20

Earth’s hot streak continues for a record 11 months

Eleven heat records in a row smashes a streak of 10 set in 1944


 
A heat-stressed koala waits as a resident pours water on its back on December 19, 2015 in Adelaide, Australia. Adelaide is experiencing an extreme heatwave, with temperatures reaching over 40 degrees for five consecutive days.  (Morne de Klerk/Getty Images)

A heat-stressed koala waits as a resident pours water on its back on December 19, 2015 in Adelaide, Australia. (Morne de Klerk/Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first three months of the year were 2.07 degrees (0.97 Celsius) warmer than normal and half a degree warmer than the previous record start, set last year.

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

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

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

NOAA records go back to 1880.


 

Earth’s hot streak continues for a record 11 months

  1. The article negates its veracity with this admission:

    “Blunden and Michael Mann at the University of Pennsylvania worry that people will be desensitized to the drumbeat of broken records and will not realize the real affect they have on weather ”

    yes, and this would be the same Micheal Mann who fraudulently claimed to be a Nobel Prize Winner. The same Michael Mann who falsified Data to create his now debunked “Hockey Stick” and the same Michael Mann who was pilloried by other scientists in Mark Steyn’s book, “A Disgrace to the Profession” outlining how low an opinion that most scientists have of Michael Mann.

    So yes Macleans….good article. How could a reader NOT believe it. After all, reading about folks like Michael Mann, and other scientists who do the same thing he does when it comes to manipulating climate data make for a very credible article.

    No wonder the author didn’t want to put his name on the piece.

    What a joke.

    • Negates its veracity? Who talks like that?

      Oh right – a guy who believes that the mention of one scientist’s name (not even a quote) “negates the veracity” of an entire article.

      Any opinion on the NOAA data that this article is actually about? Oughta be entertaining…

      • TJ,

        What is wrong about the grammatically correct, “Negates its veracity”

        If you understood it, then it works. As for who “talks” (types actually) like that….I do. As do most other folks with a grasp of proper English.

        As for the “data” in the article…sorry, it’s as fraudulent as the claims by Mann of being a Nobel Laureate.

      • Or this NASA?

        http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

        What caught my eye from the report, was this paragraph,

        “Professor Ewert’s findings seem to show NASA has intentionally and systematically rigged the official government record of global temperatures to show recent global warming where none would exist without the upwards ‘revisions.’”

        So yes TJ…….none of this is surprising to me. I’ve been following this fraudulent science for years now.

        the question I always ask though is the same. “How many times do you have to be told something is TRUE, when it is later found to be UNTRUE…before you start asking your own questions about what is going on?”

        It’s a scam TJ. It is a scam designed to separate YOU from YOUR MONEY. Saving the planet has nothing to do with it. Follow the money.

        • Wow, one shitty source after the next. I guess if you want to believe something badly enough, you’ll listen to anybody who says what you want to hear.

          • TJ,

            the source was the House Science Committee of the United states. The other, was from a well respected Science Journal, and a well-known writer who has uncovered what other well respected scientists have been saying.

            Your complaint is similar to my telling you to go read this book, and then you read the book, don’t like it…and blame me.

            Apparently, your science knowledge is similar to your source citing credentials.

          • Jameshalifax – I have a degree in science. You?

            You should read your comments again. You didn’t cite the House Science Committee, you cited a blog post that cited the House Science Committee. Just so you know, that’s not the same thing.

            And a “well respected” science journal is only as well respected as you say it is. And as an anonymous Internet commenter, you have no credibility whatsoever. In the meantime, the NOAA and NASA don’t need your endorsement to be credible.

            I say again, if you want to believe something badly enough, you’ll listen to (and cite) anybody who tells you what you want to hear. And you seem to *really* want the entire science of global climate change to be the biggest conspiracy in history. Occam’s razor weighs in against you, as does common sense and the weight of the global scientific community.

          • TJ Cook,

            If you have a science degree, I’m assuming you were near the bottom of the bell curve, because clearly, you don’t know what REAL science is. I’m sure the Online Sciencey school in Pakistan who conferred you the degree is very proud.

            As for the links I provided, you clearly didn’t read them, or bother to look over the links within the page provided. It isn’t my fault you are too lazy to look.

            but let’s look at what some REAL scientists (you know..those folks who actually practice it) think. (note: over 9000 of these guys have a PHD, which, as the holder of a science degree should know….trumps your credentials to high heaven)

            http://www.petitionproject.org/

          • And finally, TJ…….

            Since I know you won’t bother reading anything I have shown you, just be comforted by the FACT that the world is not going to end. We are not going to burn up.

            If you want’ proof, then simply understand that EVERY SINGLE prediction these climate alarmists have made…..has been wrong. I know that won’t convince you, but hey…fill your boots.

          • Swing and a miss. My point – again – is that your sources are shit. Quoting *more* shitty sources doesn’t strengthen your case. If anything, it demonstrates that you’re so ignorant you don’t even know what I’m talking about.

            You’re asking me to believe that there’s a global conspiracy to manufacture global warming as a threat. That would be the biggest conspiracy in human history. It fails Occam’s Razor, it fails the sniff test and if you had ever actually worked with scientists, you would understand how impossible that is.

            You have uncredentialed online sources that you believe disprove climate science. As though a bunch of blogs outweigh actual scientific publications. You have no credentials or training yourself, but you consider yourself an expert and you expect me to believe you and your collection of blogs.

            I’m amazed at the degree of ignorance and arrogance it takes to believe you know better than actual scientists. You know nothing of climate science, you’ve never read a primary source, you’ve never analyzed a dataset, you’ve never even spoken to a climate scientist.

            You said “Your complaint is similar to my telling you to go read this book, and then you read the book, don’t like it…and blame me.”

            No, it’s like you’re on a street corner with a bullhorn handing out homemade pamphlets, getting mad at me because I’m not convinced that the world is ending tomorrow. You’ll need to be a lot more convincing than you have been, and you’ll need to hand out better material before you change anybody’s mind.

            But go ahead, mock *my* intelligence, education and open-mindedness.

          • Tj wrote:

            “Swing and a miss. My point – again – is that your sources are shit. Quoting *more* shitty sources doesn’t strengthen your case. If anything, it demonstrates that you’re so ignorant you don’t even know what I’m talking about.”

            And again, TJ proves one more time that he doesn’t bother to read the sources provided.

            TJ, the links I have provided, have additional links to sources you can not easily dismiss. Sources such as actual climate scientists, science institutes, and many other “credible” sources.

            Simply saying, “your sources suck” is not surprising given that you simply don’t want to read anything that contradicts your own opinion. You have a closed mind, and apparently, the science degree you claim to have is essentially a product of your wasted time. If you don’t believe in science, or the scientific method, you may as well go ahead and take womyn’s studies.

            Science is wasted on you if you don’t have an understanding of it at a higher level than you seem to have now.

            Can’t say I’m surprised though.

          • Ok, TJ…..(or for the other readers’ who actually WANT to know more about the climate)

            Here are some comments from REAL SCIENTISTS….you know, they have more “science” education than you claim to have. but since your reading comprehension remains in doubt, and you are just too lazy to do your own research (which pretty much explains your affinity for climate alarmists who share this trait with you)…I have gone into the links I have provided, and drilled down to take some info you are too lazy to read.

            Here are some comments from REAL SCIENTISTS. (though I’m sure it won’t register on you)

            ““We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.”

            Yep..he seems credible.

            And this – from a guy at NASA

            ““Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.”

            More: (and this dude is just a physicist with a Nobel Prize)

            ““Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to
            control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find
            much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

            More:
            “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that
            fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t
            happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers.”

            More: (Silly Russian…saying what I have been saying for years)

            ““The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has 4 published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with
            the Earth’s magnetic field.

            more:

            ““Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a
            Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

            More:
            ““I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Updated December 9, 2010”

            more:

            ““The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal.
            Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring’s quote.”

            More:

            ““Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.”

            more: (another silly Russian)

            ““There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.”

            More: (note: reference to Micheal Mann – though, this dude is just a lowly astro-physicist…..not comparable to one such as TJ, who has an online science degree from the University of Pakistan)

            ““The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.”

            Ok, there are hundreds more just like it….but I’m sure TJ has never bothered to read anything NOT written by Al gore, or David Suzuki.

            so please inform us TJ, which one of these guys is not credible? Are they all in the pocket of big oil, or do you think that these dudes are not a credible source?

            Answer if you can…..but I’m sure you will just cite the sources as being questionable again. So pathetic, and yet so predictable.

          • I guess that shut him up eh?

            (not likely…he’ll come back and say the scientists in question are in the pockets of big oil)

Sign in to comment.