Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[SSDD]

[
I am done posting to you ...I mean its ridiculous to believe that Science has no data LOL I mean I am laughing as I type because that is outlandish...there is no way to discuss this with you.... absurd

Of courseyou are...it must be frustrating to be proven wrong on every post...you can't find any observed, measured, quantified data to support the claims...so you are left making excuses...that can't be any fun...you could easily prove how outlandish I am by posting the observed, measured, quantified data...but you won't....I am supremely confident that you won't....why am I so confident?...because there is no observed, measured, quantified data for you to post.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

[
I am done posting to you ...I mean its ridiculous to believe that Science has no data LOL I mean I am laughing as I type because that is outlandish...there is no way to discuss this with you.... absurd

Of courseyou are...it must be frustrating to be proven wrong on every post...you can't find any observed, measured, quantified data to support the claims...so you are left making excuses...that can't be any fun...you could easily prove how outlandish I am by posting the observed, measured, quantified data...but you won't....I am supremely confident that you won't....why am I so confident?...because there is no observed, measured, quantified data for you to post.

LOL

 

[RollingThunder]

So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis? You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.

SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.

 

[SSDD]

[
I am done posting to you ...I mean its ridiculous to believe that Science has no data LOL I mean I am laughing as I type because that is outlandish...there is no way to discuss this with you.... absurd

Of courseyou are...it must be frustrating to be proven wrong on every post...you can't find any observed, measured, quantified data to support the claims...so you are left making excuses...that can't be any fun...you could easily prove how outlandish I am by posting the observed, measured, quantified data...but you won't....I am supremely confident that you won't....why am I so confident?...because there is no observed, measured, quantified data for you to post.

LOL

Laughing like a monkey in a tree over being proven wrong.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence and you think your inability to provide even one small bit is funny?

 

[SSDD]

I don't have to explain it...I only have to point out that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim and the fact that you can't provide any, nor can anyone else does nothing but prove my point...I suspect that money, politics, and political power are responsible...those factors have been known to buy scientific opinion in the past...

There is data there certainly is because scientist act on data and science believes in AGW

So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis? You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.

SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

[
I am done posting to you ...I mean its ridiculous to believe that Science has no data LOL I mean I am laughing as I type because that is outlandish...there is no way to discuss this with you.... absurd

Of courseyou are...it must be frustrating to be proven wrong on every post...you can't find any observed, measured, quantified data to support the claims...so you are left making excuses...that can't be any fun...you could easily prove how outlandish I am by posting the observed, measured, quantified data...but you won't....I am supremely confident that you won't....why am I so confident?...because there is no observed, measured, quantified data for you to post.

LOL

Laughing like a monkey in a tree over being proven wrong.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence and you think your inability to provide even one small bit is funny?

They are all making it up out of the blue ..you are right ...one fine day they decided for no reason to start believing and or saying they believe in AGW ...and no data whatsoever was involved ...you are exactly right LOL

 

[jc456]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?

You are repeating the same crap as SSDD. There is back-radiation because every substance radiates EM energy to every other substance in it's path no matter what the temperatures are. You have denied that understanding that is known by 100% of all scientists.

And yet, it can't be measured at ambient temperature even though you claim that twice as much is radiating back to earth as comes in from the sun..

Then why is science saying what they are saying ...what is your theory about why the dominant belief is that AGW is real...how do you explain that LOL

I don't believe in it, so why should I care to prove it. I already know there isn't back radiation.

 

[jc456]

[
I am done posting to you ...I mean its ridiculous to believe that Science has no data LOL I mean I am laughing as I type because that is outlandish...there is no way to discuss this with you.... absurd

Of courseyou are...it must be frustrating to be proven wrong on every post...you can't find any observed, measured, quantified data to support the claims...so you are left making excuses...that can't be any fun...you could easily prove how outlandish I am by posting the observed, measured, quantified data...but you won't....I am supremely confident that you won't....why am I so confident?...because there is no observed, measured, quantified data for you to post.

LOL

Laughing like a monkey in a tree over being proven wrong.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence and you think your inability to provide even one small bit is funny?

They are all making it up out of the blue ..you are right ...one fine day they decided for no reason to start believing and or saying they believe in AGW ...and no data whatsoever was involved ...you are exactly right LOL

Making what up? You are making everything up

 

[jc456]

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming

OK...so go visit one of those studies and copy and paste whatever you believe is there that represents observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

How in the world do you explain to yourself that all these Science organization support AGW being real ...How

I don't, I merely ask those who buy into it what is there, and badda Bing those folks like you can't find any evidence either.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I knew you couldn't produce any, and I agree it is hilarious that you think there is evidence "there"

there is only your empty opinions ...Science as I have shown supports my position...

You haven't shown shit..

You've posted opinions by people who think modeling is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. You base your who logical position on failed models and opinion..

How about trying to find some real empirical evidence and get out of fantasy land.

 

[IanC]

There are 3 main points to AGW.

The first is not really necessary except to alarm people. Has the Earth warmed? Definitely yes since the Little Ice Age. The amount is still contentious. Funny how the records supported a coming ice age in the seventies but since then have been manipulated into supporting GW. Did the scientists 'push' the numbers around to advance the calamity-of-the-day back then? Are they doing the same but in a different direction now? I think there is always pressure to support the current consensus.

More importantly, is the CO2 level rising? Does anyone doubt this? Does anyone doubt that mankind's use of fossil fuels has contributed?

The first two points are overwhelmingly supported in direction, if not necessarily in quantity, by evidence. Which I am not going to present BTW.

The third and most important point is 'does CO2 have a warming influence?' Water in its various forms has a vast influence but can we separate out CO2's effect? It's ability to absorb certain bands of IR is beyond doubt as spectography proves. The surface radiates part of its power in those bands as is proven by Planck curves for temperature. Therefore we know CO2 must have an effect because those bands do not radiate out to space at the speed of light. QED. CO2 has an effect on the energy level of the atmosphere and hence the temperature. Land surface temperature is measured at ~ one metre so it is really the atmosphere, and so 30% of the globe is necessarily affected.

I can't see how anyone can dispute this mechanism, and legitimate skeptics don't. My disagreement is with the quantities and conclusions that consensus climate science reports as a certainty.

I think water is a vastly more important GHG mainly because it both heats and cools depending on local conditions. Oceans have an upper temperature limit of ~ 30C, arid land can get 15C warmer. Evaporation and especially thunderclouds remove surface heat at a rate that dwarfs simple radiation. And it doesn't even have to be more evaporation/clouds. Just a simple adjustment of when they form is enough to change the temperature by changing the albedo.

I just hope that people on this board don't think SSDD, jc or even billybob are typical of skeptical thinking as it pertains to climate science.

 

[jc456]

Money...politics...power...take your pick...I suspect that it is all three....

do you have any data any proof of your allegations ?

Sure, the fact I money is given to the skeptics to prove the warmer's. That is odd as hell, statistically impossible.

 

[jc456]

There are 3 main points to AGW.

The first is not really necessary except to alarm people. Has the Earth warmed? Definitely yes since the Little Ice Age. The amount is still contentious. Funny how the records supported a coming ice age in the seventies but since then have been manipulated into supporting GW. Did the scientists 'push' the numbers around to advance the calamity-of-the-day back then? Are they doing the same but in a different direction now? I think there is always pressure to support the current consensus.

More importantly, is the CO2 level rising? Does anyone doubt this? Does anyone doubt that mankind's use of fossil fuels has contributed?

The first two points are overwhelmingly supported in direction, if not necessarily in quantity, by evidence. Which I am not going to present BTW.

The third and most important point is 'does CO2 have a warming influence?' Water in its various forms has a vast influence but can we separate out CO2's effect? It's ability to absorb certain bands of IR is beyond doubt as spectography proves. The surface radiates part of its power in those bands as is proven by Planck curves for temperature. Therefore we know CO2 must have an effect because those bands do not radiate out to space at the speed of light. QED. CO2 has an effect on the energy level of the atmosphere and hence the temperature. Land surface temperature is measured at ~ one metre so it is really the atmosphere, and so 30% of the globe is necessarily affected.

I can't see how anyone can dispute this mechanism, and legitimate skeptics don't. My disagreement is with the quantities and conclusions that consensus climate science reports as a certainty.

I think water is a vastly more important GHG mainly because it both heats and cools depending on local conditions. Oceans have an upper temperature limit of ~ 30C, arid land can get 15C warmer. Evaporation and especially thunderclouds remove surface heat at a rate that dwarfs simple radiation. And it doesn't even have to be more evaporation/clouds. Just a simple adjustment of when they form is enough to change the temperature by changing the albedo.

I just hope that people on this board don't think SSDD, jc or even billybob are typical of skeptical thinking as it pertains to climate science.

Dude, I'm disappointed in you, basic science says there must be evidence to prove a hypothetical position. There isn't any. And yet you believe. Wow

 

[RollingThunder]

So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis? You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.

SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.

In case you missed it, nitwit....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015

 

[jc456]

So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis? You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.

SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.

In case you missed it, nitwit....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015

Yep CO2 is rising, and temperatures are not. Hmmm now you have a dilemma

 

[RollingThunder]

So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis? You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.

SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.

In case you missed it, nitwit....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015

Yep CO2 is rising, and temperatures are not. Hmmm now you have a dilemma

Nope! You have a dilemma. You're bonkers!

2015 shatters record for warmest year globally by largest margin yet
AccuWeather
By Katy Galimberti, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer
January 25, 2016
Not to be upstaged by the previous year, 2015 was globally the warmest year since records began in 1880, according to NASA and NOAA.

The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62 F (0.90 C) above the 20th century average, NOAA said. Surpassing 2014's record by 0.29 F (0.16 C), this is the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken.

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

*****

NOAA - State of the Climate
Global Analysis - March 2016
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 was the highest for this month in the 1880–2016 record, at 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This surpassed the previous record set in 2015 by 0.32°C / (0.58°F), and marks the highest monthly temperature departure among all 1,635 months on record, surpassing the previous all-time record set just last month by 0.01°C (0.02°F). Overall, the nine highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred in the past nine months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken, the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping.

The first three months of 2016 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 1.15°C (2.07°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F), surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.28°C (0.50°F) and surpassing January-March 1998, the last time during this period a similar strength El Niño occurred, by 0.45°C (0.81°F). January–March 2016 also marks the highest deaprture from average for any three-month period on record. This record has been broken for seven consecutive months, since the July–September 2015 period.

The average global sea surface temperature for the year-to-date was the highest for January–March in the 137-year period of record, at 0.82°C (1.48°F) above average, surpassing the previous records set in 2010 and 2015 by 0.21°C (0.38°F) and surpassing January–March 1998 by 0.27°C (0.49°F). The average land surface temperature was also record high, at 2.05°C (3.69°F) above average, surpassing the previous record of 2015 by 0.47°C (0.85°F) and surpassing January-March 1998 by 0.95°C (1.71°F).

Record warmth was observed in various areas around the globe. An almost continuous swath of this warmth was observed from southern Africa to the North Indian Ocean to parts of southeastern Asia stretching into northern Australia. Additionally, parts of every inhabited continent and every major ocean basin had some regions with record warmth for the year-to-date.

*****

(Graph: Japan Meteorological Agency)

 

[jc456]

So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis? You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.

SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.

In case you missed it, nitwit....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015

Yep CO2 is rising, and temperatures are not. Hmmm now you have a dilemma

Nope! You have a dilemma. You're bonkers!

2015 shatters record for warmest year globally by largest margin yet
AccuWeather
By Katy Galimberti, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer
January 25, 2016
Not to be upstaged by the previous year, 2015 was globally the warmest year since records began in 1880, according to NASA and NOAA.

The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62 F (0.90 C) above the 20th century average, NOAA said. Surpassing 2014's record by 0.29 F (0.16 C), this is the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken.

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

*****

NOAA - State of the Climate
Global Analysis - March 2016
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 was the highest for this month in the 1880–2016 record, at 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This surpassed the previous record set in 2015 by 0.32°C / (0.58°F), and marks the highest monthly temperature departure among all 1,635 months on record, surpassing the previous all-time record set just last month by 0.01°C (0.02°F). Overall, the nine highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred in the past nine months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken, the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping.

The first three months of 2016 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 1.15°C (2.07°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F), surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.28°C (0.50°F) and surpassing January-March 1998, the last time during this period a similar strength El Niño occurred, by 0.45°C (0.81°F). January–March 2016 also marks the highest deaprture from average for any three-month period on record. This record has been broken for seven consecutive months, since the July–September 2015 period.

The average global sea surface temperature for the year-to-date was the highest for January–March in the 137-year period of record, at 0.82°C (1.48°F) above average, surpassing the previous records set in 2010 and 2015 by 0.21°C (0.38°F) and surpassing January–March 1998 by 0.27°C (0.49°F). The average land surface temperature was also record high, at 2.05°C (3.69°F) above average, surpassing the previous record of 2015 by 0.47°C (0.85°F) and surpassing January-March 1998 by 0.95°C (1.71°F).

Record warmth was observed in various areas around the globe. An almost continuous swath of this warmth was observed from southern Africa to the North Indian Ocean to parts of southeastern Asia stretching into northern Australia. Additionally, parts of every inhabited continent and every major ocean basin had some regions with record warmth for the year-to-date.

*****

(Graph: Japan Meteorological Agency)

Sure, we all know the data was manipulated. Yeppers, we know that , oh I mean corrected, LOL

 

[IanC]

There are 3 main points to AGW.

The first is not really necessary except to alarm people. Has the Earth warmed? Definitely yes since the Little Ice Age. The amount is still contentious. Funny how the records supported a coming ice age in the seventies but since then have been manipulated into supporting GW. Did the scientists 'push' the numbers around to advance the calamity-of-the-day back then? Are they doing the same but in a different direction now? I think there is always pressure to support the current consensus.

More importantly, is the CO2 level rising? Does anyone doubt this? Does anyone doubt that mankind's use of fossil fuels has contributed?

The first two points are overwhelmingly supported in direction, if not necessarily in quantity, by evidence. Which I am not going to present BTW.

The third and most important point is 'does CO2 have a warming influence?' Water in its various forms has a vast influence but can we separate out CO2's effect? It's ability to absorb certain bands of IR is beyond doubt as spectography proves. The surface radiates part of its power in those bands as is proven by Planck curves for temperature. Therefore we know CO2 must have an effect because those bands do not radiate out to space at the speed of light. QED. CO2 has an effect on the energy level of the atmosphere and hence the temperature. Land surface temperature is measured at ~ one metre so it is really the atmosphere, and so 30% of the globe is necessarily affected.

I can't see how anyone can dispute this mechanism, and legitimate skeptics don't. My disagreement is with the quantities and conclusions that consensus climate science reports as a certainty.

I think water is a vastly more important GHG mainly because it both heats and cools depending on local conditions. Oceans have an upper temperature limit of ~ 30C, arid land can get 15C warmer. Evaporation and especially thunderclouds remove surface heat at a rate that dwarfs simple radiation. And it doesn't even have to be more evaporation/clouds. Just a simple adjustment of when they form is enough to change the temperature by changing the albedo.

I just hope that people on this board don't think SSDD, jc or even billybob are typical of skeptical thinking as it pertains to climate science.

Dude, I'm disappointed in you, basic science says there must be evidence to prove a hypothetical position. There isn't any. And yet you believe. Wow

Be more specific in your complaint. Where do you feel my logic failed? I gave you general principles rather than precise figures so that we must come to general agreement or disagreement before we quibble over admittedly important details.

Do you disagree that heat rising is a gravity based phenomena? I have no doubt that googling candle in an elevator would give you an enlightening experience. Spectography and the absorption/emission of gases has been studied for centuries. Surely you don't think the basis for many of our medical instruments is a hoax?

What exactly do you find fault with? Perhaps I can send you on the right path to find the understanding and evidence you seek. Although I doubt it. You have made progress before, only to backslide into superstition.

 

[RollingThunder]

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.

In case you missed it, nitwit....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015

Yep CO2 is rising, and temperatures are not. Hmmm now you have a dilemma

Nope! You have a dilemma. You're bonkers!

2015 shatters record for warmest year globally by largest margin yet
AccuWeather
By Katy Galimberti, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer
January 25, 2016
Not to be upstaged by the previous year, 2015 was globally the warmest year since records began in 1880, according to NASA and NOAA.

The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62 F (0.90 C) above the 20th century average, NOAA said. Surpassing 2014's record by 0.29 F (0.16 C), this is the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken.

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

*****

NOAA - State of the Climate
Global Analysis - March 2016
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 was the highest for this month in the 1880–2016 record, at 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This surpassed the previous record set in 2015 by 0.32°C / (0.58°F), and marks the highest monthly temperature departure among all 1,635 months on record, surpassing the previous all-time record set just last month by 0.01°C (0.02°F). Overall, the nine highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred in the past nine months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken, the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping.

The first three months of 2016 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 1.15°C (2.07°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F), surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.28°C (0.50°F) and surpassing January-March 1998, the last time during this period a similar strength El Niño occurred, by 0.45°C (0.81°F). January–March 2016 also marks the highest deaprture from average for any three-month period on record. This record has been broken for seven consecutive months, since the July–September 2015 period.

The average global sea surface temperature for the year-to-date was the highest for January–March in the 137-year period of record, at 0.82°C (1.48°F) above average, surpassing the previous records set in 2010 and 2015 by 0.21°C (0.38°F) and surpassing January–March 1998 by 0.27°C (0.49°F). The average land surface temperature was also record high, at 2.05°C (3.69°F) above average, surpassing the previous record of 2015 by 0.47°C (0.85°F) and surpassing January-March 1998 by 0.95°C (1.71°F).

Record warmth was observed in various areas around the globe. An almost continuous swath of this warmth was observed from southern Africa to the North Indian Ocean to parts of southeastern Asia stretching into northern Australia. Additionally, parts of every inhabited continent and every major ocean basin had some regions with record warmth for the year-to-date.

*****

(Graph: Japan Meteorological Agency)

Sure, we all know the data was manipulated. Yeppers, we know that , oh I mean corrected, LOL

I guess you denier cult lunatics have no idea how utterly crazy you sound when you try to explain away all of the scientific evidence and testimony supporting the reality of human caused, CO2 driven global warming by resorting to your completely crackpot and insane conspiracy theory about all of the world's scientists being in a huge plot to fake the data.

Everybody else sees your utter insanity quite clearly though, and so we can also see how brainwashed and bamboozled you ignorant, moronic rightwingnuts really are.

 

[SSDD]

[
I am done posting to you ...I mean its ridiculous to believe that Science has no data LOL I mean I am laughing as I type because that is outlandish...there is no way to discuss this with you.... absurd

Of courseyou are...it must be frustrating to be proven wrong on every post...you can't find any observed, measured, quantified data to support the claims...so you are left making excuses...that can't be any fun...you could easily prove how outlandish I am by posting the observed, measured, quantified data...but you won't....I am supremely confident that you won't....why am I so confident?...because there is no observed, measured, quantified data for you to post.

LOL

Laughing like a monkey in a tree over being proven wrong.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence and you think your inability to provide even one small bit is funny?

They are all making it up out of the blue ..you are right ...one fine day they decided for no reason to start believing and or saying they believe in AGW ...and no data whatsoever was involved ...you are exactly right LOL

You can't find any observed, measured, quantified data..none of your buds can find any observed, measured, quantified data...climate science isn't providing any observed, measured, quantified data...you explain it....I have no explanation, only the steadily bolstered (by warmers) that there is no observed, measured, quantified data.