Browse By

2015 Global Temperature Data Smash All-Time Record, UK Conservative Newspaper Responds With “What Global Warming?”

You may have heard today’s news from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but just in case you haven’t:

  • Around the globe, 2015 was the hottest year on record in NOAA’s temperature record stretching back to 1880.
  • The margin by which 2015 was warmer than any other year was four times larger than any other temperature margin among the 15 hottest years
  • 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2000.  Why wasn’t the other year since 2000 too?  Fun math fact: there have only been 15 years since 2000.  The remaining year in the list was 1998.
  • Every single continent around the globe studied experienced hotter than average temperatures in 2015.

2015 NOAA temperature anomaly map

How do you possibly respond to this information if you are the UK Daily Express, Britain’s most consistently conservative, pro-corporate tabloid newspaper?  Here’s how:

UK Daily Express Headline: What Global Warming?  USA temperatures DOWN…

UK Daily Express Leading text: “THE USA, one of the world’s biggest producers of carbon, did not experience its hottest year on record in 2015…”

Note: the United States as a region had its second-hottest year on record in 2015.  2012 was the hottest year on record.  Connecting only the two dots of 2012 and 2015 is the only way that the UK Daily Express can manage to make the claim:”USA temperatures DOWN.”

 

15 thoughts on “2015 Global Temperature Data Smash All-Time Record, UK Conservative Newspaper Responds With “What Global Warming?””

  1. Leroy says:

    Here was your key:

    “…Britain’s most consistently conservative, pro-corporate tabloid newspaper…”

    1. J Clifford says:

      One other fact that NOAA reported today what was that worldwide, December 2015 was the hottest month ever recorded. Yet, none of the Republican presidential candidates, including Donald Trump, are addressing this in their speeches. Instead they are complaining about environmental regulations. They just don’t get it.

  2. John says:

    It’s called geo engineering. Simple enough. Spray aerosols in the atmosphere that trap carbon emissions and thermal heat underneath thereby raising the surface temperature of the planet. When 9/11 happened and they stopped all flights nationwide the surface temperature of north America dropped 2 degrees, then began to rise within a couple of hours of planes taking off again. “Global warming” is as tall as evolution and just as full of holes in it’s theory. There is an agenda from the left to begin taxing carbon emissions. Just like there is an agenda on the left to disprove a creator. I know that it is a left agenda because it’s completely POLITICALLY INCORRECT to disagree with the false THEORY of global warming. Anything that is protected by political correctness is virtually always something the lib left is trying to force into our reality that either makes no sense or is not going to benefit the majority.

    1. Mark says:

      John,
      Can you in any way, shape, or form supply a citation showing that US temperatures dropped 2 degrees on 9/11/2001 as a result of all airplanes being grounded?

      The increase in the amount of heat being stored in the atmosphere is the equivalent of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs exploding every SECOND, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

      That’s a lot more than a few thousand airplanes.

      1. John says:

        http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/eesj/gradpubs/sciencemag/Sept%202006%20Sciam%20Hot%20Trails.pdf

        Have at it! I hope there isn’t an issue using a Columbia university study. I know it’s not Harvard but hopefully that’s going to be sufficient for you.

        1. Jim Cook says:

          That Scientific American magazine article doesn’t document your specific claims. It makes other claims.

          1. John says:

            The actual study has”conveniently” been removed from the public domain. Look if you want to keep your head in the sand that’s on you. I am providing you with the author of the study and his credentials. That’s the best I can do. Geo-engineering is real and happening. There are other agendas being pushed forward as well but I’m hesitant to bring them forward in this forum.

            David Travis of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and two colleagues measured the difference, over those three contrail-free days, between the highest daytime temperature and the lowest nighttime temperature across the continental U.S. They compared those data with the average range in day-night temperatures for the period 1971-2000, again across the contiguous 48 states. Travis’s team discovered that from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            The effect of clouds on the daily range of temperature fluctuation is not the same as global warming.

          3. John says:

            I beg to differ. If the study is true, then the temperature fluctuation experienced during the”no fly” period immediately after 9/11 shows that airline contrails do in fact have a direct impact on the temperature of the planet. Why are you arguing this when studies show exactly what I’m talking about? How much more would the surface temp continues to decrease if had stayed grounded? Unfortunately, we may never know. I think it’s strange how you don’t see any correlation between the two.

          4. Mark says:

            John,
            If the normal diurnal temperature range is 50 to 70 degrees F it results in an average of 60F. If you increase the diurnal range by 2 degrees (49 to 71F) you still have an average of 60F. No net change in the temperature.

        2. Mark says:

          John,
          While I disagree with your conclusion, I find it admirable that you sought out scientific documentation to back up your claims.

          1. John says:

            thank you! 🙂

  3. J Clifford says:

    No John, it’s not politically tolerated in the Republican Party to acknowledge the scientifically established facts about global climate change.

    Anthropogenic global warming isn’t politically correct. It’s just plain old-fashioned correct.

  4. Al Hopfmann says:

    Everyone still keeps ignoring decaying vegetation. Students of global warming need to study it qualitatively and quantitatively. Otherwise, conclusions lack confidence.

    1. Mark says:

      Deforestation is one of the principle components incorporated in climate change models. Lots of ecologists are studying it (and the resulting decomposition) every day.

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!