Browse By

NASA: January 2013 the 6th Hottest on Record for Earth

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has released its readings regarding temperature from stations across the globe over land and sea in January 2013. Their finding: January 2013 was the 6th warmest January in its record, which stretches back over 130 years to January 1880.

Every one of the 5 hottest Januaries takes place after the year 2000. Every one of the 10 hottest Januaries takes place on or after 1998. Every one of the 10 coldest Januaries on the record took place before the Roaring Twenties, before World War I, before women had the right to vote.

11 thoughts on “NASA: January 2013 the 6th Hottest on Record for Earth”

  1. Tom says:

    Wait til every month is the warmest month on record – then they won’t have anything to report, or people to report it to.

  2. Skeptic says:

    One hot month doesn’t make a trend. Nor does it prove anything even if the hottest ten years were all among the last 12. It doesn’t even prove anything that the USDA growing zone maps have adjusted warmer each time they’ve been updated. We should not be going on the word of an unqualified hysterical political person like NASA’s James Hansen, but on a REAL climate scientist that does research in the field every day– like Bjorn Lomberg.

    And before we go hastily rushing into greater government regulation (as though that ever works) we need to clearly establish that this warming is happening due to a totally natural gas like CO2.

    In addition, we have “clean coal” technology these days, which is harvested safely and cleanly. And we have carbon-free nuclear has no emissions (just waste, not emissions– there’s a difference).

    1. Green Man says:

      How about hundreds of months in a row hotter than average, “Skeptic”?

      Would that be enough for you? I’m asking, because that’s what the records show.

      Just for the record, “Shill” is not spelled S-K-E-P-T-I-C.

      1. Skeptic says:

        Typical liberal logic. Putting words in my mouth again, going for the slogans and the spin while being short on facts. I’m obviously a skeptic, not a shill.

        And I’m not going to address a hypothetical– hundreds of months or no months. Fact is, you can’t find trends. That’s not science, it’s partisan politicking.

        1. Green Man says:

          Nonsense, S. We’ve looked at the data here, and we’ve noted the trends.

          For example, we’ve noted the long-term heating trend in global surface mean temperature anomalies: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2012/07/18/noaa-report-adds-detail-to-global-climate-data-for-june-2012-the-4th-hottest-on-record/

          Also: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/07/04/thanks-for-playing-its-global-cooling-dan/

          We’ve noted the trend that every single one of the hottest 12-month periods in the contiguous United States have been in the current century (the last 12 years): http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2012/07/10/hottest-first-half-of-a-year-for-usa-ever-recorded/

          Short on facts? We’ve got data. All you’ve got is a thoroughly debunked solar hypothesis.

          If you’re going to accuse me of partisan politicking, S., tell me, what political party do I belong to? Do you know? Have you read the many Irregular Times articles I’ve written slamming the inaction of oil-fouled Democrats and Republicans? How is that bipartisan criticism evidence of “partisan politicking”?

          Looks like you’re just making stuff up as you go along, S.H.I.L.L.

    2. Faye says:

      Sheesh. They talk about this stuff like as though all the ice sheets of Greenland were in thaw last summer, or the permafrost was becoming forest, or that there were kilometer-wide plumes of methane bubbling up from the arctic. I mean, then maybe you might want to worry. But even in that case, you could just supplement your coal electricity with safer, cleaner, domestically produced natural gas, and then there’s no problem.

      1. Skeptic says:

        Apparently, you can’t question the libero-communist groupthink on AGW here at Irregular Times.

        You have it 100% right on why we need clean, domestically produced fossil fuels in America.

        1. Jim Cook says:

          You forgot to stick “anarcho-syndicalist-narco-Mexican-Amero-loving” in there.

          Obviously, you can question anything you want here, because you just did.

      2. Faye says:

        Not only is global warming not real, but the warming that’s happening now in Greenland and Russia will help the Inuits and others to profit from new opportunities as their land becomes farmland and new oil mining territory. It’s like the new gold rush up there. It won’t just be the oil companies that benefit, like happened those other times. No, this time the natives are look forward to becoming millionaires themselves.

        1. Green Man says:

          There’s no such thing as a clean fossil fuel, S.H.I.L.L. Faye, that’s hilarious satire. Global warming isn’t real, regardless of what the thermometers say, and the warming is good for us. Ha! I suppose they’re communist thermometers, right?

          Okay, S.H.I.L.L., you’ve exposed yourself to be one of those right wing maniacs who sees a Communist behind every tree. I’ll bite. Name one Communist program we’re promoting here at Irregular Times, please, and explain what makes it Communist.

          You still haven’t explained how I’m a partisan.

        2. Faye says:

          Does supporting Barry Soetoro’s campaign to socialize our healthcare count? Does all this supporting of big government and the huge tax increases count? How about the buyout of GM (Government Motors)?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!