Global Temperature Trend Update: June 2012

|

Every month University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through June, 2012.

Global Temperature Trends thru June 2012

Global Temperature Report: June 2012

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

June temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.37 C (about 0.52 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.54 C (about 0.79 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

Southern Hemisphere: +0.20 C (about 0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

Tropics: +0.14 C (about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

June Average Temperatures since 1973

Notes: Compared to global seasonal norms, June 2012 was the third warmest in the 34-year satellite record, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. It was the second warmest June in the Northern Hemisphere, second only to June 1998, during the El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event "of the century." It was the seventh warmest June in the Southern Hemisphere and the 11th warmest in the tropics, where rising temperatures may hint at the approach of another El Nino.

NEXT: Reason.tv: The Politics of Poker and Why It's Time to Legalize Online Gaming

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It was hot today.

    1. Yep, and the liberals are of course taking full advantage of this (admittedly brutal) heat wave to claim that it’s proof of global warming. Never mind that the heat wave is going to be over in like two or three days.

      1. if the records that were broken had been set the year before and the year before that, then we might have a trend. But if the previous record dates back a decade or five, that’s called an anomaly.

        Knowing the difference would require independent thinking, which is anathema to the left.

  2. And every month the same comments get posted in response to the Reason blog post.

    1. But it’s so much fun to have the same arguments all over again!

      Never gets tiring. Ever.

      -Weather isn’t climate! Unless it is!

      -Climate change is here! Except the climate has always been changing!

      -Mankind has caused the earth to warm faster! Except we really don’t know what the temperature averaged during the last warming period!

      -The science is settled! Except that true science is never settled, and a consensus doesn’t necessarily mean ultimate truth!

      The oceans are rising fast and swallowing up island nations! Except the oceans have been doing that ever since there were oceans!

      I probably missed a few.

      1. Burning hydrocarbons doesn’t release CO2.

        Or

        CO2 doesn’t trap radiation.

        Or

        Liberals are poopyheads.

        Or

        Subsidizing oil and coal is OK because blurbleblurbleblurble but a penny to clean energy is teh sochalizum.

        1. Oh Tony, don’t you ever change. Your strawmen are just as cute as ever!

          1. Dude, don’t respond to it. Just don’t.

          2. Oh, so you do support large shifts in energy policy to counter the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels?

            Eventually you guys are gonna have to articulate a real point-of-view on this topic, because just saying “strawman” over and over seems a cheap way to assert that your beliefs are actually coherent, yet somehow too mysterious to explain.

            1. Oh, so you do support large shifts in energy policy to counter the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels?

              I support large free market shifts in energy policy which by definition counter negative externalities.

              For example natural gas is supplanting Coal and because of that and other things has caused CO2 emission in the US to have nearly dropped to 1990 levels.

              http://wattsupwiththat.files.w…..12_eia.png

              To put this in perceptive the market has solved the “problem” quicker then any proposed government solution ever could have by their own estimates.

              1. Yeah but that solution does not have us in caves using moonlight to see. So in the long run we are still dead.

              2. What role has a free market played in heavily subsidized energy industries? Yes, I know renewables are subsidized just like oil and coal (though ethanol is counted in tallies of renewable subsidies).

                That graph, from a source well known for being outside the scientific mainstream, doesn’t show what you claim it shows. It shows no correlation between increased natural gas use and decreased CO2 emissions. It shows a slight uptick in emissions from natural gas and an overall downturn in emissions almost all in coal and oil–right around the time of a massive global economic downturn. Hmm.

                1. It shows a slight uptick in emissions from natural gas and an overall downturn in emissions almost all in coal and oil–right around the time of a massive global economic downturn. Hmm.

                  I said natural gas and other factors. I should also point out that CO2 emitted per $ of GDP dropped in that time period. So it is not just a matter consuming less fossil fuel because of an economic down turn. We also got more efficient at using it.

                  If your business is going out of businesses you look for ways to save money. Consuming less fossil fuels is a good place to save money.

                  I should point out the incentives caused by a carbon tax are the same incentives that cause people to be more energy efficient during a down turn.

                  I should also point out that the efficiencies gained in the past 4 years have been better then any estimate of efficiency gained from a carbon tax.

                  Lastly the graph is an emissions graph…Natural gas gets nearly twice as much energy per CO2 given off then coal. Do the math. A small uptick in natural gas CO2 is only about half the size as how much energy it produced.

            2. T o n y|7.6.12 @ 3:36PM|#
              “Oh, so you do support large shifts in energy policy to counter the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels?”
              Prove the ‘externalities’ are negative, shithed.

              “Eventually you guys are gonna have to articulate a real point-of-view on this topic, because just saying “strawman” over and over seems a cheap way to assert that your beliefs are actually coherent, yet somehow too mysterious to explain.”
              Yes, and you’ve read many of them. And if you quit posting bullshit, why you might not be called on it, shithead.

            3. Here’s a real point of view. People are going to keep using petroleum until is is not economically viable to do so, regardless of what policies rich western countries put in place. Whatever the effect is on global temperature is, it is going to happen and people will have to deal with it.

              I am also convinced that the positive benefits of using fossil fuels outweigh the negative externalities they cause. Far more lives are saved because of cheap abundant energy than are lost because of global warming.
              Doing something is not always better than doing nothing.

              1. I’ll bet a pile of money Tony still uses fossil fuels.

                1. I people had a practical option not to then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

          3. Tman, is Episiarch the boss of you?

            1. Of course not, he’s always a catcher.

              1. You’re responding to Mary, dude. This is her latest pathetic attempt to troll.

                Ignore her.

                1. Epi, every ignoramus isn’t Mary. Shithead is more than capable of abysmal stupidity.

                  1. Wrong Sevo every ignoramus is Mary…and T o n y….and Shriek….and……Pale Idiot…and and and…..

                2. Tman, your daddy said to ignore me. Obey your daddy.

                  1. James Otis, you’re not fooling anyone.

        2. Tony you have been here long enough to know we don’t support subsidies at all. Gas, oil, solar, farm, your massive gay porn collection. Consistent policy, give it a try, you might like it.

          1. I can’t try it because polluting energy industries are too powerful and won’t stop demanding favorable policies and government loot. What do you propose to do about that? Because, and I’m not sure you know this, CATO-libertarianism is hellbent on maintaining the status quo.

            1. T o n y|7.6.12 @ 3:40PM|#
              …”Because, and I’m not sure you know this, CATO-libertarianism is hellbent on maintaining the status quo.”

              Hmm, let’s see: The evidence shows there is no crises. Those who can reason rather than emote decide the actions currently driven by market forces seem to be adequate for the concerns. So, amazingly, they see no reason to chose poverty to ‘solve’ a non-existent ‘problem’.
              Shithead, OTOH, wants to ‘punish the sinners’; the hell with the data.

            2. Doesn’t the rent seeking apply to alternative energy companies/interest groups as well? As to energy policy, I already explained the solution — do not give favor to one energy source over another. Let the market determine optimal distribution and price. To your point on libertarianism being hellbent on maintaining the status quo, I am not really sure what you mean. CATO energy scholars consistently favor removing goverment interference in energy markets. To imply that the status quo is an unregulated energy market is the height of stupidity.

              1. The status quo is an energy market deeply affected by subsidies–and a century’s worth of them. But the important point isn’t to be found by hurling dollars per kWh back and forth, because the important point is that a nonsubsidized energy market makes practically no sense. In a modern society energy must be universally, cheaply available at all times. No free market will deliver that, and it has always required central planning in one form of another. Right now it’s not a free market that delivers us cheap energy, it’s an autocratic Muslim regime acting as half of a mutually beneficial partnership.

                Given that the planet’s energy infrastructure is fossil-fuel-based, it’s nearly comical to talk about making a fair competitive market in energy. There is, and can be, no such thing, ever. And that’s without even addressing environmental externalities.

                The fact that by all appearance libertarians are hellbent on ignoring climate change science is quite plainly evidence of my claims: the free market can’t handle climate change even in theory, so rather than alter your obviously flawed perfect-market beliefs, you just stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalala.

                1. Why does your government keep giving them money?

                2. it’s an autocratic Muslim regime

                  I like making fun of Canada as much as the next guy…but you go too far Tony.

                  Too Far!

                  1. I was writing my reply to Tony and you beat me to it, joshua corning.

                3. T o n y|7.6.12 @ 4:14PM|#
                  “In a modern society energy must be universally, cheaply available at all times”

                  Define “cheap”.

                  1. “universally, cheaply available at all times”

                    as in wind power that only produces when the wind is blowing and can only compete with massive subsidies.

                    or as in solar power that only produces when the sun is shining and can only compete with massive subsidies.

                    or perhaps coal powered plants that produce according to demand and produce electricity cheaply so Tony can post his inane comments on HR.

            3. Tony

              “Right now it’s not a free market that delivers us cheap energy, it’s an autocratic Muslim regime acting as half of a mutually beneficial partnership”

              This is a curious point of view. We get oil from a huge number of sources. Only 1 of the top 5 qualifies as an autocratic Muslim regime. Unless you are talking about all the Mohammedans in the country to the north. If you are concerned about the geopolitical implications of importing Middle East oil, consider backing efforts to increase domestic exploration, which has the added benefit of providing jobs in the U.S.

              As to your point about “perfect market beliefs” I never implied I was hoping for a perfect market. Clearly there are huge externalities and historical distortions. I am in favor of moving in the market direction and having less interference from government both in terms of regulating (nuclear plants, blocking pipelines, preventing domestic exploration) and in subsidizing (Solyndra, wind farms, oil company tax breaks) There is far too much picking of winners and decisions are driven by special interest politics.

              1. A vast amount of the economy is the result of government “picking winners and losers.” Every contractor the government uses is an example. Subsidies are meant to serve practical social ends, and I find absolutely nothing wrong with subsidizing research and deployment of clean energy, considering the massive social benefit. Cronyism is a problem, one that libertarian philosophy absolutely maximizes by encouraging a) political spending as free speech and b) concentrations of private economic power able to challenge government for influence. Why should government have unquestioned domain over private power centers? Because it’s democratic and they are not.

                1. Subsidies are meant to serve practical social ends, and I find absolutely nothing wrong with subsidizing research and deployment of clean energy perpetual motion machines,

                  Shorter version … fools like Tony see nothing wrong with funding something that doesn’t work.

        3. 0.14 degrees C per decade for about 2 and a half decades….

          Tony explain how that trend is in anyway historically exceptional?

          Also who ever said burning hydrocarbons does not release CO2 or that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation?

          Note: I corrected your “CO2 doesn’t trap radiation.” statment. It is technically incorrect but I got the gist and rather then claim that you are an anti-science illiterate I just let it pass. So how honest debate works?

          1. Fine, so how do you reconcile your implicit claim that there has been no exceptional warming with your understanding that there has been increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases over the past decades?

            1. T o n y|7.6.12 @ 3:42PM|#
              “Fine, so how do you reconcile your implicit claim that there has been no exceptional warming with your understanding that there has been increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases over the past decades?”

              Because they seemingly have little connection?
              How hard is that, shithead?

            2. Easy.

              One of two things is happening.
              -CO2 is in part responsible for the warming plus natural factors.

              -or It is all Natural factors.

              Either way the 0.14 degree rise per decade is well below the “consensus” climate change theory that you hold on too. Climate change theory postulates that CO2 will rise and the temperature rise will cause more water vapor in the atmosphere. There is no evidence that water vapor has increased and there has been no temperature increase that corresponds with that non-event.

              1. Forgot a point.

                Climate change theory postulates that CO2 will rise and the temperature rise will cause more water vapor in the atmosphere.

                Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and the supposed rise should cause the temperature to rise even more. According to climate change theory anyway.

                We have not seen that increase in water vapor nor that increase in temperature.

            3. Easy Tony – CO2 itself is widely understood to only create a modest amount of warming and at a diminishing rate of return. It is a weak greenhouse gas. The models used to predict al gore style doom and gloom are all based on the theory of large net positive feedback loops due to this incremental warming. However, empirically, the projections of these models have just not been true. It is perfectly legit to say CO2 is causing some level of warming but that its effects are perhaps minimal and it is not worth it to create a massive government boondoggle that will do more damage then any .1 degree difference it may make 100 years into the future. And as the graph up thread showed, the switch over to natural gas from coal, and increased fuel efficiency driven by high oil prices has already reduced US C02 emissions faster than the creators of Kyoto ever dreamed of.

        4. “Liberals are poopyheads.”

          Well, you finally got something right. Heh.

  3. It is hotter than hell today here in Chicago.

    1. I have often wondered….exactly how hot is hell?

      1. Exactly as hot as it is at the time the expression is used. People only say “it is hot as hell out” referencing hell’s temperature to the current heat.

      2. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death

        This implies that the temperature of hell must be at or below the boiling point of brimstone, which is 444.6?C.

        So, there’s an upper limit for you.

        1. And the melting point is 115.21?C, so that’s the lower limit.

          Assuming hell is at 1 bar, that is.

    2. I was thinking earlier it would have been hilarious if Chicago had won the 2012 olympics instead of London and they had decided to hold the games in early July.

      1. Chicago was bidding for 2016, not 2012.

  4. I don’t care about this, I only care about the fact that Seattle has been on a beautiful weather streak since the 4th, and it rocks. Not a cloud in the sky.

    OH NOES WARMING TREND

    1. Yep I’m thinking there will be plenty of eye candy on the boat going home in a couple of hours.

      1. You’re such a dope for living all the way out there.

        1. You won’t be saying that when the zombie apocalypse comes. They’ll hit the cities first; it’ll be like shooting fish in a bucket.

          1. Yeah, but I can get to the piers on Alaskan really fast and take a yacht to get out. See, I have the whole thing already planned out.

            1. I hear some of those fuckers can swim really fast. They don’t need to breathe, after all.

              1. Which means they have no buoyancy. See? It’s all. Planned. Out. And I even know which pier I want to get my boat from.

      2. To Bainbridge or Kitsap? I used to live in Seattle and took the ferry into PSNS every morning. A lovely ride.

        1. Kingston. This time of year is awesome to ride. During the winter its not my favorite though.

    2. SF is just about the norm; 50’s and fog in the morning, low 60s by the afternoon.

  5. This makes a lot of sene dude. WOw.

    http://www.privacy-folks.it.tc

  6. These guys make a lot of sene dude.

    http://www.Privacy-Peeps.tk

  7. My garden is happy, and so am I.
    Gonna spend the afternoon canning the most beautiful tomatoes you have ever seen. Making various sauces and can them for future use. spaghetti, cowboy stew, chili, sauce piquante…..yum.

  8. What I would like to know from the man made climate change folks is, exactly what temperature is ideal? Surely someone has a benchmark?

    1. They don’t have an ideal temperature because it has nothing to do with that. It’s about power, control, and FYTW.

    2. The correct answer is 72 degrees, with 50% humidity. Ask the people who run casinos, they know what it takes to keep people in the building.

  9. I’ve spent four hours the last couple of days watering the trees. Who cares about the grass. I haven’t mown the lawn in almost 5 weeks.

    1. Oh, and weather ain’t climate!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.