June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors

Jul 15, 2010
Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature data also found the January-June and April-June periods were the warmest on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, which based its findings on measurements that go back as far as 1880.

In June, the combined average for global land and was 61.1 degrees Fahrenheit (16.2 Celsius) -- 1.22 degrees Fahrenheit (0.68 Celsius) more than the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 Celsius).

Temperatures warmer than average spread throughout the globe in recent months, most prominently in Peru, in the central and eastern United States and in eastern and western Asia, according to NOAA.

In contrast, cooler-than-average conditions affected Scandinavia, southern China and the US northwest.

The Beijing Climate Center found that Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang and Jilin experienced their warmest June since records began in 1951, while Guizhou saw its coolest June ever.

Spain's nationwide temperatures made June the coolest in 13 years, according to its meteorological surface.

Global ocean surface temperatures averaged 0.97 degrees (0.54 Celsius) above last century's average of 61.5 degrees Fahrenheit (16.4 Celsius) -- the fourth warmest June since records began. The Atlantic Ocean saw the most pronounced warmth, NOAA said.

The average land surface temperature that month was 1.93 degrees Fahrenheit (1.07 Celsius) more than the 20th century average of 55.9 degrees Fahrenheit (13.3 Celsius) -- the warmest ever.

Meanwhile, sea surface temperatures were declining throughout the equatorial Pacific Ocean, in line with the end of El Nino, a that lasts an average of five years during which unusually warm in the Pacific Ocean move east.

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center forecast that La Nina conditions, where ocean waters in the east-central equatorial Pacific are unusually cool, would likely develop during the northern hemisphere summer this year.

Explore further: NASA balloons begin flying in Antarctica for 2014 campaign

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer

Sep 16, 2009

(AP) -- The world's in hot water. Sea-surface temperatures worldwide have been the hottest on record over the last three months, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday.

Earth records 7th warmest July on record

Aug 15, 2007

Scientists said the month of July brought record and near-record warmth to the Western United States and was the seventh warmest July in recorded Earth history.

Golden State Heating Up, Study Finds

Mar 28, 2007

Average temperatures in California rose almost one degree Celsius (nearly two degrees Fahrenheit) during the second half of the 20th century, with urban areas blazing the way to warmer conditions, according ...

2008 Was Earth's Coolest Year Since 2000

Feb 23, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. The GISS analysis also showed that 2008 is the ...

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 40

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Caliban
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 15, 2010
What? You mean a century-class solar minimum hasn't produced a cooling effect on global temperatures- but rather, average global temperature continues to rise?

Doesn't make me happy to say it, but it appears that the "tipping point" may well have already been passed...
Birger
3.5 / 5 (17) Jul 16, 2010
Cue for warming denialists to cry "conspiracy" in 3..2..1..
extremity
2.2 / 5 (17) Jul 16, 2010
The title of this article is very misleading. Mankind has been around for a long time, yet the dates for recorded temperatures only go back to the 1880's. To say that this was the hottest month ever is just inaccurate. Especially when the temperature records only go back 130 years which is miniscule in the timeline of Earth.

Cue for warming denialists to cry "conspiracy" in 3..2..1..


In regards to this comment. Global warming is a very young and still half-formed idea. People forget that land masses and climates are constantly changing. And most people only look at the air temperature and water surface temperatures and claim that global warming is occuring. Which we only have 130 years of records on... When you look at what Geologists say, who work with core samples that are hundreds, thousands, and up to a million, of years old, they say its a trend. I can't argue about increased temperatures, but when the scientists with the most data say otherwise, we need to rethink it..
mysticshakra
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 16, 2010
Is it really hotter than when the planet formed? ;)
marjon
2.3 / 5 (20) Jul 16, 2010
"Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.

He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.

"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.

He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher."
http://www.usatod...rd_N.htm
Amazing, a bit of fair and balanced reporting.
tngho
2.1 / 5 (21) Jul 16, 2010
Does this surprise anyone? Noaa is a department administered by the US Commerce Department. Another propaganda arm of the Obama administration. Control the message!!
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (25) Jul 16, 2010
Does this surprise anyone? Noaa is a department administered by the US Commerce Department. Another propaganda arm of the Obama administration. Control the message!!


Yeah, good thing we've got the Wall Street Journal, Fox, and Rush to counter all this liberal-leftist-communist-socialist propaganda. I would hate to think that policy might be influenced by the consensus view of the vast majority of the best minds in Science.
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 16, 2010
@majon

You cannot compare NASA lower tropospheric satellite data with sea and land surface temperatures. Apples and oranges.

The lower tropospheric temperature is the average temperature of the atmosphere form ground level to 8km unlike the land and sea surface temperatures.

The 0.43c satellite anomaly is based on the 1979 to 1998 average whilst the 1.22c surface anomaly is based on the 20th century average.

A meteorologist would know this. I would hope he was misquoted otherwise his comments are deliberately misleading.
ThinkFirst
4.2 / 5 (12) Jul 16, 2010
@SteveS
Thank you for setting the record straight. It is sad to see so many comments being driven by ideological views instead of verifiable scientific facts. These uneducated comments show that it is much easier to follow an ideology than to take the time to study and understand the problem. We need more people like you who can speak out and show others how to use our intelligence!
po6ert
2.3 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2010
hottest in the period for which reliable temperature is availible as a direct observation.
the last 150 years is statistically insignifcant as a data set, as is the last month
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 16, 2010
hottest in the period for which reliable temperature is availible as a direct observation.
the last 150 years is statistically insignifcant as a data set, as is the last month


Yeah, and of course it is entirely beside the point that we've got reliable proxy data that extend over the past several hundred thousand years.
ormondotvos
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2010
I believe the real scientists: Rush Limbaugh, John Boner, Fox News, superannuated weather blabberers.

Them other people is just ivery tower akademmics.
SteveS
4.9 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2010
@ThinkFirst

Thank you for your comments.

You have chosen a good name, unfortunately I think it is probably wasted on this site.

I stopped posting last year when it became obvious that very few people actually wanted a debate.

The marketing term Astroturfing comes to mind.

@Jonnyboy

I would be interested in your views on my posting, you obviously did not agree with it judging by the rank you gave me.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2010
reliable proxy data

How reliable? The NAS was very critical of Mann's proxy data used to fabricate the hockey stick.
twango
5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2010
@SteveS: Some of these people think "debate" means: you scream your opinion, they scream their opinion, the loudest wins.

If anybody ever introduces them to the concept "reasoning" (and they're in the minority -capable- of abstract reasoning), they'll have to reconstruct their worldview from square one.
Truth
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2010
Can someone explain to me why Scandanavia, China, NorthWest U.S. and Spain experienced a cooler than average June, as the article says, and why NOAA forecasts ocean waters in the east-central equatorial Pacific to be unusually cool, again as the article says? Thanks!
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2010
@Truth,

El Nino/La Nina cycles. The atmosphere is a fluid, and its mechanics are those of fluid dynamics.

The EN/LN cycles cause the build up of airmasses of persistent pressures and densities, which flow over or under other airmasses, dependent on the same qualities relative to them -denser sinks, lighter ride over.

When one of these really large, persistent air masses piles up, and remains relatively stationary, it disrupts the flow pattern/rate of overlying airmasses(think the jetstream), which are forced into a new pattern of flow, and since they are genrally flowing transversely, east to west, with the rotation of Earth(not forgetting Coriolis), when they encounter an obstruction, it deforms the flow, and creates a trough.

The trailing air mass then starts to deform harmonically(minus topographic interference, et c.), much like in a train wreck, where the cars start to form a zig-zag pattern as they overtake the stopping cars in front of them.

contd
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2010
contd

Since the EN/LN phenomena persists for months at a time, they cause these flow deformations to become established over much the same time frames, which means that weather patterns become more or less stable over broad areas in roughly the same latitude bands, which produces, for example, the pattern of cooler( or warmer) than usual temperatures in Scandinavia, China, NW US, and Spain.

Does that explaination make it any clearer? It may help to look at a world map, and note lat/long, and proximity to ocean verge. But, what would be truly revealing would be to find a map that represented the position of the northern hemispheric jetstream over that time period, in those latitudes.
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2010
Michael Mann, of the Meteorology Department of Penn State, has told his side of the story of The ClimateGate Whitewash in a letter to the editor published in today's Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj...14.html. His position is that the papers he didn't like were substandard. There is no example or discussion so it's a matter of his judgment vs. that of others. This does not seem like rational argument to me, but perhaps that is the new standard of scientific discussion. Last time I heard, Mann was the one who refused to release data and formulae used to generate the "hockey stick" graph.

more -

Jerry Pournelle - Chaos Manor - http://jerrypourn...l#Friday
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2010
@shootist,

I get from the letter that, according to mann, many other scientists also harshly criticised Soon and Baleunis for a flawed study(funded by the Petroleum Institute[doesn't this raise issues, in and of itself?]), the legitimacy of which was questionable to the point that several staffers at Climate Journal quit over its being accepted for publication.

This varies considerably from your interpretation, but that's the way I read it.

By the way- you might want to fix the link to the letter, since a period has been added to the end, and broken it.
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2010
Link works for me?

Pournelle's point is that it is not possible to measure the "Earth's temperature" within one degree C, while Mann and his people release temperature data interpretations in the 1000ths of a degree.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2010
Link works for me.
"I would find climate debate a great deal more rational if Mann would spend more time explaining how he comes up with his hockey stick, and less time castigating those who don't agree with him. "
http://jerrypourn...l#Friday
kraisar
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2010
He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.


This reminded me of an interesting paper talked about at http://www.skepti...ord.html (and many other places such as Weather Underground: http://www.wunder...um=1419, but it was the first that came up in Google). Basically they went through all the stations listed by Watts and all the volunteers who take pictures of 'bad' weather stations near such things as AC's etc. Then taking these out they find that those so called bad ones actually have cooler maximum temperature readings than the 'good' ones and warmer minimum temperatures and yielded an overall cool bias compared to the weather sites that are not questionable. The particular claim that badly situated weather stations lead to a warm bias seems to be no longer valid.
newsreader
3.3 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2010

Wow, this is very scary. I wonder what the results for July will be. Where I live July has been MUCH warmer than June.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2010
Statistics are a funny thing. You should be careful about what you are reading here.

Here in South Carolina, we had the second warmest June on record. However, that is not the whole story really. Our average daytime high temp was nowhere near the highest on record, and we did not actually have any record high temperatures the whole month. The high average for the month was the result of warm humid nighttime temperatures, causing the daily average to be elevated. This was actually not a very remarkable month of weather here. I can't speak for other places, but that's the simple truth here.

We just had a lot more evening rain than usual for June and now everything is so about as green as I've ever seen it. It's been really nice actually.
Jim_McKney
3.6 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2010
they should allow the deniers and business folks access to all the datasets so they can compile them for themselves...
I love all these non-believers when some of the world's top scientists who have been doing this stuff for a living for a long long time have proof in the pudding. Its like peak oil (http://en.wikiped...Peak_oil )
If you don't think we've hit this already, yah gotta be pretty stupid. For the proof is in the pudding when we start going out into the ocean for it or boiling tar sands with natural gas...

Anyhow, to think that we go through 86 million barrels of oil - yes, thats dead plantation, animals, etc... lots and lots of energy that lived on this planet millions of years ago... a day.
Without consequence is just foolish. Give yourself a pinch folks... for the business folks will sell you your own toilet you sit on!!!
Don't be naive and gullible for they will make money off you and rob you blind at the same time.

Jim_McKney
4.1 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2010
Most scientists don't make much dough. They do it because they love it and they sacrifice their life to prove it.
Most business people failed physics, biology, and chemistry. So, they have no concept of limits of the planet and will spend every last cent of it even if it means death to the nation (same goes for most politicians that want your vote!)...

I'd believe a scientist over a business person.

And, there is no doubt that some of the deniers are lobbiests who work for the big corporations... its what they do best - pull the smoke and mirrors out as not to show their true intentions...

GSwift7 - the data is an aggregate. Take stats... you'll see what they are doing. Not rocket science.
Its an aggregate of the world's overall temperature. Not just North Carolina... read the stuff closely!
Jim_McKney
4.6 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2010
There is no way in hell that we burn through 86 million barrels of oil a day without consequence. Think of all that energy. Each gallon contains 30000 calories.

Deniers will be out full force denying this one for sure...
When it comes to money. We'll sell off this planet in no time flat. Us humans are greedy little creatures and disbelief any harm to our existence. Blind we are due to our addiction of consumption and self interest. We've gotten too large for this planet all 6.5 billion of us have... Many signs stating so. Yet, we deny because its easy and we are naive. Even more so, we are addicted to our easy going ways of the all-american big apple pie culture... yet, the USA is in such a mess at 15 trillion dollars in debt... debt, it has to be due to inefficiency to some regards, scandal, and wasteful ways... over consumption really. Out of control over consumption. That fuels the fire that kills this once fine planet. Shame on us really.
codybryant
Jul 19, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2010
All this localized data NOW proves AGW, the colder weather earlier does not?
AGWites keep preaching "you can't look at short term local data to measure climate". So why should June data matter?
eurekalogic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2010
Follow the money like the last scare of ozone depletion. I was an AC mechanic back then and made a mint. I loved Dupont. Their patent ran out almost to the day the ban went into affect. I will make a mint from global war-ming. This one is a much bigger profit maker. Stop fighting this, the sheepel are ready to be fleeced yet again. You smart guys on the right stop hurting those nice folks with caring hearts for the world. They are my money makers. If you hurt them I will be angry you ruined my gravy train. Besides why fret. If the earth is actualy cooling all the better to sell that the GW policies worked. Same thing we did with ozone. We just took pictures at varing months knowing ozone had a yearly cycle but by taking pictures at various months we grew and closed the hole as we pleased. Same for the warming. Take pictures now of hot cities and later of cool pastures. For all I know a cooling would guarantee me a mint in global warming stocks by proving we were right
piersdad
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2010
what ever happens we will have hotter areas and colder areas.
some places will become uninhabitable.
(the vikings from greenland)
and population will migrate
seaside houses may get demolished more frequently and never replaced.
glaciers might melt and less water to the plains.
nothing new ancient civilisations died from their interference with local climate (deforestation)
china is on the right path with their one child family to restrict population.(despite their shortcommings.)
the 2 world wars cured some of the overpopulation.
With less habitable space and more people we are headed for a very critical time.
anyway most researchers in my opinion will ignor (some times unwitingly) data that does not fit their aim and report what they think is right
po6ert
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2010
hottest in the period for which reliable temperature is availible as a direct observation.
the last 150 years is statistically insignifcant as a data set, as is the last month


Yeah, and of course it is entirely beside the point that we've got reliable proxy data that extend over the past several hundred thousand years.

get prospero caliban the during the period of time
you envisage say 1200 ce the greenland ice sheet
was in major retreat. 125000 years ago the sea level was 8 maters higher than today. proxy temperatures are in the eye of the approximators
who are willing to ignor the geologial and historical record. we are living in an intergalacial period in an ice age. Hottest ever on record cannot include your proxy temeratures
Broadlands
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2010
In the contiguous U.S. this June ranks as only the eighth warmest since 1895. The two warmest Junes were in 1933 and 1918. Annually, two-thirds of the RECORD high temperatures in the U.S. were recorded before 1955. More than half were recorded from 1921-1934. None has been recorded since 2003.
Broadlands
3 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2010
Jim McNey: RE: scientist's dough. Michael Mann (Penn State) received $6.4 million from the US taxpayers over the last four years. Some sacrifice!

BTW, regarding your dismissal of GSwitf7, it was SOUTH Carolina not NC. The warmest year on record for SC was 1925 and the warmest June was 1952. South Carolina is one of eight states whose long-term temperature trend is DOWN. The others are Alabama. Arkansas, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, and Tennessee. North Carolina is essentially level... no change in 114 years.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2010
"At least 175 people have died in the coldest winter in South America in recent years, officials in six affected countries said, dpa reported."
Thousands of cattle also froze to death on their pastures in Paraguay and Brazil. There are no stables for the animals as temperatures usually do not drop that low."
http://en.trend.a...309.html
stm_wrp
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2010
@marjon part of the whole picture is the idea of climate chaos. Bill McKibben wrote in eaarth (no typo) that we are all screwed.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2010
What chaos?
I grew up in SD where the climate was always changing.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2010
"During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs."http://www.scotes...mate.htm
I guess the headline is correct as 'June' has only been in existence for a few centuries.
GaryB
4 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2010
"During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs."http://www.scotes...mate.htm
I guess the headline is correct as 'June' has only been in existence for a few centuries.


Civilization as we know it is charitably about 5000 years old. It grew up in a benign window. Messing with this is stupid. Even now, look at where people live in dense masses: Mainly in the temperate areas near oceans. If it were me, I wouldn't want to toy with the current habital areas ... we're unlikely to win the next roll of the dice.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2010
Mainly in the temperate areas near oceans.

India is temperate? What do you mean by temperate?
Cities like NYC, London, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc are densely populated because of location, location, location to shipping resources.
Increasing temperatures will expand the current habitable areas.
BTW, the population of Las Vegas 100 years ago was about 100.
treemikey
Jul 31, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.