Environmental news from California and beyond

« Previous | Greenspace Home | Next »

March 2010 is warmest on record, NOAA reports


Climate science doubter Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), whose family built an igloo in the capital to mock global warming, might want to check in with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That federal agency reported that average land and sea surface temperatures made March the warmest on record and helped push the January-March period to the fourth warmest on record. (The data go back to 1880.)

A cold snap propelled by the Arctic oscillation that included ample snowfall struck the East Coast and areas of northern Europe this winter. Skeptics of climate science used the weather to poke fun at Al Gore and scientists who warn that manufactured greenhouse gases are warming the planet, potentially shifting climate patterns worldwide.

-- Geoff Mohan

Photo: The Inhofe family igloo in Washington. Credit: Sen. James M. Inhofe's office

Comments () | Archives (9)

The comments to this entry are closed.


I find it interesting that someone would pick the nic Ghonadz when they obviously don't have the "ghonadz" to use their real name. Must not have a lot of confidence in your position.

First of all 1998 was not the warmist year on record despite James Hansens attempts to make it so. Even if it were, so what? How far back does the spotty inaccurate, incomplete surface data go Ghonadz? Do you understand that the surface stations are so incomplete that temps over 1,200 miles away are often used to approximate temperatures? Now that's a record you can depend upon.

While 1998 was not the warmist year on record it was very warm. Not warmer than the medieval or roman warm periods, but indeed very warm.
The planet has been cooling since 1998 despite the fact that CO2 levels have been going up. There was also a cooling period in the 70s when the John Holdren's of the world said we were heading into another ice age. CO2 was rising during that cooling period as well. How did cooling happen while CO2 was rising. The fact is CO2 has been ten times the current level during an actual ice age. Look it up!!!

As for CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere. Where the Hot Spot Ghonadz? Satellites have been looking for it for over 3o years. You'd think they would have found it by now. Isn't it time you and other green idiots face the truth?

Most Experts agree my @ss. Here are 30,00o scientists who don't.

Funny how you only want to track the money on one side of the debate. I suppose the fact that GE and Goldman Sachs both will make billions off of cap and trade and both financially backed a candidate who promised to sign cap and trade into law doesn't bother you?

Here are three reading assignments for you:

As for your comment on those accurate computer models, you couldn't have said anything that more clearly demonstrates your ignorance. First of all, Mann's Hockey stick is a joke. His model was so fraudulent that random "red" noise pumped through his hockey-stick generator produced a hockey stick everytime. It should also be noted that even the climategate emails quoted some of the worlds top Al Gore Kool-Aid drinkers as stating they couldn't account for the lack of warming, so I'm not sure who "most experts' are.

It should also be noted that these garbage in garbage out computer models predicted an continued increase in hurricane activity and we are at a 30 year low. Most warmists now concede the models were completely wrong on this.

Keep drinking that Al Gore Kool-Aid Nonadz. You seem to like the taste of it. The more you drink, the less you'll be aware that you statements are laughable.

A short but accurate report on a scientific fact that this last March was the warmest March on record.

The comment by Mark E. Gillar seems particularly ignorant and clueless when he talks about "the last seven years of cooling", which, in reality, didn't happen. That's just another climate change denier myth, brought to you courtesy of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

The truth of the matter according to the actual scientific records is that:
this last decade was the warmest decade on record since 1880,
2005 was the warmest year on record,
2009 was the warmest year on record in the Southern Hemisphere,
globally 2009 was tied for the second warmest year on record with the years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007.

According to most climate experts, 2010 was on track to be a record setting hot year, as these March temperature records would indicate. This latest volcanic eruption in Iceland may, to some extent, temporarily mask the rapidly rising temperature trend and produce some slight cooling effects as the sulfuric acid droplets reflect more sunlight away from the Earth. If so, it may be another year or two before we experience the next 'hottest year on record', as CO2 continues to trap more heat in the atmosphere but it will happen soon, if not this year. Or it may still happen this year.

The comment by 'lrbinfrisco' repeats many denier cult myths including the usual sneer at what are actually very sophisticated and accurate climate models. If anyone is curious as to how scientists can tell if their climate models are accurat, check out this info:


Rather than arguing over the science of climate change, we should be doing what we can to change our behavior.

Diesel vehicles get 30-40 percent better fuel economy than comparable gasoline vehicles, and about 25 percent better CO2 per-mile performance:!

Well, 2012 is around the corner, so, it shouldn't be an issue after that, we won't be here, cause the calendar ends.

And the fraud still goes on...

I am still waiting for an explanation for the melting of the glaciers which formed the Great Lakes 14,000 years ago. I am quite sure there were no suv's at the time.
Trying to establish a climate pattern over a 3o yr period when the earth is 4.5 billion years old is idiotic.

A Greenhill wrote: "People who still deny warming will continue to do so no matter how much data, photos, and graphs you accumulate."

Way to sterotype millions of people just because they don't think exactly like you do on this subject. But are you any different from the sterotype you so blithely attribute to others? Is there any amount of data, photos, and graphs that could convince you that AGW is a false theory.

For many, myself included, this informaiton from NOAA is not convincing because there are many outstanding questions on the validity of the processes and assumptions used to create the data. This is not a value directly derived from consistant empirical observations over time, but rather it takes nonhomogenus empirical observations manipulates them using formulas and models to supposedly removes the inconsistantcies and known errors in the observations. If someone questions the models or formulas, that does not make them a "denier". Nor does it mean that further data would not alter their opinion to where they did not question the models and/or formulas. Is the reported rise in temperature a reslut of anthropogenic CO2 releases, or is it a result of localized changes in the environments that affect the reliability of the instruments used to conduct the empirical observations and which changes have not been properly factored out by NOAA scientists? I could be some combination of those factors or some completely different factor that caused the apparent temperature increase.

Unfortunately there appears to have been colusion by at least a few of the world's most recognized and influential climate scientists to keep out of publication any papers that called into question their formulas and models. There is amble evidence that this may have been the case to justify more studies and more transparency of the processes in those studies to evaluate the correctness of the formulas and models used to homogenuize the raw temperaturee data. This should be our immediate concern. And yes I would change my mind if there is amble evidence to convince me that the formulas and models have been tested with appropriate scientifc rigor and skeptisim. This would mean test specifically designed to prove the formulas and models wrong, not to prove them right. They can never be proved right. However, if it can be shown that in a fully transparent manner that the formulas and models were tested with rigourous scientificly skeptical tests, it would greatly increase the reasonable belief that they are likely correct.


To an extent, I can understand the debate over humanity's role in the warming - but those who deny the warming outright are living in their own fantasy bubble.

Funny, alarmists have been saying the last seven years of cooling was just a blip in history and was too short a time period to draw any conclusions. Now, January - March is worth talking about...LOL

I've actually seen video of Al Gore looking up at the sky on a hot day and saying if this isn't proof of global warming I don't know what is. The look on his face suggested he wasn't making a joke.

The alarmists have been arguing anecdotally for years. One shouldn't be too critical of skeptics for doing the same thing this past winter.

Whether the temperature is going up or down really doesn't factor into the argument anyway. The real issue is whether or not CO2 is impacting the climate change in a truly significant way. Seven years of cooling or a warm first quarter of 2010 doesn't address matter if it's just indicative of natural variation.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


Recent News



In Case You Missed It...