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 July 2013:
Roy Spencer
Global Temperature Report: July 2013
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
July temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.17 C (about 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.13 C (about 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.22 C (about 0.40 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.
Tropics: +0.08 C (about 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for July.
Go here to see the monthly satellite data since 1978.
In other global temperature trends news, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has declared:
Four major independent datasets show 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record, ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
You know what would make that graph even more interesting? Put another line on it showing atmospheric CO2 content. Let's see just how tight/loose the correlation is.
Actually, it wouldn't be meaningful; CO-2 doesn't have much of an immediate or direct effect.
It's the lagging feedbacks that matter.
Moreover, the interesting action has to do with the temperature profile of 24 hour cycles. I saw a very interesting chart once, which if I interperted it correctly, strongly suggested that an upper limit of surface air temps is a fixed number. At some point in the afternoon, that threshold gets hit, and a thunderstorm forms, knocking down the temperature by a good 5 degrees F.
It's really not a system that can be meaningfully described by one line squiggling back and forth over months/years.
"You know what would make that graph even more interesting? Put another line on it showing atmospheric CO2 content. Let's see just how tight/loose the correlation is." http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Unfortunately, the time-scales ain't even close.
"You know what would make that graph even more interesting?"
Yes, a graph showing Temperature fluctuations over the last 1 million years accompanied by a detailed analysis by a "consensus" of climatologists that explains every fluctuation.
The Oaks are patriarch racist oppressors, they will never let the Maples have equal sunshine. The only solution is for the government to cut down all trees, because fairness.
I don't see a problem with that statement, given that the accurate record only goes back to '79. It's like saying, "it's now hotter than when it was colder than it is now."
Don't worry. The planet is stronger than any city-statist civilization that may mar it's surface. We exist at Nature's sufferance, and when it decides it's suffered enough, the problem will be solved.
Probably not to the liking of the billions who will die, but the problem will be solved nonetheless.
For that matter, in a few hundred million years, the sun will have increased in output to the point that this rock is going to be boiled as dry as Mercury, so what the heck will it matter then?
Wait... didn't you just beat on a straw man? You catastophists need to get your talking points synchronized!
"I'm a global warming skeptic not because I don't believe the world will get warmer. It may. Climate changes. It always has. Man's carbon output might make it worse." http://reason.com/archives/201.....ange-myths
Now, did you have a point or are you just here to prove that you're not real bright?
It was within the first 20 pages of my first introductory statistics and probability textbook that they told me to always suspect graphs where the y axis doesn't begin at zero. Not because they're inaccurate. But because they can be graphically manipulative. That the x axis begins at 1979 is obviously because that's when the technology for making accurate measurements came online. But considering that we've been repeatedly told that the last 10-15 years during which warming has leveled off is too short a span of time to be of any analytical value, the entire span of the x axis seems positively useless.
You know what would make that graph even more interesting? Put another line on it showing atmospheric CO2 content. Let's see just how tight/loose the correlation is.
You know what would make that graph even more interesting?
Hitler?
The correct answer is 'bacon'.
Knowledge is power, France is bacon.
Actually, it wouldn't be meaningful; CO-2 doesn't have much of an immediate or direct effect.
It's the lagging feedbacks that matter.
Moreover, the interesting action has to do with the temperature profile of 24 hour cycles. I saw a very interesting chart once, which if I interperted it correctly, strongly suggested that an upper limit of surface air temps is a fixed number. At some point in the afternoon, that threshold gets hit, and a thunderstorm forms, knocking down the temperature by a good 5 degrees F.
It's really not a system that can be meaningfully described by one line squiggling back and forth over months/years.
Just showing that CO2 doesn't have much of an immediate or direct effect would be educational, because the standard warmist line is CO2 = hot.
"You know what would make that graph even more interesting? Put another line on it showing atmospheric CO2 content. Let's see just how tight/loose the correlation is."
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Unfortunately, the time-scales ain't even close.
"You know what would make that graph even more interesting?"
Yes, a graph showing Temperature fluctuations over the last 1 million years accompanied by a detailed analysis by a "consensus" of climatologists that explains every fluctuation.
Who wants pie?
Amazing! These data conform precisely to my position on global warming.
Amazing!
Hugh Akston, or Huell Akston.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=539jdK3eN1o
"Man it's hot. It's like Africa hot. Tarzan couldn't take this kind of hot."
Biloxi Blues? Really? Come on, ProL. You can do better.
no, he can't.
There is absolutely no evidence of that.
What? You don't like Biloxi Blues? That's one of the great Walken moments.
It's been cooler than normal around here for this time of year. I don't care what the tree rings say.
"And now I'll never--Gosh, it's hot--never see my bunny rabbit again."
You're the best. Hadn't thought about that cartoon in forever.
How about if the maples want more sunlight? Then would you care?
The Oaks are patriarch racist oppressors, they will never let the Maples have equal sunshine. The only solution is for the government to cut down all trees, because fairness.
Let those Canadian leaves look to Canadians for help.
Everyone knows Canadian Leaves are funnier than American leaves.
Stupid maple union members.
Now now, let's not RUSH to judgement.
It's hot in here... Must be Summer!
These assholes want me to get concerned over a 1/4 of a degree? I live in fucking Texas. When it's 109 with the heat index, 109.25 is fucking nothing.
Please don't wake Tony up from his progressive-self-righteousness-induced coma.
Please don't repeat that.
Please don't wake Tony up from his progressive-self-righteousness-induced coma.
You don't have to tell us twice.... Ooops! Too late! You told us twice!
Ha!
That would be either the lying dataset or the utter bullshit dataset. Take your pick...
/cynical sarcasm
I don't see a problem with that statement, given that the accurate record only goes back to '79. It's like saying, "it's now hotter than when it was colder than it is now."
Four major independent datasets show 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record, ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used.
So, still no net warming since 1998. Got it.
Lets see a data chart covering the last 100 million years, and then we can see if man or the dinos drove the biggest SUVs.
This chart is pretty informative.
My favorite set of historical temperature charts is this:
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
They really put short-term charts in perspective.
I'm going to bookmark that one. Excellent summary of the current state of affairs.
Same here.
Man, talk about "an inconvenient truth"!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q;_yl.....v=3?s=FSLR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YrIj4I7ecg
For some reason, I don't feel very alarmed after looking at that chart.
NEEDZ MOAR SCARIER BOOGEYMEN!
10 warmest years on record
The "on record" is only about 100 years long.
That's all the record we need to take top-down control of the world economy. Why do you hate science?
1 warmest year on record. Length of study: 1 year.
Oddly enough, it's also the coldest year on record...
SCIENCE!
Y'all are just en fuego.
?Soy caliente!
Don't worry. The planet is stronger than any city-statist civilization that may mar it's surface. We exist at Nature's sufferance, and when it decides it's suffered enough, the problem will be solved.
Probably not to the liking of the billions who will die, but the problem will be solved nonetheless.
"We exist at Nature's sufferance, and when it decides it's suffered enough, the problem will be solved."
Yeah, that mud-momma's just waitin' to get us, right?
*eyes boggle*
*shakes head from side to side*
Leaving the gambolers to reclaim the countryside, I suppose.
That reminds me... I really enjoyed the giraffe sighting in The Last Of Us.
Would they survive 20 winters in Utah?
Also I realize it is spring but without irrigation would Salt Lake City really be that lush?
For that matter, in a few hundred million years, the sun will have increased in output to the point that this rock is going to be boiled as dry as Mercury, so what the heck will it matter then?
Wait... didn't Stossel just say that your graphs are a hoax? You Reason authors need to get your talking points synchronized!
Wait... didn't you just beat on a straw man? You catastophists need to get your talking points synchronized!
"I'm a global warming skeptic not because I don't believe the world will get warmer. It may. Climate changes. It always has. Man's carbon output might make it worse."
http://reason.com/archives/201.....ange-myths
Now, did you have a point or are you just here to prove that you're not real bright?
I predict immense cooling in the Northern hemisphere over the next 6-7 months.
Not to worry. I leave my SUV idling for at least an hour a day. That should be more than enough to change the climate.
Right?
I hope so. Last January was awful cold.
That's horseshit. My personal, anecdotal experience tells me it was too fucking warm in January.
If a ski area in Vermont were to thaw in January, would anyone notice?
It was within the first 20 pages of my first introductory statistics and probability textbook that they told me to always suspect graphs where the y axis doesn't begin at zero. Not because they're inaccurate. But because they can be graphically manipulative. That the x axis begins at 1979 is obviously because that's when the technology for making accurate measurements came online. But considering that we've been repeatedly told that the last 10-15 years during which warming has leveled off is too short a span of time to be of any analytical value, the entire span of the x axis seems positively useless.
The last 13 years look warmer to me.