can measure smaller underlying trends.

      1. “…are modeled and subtracted correctly. When they aren’t, people point it out…”

        I think I may see the problem with climate “science” versus actual science.

        Also:

        It’s certainly possible to correct the raw data, however that doesn’t mean it’s actually being done, or done correctly.

        1. Very true. It’s certainly possible that the data are being corrected in a bad or biased way. If someone thinks that is the case, then they should criticize the technique. Going on about data corrections in general shows nothing.

          1. I’m mostly skeptical because I see anyone who agrees with the basic premise but questions if the data is modeled or calculated correctly labeled as a denier. “Denier” is no different then “heretic” and neither one belongs in the science fields.

          2. It’s certainly possible that the data are being corrected in a bad or biased way. If someone thinks that is the case, then they should criticize the technique.

            And some of that is going on. What’s odd, and needs explaining, is why corrections (and the article on NOAA is really about interpolations of missing data, not corrections) always move the aggregate in one direction, a direction not supported by the raw data.

            If you are truly “correcting” instrument results, you generally do so based on departures from reliable reference instruments. But, the reference data shows no trend.

          3. If you look at the article and their “Adjustment to USHCN Temperature vs Atmospheric CO2”, it’s pretty damning. If I showed you an adjusted dataset where the adjustment just happened to map exactly to the theory I was trying to prove with the dataset that would be:
            a) an interesting coincidence
            or
            b) something that would get you run out of grad school

            1. When the adjustment or ‘calibration’ is of the same magnitude as the signal, be afraid. Be very afraid.

      2. Here’s one big problem with their “corrections” …

        Are you familiar with the urban heat island effect? Cities, just by the nature of their construction, put out more localized heat and retain it in buildings and infrastructure more than open landscapes. It’s common for cities to have temperature readings that are several degrees higher than locations just a few miles away.

        Yet what NOAA has done is to average readings between those taken in cities and those in open countryside to create their “corrected” average readings.

        Another problem is that NOAA did everything they could to keep recording stations in the exact same place for what were, at least initially, good scientific reasons. What they didn’t foresee was that as cities grew, stations that had been in the middle of a field were now in the middle of a city, often in the middle of an asphalt parking lot or near heavy machinery (most worrisome when it’s the exhaust of an air conditioner). Those changes distort the historical meaningfulness of the data continuing to be used from them.

        The temperature readings from locations that have always been and continue to be in pristine locations have shown a much smaller increase in temperature than the officially “corrected” ones.

  4. Fake News. – new Sheriff

  5. at some point they will need to say we are like 20 degrees over 20th century averages to maintain this trend and their data altering will be obvious.. they should really be careful how quickly they make this increase or it make expose them..

    1. Nah, if the wheels come off of their gravy train they will just shut the fuck up.

  6. Can I get some of this heat over here?

    1. Completely unrelated question: 48 team World Cup. Good, bad, or meh?

        1. What are you, a football fan? Libertarians should love soccer. It is a decentralized sport where decisions are mostly made by individuals using local information, leading to a cooperative result. American football, on the other hand, is a top-down sport with military overtones, where the coach and the quarterback direct play using a global perspective.

          1. Go vs Chess.

            1. Only if the game of Go takes 2 hrs. and ends 3-1.

            2. Yes, I also play go. Poorly. 🙂

          2. Eh, I try not to politicize my entertainment.

            1. ^^^

              Seriously, I’m running out of things to like.

          3. It is a decentralized sport where decisions are mostly made by individuals using local information, leading to a cooperative result.

            Which, rather appropriately, puts the level of excitement somewhere between town hall meeting and skilled-trade workers’ conference.

            Seriously, after 120 min. of utter boredom produces a 0-0 result, penalties decides who wins. I can’t tolerate a sport that gets to 0-0 and then deems the team that did the least to win/obeyed the rules the best is the winner.

            Like having having our standard electoral process with an out that says if the vote totals are within 1-2 million of each other and neither party has the numbers in the EC, we just hand it to the candidate considered to be the nicest person. Which, as you say, should still appeal to GJ supporters.

            1. I don’t understand the obsession with 0-0 results. Yes, they happen, but not that often. The fact that it is so difficult to score in soccer is what makes it so exciting for me. Each goal is a huge event, and the attack has to be beautiful.

              As for penalties, it is a fallacy to say that they are completely up to chance. A huge amount of skill and mental focus is required and it reflects on the team’s prowess.

              1. Avg. score in score is 2-1.

                Raven, if you read this, not sure.

                My instinct is to say bad. Part of the excitement of the WC are qualifications. I immediately get suspicious when FIFA says it to help grow the game. Mourinho seems to agree with this though.

                Man, I don’t know. It used to be competitions like Champions League and WC were for the cream of the crop. Now it’s all watered down. They expanded CL and did it make the middle-table teams more competitive? In fact, I’d say it made them less so. E.g. Napoli – as good as they are – have little hope against Real Madrid over two legs. It’s only when the giants meet each other do the odds chance. It’s not a given Real can beat Bayern, Juve, or whatever.

                Bah.

                Will repost in the PM links if they put it up ON TIME.

                1. But M.C. makes a decent point about a 0-0 score being decided on penalties. A bit lame.

      1. Good. More World Cup matches mean more excitement.

  7. Interestingly, the UAH folks report a global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 of +0.12 C per decade. The NOAA researchers find that the globe has warmed at a rate of +0.17 C per decade over the past 45 years.

    I know the historical data is based on proxies and is questionable (although that doesn’t stop the warmists from using it when convenient to their cause), but is this rate of warming unprecedented, or do we see previous 40 year periods with rates in this range?

    These seem like elementary questions, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen them addressed. Linky, anyone?

    1. Interestingly, the UAH folks report a global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 of +0.12 C per decade.

      1978 was when the “scientific” consensus was that we were possibly entering a New Ice Age TM because temperatures were allegedly on a downward trend:

      http://scienceblogs.com/gregla…..ing_11.gif

      So, the rebound from a cooling local minimum, that came after the warming rebound from a more severe local cooling minimum called the Little Ice Age in the 1800s, is evidence of manmade catastrophic global warming?

    2. is this rate of warming unprecedented, or do we see previous 40 year periods with rates in this range?

      The problem is that there aren’t sufficiently precise measurements to determine that. So the answer is, ‘THE SKY IS FALLING, GIVE YOUR BLOOD AND TREASURE TO THE STATE!!!!’.

      (more seriously, they have no idea).

      1. Hey. We stopped giving to the gods through worship at the statue. Now we should give to the gods via statute.

  8. The other thing that strikes me about that NOAA map is it seems leave off a pretty good chunk of the planet around the poles. Dunno how that affects the validity of their conclusions, but it seems like it might have an impact, no?

    1. No, no, you gotta ignore the huge chunk of the globe that we don’t show recorded temperatures for, because narrative, or because of reliable record keeping since 1880, (even though the first expedition to reach the geographic South Pole was on 14 December 1911).

      Or something.

      1. Even forgetting about the poles, does NASA actually expect people to believe there was accurate temperature measurement in Siberia or the Congo or Tibet or Laos or about a million other places in 1880? That is utterly ridiculous claim.

        1. … yes they do.

          Because most people don’t know anything about how observations are collected, the hairy process of dealing with such issues as time of observation, site changes, corrections for urban heat island effect etc.

          The assume that if there’s a number in a scientific publication, or a propaganda piece about a scientific publication, it’s accurate.

          1. I want to see the temperature records from SE Asia in the 1880s. Are they fucking kidding me?

            1. Eh, those records are probably more accurate than the ones from the 1930s until fairly recently. Colonialism, and all that.

          2. Well Alexander Hamilton rapped about how 95% of everything you read on the internet is true, so of course people think they’re accurate.

    2. The poles are poorly instrumented. The surface temperature datasets really shouldn’t have values for the poles. When they do, they’re really guessing what was happening by using readings from nearby ( occasionally defined as within 2,000 miles away) weather stations.

      The satellites OTOH give good coverage.

      Personally, I prefer the satellite data. It’s systemic, and you know you are comparing apples to apples.

      1. Its symmetric but it is not certain that it actually represents the surface temperatures.

        1. The satellite data may be systemically wrong but it also has a consistency that the inflated surface station “measurements” do not.

  9. I hear these reports so often, it seems like 12 of the last four years have been hotter than hell.

  10. 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001

    Given that they’ve been applying adjustment factors to make this so, one should hardly be surprised at the result.

    1. That statistic proves too much. They over egged the pudding as the English say. Even if the world were warming at a truly alarming rate, it would not be warming in that linear of a fashion. The fact that their data says it is, is very good evidence they are cooking the books on this.

      1. Their adjustment factors are actually superlinear (maybe exponential, maybe not). At this point it’s all egg and no pudding.

  11. Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. However, even taking this into account, NASA estimates 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty. …

    Then there are not uncertainties. Either you know or you don’t. And if you know to a 95% certainty, you know. I wish Bailey would unpack the bad logic of this sentence.

    1. There measurements of the past and present vary in uncertain ways due to factors outside of the actual temperature.

    2. NASA took this into account and still concluded that the comparison of the past and present temperatures is valid to a 95% degree of certainty.

    NASA is claiming to have accounted for factors that they admit are not known, otherwise, they wouldn’t be uncertain. Moreover, knowing that something is 95% certain requires knowing what 100% certainty is, which is another way of saying you know the answer.

    These comparisons are hookum. If NASA knew how much the temperature measurements in the past varied from the current ones, they would say so and not call them uncertainties. They don’t know that and as a result their comparison is invalid. It has to be.

    1. You’re just an anti-science retard. Everyone knows that NASA and the NOAA have no reason to lie. I can’t wait till Elizabeth Warren becomes the 46th president, then we’ll be able to get rid of all of you deniers.

      /Tony

    2. It’s also a bit misleading. When they say they have 95% confidence that means to me that they are dealing with a 95% confidence interval. What is that interval?

      1. Exactly. And how do you know how to set the bounds of the interval if you don’t know the nature of the variances you are dealing with?

    3. I really wish I knew how those confidence intervals were constructed. One way or another, there is something dubious in there. Are they talking about systematic error in the measurements, I imagine?

      1. I don’t see how you can construct them without understanding the variance involved, which is something they admit they don’t know.

        1. I can dream up about ten different ways to construct a confidence interval for this with things they do know, but might not even be relevant. They could be reporting a number of different sampling errors or some sort of estimated instrument precision… Having fun with statistics is… actually an unfortunately common type of practice.
          “We need error bars on this figure.”
          “Yeah but… the standard deviations make this look like bullshit…”
          “Then use the standard error.”
          “Ohhhhh that looks much better!”

          As long as you report *how* you came up with something (which would be nice to know here), it’s legit!

          1. “We need error bars on this figure.”
            “Yeah but… the standard deviations make this look like bullshit…”
            “Then use the standard error.”
            “Ohhhhh that looks much better!”

            IME, this either demonstrates a sophistication not generally held by lots of scientists or glosses over the “ignorance”.

            My favorite is when they traipse between discrete, ordinal, and categorical data and/or analyses and pick the parts that they like best.

    4. The language could be sloppy but I interpret it as such – They have records that they know are imperfect but they can set a plausible bound on how imperfect they are. A simple example would be that they take the measurements but allow for a Gaussian error in the measurements with a plausible standard deviation. They then look at the range of temperature that are allowed given those uncertainties and conclude that there is only a 5% chance that one of the past years was warmer.

      Setting confidence intervals is a fairly standard thing to do.

      1. Sure, but without more information, you may be comparing apples and oranges.

        If you compare measurements taken by two different instruments, and set the variances within each set, you can frequently get p

        1. Stupid brackets.

          frequently get p below a certain threshold. But going back to 1880 and assuming zero systematic error is an issue. I can buy a mercury thermometer, look at it 10 times and get really great precision, but it could be wrong by 2C. We’re talking about tolerances of O(0.1C) here.

      2. Skeeter: Hey! We don’t take kindly to sciency types round here.

        Bartender: Now Skeeter…

        1. I’m just trying to elevate the quality of the criticisms.

  12. “NASA researchers report most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001”. but then you go on to quote christy as saying: “The question is, does 2016’s record warmth mean anything scientifically? I suppose the answer is, not really. Both 1998 and 2016 are anomalies, outliers, and in both cases we have an easily identifiable cause for that anomaly: A powerful El Ni?o Pacific Ocean warming event”. What about the 15 other years that were the hottest on record since 2001, when there wasn’t an anomaly El Ni?o? Surely your award-winning journalism can see the fault in Christy’s statement?

    1. 1) There is little doubt that the northern hemisphere warmed from the end of the little ice age in 1880 till the 1940’s, with a spate of record-breaking temperatures in the 30’s

      2) There is little doubt that the northern hemisphere cooled from the 1940’s until 1976.

      3) Then it warmed again from 1976 till 1998, and then temperatures are either bouncing around at a peak (RSS) or climbing slowly (NOAA post Karl)

      Homgenizing the different thermometers, observation schemes, shifts in location, and shift in siting conditions (eg a field gets paved over) is a tricky business, and oddly the corrections seem to have been universally to cool the 1930’s thus making the recent warming look record breaking.

      However, with that being said. If you look at the RSS global average chart: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp…..016_v6.jpg, you will note that the El Nino events are massive outliers. That the temperatures are essentially stagnant in the past decade and a half.

      However you slice it, the rate of warming just ain’t that dangerous. Which should be great news that makes everyone happy.

      1. It should make everyone happy.

        Sadly these people won’t be happy until the bulk of humanity is either dead or lodged firmly under the heel of their boots.

    2. What about the 15 other years that were the hottest on record since 2001, when there wasn’t an anomaly El Ni?o? Surely your award-winning journalism can see the fault in Christy’s statement?

      NASA says something.
      Somebody who doesn’t work for NASA says something not exactly refuting NASA, but not necessarily consistent with NASA’s statement either.
      Tim Franks wonders why somebody who doesn’t work for NASA isn’t parroting the narrative in lock step with NASA.

      Consensus Derangement Syndrome?

  13. So what is this ‘pause’ thing that all the DENIERS are constantly on about?

    1. Why do Gaia worshiping retards insist on pissing on the victims of the Holocaust by using a loaded and pejorative term like “Denier”. You don’t realize it but whenever you use that term, you are self identifying as a nasty, ignorant fanatic.

      1. It enforces group-think.

        It signals people within their social circle that if you disagree with them on *this*, you are outgroup, and evil, and stupid. It signals to those people that even reading something unapproved will get you blacklisted.

        They build a wall to keep the people inside their society from escaping, and don’t recognize that their wall prevents travel in both directions.

      2. You know that is sarcasm, right? Or are you just trolling?

          1. You know a joke is bad if it needs to be explained.

    2. The temperature data is a step ladder, not an inclined plane. The p-value for the null hypothesis on the temperature data is like 1.0*10^-45. Not definite, Steve, and certainly not certain enough to ask Exxon to clean up their shit, commie.

      1. Jesus, you people need to lighten up a bit.

        1. Don’t mind american shithead, he’s a complete moron who can’t be bothered to pay his bills.

      2. The p-value for the null hypothesis on the temperature data is like 1.0*10^-45

        Absurd nonsense. The last time I saw such unbelievable bullshit was from a creationist. But hey, at least the creationist admits he takes his cues from religious dogma!

        1. Yeah I think he just said the null hypothesis is extremely likely to be true.

          1. ROFL! That’s absolutely right!

  14. Fake News. There sure are a lot of ph.D climatologists here at Reason.com. I’m somewhat trained in the art of instrumentation and data analysis, but when NOAA and NASA start talking I generally defer.

    Look, this is real easy. We can solve this by either dumping s whole bunch of iron filings into the South China Sea or deploy a Mylar heat shield in geosynchronous orbit to blot out the sun. What could go wrong? I don’t see why these scientists are going so crazy.

    1. Yes, we know you are too stupid to think for yourself and will believe anything as long as it conforms to your politics.

      Everyone here knows how stupid you are You don’t need to prove it every day.

    2. I’m somewhat trained in the art of instrumentation and data analysis

      The monkey flinging shit was not a trainer.

    3. Still waiting for you to explain how a reduced thermal gradient with latitude results in more severe weather. Time to science the shit outta this!

    4. There are plenty of people who know statistics, have solid logic and are able to think for themselves. I’de like to think I’ve got two out of the three and am able to appreciate those smarter and more skilled than I am.

    5. “?but when NOAA and NASA start talking I generally defer.”

      But not always?

    6. So what you’re saying is that devotion to climate alarmism is a result of the devotees’ blind faith in authority figures, and not superior education or intelligence.

  15. Someone put the #()*@ appointment hearings on the TV

    dear god, they were badgering Tom Price (HHS nominee) on fucking *Climate Change*

    I didn’t catch who it was, but some asshat went off on a 5 min “Question” that was basically like,

    “‘you once said something skeptical about hysterical CAGW proponents = ergo, you are anti-science. As an an anti-sciencer, how can we trust you will choose the right medicines and practices to give Health to Americans!?”

    Who do these people think they’re impressing? Dudes at Vox?

      1. You give yourself too little credit. You are a D+ troll most days. You are tiresome but your unique brand of complete pig ignorance is worthy of a D+

    1. Same thing with asking the CIA director nom about climate change.

      Same thing with asking Mattis what he thinks about putting women on the front lines or whatever those morons were on about.

      This shit is so tedious. It’s just a chance for some of these idiot senators to beat their hobby horses to death, hoping that CNN might show a clip of them later. It’s incredibly stupid and pointless.

      1. It actually shows how shallow the whole political process is.

        The news media huff and puff as though this “Vetting” shit is a crucial procedure in ensuring TOP MEN meet the super-high qualifications required to run the vast, complex machinery of govt…

        …then these fucktard congresspeople literally don’t even ask a single question about the actual JOB the person is expected to do, and instead waffle on about their own pet issues, and leave the nominee about 5 seconds to go, “Uh, I guess” at which point the WaPo leaps on them and goes, “NOMINEE DODGES QUESTION” or “ENDORSES FRINGE VIEW” or something

        as you said, stupid and pointless.

        1. Don’t forget the obligatory accusation of racism

      2. It’s incredibly stupid and pointless

        Au contraire, it keeps the campaign donations flowing and the re-election votes in their favor. For every batshit insane Senator and mentally deficient Representative, there’s a state/district composed of people who voted for them.

    2. The Greens have a lot in common with the Islamists.

      The islamists have the Mutawi, the greens have the EPA.

      The islamists insist that any person holding politicial position have the right religious views re Allah, Ummah etc. The greens have a similar insistance on CAGW, sustainibility etc.

      And just as Newton’s unorthodox views on the Trinity caused him difficulty in becoming a professor at Cambridge (professors were required to be ordained Anglican priests), the Green’s insistance on a religious test will deprive them of the best and the brightest for the government they depend to make society work.

    3. By contrast, I have seen/heard most of the Scott Pruitt hearing today so far (they’re at lunch recess right now) and have been surprised to find it to be much less hysterical than say the Rex Tillerson confirmation hearing last week, and certainly less hysterical than I would have expected it to be. It’s been pretty on-topic so far, and it’s interesting that Kamala Harris’s piece thus far was thus far sort of in the vein of adversarial attorney cross-examination and political. To me the lack of a hysterical “SCIENCE!!!” ejaculation like the one provided by Senator Sanders following her piece, before the recess, was an indicative signal about her disposition is likely to be in the Senate. Props to Pruitt actually beating the drum of the importance of rule of law.

    4. Well he’s no john holdren.

  16. Why the FUCK are the poles cooler than average?????

    1. Oh I see, that’s poor graph creation practice with no apparent legend entry for N/A. Well done.

      1. An actual legend would be nice too. But it would probably be in 0.05C intervals, so they didn’t include it because they wanted to not-not-alarm anyone.

  17. 35 years is a negligible blip geologically. You might as well claim that since it hasn’t rained today, rain must be forever gone.

    1. No, no, no, you don’t get it. They’ve made predictions! With models! And even though past predictions haven’t held up to actual data, future predictions will! Because, reasons.

    2. ….or saying that since it was dark from 12 midnight to 12 midnight and 0.001 seconds, that the sun is gone forever and we’re all going to die.

      1. “We measured sunup to sundown in the northern hemisphere from December 1 to December 15, and we expect the sun to fail to rise in late April.”

  18. According to their data, the NASA researchers report most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001.

    Not to quibble and feed Big Koch Oil denier machine…but isn’t sixteen record-breaking temperature years more than the total calendar years counting from 2001?

    1. THAT’S HOW BAD GLOBAL WARMING HAS GOTTEN!!!#

  19. So let’s assume for argument’s sake, that there is a clear trend that the Earth has had a steady warming trend since the late 70s. (I am not saying that it is true, but let’s assume it is for the moment.)
    Questions:
    1) 2016 was just a little less than 1 deg. C hotter than the 20th century average. This is something on the order of a 0.3% difference (remember, must use absolute temperature to get a percent difference!). Is a 0.3% difference from the 20th century average a significant number?
    2) Compare the change of 1 deg. C over something like 35-50 years or so, to other periods of time. Is this a particularly large change for that given time scale?
    3) What negative consequences have occurred due to the +1 deg. C difference? Are coastal cities now under water? If not, then why would another 1 deg. C seriously challenge them?
    4) How could anyone construct a remotely accurate model of the negative consequences of “climate change”? Seriously, there are way too many 1st order effects (e.g. drought vs. extended growing seasons, higher temp = more cloud cover or less?) that are competing. Predictions are completely overwhelmed by bias.

    One general question:
    How the hell can average thermometer readings recorded in 1880 possibly have an accuracy to the hundredth of a degree???

    1. And how come Patagonia seems to have had a record cold year? I am guessing some systemic error in their temperature recording, as opposed to some freaky localized temperature phenomenon, but it sure looks funny. Especially considering the chart itself shows nothing about the poles.

    2. They made better weather satellites in 1880… American made not Chinese….pure uncut mercury too, not the cheap shit you get nowadays

  20. 2016 Hottest Year Since Good Record Keeping Began in 1880, Says NOAA and NASA

    Before that, all record-setting was just so-so…

  21. If you have to dip into the tenths of a degree to tell me how much warmer it was last year (and dip into the thousands of a degree to beat the record) it’s not actually warmer. When you’re measuring the temperature of an entire planet that varies by over 100 degrees on any given day from pole to equator that’s easily within the margin of error, especially when half of your data points are guestimations. And let me point out that they’re saying temperatures have risen at a rate of 0.12 to 0.17 per year for 45 years, at the low end that’s 5.4 degrees.7.6 degrees centigrade in the last 45 years, yet the temperature last year was only 0.99 C warmer than the mid 20th century and was the warmest on record? Is anyone doing any math here? Now tell me how many thousandths of a millimeter higher the oceans are this year.

  22. I wonder how much of the data has been made available for other scientists (including skeptics) to examine. Or did they do the usual unspecified “adjustments” at NOAA and NASA?

    1. Unfortunately, they sent the raw data out to the cleaners. They don’t know when it will be back. HIDE THE DECLINE, IT WILL GET YOU 2 .2 MILLION DOLLARS!

  23. According to their data, the NASA researchers report most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. While now all three U.S. temperature records show this past year as the hottest, researchers disagree on its significance. For example, in a statement NOAA researcher Gavin Schmidt observes: “2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series. We don’t expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear.” On the other hand, in a press release satellite temperature UAH researcher John Christy asserted, “The question is, ????? ???? ????
    ????? ??? does 2016’s record warmth mean anything scientifically? I suppose the answer is, not really. Both 1998 and 2016 are anomalies, outliers, and in both cases we have an easily identifiable cause for that anomaly: A powerful El Ni?o Pacific Ocean warming event. While El Ni?os are natural climatic events, they also are transient. In the study of climate, we are more concerned with accurately identifying long-term temperature trends than we are with short-term spikes and dips, especially when those spikes and dips have easily identified natural causes.”

  24. Dear Ron…
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/0…..5LPgl.dpbs

    I was disappointed when I discovered you’d bought in to MMGW…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.