Temperature Trends

Hottest June on Record, Says National Climatic Data Center

|

Temperature Trend
Dreamstime: Meryll

The National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its global average temperature figures for June 2014. The NCDC reports:

  • The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).
  • The global land surface temperature was 0.95°C (1.71°F) above the 20th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F), the seventh highest for June on record.
  • For the ocean, the June global sea surface temperature was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), the highest for June on record and the highest departure from average for any month.
  • The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–June period (year-to-date) was 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average of 13.5°C (56.3°F), tying with 2002 as the third warmest such period on record.

This is in contrast with the global temperature trends reported by University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer who find that June 2014 was the fourth warmest in the satellite record. They note:

The global average temperature for June was 0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms for the month, warm enough to tie June 2013 for fourth warmest. (The warmest June was in 1998, during the "El Niño of the century." Global average temperatures in June 1998 were 0.51 C [about 0.92 degrees F] warmer than normal.)

Below is a comparison of global temperature trends through May 2014 between the two satellite datasets (UAH and RSS) and the three leading surface datasets including the NCDC one.

Temperature Comparison
climate4you

For more background, see my article, "Did Federal Climate Scientists Fudge Temperature Data to Make It Warmer?"

NEXT: Court Rules That Subsidies in Obamacare's Federal Exchange are Illegal, Dealing Huge Legal Blow to Health Law

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. That’s it, then.

    We’re all gonna die.

    1. Sooner or later, fo shizzle.

  2. It’s getting hot in here!

      1. Nice. I’ve never seen that.

        My wife and I play over/under on how long it takes Bobby Lee to strip. 1:02. I definitely would have taken the under.

  3. OT:

    Federal appeals court rules subsidies paid through a non state run program illegal.

    “The 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia?not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.”

    1. Guess I’m too late.

      *runs from room crying*

  4. Wait, according to the satellite data, this June is exactly the same as last June? Obviously proof of AGW!

    1. DO NOT question the man behind the curtain

    2. Just means the ‘researchers’ forgot to salt the trend with enough correcting adjustments. If you’re going to use numbers they have to be tortured first. So they’ll say what you want them to say.

  5. Yeah, why does this ring so, “I don’t give a fuck, and I trust nothing anyone publishes about this subject any more?”

    I dunno. Prolly just me…

    1. I dunno. Prolly just me…

      Oh, no, it’s not just you.

      1. YOU MEAN I’M NOT UNIQUE!!11

        *lip quivers…runs from room sobbing*

        1. Aww, Almanian and Sammich’s cycles have finally synched.

  6. This June was Too Hot.

  7. Near as I can tell, the IPCC prediction basically means that, in 100 years, Tucson will be as not as Phoenix is now.

    Much as I prefer Tucson weather to Phoenix weather, I don’t regard this as a catastrophe.

    1. The AGW horror stories change with the weather — they now have a data point to tell you how we’re all going to melt, but soon they will be back to Hurricanes, floods and droughts (even though no data supports AGW causing those).

      1. Obviously , you are a denier, bought and paid for by big air-conditioner.

    2. “Tucson will be as not as Phoenix is now”

      Enough already with the zen koans.

      1. Is it not in Phoenix how?

    3. Is Tucson cooler than Phoenix?

  8. Thing is, the spike in temperatures this June was likely due an El Nino that is already peaked and fading according the Peruvian authorities.

    1. Dammit. I was hoping for another epic ski season, since my wife is going to be due in April. It’ll be the last one for me for a couple of years.

      1. Just leave the wife home with the kid. What’s the problem?

        1. The problem is the high likelihood of the kid being plural.

          1. She’s got two breasts, right?

            To skip a ski season for something like child rearing?

            Priorities.

    2. That’s not what Peru said. They said the same thing that other El Nino experts are saying…the threat of an extraordinary strong El Nino has subsided, not the occurrence of an El Nino. We haven’t had it yet.

      http://in.reuters.com/article/…..0A20140705

      And NASA maintains its prediction at a 70% chance of El Nino this summer, and 80% this fall.

      http://www.undercurrentnews.co…..ood-at-80/

  9. (The warmest June was in 1998, during the “El Ni?o of the century.” Global average temperatures in June 1998 were 0.51 C [about 0.92 degrees F] warmer than normal.)

    Who has been playing with that damned thermostat again? The NORMAL temperature should be….

    ….

    …. (will be right with you.)

  10. Yep.

    That chart looks EXACTLY like Al’s hockey stick.

    Except for the part where all that red shit at the end didn’t happen.

    1. He snapped off his blade on that last slapshot.

      Told him he should’ve gotten a better stick….

      1. Damn one pieces. Guaranteed my ass.

        1. My wood sticks never broke. Now I’m switching out blades every 3 months.

          Two-piece master race reporting in

          1. I’ve got about 20 sticks in my garage, 15 wood. Those 15 are whole. The remaining 5 are graphite/composite. Those 5 all need a new blade.

            They’re like running shoes…the more complicated and expensive they got, the worse they became.

          2. And combining this with the topic at hand, good to see the NHL understands science.

            http://thehill.com/policy/ener…..ate-change

    2. First rule of science, if the data can be bent into an icon of blue collar life get out the hammer. There’s a reason why it’s not called a golf club chart.

  11. Hunh. Here in NM, June was actually cooler than normal.

    1. CO, too. July has been balls-hot, though.

  12. Japan Meteorological Ad. also said it was the warmest June ever. I think NASA had it tied for third. Regardless, it was warm. And all occurring this year so far without an El Nino, which supposedly has a 70% chance of occurring.

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t…..n_wld.html

    Which begs the question for those who say there has been no warming for the past 15 years (starting of course in 1998, the year of the El Nino of the century): after 2014 is in the books, do you then start measuring from 1999? Or is it 16 years that need to be measured? If so, then why not start at 1997 now?

    Don’t bother…I know the answer.

    1. You start in 98 because that’s when the change took place.

      You start at now and work back to when it differs. There is no cherry picking here. The temperature STOPPED going up, despite increases in CO2. It’s when the average global temperatures started deviating from the models.. The longer the temperatures don’t match the model, the more inaccurate the model. PERIOD!

      1. You’re certainly cherry picking. And if not, then you don’t understand how temperatures work on a timeline.

        On the chart below, you would have said in 1965 that there has been no increase in temperatures for the past 23 years (going back to 1942). And you would have been wrong then too. Temperatures are going up.

        http://thinkprogress.org/wp-co…..-FINAL.png

        You only pick 1998 now because it gives you the answer you want.

        1. How many years of deviation will be required before you conclude the models are wrong, Jack?

          A 16 year period is half as long as the models have existed. Those models were built in the late 80s, looking backwards. They’ve done a fantastic job of demonstrating what had already happen. As a predictive method, they have been an abysmal failure. The predictions were NOT only for increased warming, BUT at an accelerated rate. Just the opposite has happened.

          How long, Jack?

          It IS NOT cherry picking when you look at data from the time of change. Something caused the change. If you can’t explain it, your model is shit.

          1. We’re not talking about models, Francisco. We’re talking about actual temperatures, and whether or not there is a trend. There is, and its up.

            Like I said just below, you would have said 1942 was the change, because it was a peak. Until of course the next peak, and the one after that, and the one after that.

            For some reason, which you never will be able to explain, NOW we have reached the peak in 1998.

            Until, of course, the next one.

      2. Let me put it this way. You would have said 1942 was the year the change took place, and all measurements should start at that year.

        Of course, by the 80’s, you would have changed your tune.

        1. So did the increase in CO2 stop between 1942 and 1965? Is there an explanation for the pause? Can they explain the current pause?

          The answer to all three is no. And not only no, but they have no fucking idea.

          Yet they are sure SUMBUDDY NEEDZ TO DO SUMTHING! IF WE DON’T DO SUMTHING WE’RE SHURELY GUNNA DIE!

          Bullshit, Jack. The best thing we can do about AGW, if it even exists, is to adapt. I suspect the net benefit will be positive rather than negative as warmer is preferable to colder.

          1. No, it didn’t stop between ’42 and ’65. But temperatures paused. Just as they have all throughout the chart. They don’t go up in a straight line, like CO2 emissions fairly do. That doesn’t negate the relationship between the two.

            But your last sentence says it all…you suspect there will be a net benefit. You’ll have to get back to us as to the temperature increase where the benefits stop.

            1. It sure as shit negates the relationship between the two if you cannot account for what caused the pause.

              We know an increase in CO2 makes the temperature go up…except when it doesn’t. And it doesn’t here, here and here. We don’t know why not. We think it’s magic, but we aren’t sure. But we know CO2 makes the temperature go up.

              And it’s gunna be a dis-ass-ter unless we get sum moar funding!

              1. Fair enough. To you, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases do not cause warming.

                So much for science.

                1. Of course it’s a greenhouse gas. AND OF COURSE greenhouse gasses increase temperature.

                  And here on earth it’s a trace gas existing in the atmosphere at 250 PARTS PER FUCKING MILLION, recently increased to 400 ppFm.

                  That makes it 0.04% of the atmosphere. Twice nothing is STILL nothing.

                  It’s like adding a drop of water to your beer and claiming you can taste the difference.

                  Is it warming? Sure. Is it CO2 that’s causing it? EXTREMELY skeptical.

                  1. Got a question for you…there are over one trillion cells in your body. If one of them is cancerous, is it a problem? Just want to see about your understanding that ratios are not the be all and end all.

                    1. False analogy.

                      Are you claiming CO2 molecules are going to spontaneously reproduce and grow at a geometric rate?

                      It took a hundred years for the CO2 to go from 250 to 400 ppm. In that time the temperature rose about 1 degree F.

                      Do you honestly believe we’ll be burning fossil fuels 200 years from now? The only thing that will ensure that is slamming the brakes on innovation and technology, in the name of saving the planet.

                      We’ve reduced our CO2 emissions to comply with Kyoto by simply switching to natural gas (due to fracking technology).

                      So even if that 1 degree increase WAS due to CO2 (which I seriously doubt), I’m pretty sure we can stand a 1 degree increase every 100 years, until we discover something better or perfect what we have. For god sake, we could switch to nuclear energy tomorrow and eliminate the entire issue, but we won’t. Because it isn’t really about saving the planet, it’s about supporting bullshit science that corresponds to a political position.

                      This is NOT a crisis, and nobody NEEDZ TO DOOO SUMTHING!

                      We wait. See what happens and innovate based on that. NOT on wild-ass predictions based on models that CLEARLY do not represent reality.

                    2. The comparison has more to it than you think. Its a small number of CO2 molecules in parts per million that creates a change in temperature, and is validated in high school experiments.

                      And the point from climate scientists is that you get to the level of CO2, since it stays in our earth processes for a couple of hundred years (yes, out of the atmosphere fairly quickly, but back into the earth, which again gets released back into the atmosphere), that the warming will continue unabated, and not stay the same. You cant just turn the temperature increases off like a faucet. Meaning that the temperature increases rise, not unlike cancer spreading.

                    3. Horse-fucking-shit.

                      Too drunk for credible argument at this point.

                    4. If it was from single malt, I would have joined you, and we would have spent the evening talking about sports rather than this. Have a good one.

                    5. That’s a common misconception Jacksand Ace. The direct warming from CO2 is fairly uncontroversial but also relatively insignificant — the real question is whether strongly positive feedbacks amplify that warming to potentially problematic levels.

                      Climate science activists insist it will, the evidence suggests not.

                      Also, a high school science class would need a budget in the tens of millions to detect temperature changes from CO2 changes in the PPM range 🙂

                    6. Got a question for you…there are over one trillion cells in your body. If one of them is cancerous, is it a problem?

                      Generally, no, it’s not. Your body probably has thousands, if not millions, of cancerous cells in it right now. Those cancerous cells are usually dealt with by your body’s immune system before they can become a threat. It’s only when your immune system can no longer deal with it that it becomes a problem.

                      This is why doctors are starting to suspect that screening for cancer is less cost effective than previously thought, because there are too many false positives on cancers that pose no threat.

                      In the case of CO2, the planet’s immune system are plants. They thrive in high CO2 conditions, as they use CO2 to create energy. It’s one reason why a higher-than-normal CO2 concentrations aren’t necessarily disastrous, especially when the concentrations are so low.

                    7. Not millions, but yes a number of cancer cells. But the question still remains and is valid…potential danger from a small ratio exists in numerous places in nature, not just cancer cells. But remember, you have well over 2 trillion cells in your body. No matter what number you want to take as being cancerous, its still a small percentage…and dangerous.

            2. “You’ll have to get back to us as to the temperature increase where the benefits stop.”

              Good question. Probably at some point above the MCO, which is warmer than it is likely to get this century.

              Here’s Matt Ridley on the very strong consensus that warming is net beneficial — something that was never controversial until very recently: http://www.rationaloptimist.co…..-2080.aspx

  13. Oh dear, they didn’t get their stories straight. They actually said the entire first half of the year was warmer? But they were saying the polar vortex was the result of climate change. You gotta fix your narrative and then fix the data, guys, or we’ll never believe you.

    1. Hopefully one day you will understand the difference between global temperatures compared to temperatures in one portion of the globe, such as North America.

  14. HIDE THE DECLINE baby!

  15. Hi Ron, I’ve been remiss in not commenting on this before, 70 hour workweeks and small children 🙂

    Anyways, your July 1 article on the NCDC issues is probably the best one I’ve seen. As I wrote and published my own code to validate Heller/Goddard’s claims (one tiny piece of evidence among a flood of others that convinced Watts that Goddard was in fact on to something) I find some small personal vindication in noticing today NCDC’s statement on the same day that there was, in fact, a serious error that needed to be corrected, their concomitant claims of all is well!” notwithstanding.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..-designed/

    That said, reading Heller’s site and web feed for some months, he’s always made another (perhaps stronger) criticism, one that applies to BEST as well as NCDC: numerous proxies suggest the adjustments are wrong.

    BEST should not be viewed as a validation of NCDC. I know Zeke and others like to claim this, but this is like claiming that a set of directions that get you to the wrong address must be correct because other sets of directions using different streets also lead to the same wrong address. The validation should be against the results, not the methods.

  16. And there are serious problems there. I have been trying off and on to establish a comprehensive list, but off the top of my head we have: Great Lakes ice extent, Great Lakes ice latest dates, snowfall, economic indicators, number of 90 degree days recorded, number of 100 degree days recorded, known siting issues, and the late twentieth century proxy decline that led to the infamous “hide the decline.” All of these suggest that the mid-1930s were warmer than the current temps — exactly what the raw data says.

    Some of these comparisons are laugh-out-loud ridiculous. For instance, if you look at the Great Lakes regional temperatures for 2014, you’ll see NCDC finds them to be considerably warmer than average, despite the fact Great Lakes ice extent and latest ice date both have the largest values on record for the United States over the last 120 years. Has AGW changed the melting point of water? The raw data says 2014 was the coldest year on record. Which of those is more plausible?

  17. The burden of proof should always weigh much more heavily on those who claim the raw measurements need adjustment — as you correctly point out, when the adjustments are as large as the reported trend, this says the signal/noise ratio is high, and one can always find a desired signal in sufficiently noisy data.

    And among other problems, the BEST team’s methods found negative UHI, which defies all common sense. Does anyone really believe making individual stations warmer is creating a cooling trend?

    And back to productive things for me 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.