Home/BlogMarch 2026 was record-warm for the Lower 48.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2026 was +0.38 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, statistically unchanged from the February, 2026 value of +0.39 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through March 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 27 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM | SHEM | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.57 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.94 | +0.81 | +1.16 | +1.31 | +0.85 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.25 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.77 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.04 | +0.20 | +0.52 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.36 | +0.63 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.73 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.96 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.75 | +0.81 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.31 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.60 | +0.63 | +1.89 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.40 | +0.53 | +1.11 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.61 | +0.75 | +0.47 | +0.52 | +1.41 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.07 | +0.74 | +0.48 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.03 | +2.10 | +0.87 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.73 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.76 | +0.46 | +0.36 | +0.81 | +0.85 | +1.21 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.98 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.80 | +0.05 | +0.39 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 |
| 2025 | Aug | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.16 | -0.06 | +0.82 | +0.11 |
| 2025 | Sep | +0.53 | +0.56 | +0.49 | +0.35 | +0.38 | +0.77 | +0.30 |
| 2025 | Oct | +0.53 | +0.52 | +0.55 | +0.24 | +1.12 | +1.42 | +1.67 |
| 2025 | Nov | +0.43 | +0.59 | +0.27 | +0.24 | +1.32 | +0.78 | +0.36 |
| 2025 | Dec | +0.30 | +0.45 | +0.15 | +0.19 | +2.10 | +0.32 | +0.37 |
| 2026 | Jan | +0.35 | +0.51 | +0.19 | +0.09 | +0.30 | +1.40 | +0.95 |
| 2026 | Feb | +0.39 | +0.54 | +0.23 | +0.03 | +1.91 | -0.48 | +0.73 |
| 2026 | Mar | +0.38 | +0.33 | +0.42 | +0.07 | +3.74 | -0.48 | +1.14 |
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM | SHEM | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
Record Warmth in the Contiguous U.S. (Lower 48)
For the Lower 48, the March 2026 temperature anomaly was easily the record warmest of all months in the 47+ year satellite record: +3.7 deg. C above average for all Marches. Second place goes to March 2012, with +2.2 deg. C above the mean, while 3rd place goes to December 2025 at +2.1 deg. C.
Interestingly, December through April are periods of large variability for the Lower 48. All 6 of the warmest months (in terms of departures from normal) since 1979 occurred in December through April. Furthermore, all 8 of the coldest months occurred in December through April.
————————-
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for March, 2026 and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
5th warmest March in the UAH data set, statistically tied with 2010 at 4th place.
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.88
2 2016 0.64
3 2025 0.57
4 2010 0.39
5 2026 0.38
6 1998 0.35
7 2020 0.34
8 2004 0.23
9 2019 0.22
10 2017 0.18
10=2022 0.18
I thought March would be slightly warmer, maybe even up to +0.42C. The Polar Vortex is moving to the South Pole, and ENSO has been warming for about a month.
So the +0.38C is interesting, as the cooling trend appears healthy.
A couple of thoughts relative to that cooling trend.
1) We’ve seen cooling from the March/April time frame into Jun/Jul over the last couple of years. If that happens again in 2026, it would bring the anomaly below 0.2 C. That would be quite interesting to see.
2) My theory is the AMO index is driven by Arctic changes. The current cooling seen in the satellite data could be evidence that next 30+ year AMO cool phase has started and the AMO index will soon follow. This would also drive some global cooling.
Of course, it also appears El Nino will show up later this year which will drive warmer global temperatures over the fall and winter. El Nino is really an ocean cooling period but the energy movement temporarily warms the SSTs and air. This would mask some of the cooling, but set the stage for more dramatic atmospheric cooling in 2027.
Great, another cooling prediction doomed to failure. As long as CO2 keeps rising, so will the temperature. Not every year, but from one decade to the next, definitely. The 2020s are sure to be warmer than the 2010s, and the 2030s will be warmer still.
Great, another warming prediction doomed to failure. Obviously, Robert doesn’t realize all the warming we have seen came from solar energy. CO2 has had no warming influence whatsoever. This has been verified by NASA CERES mission data. Although climate science tries to hide this fact, it’s right there in the data.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/22/greenhouse-efficiency-2/
All the warming from solar???
How do you know that?
Nate, I provided you a link. Was it too complicated?
Let me help. There’s been a significant reduction in reflected solar energy. Instead of going back into space, it’s been absorbed within Earth’s atmosphere or at the surface. The link provides a nice graph. This added energy correlates with the increase in temperature.
But it gets even more interesting. When you use that energy to calculate the base temperature of Earth plus greenhouse warming and then look at the how much increase has been seen over time, we see no change. No additional greenhouse warming. All the warming is explained by the increase in solar energy.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read BGDWX and Nick’s comments, RM.
I think everybody knows that we live in the Solar System:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System
It’s in the name.
“There’s been a significant reduction in reflected solar energy.”
Indeed. But that has long been known to be a feedback effect of GW.
Since 2000, (the only period covered by CERES) there has been significant reduction in sea ice.
There has also been significant reduction in cloud producing aerosol pollution.
The CERES authors do not claim that ALL of the warming since 2000 came from increased solar absorption, but it is responsible for the INCREASE in rate of uptake of heat into the ocean.
The WUWT article does not address ocean heat uptake which is where 90 % of the added heat has gone.
Nate repeats anti-science claims. At most, 15% of the decrease in reflected energy came from sea ice. There is no evidence any came from aerosols (which doesn’t help you anyway since it still wouldn’t be caused by CO2). As a result, there is no evidence supporting your claims.
On top of that, it is solar energy which warms the oceans. Weak CO2 generated photons cannot warm the surface. The energy simply gets conducted back into the atmosphere due to the 2nd Law or causes evaporative cooling. Yes, more CO2 actually cools the oceans.
Finally, there’s no evidence of any reduction in IR energy radiating to space to produce any feedback. The data clearly shows the strength of the greenhouse effect has remained constant which also validates Miskolczi 2010 finding using NOAA radiosonde data going back to 1948.
The data from CERES is conclusive. Your science denial cannot change the data.
Richard M is at step 3 – Saying Stuff:
[BDGWX] Loeb says that GHGs are the cause of the increased ASR shown by CERES.
[WILLIS] Sorry, bdgwx, but what is “ASR”, and who is “Loeb”?
[BDGWX] Absorbed Solar Radiation. Loeb is the principal developer, maintainer, and investigator of CERES.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/22/greenhouse-efficiency-2/#comment-4027280
There is very little contrarians can do unless they’re willing to carry their own weight on the Climateball field.
Willard, I read Loeb et al back in 2021 when it was published. It was the first time I could see clearly that solar energy was driving climate warming. Their attempt to cover up this reality was laughable. They used climate models and guesses to make nonsensical claims. I can only chuckle you’d bring it up.
I do agree that even Willis didn’t understand what he had found. His use of the term “greenhouse efficiency” tends to confuse people as well. What he really means is the “strength of the greenhouse effect”.
Interestingly, the monthly data is graphs Willis built show a good example of heat hiding in the oceans. It is called ENSO. It doesn’t last long though and shows no long term trend. Sorry.
So, no heat hiding and a constant strength of the greenhouse effect. That confirms the physics I have mentioned previously.
Richard,
I just love how you simply double down on saying stuff.
There is more than one “Loeb et al”, and there are a little more papers than the ones of which Loeb is the main authors. Many of them are to be found at the end of the link I have just provided.
Here’s a recent one:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-5454786/v1
It’s as if your hobby as a contrarian depended on remaining ignorant.
Willard and Nate will be here for days, just throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick. Neither has any understanding of the relevant science, just like one of their heroes, Loeb. Loeb is the one with the fraudulent graphic supporting the bogus “EEI”.
CO2’s 15μ photons cannot raise the temperature of a 288K surface, just like ice cubes cannot boil water.
The problem is none of the cult kids can understand the basic physics. And the problem is magnified by how much funding was throw at it, due to the media induced panic.
Hilarious how you guys rely on the data of Loeb, who leads this project, but then you need to reject what he, the guy who actually understands what he measured, learns from his measurements.
Willard, I completely understand Loeb and other climate cultists maintaining their positions. It was a requirement of their jobs in this politicized field.
Of course, that does nothing to change the underlying physics. The quote you provided is a prefect example of scientific BS that would only fool those with little in-depth knowledge. You treat these words just as many religious folks treat the sermons they are fed by their priests/preachers. So predictable.
However, physics disagrees. I came to understand the necessary physics many years ago (during COVID). So, when Loeb et al 2021 showed up it completely validated my findings. Dubal/Vahrenholt 2021 did and even better job of highlighting the solar connection to warming.
The final evidence came from the analysis from Willis I referenced. It tied the warming so tight to solar energy it left no doubt to anyone interested in science as well as showing how ocean affects lead to slight variations.
So, I’m not surprised at all that Loeb also denies the effects of the Hunga-Tonga eruption even though the cloud changes were immediate. It highlights all the fibs he’s been telling for years.
Science deniers such as yourself will continue to do what you do best … deny.
Nate, your worship of the words of your priests is commendable (to other cultists). It’s not science though. Real science is based on skepticism. I look at all the data, not just the data collected by the CERES mission team.
When all the data and physics is considered, it is obvious Loeb is wrong. All the warming is easily explain by solar energy changes. There is no heat hiding in the oceans. It’s already been radiated to space. The strength of the greenhouse effect has been constant. This also agrees with a more complete view of the physics than you are willing to accept.
Hence, the warming we have seen has been due to other causes. We will get to see one of them in the near future as 60-70 year is about to move back into its cool phase. In fact, it may have already started.
“Nate, your worship of the words of your priests”
In this instance it seems to be you worshipping the words of a blog writer at WUWT, that are not even published in a science journal.
You may want to be skeptical of blog science.
Dear Richard,
Here’s you in 2025:
Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/22/greenhouse-efficiency-2/#comment-4027430
Have you ever ever considered getting better contrarian material?
Below normal here in the Vancouver, Canada area. After a mild winter, spring has proved to be quite cool.
And the point of your post is what, exactly?
Even if you accept that CO2 is, in part at least, responsible for some of the rise in temperatures since we came out of the Little Ice Age, the idea that this rise in temperatures seems to be responsible for every piece of bad weather – whether it’s heat waves, storms, droughts and floods is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. We don’t have any such evidence. Instead we have models and “attribution studies”.
And given CO2, fundamental to photosynthesis, is greening the planet, 9 times as many people die from the cold than the heat and we find no evidence that rising sea levels is impacting anywhere – even the Maldives and South Pacific islands – attempting to curtail co2 emissions on this lack of evidence of harm is wrong.
Any reasonable person looking at the data would conclude that CO2 ‘most probably’ has little to no bearing on global temperatures due to saturation alone, never mind if there even is a greenhouse effect (due to heat rising up through the tropo by convection rather than radiation).
Reduced global cloud cover (which is certain, not a model) accounts for 80% of the observed warming and 100% of the trend. Alas, politics (money & power) grabbed hold of the climate debate many years ago, and when money & power gets anything, it doesn’t let go. Then you have people added into the mix who really do think that models are data. ‘Science’ is in a terrible mess – believing things that are not there (like dark matter/energy).
The deluded won’t admit to anything until the world cools between 2030-2035 due to solar cycle 26 and a cooling AMO. They will move onto something else, like microplastics, or radio waves, or aliens.
“Even if you accept that CO2 is, in part at least, responsible for some of the rise in temperatures since we came out of the Little Ice Age, the idea that this rise in temperatures seems to be responsible for every piece of bad weather – whether it’s heat waves, storms, droughts and floods is an extraordinary claim. “
Actually, the extraordinary claim is YOUR claim here. No one claims that every piece of bad weather is due to CO2. This is a strawman, pure and simple.
I *do* completely agree that we need a balanced, reasonable approach to CO2 and warming. Although once again, your list of only ‘benefits’ from warming and not problems is not a fair look at the totality of what is happening.
Tim,
Balanced and reasonable would be recognizing classical science. What’s so extraordinary about what Buzz is saying? If there were no GHG in the atmosphere, what would be the temperatures at the surface and at TOA?
“If there were no GHG in the atmosphere …”
This is a classic, familiar, ill-defined “gotcha” question.
If there were no GHGs, there would be no CO2, so no plants, changing the surface albedo. If there were no GHGs, there would be no water, so no oceans. So no icecaps. So no clouds. If there were no GHGs, the atmosphere would be thinner.
Any one of these changes would impact climate in major ways. As a whole, they make predicting the climate impossible. It’s a silly, unanswerable request.
“What’s so extraordinary about what Buzz is saying?”
let me quote myself. No one claims that every piece of bad weather is due to CO2. This is a strawman, pure and simple.
There’s nothing really extraordinary about what Buzz is saying, as far as troglodytes and cranks alike are concerned.
What if I told you that more warming brought more cover, not less?
Then that would be a lie, Willard. We are fairly sure there has been a little warming, and we know that SHOULD cause more ocean evaporation which leads to more clouds. Except we have observed that there are LESS clouds…which leads to one of two conclusions: There hasn’t been the warming that we think or that something else, like cosmic rays, is influencing cloud formation (and reducing it).
TimF,
Attribution studies claim that all had weather events are driven by climate change. You “forgetting” doesn’t mean the claim haven’t been made repeatedly.
You want “balanced, reasonable approach to CO2 and warming”.
The stance should be be to ask how much warming/cooling is there,and how to accurately measure any discrepancies. Then and only then, should the next stage be to test how and what could be causing the effects.
Sadly the premise has been to start with CO2 and downplay all other effects. Pure laziness! Pure politics!
“Attribution studies claim that all had weather events are driven by climate change.”
What absolute, unmitigated BS.
All it would take to retrieve your credibility is to provide even one study saying “ALL bad weather events” are due to climate change.
Instead, we’ll get more waffle, which will serve well, with every subsequent post, to confirm that statement is mindless garbage.
Barry,
All it would take to retrieve your credibility is to provide even one study saying that one weather disaster was not due to climate change.
There may be even more than one, but the msm certainly hasn’t reported on it to my knowledge. Don’t mind being corrected by provable facts.
A “reasonable approach to CO2 and warming” exists through an understanding of basic physics i.e., radiative physics and thermodynamics — CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm Earth.
Anon opines: “Attribution studies claim that all [b]ad weather events are driven by climate change.”
And yet you don’t provide even one link to one ‘attribution study’ making such a claim.
We can simply ask AI, which shoots down this claim.
“Attribution studies do not claim all bad weather is driven by climate change, but they do indicate that a significant and growing portion of extreme events—approximately 70%—have been made more likely or intense by human-induced climate change. These studies, often conducted by World Weather Attribution, examine specific heatwaves, floods, and droughts, identifying how climate change increased their severity.
Growing Evidence: While many weather events would still occur naturally, attribution science calculates that human-driven climate change has amplified the risks.
Heatwave Strong Correlation: About 92% of extreme heat attribution studies found that climate change made them more likely or severe.
Varied Impact: The influence of climate change is highly evident in temperature extremes but can be more mixed or harder to detect in some, though not all, drought and storm studies.
Methodology: Researchers run climate models under two scenarios—a “counterfactual” world without human influence and the actual world with rising emissions—to determine the difference in the event’s likelihood.
While some studies find no significant link to climate change for specific events, the vast majority of analyzed extreme events are now being linked to global warming.”
So a more correct claim would be that attribution studies claim that
allmanybadextreme weather events aredriven byintensified by climate change.Anon for Q-related reasons,
All it would take you to regain any footing as a valid interlocutor would be to stop reversing the burden of proof.
You made a gratuitious assertion. You back it up.
Alternatively, you could always post old Sun graphs.
“CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm Earth”
Talk about flogging a dead horse!
Give it a rest.
Tim F,
Using LLMs to try and prove a point isn’t impressive, it’s poor judgement on your behalf as you obviously do not understand what LLMs are.
Whenever there has been a weather disaster, aka bad weather, there are attribution studies, completed in record time to prove it’s mankind fault. This has been has been pushed by the MSM for years. Where is the last attribution study that said that a particular occasion was not due to many made climate change. I’m not talking about an author hedging or ambiguous comment by an author I am talking about actually specific research.
It’s highly amusing that you and Barry have ignored the more relevant part of my comment. It seems you think it’s more important to win a minor argument than the whole argument about climate change. Btw being English I tend to understated, it’s a cultural thing.
Anon for Q-related reasons, you might like:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02724
Something tells me you’re just saying stuff once more.
“Btw being English I tend to understated, it’s a cultural thing.”
Wanker.
Where is that study, then? Or do you think we missed you trying to shift the burden of proof? And then the goalposts. Sliding from attribution studies to MSM, are you? Were you overlooked when they were doling out that British perspicacity.
“If you cannot say what you mean, your majesty, you will never mean what you say, and a gentleman should always mean what he says.”
Do try to avoid mindless blather, old sot. It ill-becomes you.
Barry,
You do seem to a tad bit disproportionate in your response. Cant argue the substance,never mind
Tim Folkerts says:
”I *do* completely agree that we need a balanced, reasonable approach to CO2 and warming. Although once again, your list of only ‘benefits’ from warming and not problems is not a fair look at the totality of what is happening.”
Then you would agree that the moniker ”extreme events” is improperly stated when you only include certain ”extreme events” and exclude the most deadly of them all ”extreme cold” events like ”blizzards”, ”crop failures due to freezes” and such. Right?
After all it is believed the Anasazi native american culture of the southwest was destroyed by drought around the peak or shortly thereafter of the MWP. Anasazi culture in the 4 corners region began flourishing in 750ad peaking around 1200ad and then declining and migrating south over the next 100 years until construction stopped on the cliff dwellings in the region. That cycle likely did not repeat due to the European contact in the 16th century. FYI that mirrors roughly the story of the Vikings in Greenland as well. Not only that but we are due for such a peak this century and coincides with the 840-900 year compass circumnavigation of jupiter and saturn which for half a cycle favors orbit perturbation of the same geometry as maximum orbit perturbations that led to the discovery of Neptune.
> Except we have observed that there are LESS clouds…
To suggest that all losing cloud cover is because there’s less water in the atmosphere would indeed be a lie, Buzz, as a decline in atmospheric pollution kinda matters on the most populated hemisphere. And don’t forget that this leads to less albedo, something that even aborrent clear-cutting can’t compensate.
Two other anthropogenic sources warming, incidentally!
Willard says:
”Two other anthropogenic sources warming, incidentally!”
As Willard deeply ponders how to get rid of the source of anthropogenic warming. Most likely those thoughts hit a peak intensity during rush hour traffic.
“Using LLMs to try and prove a point isn’t impressive, it’s poor judgement on your behalf as you obviously do not understand what LLMs are.”
I was showing that your statement was easily show to be false. I could also have linked to the original research like here: https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/climate-change-attribution
“Whenever there has been a weather disaster, aka bad weather, there are attribution studies, completed in record time to prove it’s mankind fault.”
Simple “bad weather” is not the same as “weather disaster” or “extreme weather. Conflating them shows sloppiness.
“Where is the last attribution study that said that a particular occasion was not due to many made climate change. ”
So you are saying you don’t know the research, but you are sure it is bad. In just a couple minutes I found results you are sure don’t exist.
2023 Central Vietnam Heavy Rainfall Researchers found that while the rain was extreme, there was no clear trend or evidence that climate change had increased its intensity.
2022 Southeastern Brazil Floods Analysis showed the extreme rainfall was driven primarily by natural internal variability of the climate system.
Anon states: “It’s highly amusing that you and Barry have ignored the more relevant part of my comment. ”
I started with your first comment, and showed it was clearly false.
We could address other part. Presumable this is the ‘more relevant’ you are concerned about:
“Sadly the premise has been to start with CO2 and downplay all other effects. Pure laziness! Pure politics!”
I suggest this claim is “Pure laziness!” on your part. Science doesn’t do this (even if some new stories lean this way). You could do a little legwork on your own. You could ask AI — and yes, LLMs have their limitations, but they also give quick, fairly thorough answers, complete with links and references. Here is the start and end of a query, with many details in between left out.
QUESTION: “In the context of climate change, address the claim “Sadly the premise has been to start with CO2 and downplay all other effects. Pure laziness! Pure politics!”
INTRO: “The claim that climate science “starts with CO2″ and ignores other factors is a common critique, but it actually runs counter to how modern climate modeling and attribution studies function. In reality, the scientific process is designed to be exclusionary—meaning researchers must mathematically rule out natural factors before they can point the finger at greenhouse gases.”
SUMMARY: “The idea that science ignores “other effects” is a misunderstanding of the methodology. Attribution science is specifically built to measure those other effects (like solar cycles and clouds) to see if they can explain the current trend. So far, the math shows that while natural factors are still “at the table,” human-emitted CO2 has become the “lead conductor” of the orchestra.”
TimF,
What a simplistic way of thinking you have when you wrote “Simple “bad weather” is not the same as “weather disaster” or “extreme weather. Conflating them shows sloppiness.”
Doesn’t show sloppiness, it’s shows recognition that different people will have different views of the same incident. Some will see a yearly hurricane as the usual bad weather that sadly destroys people, animals and properties. Other, guessing you are one of those, who will see it as an extreme event. So does the IPCC, not known for it’s lack of bias, publish any technical data saying that there is an increase in hurricanes?
How inflated a view you must have of your self, that you can never see someone else’s point of view.
TimF,
That you for finding a couple of attribution studies that don’t push the extremists views. I will get round to reading them to see if they remain true to science.
On the other note as bout the LLMs, you haven’t a clue about their workings
“TimF,
That you for finding a couple of attribution studies that don’t push the extremists views.”
Let’s review what you said.
“Attribution studies claim that all had weather events are driven by climate change.”
That’s plural “studies,” of these alleged extremist views. I asked you for just one study. And I said that instead of providing that you would blather on, proving that your quoted comment here was pure, unmitigated BS.
You have behaved exactly as predicted. Not even one study cited. But you kept talking.
Tim,
I know this is difficult for you but suppose CO2 or water were not green house gases, humor me. What would be the temperatures at the surface and the TOA?
It’s been T shirt and shorts weather since January here in Los Angeles. Unusually warm since the beginning of the year,, just like all of the western U.S.
So what’s going on in the US?
+3.74!
I could recycle my comment from last month and then Nate would make a fool of himself again. I am still waiting for a “consensus” agreement to explain the last 3 years. For now, the cooling, yes cooling, seems to continue. Until next month…
When it has been cooler after a warm year many times over in the UAH record (not to mention the longer term temp records), the wonder is why you attach any significance to what is normal after an el Nino. The same string of words could be put together 3 years after 2020, 2016, 2010, 1998 etc etc etc.
“For now, the cooling, yes cooling, seems to continue”
That riff has been recycled for the 20 years that I’ve followed the popular conversation. Guess what?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2007/plot/uah6/from:2007/trend
Along with record breaking anomalies over the US, the lower stratosphere had a near record cold anomaly over the USA48. Second coldest monthly anomaly for all months, and the coldest March by a long way.
Coldest Lower Stratosphere for March over USA48:
Year Anomaly
1 2026 -3.28
2 1999 -1.56
3 2012 -1.53
4 2017 -1.37
5 2006 -1.26
6 2019 -1.06
7 2021 -1.06
8 1989 -0.99
9 1987 -0.95
10 2008 -0.84
11 2009 -0.84
Evaporation does two things simultaneously:
Removes energy from the surface (latent heat of vaporization ≈ 2.5 MJ/kg) and exports that energy upward where it is released upon condensation. As a result, SST increases are muted relative to land.
Land: +0.22°C/decade
Ocean: +0.13°C/decade
Ratio ≈ 1.7×, is expected from the latent‑heat dominance over oceans.
Looking at the gridded data. and it’s noticable how cold Canada is. Almost like a mirror image of the US. It would be interesting to see what the average of the two is, and if Canada had a record low this month.
Is there enough months yet to declare a new Monckton Pause?
It seems should wait until downward trend is twice duration of upward, so wait a few months.
It’s a vibe thing, and the excitement grows with each month that extends the ‘pause’. Best of all, you get to have the experience over and over after each new record-breaking high.
Record breaking high Barry? your easily led, would these ring true using the technology of only a decade ago, I am not saying they are wrong but if your going to move the goal posts as our MET office has , with equipment that records spikes, then you have to begin your dataset and record keeping from scratch and ignore any past recordings, I have been using the system for over 40 years and I have recorded no spikes during that period,winter average temperatures are a little higher between .5 and 1c warmer ,but summer temperatures have barely blinked.
Oh great, the owner of this blog, Roy Spencer compiles the UAH lower tropospheric temperature record, which is what we’re basing out chat on. See the graph at the top of this page. You should definitely share your insights with him.
The earliest pause update I am aware of spans just 5 years and 4 months:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/14/a-new-pause/
If past behavior is any guide, it likely will not be long before another update appears.
You should know, however, that such short periods lack statistical robustness.
For example, fitting a linear trend to Sep 2015 – Dec 2020 (the timeframe analyzed in the linked blog post) yields a 95% confidence interval of approximately −2.8 to +2.1 C/century.
In other words, the slope is highly uncertain. And this is a bit ironic given Monckton’s ties to climate skeptic organizations that lean on uncertainty in their arguments:
https://www.desmog.com/christopher-monckton/
sam shicks…”Evaporation does two things simultaneously:
Removes energy from the surface (latent heat of vaporization ≈ 2.5 MJ/kg) and exports that energy upward where it is released upon condensation. As a result, SST increases are muted relative to land”.
***
I get your point, Sam, but we must keep in mind that water vapour is a trace gas like CO2, albeit far more significant. When it comes to transporting heat from the surface higher into the atmosphere, it is the majority gases like nitrogen and oxygen that do the bulk of the convection since combined they make up 99% of the transporting gases.
Much ado about nothing has been made by climate alarmists about the effect of CO2 and WV, which have been over-hyped due to the alarmist perspective based on the ability of those gases to absorb infrared energy. The presumption is that radiation plays a key role in cooling the surface and transporting heat away from it. That is simply not true.
In the energy budget diagrams, radiation is given the key role of transporting heat while heat transfer via convection has been minimized. Shula has offered a study using the Pirani gauge which clearly demonstrates that convection is 260 times for efficient at dissipating heat from a surface than radiation.
The Pirani gauge was invented in the early 1900s to test vacuums. A heated filament is inserted into a sealed glass tube that can allow air to be extracted. The loss of energy (heat) between the case where the glass tube is evacuated and when it is filled with a gas demonstrates the difference between how much the filament cools in a vacuum (radiation alone) and how much it cools with a gas touching it (via convection and conduction).
Air alone touching a surface has something like 10^28 molecules per square metre touching the surface and each molecule is capable of collecting heat via direct conduction from the surface and removing a molecule’s worth of heat from the surface. Naturally, the molecule becomes excited and rises and is replace by a cooler molecule. The cycle repeats.
Shula determined that heat dissipation via direct conduction and convection is 260 times more effective at cooling the surface than radiation. The amount of heat removed by WV or CO2 is directly proportional to their mass percent.
Gordon,
Yet at some point all heat loss from the planet is via radiation. Other than the loss of helium nothing is conducted or convected away from the planet. I understand at ground level the majority of heat loss may not necessarily be by radiation. Even the UK met office, a constant source of junk data, wants air temperature to be recorded at 1.2 m above the ground and away from exhaust gases and water. But they also want the air temperature to be recorded behind a screen to prevent radiation effects.
> Water vapour is a trace gas like CO2, albeit far more significant.
If a trace gas can be significant, cranks might have a hard time relying on “but trace gas”:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas#significant
Thank you for that one.
CO2 is doomed to wear that moniker until such time that the scientific community can figure out how the climate system actually works.
Gill fails to distinguish the “fact” that CO2 is a trace gas with the contrarian “argument” (being charitable) that because CO2 is a trace gas, something something:
From Gill’s best buddy.
LOL!
The classic riposte is to invite the rhetoricist to inject arsenic at 0.01% of their blood’s volume into their vein and report back. It’s only a trace amount.
A few parts per million increase of mercury in your system will kill you, too, as will arsine gas at just 30 ppm.
For a safer, more intuitive experiment, fill a clear vessel with a litre of water and then add 100 milligrams (equal to 100ppm) of dark blue dye. Stir and notice the very obvious spectral change.
Skeptics are prone to saying one example disproves blah blah blah. Any of the above experiments will scotch the notion that “trace amounts” can’t produce significant change.
Your tap water most likely does have a trace amount in it and AFAIK none would be a lot better.
As far as the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, none would be a catastrophe beyond comprehension.
I also believe that for the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere there is no reasonable argument that it would better if it were lower. It increases crop yields while making plant growth more water efficient.
If it has been the cause of any warming it has contributed to fewer deaths from the more dangerous cold conditions of the past 500 years. All good stuff heretosofar.
barry says:
”Skeptics are prone to saying one example disproves blah blah blah. Any of the above experiments will scotch the notion that “trace amounts” can’t produce significant change.”
For a split second one might mistakenly thought that Barry has some actual skepticism coursing through his veins.
But its actually just blind loyalty. To be less King-like its usually best to establish first what a dangerous value is before trying to take people’s freedom and standard of living away.
All you guys do is advertise your weaknesses as strengths and your opponents strength as a weakness. . .Madison Avenue 101.
> It increases crop yields
Gill switches to next door:
https://climateball.net/but-life#plant-food
Which leads to similar absurdities, e.g. water is essential to life, therefore Gill could live under water.
And by “under water”, I’m not talking about his actual crypto portfolio…
LOL!
Willard says:
”Which leads to similar absurdities, e.g. water is essential to life, therefore Gill could live under water.
And by “under water”, I’m not talking about his actual crypto portfolio…
LOL!”
Under water? Yep yet another over the top prediction that hasn’t panned out.
Gill plays dumb once again. BTC has retreated roughly 45–50% from its 2025 highs. It’s even worse for alts.
As for his latest squirrel:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64619-0
qltm
One way to prove that a person is ignorant about basic science would be to confuse poisoning in biology with trace radiant gases in thermodynamics. Congratulations barry!
That retort is so dim, Tim, that a pithier remark than this would be giving it too much credit.
Pro tip – understand the point before you vomit words. You’ll appear less of an ass.
One way to prove that Very Serious contrarians are not that serious is when they refuse to follow a simple reductio.
Fifteen years ago I had never heard of the Polar Vortex. Since then, I’ve been trying to learn about it, but there isn’t much info out there. And since the PV is associated with climate/weather, what info is there often is somewhere between “confused” and “inaccurate”. So, here are the basics, for anyone interested:
1. The Polar Vortex is a large low-pressure system, think hurricane, that establishes itself about 8-30 miles above the surface, extending into the stratosphere. A healthy PV has a well established “eye”, with winds moving counter-clockwise around it at the North Pole, and clockwise at the South Pole.
2. There is only one Polar Vortex, but it “moves” between the poles with the change of seasons (positions in Earth’s orbit). In NH winter, the PV is at the North Pole. In NH summer, the PV re-establishes itself at the South Pole. Or, the PV appears in the respective hemisphere’s winter season.
3. The PV can be strong, weak, or non-existent. When strong, the circulating winds can reach speeds close to 300 mph, and the “eye” is well defined and forms an almost perfect circle. When weak, the eye looks as if it is being pinched inward, forming a “peanut” shape.
4. As with any low-pressure vortex, within the eye, the air is moving up. The vortex is “vacuuming” air from near the surface and moving it directly to the stratosphere. That effect is a major cooling mechanism for the planet.
5. The PV is associated with a “Sudden Stratosphere Warming” (SSW) event, which is a disruption to the PV. The prevailing theory as to the cause of PV disruptions is a blocking of Rossby waves. But any change in upper level winds can cause a PV disruption.
Well, that’s enough for an “intro” to Polar Vortex. To follow the graphical representations:
* Go to the website, https://earth.nullschool.net
* At bottom left of screen, click on “earth”.
* In the pop-up window, find “Height”, click on “10 hPa”.
* Close pop-up window by clicking on “earth”.
* Move cursor to bottom of Earth globe. Click and drag up to see South Pole. The circular formation is the Polar Vortex.
barry and Nate…you seriously think I’m going to let you get away with not conceding this point?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2026-0-35-deg-c/#comment-1740116
You are unwell. I’m sorry to have enabled this.
I’m fine, barry. You just don’t get my sense of humour.
Look, you’ve already conceded the main point, you’re just holding out on the “regardless of the starting temperature…” line, for no valid reason.
I’ll just fill people in on the details. It’s about this:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
Basically, if you run the Green Plate Effect thought experiment without the “back-radiation” transfer (the transfer from the Green Plate to the Blue Plate) but with all the other transfers present, the plate temperature equilibrate at 244 K…244 K. Whereas, according to Eli’s solution, with the “back-radiation” transfer in place, the plate temperatures supposedly equilibrate at 262 K…220 K.
That means the “back-radiation” transfer is 100% responsible for the BP (Blue Plate) gaining 18 K and the GP (Green Plate) losing 24 K. So, the “back-radiation” transfer is building up internal energy in the BP at the expense of the GP, regardless of the starting temperature of the GP.
All fairly straightforward…but, for some reason, barry and Nate won’t concede that point! Well, Nate won’t concede any of it, whereas barry can accept the idea so long as the GP is introduced at 244 K, but doesn’t accept it when the GP is introduced at a lower temperature than 220 K.
Time to put your toy plates away and go to bed.
Yes, Eli should indeed.
With the argument settled in my favour, there’s little to do but watch the desperate comments roll in. Thanks for starting that process.
The neocons who invaded Iraq were ideologues, but at least they tried to make a case. At least they had some idea of their responsibility to the nation to justify a war of choice.
Not only have the Trump team treated their own citizenry with contempt in this, the level of incompetence both justifying and prosecuting the Iran war beggars belief. The US military is orders of magnitude more powerful than Iran’s, and if you believe Trump the war is over and Iran decimated. But the global economy (and America’s) remains at the mercy of Iran’s control of a narrow strait.
Trump makes W Bush look like a Rhodes scholar. The profane Easter post was only the most obvious of his many depravities. To think we’d ever see a US president threatening war crimes like a banana republic warlord. The man will forever be a festering wound on US political history.
Unbelievably, he still has, after the latest disgusting display on top of an unjustified war, people who unreservedly support him.
Barry,
So you think that Iran human rights is better than USAs. You views wouldn’t be welcome on Iran or Gaza.
With your warped and totally unrealistic view on climate change why aren’t you cheering from the rafters about crude oil not being burnt and causing unfold suffering to generations not yet born.
Anon for a reason,
[“So you think that Iran human rights is better than USAs.”]
If the main goal of the conflict were to improve human rights in Iran, wouldn’t a failed U.S. attempt to overthrow the regime risk making its leaders more paranoid, thus pushing them to hold onto their uranium stockpiles and intensify internal repression even further?
Are you one of the outrageously stupid people who still support Trump, or are you dim for another reason?
Kynqora,
So far it hasn’t failed. Trump might have been relying on the local population to rise up and displace the authoritarian regime in Iran. It’s not as if they haven’t had the reason to with all the murders and brutality the Iranian government has resorted to over the years.
I live in the UK so don’t vote in American elections and can view what is happening in the USA with a certain amount of unbiased detachment. I certainly don’t rely on CNN for news, nor Fox. Citizen reporting is more interesting, said news aggregators.
btw in the uk we have a spineless tool of a leader who is destroying everything. And yes the UK is a target for Iranians ire no matter what we do. So in that respect I don’t understand why the UK doesn’t help USA.
Barry,
Never agree with anyone 100℅, why should I?
A person’s actions speak louder than words. So in that regard look at Trumps record in overturning discrimination, giving rights to women in prison, protecting women, enforcing the constitution,….. He understands biology, where you dont.
The democrats were horrendous for helping people, they just caused more division. The democrats used to hate open borders,until they realised that they could have more seats due to the number of people in a state, rather than the number of citizens.
You seem to be blind to the actual data and facts. Understandable as you struggle with science and critical thinking. You are on par with Willard.
How lucky is the United States that every time they look for democracy in other countries they find oil instead, dear anon for Q-related reasons?
Hard to agree with Trump even 1% when his administration keep contradicting him and each other. Rubio specifically said regime change is not the goal, so human rights abuses isn’t on his casus belli list.
Trump and Hegseth have claimed they will bomb civilian infrastructure and send the country back to the stone age. Hardly the conditions for alleviating human rights abuses.
But these guys are winging it. Can’t keep their stories straight – especially Trump – from one day to the next. You have to be an utter dunce or the blindest supporter not to see it. They LITERALLY contradict themselves – especially Trump – and each other depending on the day of the week.
As for internal anti-discrimination… don’t make me laugh. The government has argued in court that people can be stopped in the street on the basis of their accent, and Dep Homeland Sec has sought the legal authority right to racially profile people as they round up brownskins for detention.
And don’t get me started on women’s rights when a girl younger than a teenager has to go interstate to remove her rapists seedling from her womb. A state of affairs for which Trump has repeatedly congratulated himself.
TDS is alive and well among Trump supporters.
barry says:
”The neocons who invaded Iraq were ideologues, but at least they tried to make a case. At least they had some idea of their responsibility to the nation to justify a war of choice.”
Come on Barry can the political BS. The ”neocons” didn’t invade Iraq. Check the votes in Congress.
If you want to be one of those claiming to have been conned and complain in retrospect alleging you were conned and it wasn’t your own fault. . .that’s just weak.
AFA Trump goes he promised he would not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. He also promised no more forever wars. The first forever war I was involved in was Vietnam and that war went on and on because of people too afraid of disturbing somebody’s sensibilities about how wars should be fought and brought to a close.
Trump didn’t start a war with Iran. We are considered by the Iranian regime to have been at war with Iran for over 70 years on the basis of our support for the Shah. After seizing control it only took them a short time to kill 241 American servicemen in the Beirut bombing incident there
And we should turn the other cheek and not pay any attention to what the Iranians say their objective is with us nor the support they have given terrorist organizations over the past 47 years directly attacking us?
This is a problem we all face. If you are not supportive of Trump fixing and ending that problem. . .well exactly what are you supportive of?
And its hilarious you have your panties all twisted up over a one month 4 cent rise in gas prices over the last March of the Biden Administration and still a lot lower than March 2022 when it was 45 cents higher than this March. Where were you puking your guts out over that? Oh thats right its all political rhetoric right? Fk the facts.
That’s right, bill, the neocons made their case to congress as well as the public. Turns out the case was BS, but they at least tried to present a coherent, consistent reason for a war of choice.
The shifting and contradictory messaging from the Trump administration is all post-hoc rationalisation. You’d have to be an errant dunce not to see that they’re winging it, and that they haven’t coordinated on the rationales, much less worked them through with due diligence. It’s probably escaped you that the US intelligence services reported no imminent threat from Iran. It’s likely fled your mind that Israel and the US advised they’d destroyed Iran’s nuclear programs last year. I guess it’s hard to keep track.
There was a year of lead-up before invading Iraq, with presentations to the people, to congress, and to the UN, where they failed to convince. There was coalition building.
Nothing like this diligence from the narcissist and his enablers. Trump instead rails against other countries for not falling into line after the fact. His contempt runs broad, as well as deep.
Typical dunderhead thinking, bill – the world is experiencing its worst economic shock based on oil since the 70s when, guess what, war in the ME happened and iran underwent ‘regime change’ backed by the US. It won’t be comfortably off old white men who experience the worst of this. Nor will they care, bill. That’s partly why this crap keeps happening. For you guys war is a tool instead of a deeply last resort. And you’re military? My grandfather had it right. He was on the ground in North Africa. He wouldn’t be drawn on it except to say, “War is a terrible thing.”
Lest we forget. This is blood and bone, not just politics.
Barry,
You do know that Trump, RFK jr, Tulsi were all democrats for years. They found, like a lot of people, that a very vocal minority manipulative set of people in the democrat party dragged the party to the fringes of acceptability. Leaving people closer to the republican party.
So if anything the Republican party has been drawn away from the neocons by Trump, RFK,Tulsi and others.
As far as an imminent attack what exactly is your definition of that? Iran sponsors terrorism or do you deny that?
Oh, let’s let 2026 Trump define imminent Iranian threats…
“Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime… Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States…
They were right at the doorstep for years… we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon…
they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing the long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland.”
Directly at odds with his own words on iran’s nuclear capability last year:
“Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated…
I don’t think they’ll ever do it again. I think they’ve had it… Iran’s nuclear ambitions were set back decades…
I also obliterated Iran’s nuclear hopes by totally annihilating their enriched uranium.”
The intelligence community in 2026 agreed with 2025 Trump.
The guy is a pathological liar. That is not heat, to say that. He just constantly, as in daily, lies out loud. It’s not even controversial, not even among MAGA.
You don’t need me to point it out. Trump skewers himself like this regularly. But the infatuated MAGA are incapable of cognizing what is obvious to everyone not in the cult.
But let’s hear from Trump’s buddies in the admin in 2025.
Hegseth: “Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons… it’s buried under a mountain of rubble.”
Rubio: “The Iranian nuclear program today looks nothing like it did just a week ago. It was complete and total obliteration”
What about missiles?
2025 Trump:
“They can’t build them anymore. We hit the factories, we hit the warehouses, and we hit the launch sites. They are out of the missile business for a long, long time.”
2026 was a complete reversal of what they said about Iran last year. It was also in contradiction of US intelligence.
“if anything the Republican party has been drawn away from the neocons by Trump, RFK,Tulsi and others.”
I totally agree. The new Republican party prioritises the supremacy of the executive over coalition building and congressional oversight. This Republican party kneels to the president. It’s a wonder they can manage it, lacking spines.
Barry says:
”Turns out the case was BS, but they at least tried to present a coherent, consistent reason for a war of choice.”
So why did you believe it Barry?
I mean was it BS or was it the indeterminate risk assessment that came up wrong?
Seems to me there was a lot of discussion about uncertainty from numerous respected sources and wide agreement with the public, Congress, and the experts. A lot better than climate change where the consensus among those not profiting from the climate industrial complex is in the direction of skepticism about just what the risks are. I mean after all the polls, votes and everything were relatively far more in favor of that war over the war on fossil fuels.
Barry said:
”Directly at odds with his own words on iran’s nuclear capability last year:
” ”Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated…
I don’t think they’ll ever do it again. I think they’ve had it… Iran’s nuclear ambitions were set back decades…”
Certainly you have to give credit to somebody who later admits their assessment of the damage from the first strike was wrong.
Personally I was quite skeptical at the time of those announcements that those pinpoint hits, while super impressive actually had completely destroyed everything underground. My thoughts on that is they likely have the technology that establishes the hits destroyed something underground more than an ventilation shaft.
But I also noticed that architectural renderings of remaining bunkers where they have been stashing thousands of missiles have ventilation shafts that come out of the ground some distance from the bunkers.
And of course you have the Iranians themselves boasting about their nuclear capabilities and enriched uranium supplies. Keep in mind that dirty bombs are in themselves weapons of mass destruction.
You can also bet the farm on the government having teams of analysts pouring over photos and communications of classified data storage capacities using AI to plow through it. Rumors have it the government data capacity may be as much as 1.00e24 bytes.
Trump is a man who is not afraid to change his mind, operating from common sense. He is going to believe what the data tells him when it tells him.
He isn’t going to believe as you do that Trump is constantly lying but what he said after Midnight Hammer is proof there is no imminent threat now. That seems really stupid to me. You have only convinced me of one thing and that is listen to the guy we voted to be in the position he is in.
That is how it should work. If it doesn’t work let the results tell you so. I worry more about people who won’t act contrary to what they personally believed to be true. That is the real danger of ego.
I’m sure our troglodytes appreciated Donald’s “a whole civilization will die tonight” democratic plea.
But then perhaps it doesn’t meet their sammich request of a “definition” of an “imminent attack”.
> Donald is a man who is not afraid to change his mind
ROFL!
barry says:
That’s right, bill, the neocons made their case to congress as well as the public. Turns out the case was BS, but they at least tried to present a coherent, consistent reason for a war of choice.
——————–
What in the case was BS Barry? Something specific and verifiable.
barry says:
”The shifting and contradictory messaging from the Trump administration is all post-hoc rationalisation.”
Do you mean like after some mild warming, or a hurricane you conclude it was due to CO2? Perhaps you can provide an example like that which Trump is guilty of.
barry says:
”You’d have to be an errant dunce not to see that they’re winging it, and that they haven’t coordinated on the rationales, much less worked them through with due diligence. It’s probably escaped you that the US intelligence services reported no imminent threat from Iran.
It’s likely fled your mind that Israel and the US advised they’d destroyed Iran’s nuclear programs last year. I guess it’s hard to keep track.”
——————-
You can make fun of US military prowess if you wish Barry, but it just makes you look like a fool.
“Certainly you have to give credit to somebody who later admits their assessment of the damage from the first strike was wrong.”
Ah, the sheer fantasising. Yes, I would give credit. But trump almost never admits error, and he certainly has not on Iran.
It’s fascinating to watch people weave stories in order to lie to themselves about reality. You did this just now, bill. You’ll likely try to hang on to the fiction by pretending that a flip flop is the same thing as admitting error.
It’s whhat Trump-lovers do. They invent total falsehoods to maintain the faith – such as Donald having the grace to say he was wrong about Iran last year.
Last year the faithful were crowing about Trump’s decisive victory on Iran. This year, they turn 108 degrees without blinking to champion the necessity to obliterate that which Trump said was obliterated last year.
A entire cult of yes-men.
> Check the votes in Congress.
Gill believes that 6 + 126 + 81 + 1 is bigger than 215.
Perhaps he should have checked with his best buddy before saying stuff once again.
ROFL!
“Tonga’s volcanic eruption hit the edge of space. Then the atmosphere froze, and it hasn’t recovered since…The extra water released heat to space, cooling wide regions of the stratosphere by 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius…Despite that upper-atmosphere disruption, surface temperatures showed almost no response. Ground level cooling reached only about 0.05 degrees Celsius…Professor Amanda Maycock of the University of Leeds confirmed the report shows Hunga had a net cooling effect overall and did not cause the record global warming observed in 2023 and 2024.”
The King is fully clothed, and if you cannot see his suit then you are a clothing-denier.
Do skeptics have an aversion to posting links to their references, or is it an inability to figure out the technology of cutting and pasting?
https://aparc-climate.org/publications/aparc-report-no-11/
Or did you find a random article online and didn’t bother to go any further than what some journo said in Indian Defence Review?
Please take your lower than blog level commentary to facebook or other hot air chamber. Actual skeptics can click on the link for actual information.
Barry,
Do people like you prefer to cherry pick data & articles rather than using logic and reasoning?
Moron Anon. This is the study that Buzz’s quote is referring to.
I know, I know, it’s hard to keep the conversation in your head for longer than a single post. but I just gave the link that Buzz should have. You got a problem with singling out this study? Cool, take it up with Buzz. Better yet, buzz off, lame-brain, and try to learn about “context” and “sticking to the point.”
Barry,
Is Dr Roy Spencer website to o do with atmospheric changes with free exchange of ideas or is it to pander to you and your Derangement of ex-Democrats like Donald Trump? So are you the one “stocking to the point”?!
I do believe that you helped me understand about your cult a bit more.
In your limited echo chamber you have replaced science with a cult. You have abandoned logic for some alphabet soup of identity. Your reasoning has been replaced by hurling insults to win a small non-point in a debate.
You don’t appear to have capacity to grasp why attribution studies fail basic science when the system becomes chaotic. Hint, how to prove that they work. Attribution studies may be a “cool” talking point in your echo chamber, yo the majority it’s a waste of time.
Apparently your dedication to science is as deep as Buzz’s. Did you read the study he referenced?
No, no you did not. I provided the link Buzz had no interest in and you blew right by it while fulminating.
Skeptics. You think you can lecturer about scientific literacy.
Once upon a time Republicans were gung ho about independence of the states (and the independence of co-equal branches of government).
But MAGA is leading the charge away from these outmoded, anti-presidential anachronisms.
You Trump supporters. What do you say today to the prospect that Trump will use every trick in the book, including executive orders, to give power to the presidency to control elections?
Because it is virtually certain this administration will throw the weight of the presidency into telling the states how to conduct their voting.
I predict the Trump fanatics will fully endorse the fed interfering in how states run their elections.
Because Trump supporters – sufferers of TDS – put Trump above the constitution.
It’s as simple as that. The ultimate anti-American movement supports the current leader of the USA above all else. It’s a cult.
barry, your Leftism and TDS are driving you insane. You’re no longer just a childish blog-clogger like Willard. Now you’re sounding dangerous to yourself and others.
The proper treatment will involve medication to settle you down so you can undergo a couple years of therapy.
Hope that helps….
Clint, are you unable to say whether you would support Trump overriding state autonomy regarding elections? Do you have to wait for Trump to tell you what to think?
There you go again barry, perverting reality. Getting the corruption out of elections is not the same as “overriding state autonomy”.
You try to pervert, just as you do with science. You can’t stand reality.
student B
” MAGA is now anti-Trump.
The military is anti-Trump.
…
Even his own family is anti-Trump. ”
*
You are light years away from reality…
“There you go again barry, perverting reality. Getting the corruption out of elections is not the same as “overriding state autonomy.”
As you are incapable of a straight answer, we’ll just have to iron out your blather.
Yes, you would be perfectly fine with the executive (as long as it is Republican) overriding state autonomy regarding elections.
You are part of the new breed of conservative in the US, that puts the presidency (and probably party) over the constitution.
And you swallow, hook line and sinker, Trump’s incessant lies about the election issues. That’s what it means to be part of a cult.
barry, don’t overlook the fact that:
MAGA is now anti-Trump.
The military is anti-Trump.
The public is anti-Trump.
Even his own family is anti-Trump.
This will all end soon – mark my words.
MAGA is not anti-Trump. A solid majority even approves of the Iran war. It’s a cult.
Traditional Republicans are leaning away, for now.
Barry is absolutely right, of course. Clint R’s pathological Trump and MAGA obsession won’t change anything to that.
Let me add the following to be clear.
*
Never before has an American president been so close to Hitler. But… he’s not the only one on stage.
Trump, Vance, Wiles, Hegseth, and the few people in their inner circle (I’m deliberately excluding Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard) are now undeniably war criminals — though they already were when the US military inexcusably murdered over 100 young girls at a school that was mistakenly targeted.
They will all have to pay for these crimes, just like Putin, Netanyahu, and all their henchmen.
I predict that Pearl Harbor in 1941 will, in retrospect, seem like a tiny scratch compared to what will happen in the United States in the near future; even the horrific event of September 11th will pale in comparison.
I already have a feeling I know which day will be chosen for a revenge that will defy all imagination.
I thought the US would have learned about how this Middle East near the Mediterranean Sea ticks.
Apparently, I was plain wrong.
Bindi, what you cult kids don’t realize is that your hatred for Trump comes from your Leftism. What you won’t admit is that you hate USA. That’s why you hate Trump. Now, you didn’t hate Obama or Biden because you knew they were bad for the US. That made you happy. But, Trump is a different case.
I don’t consider myself MAGA. I support much of what Trump has done and is doing. But, he sometimes offends me with his crudeness. I have to remind myself of what the Left has done to him, including raiding his home and two assassination attempts.
You don’t have to like him, but you should understand your motivations. But that’s reality, and hard for you cult kids to swallow.
Breaking News:
Trump wins again! Sorry!
Obviously, the Iranians and their supporters in the liberal media, Democrats, some Europeans, and other fools, are posing this as a declaration that Iran now “controls” the straight. They claim we have actually accepted the Iranian counter proposal — they are the more believable party. These same people claim the Obama nuclear deal prevented them from building a bomb.
I am reminded of an experience I had in a business meeting. There was an Iranian guy trying to sell support for his “cousin” who has an import business. There was a Swiss French guy who became annoyed and basically told the guy to stop. After the meeting, when the Iranian guy was gone, he said words to the effect that you have be careful with these people who are always trying to sell something. He said they have an expression in French that roughly translates to “carpet sellers”. Some things are universal.
[OUR IVY LEAGUER, SEEING ANOTHER TACO TUESDAY] Donald wins again!!!1!
The amount of dross within the last 3 posts is extraordinary. I don’t hate America. Its constitution, for all its ambiguity and anachronisms, is a shining testament to the democratic experiment. The separation of powers is a three-pointed crown.
It’s not leftism that causes people to despise Trump. That’s a shallow, partisan read.
It’s his narcissism. His normalisation of lying. His lack of character and morality. His hypocrisy. His thuggish cruelty (have you read his posts lately)?
Ordinarily it WOULD be policy and politics that drive opprobroium, but in this case the rest of the thinking world can see what MAGA die-hards are slavishly blind to. Trump is a vile specimen of a human being.
The reason for the heat against him in the rest of the world is not ‘leftism’, it’s his attack on global security and on the global economy.
It’s not that he’s a Republican, it’s that he’s a thug who makes America First mean everyone else last.
Really, his worldview is Trump-first. Any policy he makes is about his greatness. Any success, whether because of him or someone else, he takes credit for. He is the most self-centred, self-aggrandizing person ever to hold the office. And his supporters love it.
There are a lot of nasty things to be said about Trump that are all true, but he is respected and he does get results. Crude oil futures are down %15 and stock market futures are all up over 2%.
Bill Maher says he is very friendly in person.
Wrong barry.
All of that is just you projecting your own failings on Trump. You can’t face reality. You “believe” you can pervert science using an imaginary sphere. Anyone that tries to correct you gets called a “lying dog”.
You and the other cult kids are the “Nazis” here. You are the narcissists. You try to shut down people using insults and false accusations, or whatever nonsense comes into your heads. Just look at the brat that calls himself “Willard”. He makes Trump look highly responsible. It doesn’t get any better with Nate, gordon, Bindi, Norman, or the “special-ed” guy, the F-student.
So thanks for proving me right, again.
Our Ivy Leaguer, like Puffman and Gill, would befit Donald’s entourage:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-aides-too-afraid-to-take-off-the-145-shoes-he-keeps-buying-them/
Pandering to a sociopath seldom ends well. More so when the sociopath in question is also a war criminal.
Bindy,
How fascinating that you call someone you disagree with a Hitler. You are the one who wants to support regimes that crush peoples freedom & free speech. You are the one who supports the regimes that force women to be degraded, and to silence the LGBs. So isn’t it you who wears the brown shirt due to your actions and words.
Other than a hundred or so people in the inner circle no one else will have the facts or the data about what Trump is doing or discussing. You are looking the through a key hole trying to understand the world.
Attribution Studies.
The very idea seems to invite confirmation bias into science. Let’s first arrive at a conclusion, a “consensus”: CO2 is causing alarming increases in global temperatures, bringing with it damaging, dangerous extreme weather. Then, let’s go out and encourage, support, and perform science that supports our conclusion. That cart is definitely in front of that horse.
Actually, the creators of this new field seem to have come up with an entirely new scientific method. But it lies not in physical science, but rather in political science.
Anyone can write anything with little effort. Actually understanding the issue doesn’t seem to matter. The post above is a case in point.
Why have increasingly dim people been appearing here lately?
No mirrors in your house Barry, don’t shoot the messenger, prove him wrong, if you can, remember Winston Churchill said, one of the great lessons of life, is that even a fool is right sometimes.
Prove? He’s clearly talking out of ignorance. In any case, you’ve got the onus wrong. The dimness in skeptics makes them think they can string words together and that this is a hypothesis that needs testing by someone else instead of an assertion that requires them to furnish evidence.
If that’s too hard for you to understand, then let me demonstrate.
There is a unicorn in the centre of the Moon.
In Dimsville, apparently it’s your job to prove me wrong.
Where are you troglodytes coming from?
barry says:
”Prove? He’s clearly talking out of ignorance. In any case, you’ve got the onus wrong. The dimness in skeptics makes them think they can string words together and that this is a hypothesis that needs testing by someone else instead of an assertion that requires them to furnish evidence.
If that’s too hard for you to understand, then let me demonstrate.
There is a unicorn in the centre of the Moon.
In Dimsville, apparently it’s your job to prove me wrong.
Where are you troglodytes coming from?”
LOL! Barry is just projecting. You should take a gander at how he defends the blogsphere description of the GHE via a greenplate experiment made up by a leftist blogger on the January UAH update. Not a single scrap of empirical or historical support but 100’s repetitive claims by Barry that he is here projecting on to somebody else, I guess hoping that it purges his own guilt.
Another ‘skeptic’ who can’t stick to the topic.
The sheer tonnage of logical fallacies among you could stun a herd of bullock.
Barry, instead of slandering others, you should learn the difference between ,knowing the name of something,and actually knowing something, you have to admit for a world according to your creed, that is on the edge of disaster,nothing much is happening, history just repeats itself as it always has.
Barry,
Why don’t you explain how attribution studies work in your own words. Explain how the science works. Use reasoning and logic.
But I doubt you will because tantrums is more of your style.
I first became aware of attribution studies in 2007, when AR4 came out and I got interested in the science of climate change. In my own words: attribution studies analyse an array of data, anthropogenic and natural, to determine whether, and by how much (recognizing uncertainty), anthropogenic or natural forcings have driven long-term climate-related trends, and, I believe more recently, whether these natural and anthropogenic influences have driven changes in extreme weather events – which appears to be the subject of interest above.
It’s typical that though I was not the one who gave an opinion on the topic, it’s up to me to define the subject.
Thomas sallied forth with a vacuous, short, unreferenced critique of the subject, and no one asked him to describe what he is critiquing, or challenge his thesis.
Well done, gents. Your commitment to science is, well let me quote Thomas:
“it lies not in physical science, but rather in political science.”
I’m skewering the dearth of reasoned discourse. The troglodyte mewlings of people venting their agenda, not their interest in science. That’s not political at all. It’s just being fed up with pissant cognition.