Last month was hottest May in more than a century in Florida

florida ocean
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

A steadfast carousel of high pressure over Florida last month led to the warmest May in more than a century with an average temperature nearly four degrees above what's normal for the fifth month of the year.

At 78.8 degrees—3.7 degrees hotter than normal—May in the Sunshine State earned the top spot for record heat in measurements that date back to 1895, according to a report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Florida was the only state in the contiguous United States that ranked hottest in May, but Southeastern states from Alabama to Maryland recorded above average warmth as the same area of high pressure cleared away springtime clouds.

Florida climatologist David Zierden said the May heat was more of a weather phenomenon than something tied to climate change.

"It was just a stubborn deep layer high pressure system that set up over us and was very persistent for two or more weeks," Zierden said. "We had warm high pressure here and troughing in the west and a battleground in between where there was all the severe weather."

More than 500 tornadoes were reported in May nationwide. That's more than double the three-year average of 226 and the most active 30-day tornado period since 2011.

At least seven Florida cities simmered through last month with their highest May temperatures, including Jacksonville, Gainesville, Tallahassee, Melbourne, Punta Gorda, Sarasota and Orlando. Weather Service figures show Jacksonville with an average monthly temperature of 78.4 degrees with a maximum high of 100.

"We were basically just in a quieter pattern where we had a good ridge of high pressure that was located somewhere in our vicinity over a portion of that time," said Sean Miller, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Miami. "A lot of times when we have high pressure set up we get an easterly flow which can cool it down a little bit so we might not have been as warm as other areas."

Miller said a lack of robust cold fronts was to blame for a warm winter.

"We had a decent amount of fronts, but no really strong ones, or very few strong ones," he said. "We just stayed a little further way from the higher mid-latitude weather that brings us the cooler intrusions."

Nationwide, May was marked more by rain than heat.

The National Centers for Environmental Information, which issues the monthly NOAA summary, said last month was the second wettest May on record and the second wettest month of all since January 1895.

The national average May rainfall was 4.41 inches, about 1.5 inches above normal.

Although a hefty early-May deluge left South Florida flush with rain for the month, including 6.27 inches in coastal Palm Beach County, North Florida is suffering from drought.

The U.S. Drought Monitor report released Thursday showed most of the Panhandle in a moderate drought or with "abnormally dry" conditions.

"This is what they call a flash drought," Zierden said. "It came on very suddenly."

Zierden said there has been no measurable rainfall in Tallahassee for about 18 days with high temperatures in the mid to upper 90s.

"Things dried out very quickly," he said.


Explore further

July warmer than average, year to date 3rd warmest for Lower 48

© 2019The Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, Fla.)
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Citation: Last month was hottest May in more than a century in Florida (2019, June 10) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-06-month-hottest-century-florida.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
98 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 10, 2019
And it was the coldest May in the north east. Go figure.

Jun 11, 2019
@fyyff.
And it was the coldest May in the north east. Go figure.
If you think about that for a while you will realise that means the cold/hot temp 'extremes' are getting MORE extreme while the 'average' may remain the same for a while during this transition period towards greater warming. It's these worsening extremes that are the problem during this transition period. And once the transition period is over and 'tipping point' starts the runaway greenhouse effect these extremes will be even worse and the 'new normal' won't be too kind to human life on Earth. It may have suited the Dinosaurs/Plesiosaurs etc, but you and your (I assume human, not 'bot') progeny will be sorry you ever let things get to that point, mate. Good luck to us all. :)

Jun 11, 2019
And once the transition period is over and 'tipping point' starts the runaway greenhouse effect


You need to take some Chemistry courses & learn to solve Rate of Reaction equations if you think runaway greenhouse conditions can exist at 0.04% of CO2 in any atmosphere anywhere in the Universe.

Tell me Unreal, at what % atmospheric content of CO2 do you think creates a greenhouse effect?

Do you even realize that if the present CO2 atmospheric content were spread evenly across the surface of the Earth that the blanket would only be 1/10 of an inch thick at the surface? Didn't know that did you? You also didn't know that CO2 is not spread evenly across the face of the planet & at 0.04% of atmospheric content it can never create a BLANKET simulating a greenhouse, it's way too leaky.

Jun 11, 2019
@Benni.
And once the transition period is over and 'tipping point' starts the runaway greenhouse effect
You need to take some Chemistry courses & learn to solve Rate of Reaction equations if you think runaway greenhouse conditions can exist at 0.04% of CO2 in any atmosphere anywhere in the Universe.
Mate, you're lucky I'm a much more kind, patient, polite responder than some others here. :)

Please understand that it's the 'triggering' stage of AGW that brings a 'tipping point' that is the real danger, and the human-caused increase in CO2 merely brings us closer to that stage....when VAST NATURAL EMISSIONS of both CO2 and Methane previously naturally long sequestered in clathrates/hydrates on land/in ocean and peat regions SURPASSES current AGW emissions. Get it? The AGW contribution will TRIGGER VAST NATURAL emissions that overwhelm the AGW stage. That is the TIPPING POINT; when all bets are off. Please study/consider ALL the relevant aspects, mate. Ok? :)

Jun 12, 2019
Please understand that it's the 'triggering' stage of AGW that brings a 'tipping point' that is the real danger
........if you think there's such a thing as a "tipping point" then solve the Rate of Reaction Equation for the tipping point of the CO2 levels I challenged you to figure out:
Tell me Unreal, at what % atmospheric content of CO2 do you think creates a greenhouse effect?

Do you even realize that if the present CO2 atmospheric content were spread evenly across the surface of the Earth that the blanket would only be 1/10 of an inch thick at the surface?
.......so once again Unreal, what's the "tipping point"? Or do you just want to prattle on about how "lucky" I am that you're such a magnanimous person?

Jun 12, 2019
CO2 always causes a greenhouse effect. How much depends on the concentration. More CO2, more greenhouse.

Not that a janitor is likely to understand that.

Jun 12, 2019
HEy its hotter than ever at point X !

'' CO2 always causes a greenhouse effect. How much depends on the concentration. More CO2, more greenhouse. ''

cept on Venus

https://www.youtu...n283fYbc

tell me where he is wrong

Jun 12, 2019
Venus has thousands of times higher CO2 concentration than Earth.

So, lie much?

Just askin'.

Jun 12, 2019
that all ya got ?

Jun 12, 2019
LMAO.
It's beyond amusing, what morons the AGW Cult take their Chicken Littles for.
Never mind, that it was way hotter in the 1930's when anthropogenic CO2 was insignificant compared to now.
https://realclima...-the-us/
Run for the hills, Chicken Shites.

Jun 12, 2019
@Benni.

Benni, you really ARE fortunate I'm not one of those respondents who ridicule you when you demonstrate you know not of what you bluster about. Lucky boy! :)

Consider the real physics/chemistry factors: Unlike water vapour which condenses/precipitates to create regions of dry air when it 'rains out' of the atmosphere, CO2 is a stable molecule which spreads ubiquitously via convection/turbulence and partial pressure dynamics. It thus stays in the atmosphere longer than water vapour and there is no equivalent 'dry region' where CO2 has 'rained out' of the atmosphere. Moreover, your assumptions re CO2-blanket 'thickness' is missing the crucial point that it is EACH MOLECULE of CO2 that is involved in IR radiation absorption/reflection, and NOT the CO2 'as a body of gas' as a whole. Get that? And as DS just pointed out for you, the overall NUMBER of CO2 MOLECULES in the atmosphere matters!...and any increase in that results in increased IR absorption/reflection. Ok? :)

Jun 12, 2019
@antigoracle.
LMAO.
It's beyond amusing, what morons the AGW Cult take their Chicken Littles for.
Never mind, that it was way hotter in the 1930's when anthropogenic CO2 was insignificant compared to now.
https://realclima...-the-us/
You and your equally incompetent 'source' missed everything: the world was transitioning from wood to coal and oil at a great rate just after 1900. This rate was accelerated in lead up to World Wars I and II. It was a QUADRUPLE-WHAMMY period for increased CO2 emissions: not only was the world STILL burning wood and peat for fuel too; industrialisation had also led to rampant deforestation; and there was a huge expansion of CHEMICALS production for fertilisers and gunpowder etc; and the fourth 'whammy' was the two World Wars themselves which saw a huge surge in STEEL and War Machines/Trains/Rail/Engines which FURTHER increased CO2 emissions, you 'dumb bot' you, @antigoracle. :)

Jun 12, 2019
does nitrogen get warm ?

Jun 13, 2019
@snoosebaum.
does nitrogen get warm ?
From memory, Di-Nitrogen Molecule N2 doesn't absorb at Infra-Red wavelengths much, if at all. Hence only its visible-light scattering effects rather than IR absorption/re-emitting are at play. Unlike CO2 molecule, which DOES 'heat up' by interaction with IR radiation. Once excited by IR radiation, the CO2 molecule can then transfer that energy-of-excitation to adjacent atmospheric molecules (like Oxygen/Nitrogen via collisions) and/or re-radiate it away as IR wavelength photons again in random direction. It's the re-radiated IR photons that are radiated horizontally and downwards that are the problem, because that is 'trapped' by the atmosphere/ground/oceans etc and 'lags' the otherwise IR loss rate to space which would otherwise have applied had not the CO2 intervened as it does. Hence the more CO2 in atmosphere, the more such trapping/lagging interventions by CO2 in Earth's/atmosphere's natural IR radiation out. Whence AGW. :)


Jun 14, 2019
so N2 can never get warm without co2 ? uh huh

co2 is saturated in the troposphere

cold mass can't heat warm [ ie from the tropopause ]

we are warm because the atmosphere has mass

the 'greenhouse effect' is a fraud

Jun 14, 2019
does nitrogen get warm ?


Uncork your bottle of liquid nitrogen and come back in four or three hours. If your bottle is empty, then yeah the nitrogen he got warm.

Jun 14, 2019
"Last month was hottest May in more than a century in Florida"

"cool to cold temperatures will hang on through April, especially in the Northeast & New England, Great Lakes & Midwest, as well as the north and south central states. This will be especially true in the Northeast, where a potent mid-April storm could even lead to wet snow, especially over higher elevations."

-Instantiation's a bitch eh?

Hey what's up ira?

Jun 14, 2019
@snoosebaum.
so N2 can never get warm without co2 ?
Wake up @snoose!...it's the rate of loss 'lagging' to space of Earth's Infra-Red wavelength radiation that we're talking about 'heating' atmospheric constituents. Awake now, mate? :)

Nitrogen molecules do NOT absorb Infra-Red wavelengths, hence answer to your question "is N2 "heated" (by IR radiation)?" is..."NO".

To help you focus on the salient point, let's consider the situation where Earth's atmosphere was 100% Nitrogen: then ALL IR radiation leaving Earth would escape to space unimpeded, and hence no atmosphere 'warming' at all from that infra-red radiation, and hence NO 'greenhouse effect'.

Hence 'heating' of Nitrogen in Earth's present atmospheric makeup is from absorbing/scattering OTHER wavelengths, NOT IR wavelengths; AND also by collisions with molecules (including WATER Vapour/Clouds) which absorb/scatter BOTH IR *and* OTHER wavelengths of solar radiation (CO2 being one such for IR).

Try to focus, mate. :)

Jun 14, 2019
Nitrogen molecules (which you specifically asked about) do NOT absorb Infra-Red ''

actually it does like everything else'

https://principia...iKfQV_5g

''.it's the rate of loss 'lagging' to space of Earth's Infra-Red wavelength radiation ''

who cares ? cold air will not heat warm , AND ' they' r equating by analogy [the dripping bucket one ] the action of gravity on a liquid to thermodynamics

Jun 14, 2019
@snoosebaum.
Nitrogen molecules do NOT absorb Infra-Red
actually it does like everything else'
Everything RADIATES but NOT ABSORBS IR. :)

https://principia...iKfQV_5g
Your 'source' is confused about what actually happens in a CO2 laser with added Nitrogen. Here is what REALLY happens, @snoose:

https://www.quora...O2-laser

Note that ENERGY INPUT is via ELECTRICAL-energy pumping, not IR-energy pumping:
When electrical current is introduced to the gain medium, the nitrogen molecules are excited to a vibrational state. Because these molecules are comprised solely of nitrogen, they will retain this vibrational energy for long periods..
Your incompetent (ie, ANTI-AGW-troll-factory-approved) 'sources' are FU, @snoose. Stop being such a willing "weaponised stupid" for them. :)

Jun 14, 2019
RC is once again resorting to psychological terrorism in his own unique pompous manner.

You and the rest of the AGWite are confused in your paranoia.

Jun 14, 2019
More bullshit from the AGW Cult.

June 29, 1931: Monticello records
hottest-ever Florida temperature, 109°

http://www.florid...ida.html

Jun 14, 2019
here is one using lasers they get the same result, nitrogen (2331 cm-1)

https://www.ipm.f...ases.pdf

Jun 14, 2019
@snoosebaum (and @cantdrive85 if reading).
here is one using lasers they get the same result, nitrogen (2331 cm-1)
https://www.ipm.f...ases.pdf
@snoose, that is clearly explained as a gas-matter-interaction process which outputs 'signals' from INNER CORE'light-matter-gas-construct' indicating Raman spectra (ie, vibrational states) due to SCATTERING etc...NOT ABSORBING IR. So first understand THAT crucial difference so as to dispel your obvious confusion. That's also why I already earlier mentioned that 'scattering' was distinct from 'absorbing' IR etc. Remember? Note that even YOUR (this time scientifically erudite) REFERENCE above states:
Raman spectroscopy does not rely on molecular dipoles, which enables the technique to monitor important process gases like molecular oxygen, NITROGEN and hydrogen WHICH ARE INVISIBLE TO INFRARED ABSORPTION spectroscopy.
Understand it now? :)


Jun 14, 2019
@cantdrive85.
RC is once again resorting to psychological terrorism in his own unique pompous manner.

You and the rest of the AGWite are confused in your paranoia.
Please first read what I just posted to @snoose to help him rid himself of the confusion which the (by now well exposed/refuted) ANTI-AGW-troll-factory sites/sources have been creating not only for themselves but for anyone taking their word for anything asserted therein. This is why I've been patient with @snoose rather than just ridiculing and dismissing him without explaining for his education and confusion-busting understanding of the scientific/logical reality re AGW factors/processes.

@cant, it wouldn't hurt you to just listen and learn for a change when it comes to AGW-Climate Change evidence instead of just mouthing un-argued mischaracterisations like you just did about me. At least @snoose is trying to research/understand the cause/source of his confusion re AGW-exacerbating atmospheric constituents. :)

21 hours ago
Thought I'd check on rc drivel...

"the role of UV modulation of ozone and the role of Nitrogen and any impacts of solar and cosmic radiation induced changes in ionization levels have been ignored. Nitrogen is roundly dismissed as not active in the IR bands, despite it being enough of a pain in the telescope that as far back as the 1940s folks noticed and measured it with a galvanometer.

"There IS "back radiation" in the IR band from nitrogen. It DOES modulate with solar activity / sunrise and set. It is also ignored. That, alone, makes most of the dreck served up as "climate science" rather useless."
https://chiefio.w...r-a-ghg/

Bullshit as usual.

16 hours ago
''WHICH ARE INVISIBLE TO INFRARED ABSORPTION spectroscopy. '

which is why they use Raman instrumentation instead

Great find Otto , thanks

9 hours ago
@TheGhostofOtto1923.
Thought I'd check on rc drivel...

"the role of UV modulation of ozone and the role of Nitrogen and any impacts of solar and cosmic radiation induced changes in ionization levels have been ignored. Nitrogen is roundly dismissed as not active in the IR bands, despite it being enough of a pain in the telescope that as far back as the 1940s folks noticed and measured it with a galvanometer.

"There IS "back radiation" in the IR band from nitrogen. It DOES modulate with solar activity / sunrise and set. It is also ignored. That, alone, makes most of the dreck served up as "climate science" rather useless."
https://chiefio.w...r-a-ghg/

Bullshit as usual.
Don't give up your day job, @Otto. The topic was ABSORPTION not 'SCATTERING of IR by Nitrogen. That's why I clearly pointed out the difference for @snoose when I said:
Everything RADIATES but NOT ABSORBS IR. :)
Please be more careful in future, @Otto. :)

9 hours ago
@snoosebaum.
[qWHICH ARE INVISIBLE TO INFRARED ABSORPTION spectroscopy.


which is why they use Raman instrumentation instead

Great find Otto , thanks And that "instrumentation" is based on the matter-light interaction within a SPECIALLY designed CENTRAL CORE of a FIBRE CONSTRUCT which produces a signal to indicate Nitrogen spin etc states due to SCATTERING and NOT ABSORPTION. The whole point of using such contrived structures is because Nitrogen IN FREE AIR does NOT ABSORB IR and so is INVISIBLE to such wavelengths; which your OWN reference pointed out in agreement with ME re atmospheric Nitrogen NOT being heated by ABSORPTION of IR but by other INDIRECT means as I earlier posted for your information/understanding. You should have just learned from that reference and left it at that, INSTEAD of 'believing' self-confused/ignorant posers/argumentative types on the internet like your first reference (and like @Otto just again demonstrated himself to be above). Take care. :)

9 hours ago
@snoosebaum.
WHICH ARE INVISIBLE TO INFRARED ABSORPTION spectroscopy.
which is why they use Raman instrumentation instead

Great find Otto , thanks
And that "instrumentation" is based on the matter-light interaction within a SPECIALLY designed CENTRAL CORE of a FIBRE CONSTRUCT which produces a signal to indicate Nitrogen spin etc states due to SCATTERING and NOT ABSORPTION. The whole point of using such contrived structures is because Nitrogen IN FREE AIR does NOT ABSORB IR and so is INVISIBLE to such wavelengths; which your OWN reference pointed out in agreement with ME re atmospheric Nitrogen NOT being heated by ABSORPTION of IR but by other INDIRECT means as I earlier posted for your information/understanding. You should have just learned from that reference and left it at that, INSTEAD of 'believing' self-confused/ignorant posers/argumentative types on the internet like your first reference (and like @Otto just again demonstrated himself to be above). Take care. :)

9 hours ago
ERRATA: Please note I resubmitted the QUOTES-REFORMATTED post to @snoose just above because the quotes-edit of the first post wasn't submitted within the three minute time limit. Thanks.

8 hours ago
seems to me there is some confusion here, why all the concern about IR ? [ because to top of the atmosphere radiates '' ] [ not the whole story ] but in the troposphere nitrogen still gets warm which was my original point.

7 hours ago
from a comment in the link above , which makes my point , u don't need GH gas

''In the troposphere radiative transfer varies proportionally to the square of the pressure which renders the lower atmosphere increasingly opaque to IR radiation once the pressure exceeds 0.1 bar. This explains why temperature falls with altitude in the troposphere.''

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