From the scientists at NOAA:
The January 2018 temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). January 2018 marks the 42nd consecutive January (since 1977) and the 397th consecutive month (since January 1985) with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. This was the fifth highest temperature for January in the 1880–2018 record. The last four years (2015–2018) rank among the five highest Januarys on record. The global land and ocean temperature during January has increased at an average rate of +0.07°C (+0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase is twice as great since 1975.Then there's this from the scientists at NASA:
Earth's global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.And yet a month or so ago, Donald Trump said this about the climate:
Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.
The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, so okay, they’re at a record level.Which turns out to be exactly incorrect (unless Trump meant "a record low level."). From some other scientists at NASA:
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite side of the planet, on March 3 sea ice around Antarctica hit its lowest extent ever recorded by satellites at the end of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, a surprising turn of events after decades of moderate sea ice expansion.Take a look at what the science is saying:
Ha. Record levels.
4 comments:
I wonder what would happen if some climate deniers, dark money, energy cartels, Koch Brothers set up 1000-10000 weather stations in the US and compared the results to the NOAA/NASA dataset?
Bet progressives would try to ban and smash the weather stations.
I wonder how much money would be saved if we humans simply skipped the first step of materials acquisition, and could go straight into the refining stage (e.g. renewables since they're already just there for the taking). As opposed to having to first extract the raw materials needed for energy (e.g. carbon based fuels requisite mining, fracking or drilling).
Well, you'd get pretty good weather data for the US, but not as good data for the rest of the globe.
You and other progressives should try doing that Z.
Let us know how it works out.
One step at a time Ol.
Post a Comment