Temperature Trends

Warmest February in Contiguous U.S. in 39-Year Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 Celsius per decade

|

BestThermometerMeryllDreamstime
Meryll/Dreamstime

The 2015-16 El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event has faded into history, but the globe still saw its fourth warmest February in the satellite global temperature record, including the warmest February in that time for the contiguous 48 U.S. states, notes Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. How hot was it? The average temperature over the U.S. was +2.1 Celsius (about 3.78 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms in February 2017. The next warmest Februarys in the lower 48 states occurred in 1991 (+1.69 C), 2003 (+1.58 C), 2001 (+1.32 C), and 1998 (+1.12 C).

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade

February temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.35 C (about 0.63 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.54 C (about 0.97 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C (about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Tropics: +0.05 C (about 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for February.

Feb2017UAHTemp
UAH

Go here to view the monthly satellite temperature data since 1978.

NEXT: Gov. Terry Branstad Pushed Certificate of Need Reform; Iowa Hospitals Killed It

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. This one I can believe (so much, as always, as the continental United States can have a single statistical temperature). It’s been pretty mild where I am, which I assume translates to the rest of the country as well.

  2. OMG WE’RE ALL GONNA FRY

    1. And if the grounds not cold
      Then we’re all gonna burn
      We’ll all take turns
      I’ll get mine too

      This monkey’s gone to heaven

      1. And if I go to hell, well, then I hope I burn well.

  3. OK, so what’s the point?

    1. J: The point is just letting you know the latest data.

      1. The data is only meaningful to the extent you can explain it Ron.

      2. I for one like these short articles. Information without editorializing is a good thing (editorializing has it’s place, but I like having a break from it).

        1. Even better are comments that don’t editorialize.

        2. Yup.

    2. The point is that a warm winter saves money, time, energy, and lives. But we hate them anyway. Because.

      1. Because watching people who can’t even drive safely under ideal conditions try to navigate icy roads is entertaining. Also, snow days.

      2. Not if you operate a ski resort.

        1. Those people are privileged so we don’t care about them.

  4. Temperature is skyrocketing for a period equalling .000000000075% of history.

    Or, dramatically less time than using the flu you suffered for three days to serve as proof that your body temp is declining year over year.

    You are aware that a 30 year study for a planet that is at least 4 trillion years old is meaningless, right?

    Even if it was only 4 billion years old, 30 yrs is nothing.

    1. And even so, they still need to cook the books just to get this result, by “adjusting” old temperatures down and recent temperatures up. The data is completely meaningless.

      1. R: The folks at UAH do not do that.

        1. Correct. Satellites rule.

          1. As long as you account for orbital drift.

        2. That’s what they say 🙂

    2. “Temperature is skyrocketing for a period equalling .000000000075% of history.”

      Time for some pedantry. History only goes back some 5000 years. Before that comes prehistory.

      “Even if it was only 4 billion years old, 30 yrs is nothing.”

      You’re missing the point. In science, it’s the observed and measured data that has meaning, and that’s true of all science, not just climate science.

      1. What’s political science, chopped liver?

        1. About the same as Social Justice

      2. Except making claims of unprecedented warming when we lack the basic knowledge of history (and the idiocy to assume any means of measuring temperature from even 100 yrs ago compares to what we have now) is foolish.

        But even over that 5000 year period of history, 30 years is quite a bit less than 1%.

        It’s a “science” that has lots and lots of figures and no clue what the relevance of any of them is.

        1. “It’s a “science” that has lots and lots of figures and no clue what the relevance of any of them is.”

          Science is about observing and measuring. Notions like good, bad, dangerous, safe, or relevance are irrelevant.

    3. While true, it’s good to be keeping track of what accurate data we have, so that the scientists can start building an accurate record of temperatures. It’s way too premature to start making radical policy based on the data we have, since, as you point, it is scant.

      As an aside, I’d be interested in seeing graphs of what the temperature looks like today using the same proxy methods used to develop the historical data that is often bandied about. Too often I see chimera graphs, where different methods of data collection are sewn together, giving a false impression of reality.

      1. “the data we have, since, as you point, it is scant.”

        Scientists have more than data, they have theory. I think the heat trapping character of green house gases is pretty sound. It’s even taken for granted by Reason’s commenters. If you are intent on ignoring the implications of continued green house gas emissions, I doubt that more data is going to change your mind.

        1. Who you gonna believe, my theory, or all those damn lying thermometers?

          1. Scientists have observed higher temperatures, they have observed rising sea levels, both predicted results of CO2 emissions.

  5. I wish libertarians had a better response to climate change than occasionally and casually acknowledging that the evidence is there on all fronts while repeatedly focusing on relatively minor disagreements amongst scientists within the consensus to reduce the credibility of the pretty conclusively proven scientific theory.

    I’m not in favor of “solutions” from the left either – choking the economy and pumping tens of billions into windmills and solar panels hasn’t done much either, but maybe pointing out we’re sitting on hundreds of years worth of ready-to-burn, carbon free fissile material is a better response than shouting “THIS ISN’T HAPPENING”.

    1. BD: You might consider my review of Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything and my book The End of Doom. Just saying.

    2. Billy,

      This isn’t happening is the right answer. It isn’t happening.

    3. The problem is that the modern political climate [sic] means that your “belief” in climate change dictates your political ideology, positions, and even party. Libertarians reject climate change because the official media narrative says that if you accept the existance of climate change then you must vote for Clinton and aggress against those who don’t drive Prius’s and eat granola.

      It’s all about the politics. I don’t blame the scientists, I blame the media and the politicians who have made science into a partisan political issue.

      1. Not for me. I’m a PhD chemist who follows AGW very closely. I reject AGW because the models are crap and the science is not supported by observation.

        I am a libertarian for similar reasons – I don’t trust the views of ‘experts.’ I check the data.

        1. Sounds like you’re just a narcissist.

          1. Tony’s definition of narcisist: someone who thinks for themselves. If that doesn’t just about sum up the prog world view.

            1. If you think for yourself and find yourself in disagreement with decades of scientific consensus, either you are one of the world’s most brilliant people or you are wrong. Which do you suppose you are?

              1. The person that could turn to have been right all along because I wasn’t biased so that I could get my next grant or worried about being excommunicated for not conforming?

        2. That’s the point that needs to be brought up more often, BigT. The model predictions from the past, as curated by the IPCC, have always been wrong, and by more than a standard error. They have always overestimated future temperatures. There’s no reason to believe they won’t continue to do so. Clearly the models are wrong and they probably aren’t even useful (at least not for predicting climate.)

          1. All are wrong by more than 2 sigma in the same direction. This indicates the same systematic over-prediction due to the same poor assumption, I.e. AGW.

          2. You obsess on “prediction” because it’s inherently less certain than “observation,” which is in fact what climate science is mostly doing. See: this article.

            1. You mean the observation of thermageddon being wrong? That observation?

            2. I don’t obsess on anything. I admit that it is warmer now that when it was colder. I admit that it is likely mankind’s emissions are having an impact on climate. But predictions are what people use to push for certain policy objectives. Global carbon emission targets are calculated based on predictions of what that carbon will do to the environment. But the models making those predictions have a long history of being very wrong. So if you plan on using them to decide policy, you’re the one who is diverging from the science.

              1. They don’t have a long history of being wrong. They do have a history of somewhat underestimating the warming, if anything. So you need to start from a factual place before any kind of policy conversation can happen at all.

                Why do you think there are so many lies being fed to you on this subject? Why this subject particularly? Surely the political meddling of geeks in labs is somewhat less impactful than that of one of the wealthiest industries on earth–you know the one, and it even comes with a motive so obvious a baby could get it.

                1. So if you believe it strong enough it must be true, damn the consequences.

        3. Yup.

        4. I reject AGW because the models are crap and the science is not supported by observation.

          Winner.

          It doesn’t matter how many scientists are polled.

          The only polls that matter are predictions and measurements. They don’t match up. Sorry, they lose. They can come back when they can make accurate predictions.

    4. acknowledging that the evidence is there on all fronts

      What do you mean by this? Most paleo-temperature reconstructions are pure bullshit. There’s so much tampering with the instrumental record that it’s highly dubious. The models get so much wrong that they’re essentially worthless for trying to determine future temperatures. Everything said about “extreme weather” and “kids won’t know what snow is” and all that stuff always seems to be proven wrong. So no, the evidence is not there on all fronts.

    5. minor disagreements amongst scientists

      The problem isn’t the disagreement between scientists, it’s the disagreement between model driven climate projections and the actual data for the last 20 years.

  6. So the world is .63 degrees C above the 39-year average. Let’s convert the temperatures to Kelvin so we can do a proper percentage. The US average temperature was 275.25 degrees Kelvin in February. That is .63 Kelvin (one-degree change in Kelvin is equal to one-degree change Celsius). That means the mean temperature in the US was .0022%, or two-tenths of one percent higher than the 39-year average.

    That is of course not entirely fair. But average in this context is never particularly descriptive. If the fear is radical climate change, the mathematical mean tells us nothing. The better measure is the deviation. Temperatures vary from year to year. Okay, what is the deviation and is it getting higher or dangerously high? And the answer is not really. There are two peaks on that graph, one in 1998 at about 1.9 degrees above the line and the other in 2015 at around 2.1 degrees above. The deviation is getting a bit higher but not much. If the hottest year on the 39 year average goes up .2 degrees every 39 years, that means we have about 400 years before the temperature rises even 2 degrees C.

    1. You’re using a lot of words to say that the mild warming episode following the mild cooling episode following the mild warming episode following the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warming Period — none of these recent fluctuations is exactly cause for alarm, based on the current incomplete knowledge of how climate works.

      1. Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period? Because Europe = planet earth?

        You should at least feel the duty to update your stupid nonsense talking points from time to time.

        1. Europe has been very cold this year Tony, so too has the Northwestern U.S., including Alaska.
          So for you, Eastern US=planet earth…
          Not surprised

        2. Both periods, based on the highly unreliable climate records back then, were not just warming or cooling periods exclusively confined to Europe.

        3. Both were a global phenomenon which you’d know if you bothered to read the literature.

          1. So you trust observations made about the entire planet hundreds or thousands of years ago, but think all the measuring we’re doing right now with sophisticated instruments on earth, in oceans, and in space, is all a crock?

            1. Is that what the voices in your head keep telling you, tony? Because that’s not what I said. I am referring to your precious proxies when I make that statement about the lia and mwp. The evidence for both is global including your precious antarctic peninsula which cultists like you believe has been frozen for the entire history of the planet.

              And if those instruments are so sophisticated why do they have to change the readings every single year? Why is virtually the entire warming signal within the “calibration?” The satellite measurements are far more reliable and have far better coverage and what do they say? A little over .1C warming per decade with NO acceleration this century. In fact thanks to the large el nino we just emerged from the longest hiatus in global warming since 1940-1970. And the models can’t explain that.

              1. “The satellite measurements are far more reliable.”

                Citation you fucking toad. Satellite measurements are five times less reliable than ground-based means (i.e., thermometers). They aren’t even recording temperature! They are recording other data that is then processed (calibrated–oh no!) into a synthetic temperature measure. There are many times more variables with satellites than land-based means. Maybe you don’t know this because Reason’s resident science reporter chooses inexplicably to report only the data offered by two of the least credible climate researchers in the world, who insist that their space-based-only method is the best, sans any reasonable explanation why.

                1. So let me get this straight. You think an undersampled grid of ground based thermometers with a history of siting problems and infilled polar data from stations over 1000km away from the grid point is 5 times more reliable than platinum referenced microwave sensors with 95% actual global coverage, i.e. no 1000km interpolation or homogenization. And ground based thermometers don’t measure temperature either. It’s computed from some other physical change, e.g. thermal expansion of a metal, conductivity change of a semiconductor, etc.

                  And bailey could report the results from mears at rss. He’s a climastrologist just like you like. Guess what? It would say essentially the same thing as uah.

                  You’re a moron.

                  1. The difference is thermometers are thermometers and satellites are not thermometers. You rant about calibration and then say measuring microwave emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere is the soundest way to determine the planet’s average temperature?

                    It is absolutely certain that if satellites measured more warming than other means you would immediately discount them as the least reliable method. There is so much motive here it’s vomit-inducing. The one way satellites differ from earth-based measures is that they show somewhat less warming in the lower atmosphere. But since all other data disagrees with this, that would indicate that there’s something wrong with measuring from space, wouldn’t it?

                    1. And again you can’t even understand what a thermometer is.

                      I’m hardly ranting about calibration when I note that the adjustment to the HCN is equivalent to the warming signal. If you had any technical background at all you would understand just how concerning that is. I’m hardly ranting when I observe that the spatial sampling of ground based observations is extremely poor. I’m hardly ranting when I point out just how statistically awful steig et al is with its homogenization of said sparsely sampled data. I’m hardly ranting when I observe that direct measurements by radiosonde (weather balloons) is in strong agreement with the amsu satellite measurements. I’m hardly ranting when I observe that the argo data disagrees with the karl ship intake “adjustment.” I’m hardly ranting when I note that the dendro proxy shows cooling in the last part of the 20th century and so had to be truncated and spliced with the thermometer record, aka Mann’s trick.

                      Keep frothing, tony. One of your doomsday cults is bound to be right eventually.

                2. “Satellite measurements are five times less reliable than ground-based means (i.e., thermometers).”

                  Citation you fucking toad.

                3. “Satellite measurements are five times less reliable than ground-based means (i.e., thermometers).”

                  Citation you fucking toad.

                4. “Satellite measurements are five times less reliable than ground-based means (i.e., thermometers).”

                  Citation you fucking toad.

                  1. The squirrels demand an answer!

      2. You’re using a lot of words to say hold my beer.

  7. Winter is (not) coming

    1. My weather forecast for this weekend says different.

      1. Samsies. And on a night I’m going out with some friends too.

  8. OK. Interesting “fact”. According to the settled science of Darwin, all organisms affected by temperature will evolve to deal with the increase, if it continues.

    “satellite global temperature record” ??
    Do we really care about the temperature of satellites?

    1. “According to the settled science of Darwin”

      You mean Charles Darwin? Or some other Darwin. According to Charles, not all species will adapt. Some will cling to the old ways and face extinction.

    2. Fifteen most recent hottest years (globally) on record: Fourteen have been since 2000.
      Last coldest (globally) year on record: 1909

      We’re not talking about the years with the hottest or coldest day, or the hottest summer or coldest winter, or whether it was the coldest in New England or the warmest in Manitoba. We’re talking about the average global temperature for the whole year. The temperature trend is very clear, and the trend is rising.

      This does NOT mean you have to suddenly start voting Democrat. But it does mean you have to get your head out of your ass and understand that scientists aren’t all part of a grand global conspiracy. I personally don’t think the problems are as severe as some people make out, but I’m not going to hide in a hole and pretend nothing is happening.

      1. When they have to “correct” the record as often as they for RECENT years temperatures, it is meaningless.

        That they have far fewer stations measuring than they used to makes that claim meaningless.

        That all of their predictions have failed miserable makes that claim meaningless (even trying to manipulate date to cover up the pause for the last nearly 20 years that NONE of their models predicted) makes the claim meaningless.

        No, we don’t have evidence. Sorry. We have whores whoring around for money.

      2. Your statement would apply equally to 1920-1940, so what exactly is your point? Temps today are below the hco. They are well within natural variation. So again, what’s your point? The models predicted warming at twice the observed rate, so what’s your point?

      3. But it does mean you have to get your head out of your ass and understand that scientists aren’t all part of a grand global conspiracy. I personally don’t think the problems are as severe as some people make out, but I’m not going to hide in a hole and pretend nothing is happening.

        If AGW proceeds *as predicted*, we’ll have more arable land than we do now. Currently, and well into the past, the population of the world within the bounds of the rising ocean migrated the distance of entire countries within single years and without any sort of executive decree. The idea that we can’t simply move 1-2 feet up the coast in the next 100 yrs. is absurd. Especially when you consider the idea that 200 yrs. ago, cities like Chicago and Los Angeles were swamps and deserts.

        A core tenet of information theory is that if you don’t react to a given piece of information, it becomes exceedingly difficult to prove that the information was conveyed or even existed in the first place. If you can, effectively, mitigate the entirety of climate change by doing nothing. There is no difference between being preeminently enlightened and having your head up your own ass. To that same point, if a simple and age-old skill like driving bulldozers is required to combat climate change, and we produce legions of kids able to bang out never-before-seen models the climate but unable to drive bulldozers, we’ve done worse than simply having our head up our own asses.

      4. “Fifteen most recent hottest years (globally) on record: Fourteen have been in the last 20 years since 2000.”

        This statement is true as corrected for every year since 1450. We are emerging from an ice age. So no worries, and nothing we can do about it anyway.

  9. Warmest February in Contiguous U.S. in 39-Year Satellite Record

    You must be one of those climate deniers, confusing local weather with global climate. The weather in the small area of the 48 contiguous US states says nothing at all about global climate, doofus.

    Oh, wait, warmer you say? If it supports the global warming argument it’s not weather, it’s climate. Nevermind. Carry on. But just remember when the contiguous 48 US states has an unusually cool spell, that’s just weather and says nothing at all about the global climate. You go confusing climate and weather and you’ll get a ton of nasty comments from the Chicken Little Brigade.

    1. When California was having a drought, that was climate. California and the entire west were going to turn into a desert as the earth finally punished man for his sinful ways. California nd the West has one of the wettest years in history this year erasing that drought, that is just weather.

    2. “confusing local weather with global climate”

      You misunderstand the difference. It’s not local vs. global, but short vs. long term. We speak of the today’s weather or the climate over a longer timespan.

      “But just remember when the contiguous 48 US states has an unusually cool spell, that’s just weather and says nothing at all about the global climate.”

      You’ve got it here. A ‘spell’ is a short term phenom and it’s weather, as you say. Stretch that spell over a period of decades and you’re talking about climate.

      1. According to the AGW cult, cold snaps (or Polar Vortex as it is now called) are caused by climate change too.
        You don’t need to know the question. The answer is always climate change.

        1. “According to the AGW cult…”

          You shouldn’t concern yourself with what cults say. Stick to the science. Weather and climate are not differentiated by local vs; global.

  10. So, a data set that starts in one of the coldest recorded decades shows that temperatures have risen since one of the coldest recorded decades; and the spikes aren’t contiguous, but rather sporadic.

  11. It’s been a pretty mild winter here in Austin, other than a three day cold snap with temps down to 25F that damaged a lot of plants that were kinda marginal for this planting zone — date palms, banana trees, and whatnot.

    If this is what we can look forward to — if this is a harbinger of climate, not just random weather — I’m all for it.

    1. 1. Wait til August, when we’ll be spending the combined GDP of the entire northern hemisphere to run our air conditioners.

      2. Fredricksburg peaches need cold weather in January and February.

      1. I lived in central Texas for most of the 00s. Every August is like that. And Texas has always had hit and miss winters. Some winters it never gets cold. Other winters it can be brutal for short stretches.

        And not every year is a good year for any crop.

      2. Karen, according to the Washington Post (you know-well known right-wing denialists) Capitol Weather Gang-there is NO correlation between warm winters and hot summers, although they note that only 1 summer out of the past 11 has been cooler than average.

      3. Fredricksburg peaches are crap. I’ll take mild winters and Georgia peaches.

        It might be hotter in August than the usual string of 100F day after day. It might not. Weather can be unpredictable.

  12. I accept that there is climate change and CO2 may have something to do with it but what pisses me off is that the progtards don’t really seem to be interested in actually doing anything to reverse it if it is actually happening, other than to chant “wind and solar” like a bunch of Hare Krishnas. Which brings me to the other thing that Climate Change has basically become an excuse for a leftist cult. The Paris agreement was mostly about making “rich countries” transfer money to poor ones to pay for the climate change that they caused. Their proposed solutions involve moving more people to cities and abolishing land and car ownership. Basically, its an appeal to Marxist/Prog aesthetics, and this completely undermines their credibility in my opinion.

    If they really were concerned about climate change, they would embrace solutions and actual science that will reverse it (nuclear, carbon capture) rather than pontificate about culture/lifestyle changes.

    1. I would be very hesitant to endorse things like carbon capture or any efforts to reverse the alleged effects of C02. We don’t understand the climate well enough to be doing such things. Talk about risks of second order effects.

      1. John, from what I have heard it is possible using existing technologies, or ones that could be easily developed to remove 1 billion tons of CO2 per year. This might sound like a lot, but it is about 2.5% of total global annual emissions, and probably wouldn’t significantly cool temperatures to the point that we would need to be worried.
        Please see: https://t.co/5BLTW843a2

        1. Especially since CO2 isn’t a terribly relevant part of “warming” in the first place. Sun activity is far more influential.

          So, go ahead and extinguish the Sun. Warming is OVER and we’ll be in Shangri-La at last.

        2. This might sound like a lot, but it is about 2.5% of total global annual human emissions

          This is key to remember in the whole debate. The oceans and biosphere *each* release and fix about 10X the amount of CO2 as the human race releases.

          If you look at the Mona Loa plots, you notice that the saw-toothed pattern doesn’t waiver one bit over the course of the plot? That’s because Mother Nature gives precisely zero fucks with regard to 300 vs. 400 ppm.

          The whole notion is premised on the fact that we trigger some catastrophic event which isn’t observed anywhere in any part of the geological and/or climate record.

    2. “they would embrace solutions and actual science that will reverse it (nuclear, carbon capture) rather than pontificate about culture/lifestyle changes.”

      This has long been a Libertarian magazine. Your tax and spend statist solutions are never going to be very popular here. And if communists are not promoting them, it should be a cause for celebration among Libertarians rather than complaints.

  13. Last week it was much warmer than usual where I live, and I pointed out to the proggies that weather is not climate. This week it is much colder than usual, and I pointed out to the proggies that it’s still winter, so of course it’s cold. Then I used a variation of the precautionary principle to goad my proggie friends into disproving my contention that burning fossil fuels won’t cause global warming. Heads ‘sploded. Then I told the wife to make me a sammich.

  14. It was nice. Can we have this every year?

    1. No! I like snow and ice, and the panic that they bring.

  15. Let’s also ignore that is far less energy intensive to cool off a home than to warm it up. Cooling, worst case scenario between 30 and 35 degrees, a home uses less resources than warming up a home by 70 degrees plus.

  16. 39 years?

    That’s barely a blip of time in recorded history, let alone that of the planet as we know it.

    Farcical nonsense.

  17. Way back when, in high school, we learned the earth was considerably colder 12,000 years ago and has been gradually warming ever since. I don’t remember the explanation, but it wasn’t “cause humans started burning wood and carbon-based fuel.” Maybe something to do with sun activity and tilt of the earth. So what have scientists concluded about these 12,000 year old factors and their continued influence today?

    1. It was warm enough in Roman times to grow grapes for wine in what is now the British Isles. The later cooling of the global climate eliminated the viability of winemaking there so the inhabitants switched to beer making from grain crops.

      Let that sink in. Historic temperature variations during human recorded history were large enough to make entire agricultural endeavors non viable.
      But yet the warmists act like increases within the normal historic ranges are for some reason cause for panic.

      It’s all a scam and no reputable scientist would look at a chart like the one above and proclaim that it is of any relevance at all to global climatology.

      1. “It’s all a scam and no reputable scientist would look at a chart like the one above and proclaim that it is of any relevance at all to global climatology.”

        There’s a simple reason for that. The chart doesn’t challenge the idea that the global temperatures are increasing. No surprises there. Had the record showed instead a 39 year downward trend, you’d be singing a different song.

        1. “There’s a simple reason for that. The chart doesn’t challenge the idea that the global temperatures are increasing. No surprises there. Had the record showed instead a 39 year downward trend, you’d be singing a different song.”

          Don’t be ignorant. The problem is that the chart looks at too small a data set. It is meaningless relative to topic, regardless of which way it points.
          Putting a “trend” to such a limited data set is not science, and no reputable scientist would proclaim such a trend indicates anything of consequence.

          1. “The problem is that the chart looks at too small a data set. ”

            Too small? It’ll have to make do. It’s the only such record we have. To reject it because satellites weren’t invented some hundreds of years previously is lunacy.

            “and no reputable scientist would proclaim such a trend indicates anything of consequence.”

            Correct, but not because scientists wouldn’t recognize a warming trend in the data, as scanty as it is. Scientists observe and measure. Notions like ‘of consequence’ are outside their field of expertise.

      2. Citation needed for “within normal historic ranges.”

        1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

          it’s easy Tony. Just scroll down past the short-term record and look at the longer term temperature record.

          Our current temperatures and trends are well within historic norms. They only look unusual if the data set is shrunk to ignore the prior warm periods. The Antarctic ice core data in particular shows that the current warm period is perfectly in-line with the historic trend of highs and lows.

          1. So by historic you mean “within millions of years”?

            1. More like hundreds to thousands. We are actually at one of the coldest periods of the current interglacial.

              But if you want to talk “normal” then it’s not normal for the earth to have permanent ice at the poles and significant land ice. For the vast majority of its life the earth has been ice free at the poles. And with a continually brightening sun (you know that big nukular reactor driving all weather on this planet) increasing output by about 10% every billion years it’s frankly a bit bizarre that we’re even in this metastable ice age now.

              1. Wouldn’t it be prudent for humans not to completely alter the climate the human species is accustomed to, even if it might have been warmer half a billion years ago?

      3. “Let that sink in. Historic temperature variations during human recorded history were large enough to make entire agricultural endeavors non viable.
        But yet the warmists act like increases within the normal historic ranges are for some reason cause for panic.”

        If entire agricultural endeavours become non-viable, the US corn crop, for instance, there will be lots of panic. A couple of extra days of August heat wave is all it takes.

  18. Warmest February in Contiguous U.S. in 39-Year Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update

    Warmest February on my back porch since the house was built in 78.

    fourth warmest February in the satellite global temperature record

    Eyeballing the plot, it looks like the 3rd or 4th *lowest* temp in that last couple of years.

    It looked like the 1998 El Nino initiated a discontinuous bump in the global temperature. It will be interesting to see if the latest El Nino does the same. If not, the Hiatus will soon be alcohol legal in all states. Time to partay!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.