It’s doom, you know
2025 was the third-hottest year ever recorded on Earth, data shows
Last year was the third-warmest in modern history, according to Copernicus, the European Union’s climate change monitoring service.
The conclusion came as no surprise: The past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record, according to Copernicus data.
In 2025, the average global temperature was about 1.47 degrees Celsius (2.65 Fahrenheit) higher than from 1850 to 1900 — the period scientists use as a reference point, since it precedes the industrial era in which massive amounts of carbon pollution have been pumped into the atmosphere.
Ever, you know!
- Climate change fuels 3rd-warmest year globally, 2nd-warmest in Phoenix
- Global warming reaches 1.4C after third-hottest year on record
- 2025 continues streak of hottest years ever recorded
- Human activity helped make 2025 third-hottest year on record, experts say
- 2025 was planet’s third hottest year on record
- 2025 was one of the three hottest years on record, scientists find
And that continues on and on from the cult leaning Credentialed Media, utter doomsaying, where it is either saying “on record” or hintimating that in Earth’s history. But, you actually have to read down into the articles, sometimes very deep, to find this
1940. That’s “on record”. They did not want to touch the 1930s, nor can the actually compare to previous Holocene warm periods, and, notice that things were actually not going crazy before the satellite era, and, suddenly, doom! It’s almost like there’s an agenda.
At 7:33 this morning, my weather station shows 17.9º F, with a wind chill of 13.4º F, so I’ll happily take that additional
global warmingclimate change now, please.Well Dana thanks for that factoid b
It is 45F here in NYC and we are 109scof miles north of you.
Weird huh? When the South is warmer than the North
What is happening ? Is the climate changing?: or is it just a typical weather anomaly ? The graph seems to show that the rate of increase is accelerating
If Mr Teach hsd bothered to look the warming and then cooling they occured during the 30s was due to sulfate aerosols. Fortunately they have a short half life. No one is trying to hide it from you. All the governments on the globe know that our temps are rising . Lol you seem to think that their is a global conspiracy targeting YOU. One that forced you out of your babe magnet Firebird and now makes you drive in a hybrid Honda.
Yes, Johnny-the climate is changing. Always has, always will.
Yes, Jillie, the Earth is warming! Verifiable evidence supports that the current bout of warming results from the CO2 humanity is adding to the atmosphere!
Mr William claims the current bout of warming is just another typical Holocene warming period, wisely pointing out that the HCO and MWP occurred without SUVs!!!
Good-now only of you could provide verifiable evidence of the warming from fossil fuels..
Jl: Good-now only of you could provide verifiable evidence of the warming from fossil fuels..
From basic physics, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increase CO2 and the Earth’s surface will warm. The primary positive feedback is water vapor and reduced albedo due to ice melt.
Yes, which is correlation, not proof of causation
Jl: Yes, which is correlation
It’s fundamental physics. Or don’t you think physics applies to the Earth’s atmosphere? Magic?
It’s called confirmation bias, dipshit.
Jl never even learned the correct usage of the words used by scientists.
A theory is not a proof. A theory is THE best possible explanation of the data and observations made.
In fact. Theories are always being attacked with vigor and only the most to ust theories survive.
THE best possible explanation of global warming at this time is increasing levels of greenhouse gases. Do you have a better one ? If so please present it.
Poor Johnny-I’ve listed numerous papers with alternate theories many times on these pages. The question is-why do you allegedly keep missing them?
Mr William is correct when he hintimates that the traditional media science reporting is largely incompetent. It’s difficult to report well on what one doesn’t understand well.
“U.S. agencies released similar temperature statistics on Wednesday morning. According to a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, annual temperatures across the U.S. ranked as the third-warmest in its temperature record, which dates back to 1850.”
Mr trump needs to rein in his agences like NOAA and NASA, right?!?
The non-traditonal media (twitter, conservablogs, “Truth” Social, etc) are worse. Don’t forget that there is still trillions of dollars to be made from extracting and burning oil and gas, not to mention King Coal!
How can it be cold in K-Y or MO with global warming?? How can it snow if the globe is warming?? Why did “they” change “Global Warming” to “Clmate Change” in 1988, which upsets Mr Dana??
Warming deniers like William feel/believe in a massive conspiracy involving 99% of climate scientists, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, most governments, many corporations, traditional media, universities, science orgs, the Dems, the libs and college grads.
Warming denialists still question whether the Earth is warming. Verifiable evidence supports that our burning of fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 had been at 200-300 ppm for a million years (The Homo sapiens species is only 300,000 years old!), and yesterday: Jan. 14, 2026 = 430.67 ppm, and still rising. Verifiable evidence supports that CO2 absorbs radiation in the infrared wavelengths, making it a greenhouse gas. Long term, the Earth is in an ice age for about the last million years with alternating glacial and interglacial periods. We are currently in the Holocene interglacial period.
Funny Rimjob calls others denialists when he refuses to answer the simple question,
“Can man get pregnant?”
Bwaha! Lolgfy Loser!
MAGA47 Motherfucker×
When human sperm are added to human ova in a sterile petri dish, and the egg is fertilized and starts dividing, isn’t that a pregnancy? Are the liquid N2 containers filled with frozen embryos “pregnant”?
No magic involved!!
Within a human it takes a hormonally prepared uterus* and supportive hormones to maintain a pregnancy. So yes, a male can support a pregnancy!!! But it would not be recommended!
Why did my ridiculously tone death Senator Hawley ask such a stupid question? Like the even more stupid MAGA Motherfucker, Hawley doesn’t understand basic biology. And they take after their “boss man” who is all about performative art!
__________________________________
*The MAGA Motherfucker may not know this, after all there is so much he doesn’t know, but occasionally a fertilized egg settles outside the uterus as an “ectopic pregnancy”!
Another Rimjob deflection not an answer to the simple question,
“Can a man get pregnant?”
Bwaha! Lolgfy Loser!
MAGA47 Motherfucker!
Well, yes, MAGA Motherfucker. Read above.
The MAGA Motherfucker is slippery as an eel.
Can a petri dish get pregnant?
Oh no!
How could mankind be so wrong for thousands of years?
Bwaha! Lolgfy Loser!
MAGA47 Motherfucker!
The MAGA Motherfucker changes the subject.
So Rimjob, can a man get pregnant?
Bwaha! Lolgf Dumbass!
MAGA47 Motherfucker!
“Warming denialists question whether the earth is warming.”. Haven’t seen anyone say that-the question the cause of warming. As you know
Au contraire jimmi Teach has written many times in the past about how insignificant the effects of man has been upon the increasing rise and rate of rise of out temps. But, for the record, what do YOU think is the most significant cause of the increasing temps?
“Don’t you think physics apply..? Of course. But that in no way means it’s CO2 and nothing else
Jl: But that in no way means it’s CO2 and nothing else
CO2 and associated feedbacks are not the only mechanisms involved; however, increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase the effective greenhouse effect, warming the Earth’s surface. Current warming is almost entirely explained by that increased greenhouse effect.
Allegedly explained, you mean. Numerous papers with increased sunlight absorption explaining the warming. Dubal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Loeb et al, 2021, Steph’s et al, 2022, Koutsoyiannis et al, 2023, Loeb et al, 2024, Goessling et al, 2024, Tselioudis et al, 2025, Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020, Kauppinen and Malmi, 2023, Herman et al, 2013.
Jl: Dubal and Vahrenholt, 2021
Taking just the first paper. It doesn’t support the claim that greenhouse warming is not the primary causation of warming. It would actually tend to support a larger climate sensitivity. As the Earth warms, cloud albedo decreases, meaning it would represent a positive feedback.
Fundamentally, you can’t just pretend the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Now, you can say there are countervailing effects, but you can’t countervail an effect you ignore, especially when the effect predicts not just the sign but the quantitative degree of warming. Yes, it’s just a correlation, but the fundamental physics remain.
There are many papers in that list. “As the earth warms, cloud albedo decreases”. More water vapor in the air would contribute to more clouds, not less. Nobody’s pretending the gh effect doesn’t exist, they’re just questioning if this current warming is caused by man’s fossil fuels. As several of those papers mention, cloud radiative forcing is many times what any CO2 forcing would be.
Several more papers-Clark 2023, Davis 2025, Stanhill et al 2014, Mateos et al 2014, Ollila 2021, Wang et al 2002, Nelson and Nelson 2024
Jl: There are many papers in that list.
If the first paper doesn’t support your claim, why bother with the rest? Just throwing stuff out there isn’t much of an argument.
Jl: Nobody’s pretending the gh effect doesn’t exist, they’re just questioning if this current warming is caused by man’s fossil fuels.
Great! The increase in the greenhouse effect due to human emissions closely matches the rate of current warming. If there are other countervailing influences, they must be more or less canceling each other out or be of low significance.
Jl: As several of those papers mention, cloud radiative forcing is many times what any CO2 forcing would be.
Then where is the greenhouse effect? You are arguing: 1) There is a greenhouse effect. 2) Warming is caused by cloud radiative forcing. 3) There is no greenhouse effect. Otherwise, you would have two positive forcings, cloud radiative forcing *and* the greenhouse effect.
“The first paper doesn’t support…”. With the proper data, it only takes one.
“They must be cancelling out..”. What? No evidence of that
“There is a greenhouse effect “ Don’t know of anyone who has claimed there’s no greenhouse effect. “You are arguing…”. Actually it’s not me, but the many scientists that wrote the papers. “Warming caused by cloud radiative forcing”. Yes, that what those who wrote the papers are saying. “There is no greenhouse effect”. What? Again, no one is claiming that, they’re saying cloud radiative properties easily outweigh any greenhouse effect from CO2. “As the earth warms, cloud albedo decreases..”. Numerous papers saying otherwise-that cosmic rays (ionization) is the cause for cloud changes. Svensmark 2021, Kumar and Prasad, 2021, Fleming 2018, Biktash 2017, Wilson and Sidorenkov 2018, Marsh and Svensmark 2000, Sun and Bradley 2002, Jonas 2022, Maillard 2021-found that cloud cover in the Arctic increased during warmer months, decreased in the colder months.
jl says: “they’re saying cloud radiative properties easily outweigh any greenhouse effect from CO2.”
There is no verifiable proof that cloud radiative properties outweigh the greenhouse effect.
After a few years, Kauppinen and Malmi, 2023, finally published their paper, Kauppinen and Malmi, 2025, Journal of Marine Science Research and Oceanography 8(2):01-07.
from the abstract:
“The human contribution to the CO2 concentration and the temperature is very small. About 90% of a big human release of CO2 dissolves in water. That is why the human release now warms the climate less than 0.03?C.”
Long on conclusions… short on data. They suggest that the increased temperature is driving CO2 out of the oceans and into the atmosphere!! Wouldn’t this suggest that ocean CO2 should be declining?
Tselioudis et al, 2025, GRL, Volume 52, Issue 11
“Sunlight absorbed by Earth is increasing, contributing to warming, with recent studies showing trends like ~0.45 W/m² per decade due to decreased cloud reflection, and an overall Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) trend of around 0.47 W/m² per decade (2001-2019) linked to cleaning up air pollution (sulfate aerosols) and rising CO2. While the planet generally absorbs ~240 W/m² of solar energy annually, this imbalance means more incoming solar energy is retained, accelerating heat gain, especially in oceans.”
They claim that in the 21st Century decreased cloud reflection is a result of continued warming. That’s like a positive feedback.
Decreased cloud reflection, or Earth’s diminishing albedo, is happening because global warming alters wind patterns, causing equatorial cloud bands to narrow and midlatitude storm tracks to shift, reducing highly reflective low clouds; this creates a positive feedback loop where less reflection leads to more warming.
Third hottest on record? OK, how far back does the record go? 140 years? 160 years? A blink of the eye when it comes to weather and climate.
Prof William typed: “1940. That’s “on record”. They did not want to touch the 1930s…”
William may have mistyped or is just ignorant of the facts. The 1940s were warmer than the 1930s. Are you once again arguing that it’s not warming?
The 2020s have been about 1.3°F WARMER than the 1940s which was warmer than the 1930s.
Yep, it’s warming! Why do you deniers feel ancient humans didn’t have weather stations all the around the globe way back when?
Even the UAH satellite modeling (skeptics J Christy and Roy Spencer) shows continued warming.
Yeah, more scientific “facts” from the Rimjob, a guy who claims a man can get pregnant.
LOL
BTW, since he didn’t bother to check before displaying his intellectual stupidity
Rimjob’s also incorrect about UAH.
“There’s no verifiable proof cloud radiative properties outweigh the gh effect.”
Bingo, J-you finally said something correct while taking about climate! Correct, there’s not, same as with CO2. As I’ve been saying all along, the science isn’t settled
Jill,
Science is never settled. There are no proofs.
Having said that, the scientific evidence supports the CO2 theory, but not the cloud theory, as the primary cause of 20th and 21st century global warming. Research continues.
Not really. Several of those papers mentioned show data from Clouds and the Earth’s Radient Energy System (CERES), a satellite system that measures long and shortwave radiaton reaching the earth. The data shows that shortwave radiation has been increasing, which would be more than enough to cause the current warming. See, for example Tselioudis et al, 2025
Jl: With the proper data, it only takes one.
That’s right. Which is why we looked at your first citation. And it didn’t support your claim. Nor did you address our argument: 1) You grant the greenhouse effect. 2) The greenhouse effect is consistent with current warming. 3) You claim something else is causing the warming. 4) But then what happened to the greenhouse warming? You simply ignore it, even though you already granted it.
Nice try-I started out simply saying there’s no verifiable cause -effect evidence of AGW, and there’s not. True statement. “And it didn’t support your claim”. But the others did, and it only takes one. “You claim something else…”. We already went over this-it’s not me claiming it, it’s the scientists who wrote those papers saying it. If you have a problem with that, take it up with those who wrote the papers. “You ignore it, even though you already granted it”. Why is this so hard for you? It’s the alternate theory proposed by many scientists. Oh, my-what’s being ignored? The gh effect keeps the earth warmer than it would be otherwise, but that’s no verifiable evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause of this warming. Why are you ignoring that cloud radiative effects can outweigh CO2 effects? I can reference you over 100 papers that say the doubling of CO2 gives less than one half of a degree, if any, of change.
Jl: I started out simply saying there’s no verifiable cause -effect evidence of AGW, and there’s not.
And, as was pointed out, that is wrong. The greenhouse effect is a direct result of fundamental physical properties. More particularly, once you grant the existence of the greenhouse effect, then it obviously follows that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases will increase the greenhouse effect.
Jl: it’s the scientists who wrote those papers saying it.
How many are named Steve? They have yet to convince their own colleagues, primarily because they don’t have the evidence.
BTW, Mr William typed: “But, you actually have to read down into the articles, sometimes very deep, to find this… ”
He was referring to the temperature histogram of global temps from 1940 to present. The graph was very, very early (page 1!!!) in the cited article.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/climate-change/2025-third-hottest-year-ever-recorded-rcna253087
Why would William lie about such a trivial matter? Why does trump lie about trivial matters?
Rimjob, why do you all the time?
Why do you claim that a man can get pregnant?
Is your life so boring that you have to continue to concoct such obvious lies?