Home ›

Hottest recorded June makes ignoring global warming difficult

by Matt Jansen on July 15, 2010
in

Hottest recorded June makes global warming skepticism difficult A single data point does not a pattern make but this past June is the hottest month ever since we’ve started recording temperatures, and 2010 has also offset 1998 as the year with the most warmest months. Facts like that make it difficult to claim global warming is a figment of imagination, and it shifts the discussion more toward what causes it instead.

Humans certainly are creating carbon dioxide (among many other waste materials) and pumping them into the atmosphere but so far scientists haven’t been able to prove the connection between that waste and global warming. At least not to the satisfaction of businesses and other entities that are profiting from said waste production.

The NOAA says:

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 61.1°F (16.2°C), which is 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average of 59.9°F (15.5°C).

It gets better though because temperature have direct impact on more than just human-inhabited areas.

Arctic sea ice covered an average of 4.2 million square miles (10.9 million square kilometers) during June. This is 10.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent and the lowest June extent since records began in 1979. This was also the 19th consecutive June with below-average Arctic sea ice extent.

Related articles

That’s a pretty strong indication that something fundamental is changing on our planet. The problem with convincing people to change is that it’s difficult to predict exactly what the net effect will be. It’s difficult enough to predict the weather for this week in a local town let alone what will happen to the climate globally over the next century.

Beyond the difficulty of predicting climates and stakeholders who are marketing against the signs that global warming is occurring, there are also scientists who are changing the reported outcomes of their studies. Overall that leads to an understandable confusion on what exactly is happening, but consistent measurements like those from the NOAA certainly paint an indicative picture.

Comments

by Anonymous (not verified) on July 15, 2010 - 7:48pm.

This is the same NOAA that ignored the fact that the thousands of ergots they sent out should a very slight reduction in average ocean tempurature when the average tempurature should have been warming according the the models.  Bad science is when the data is changed to match the hypothesis.  Centuries of ship data was also changed to match what the models predicted.  The US government has a history of such bad science, including the  EPA study on second hand smoke (I don't support second hand smoke) that no one has been able to reproduce.

The government moto for science shoud be "If the data does not match our hypothesis, change the data"

 

by KV (not verified) on July 15, 2010 - 8:57pm.

What I am still trying to understand is, wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution than to kick yourself later because you were so close minded to the possibility that it was actuality happening? Unfortunately, even feeling this way, sometimes I still wonder what it is I can be doing to make a true difference.

by Joe (not verified) on July 16, 2010 - 7:16pm.

KV,

I often wonder that too! And I don't think everyone will fully understand the importance of the issue. Humanity can be quite stubborn! I usually just accept that as it is and try to do my part instead of wasting energy towards convincing the opposite group. :)

by Eve (not verified) on July 21, 2010 - 1:29pm.

KV, how to we err on the side of caution? Understand that if we shut the entire planet down for the next 50 years, there would be no change in temperature going by the C02 model. What would shutting the planet down mean? No heat, no air conditioning, no way to refrigerate or cook food. No water. No transportation which means no food so not a worry about cooking or refrigerating it. No hospitals, no medical care, no police. No jobs so no money but at least there would be no government. How many years do you think we humans could live like that. I don't think we would make a week.

Please explain what is "err on the side of caution"? More windmills? The ones that need oil in them? That will not run without oil and do not run without wind? Solar panels? We could cover the entire country with solar panels and we would still not have enough electricity not to mention no transportation or food.  Biofuel? We would need 10 USA's to grow enough food for biofuel to replace oil and then no food for us or electricity or roads or places to live.

The people who say this have to think hard about how this can be done. Nuclear electricity generating  plants are a must. Forget biofuel and wind. Solar panels maybe if they can be made more efficient and then they might make 5% of our total electricity. We need research into an oil alternative. All the money being wasted presently on climate research should go into oil replacement research. In the meantime, keep all the current electicity generating plants operating and start building nuclear plants like crazy. Do not impoverish the country by implementing a carbon tax or cap and trade.

Then let's hope the next glacial does not start shortly. That is a whole new set of problems.

And remember the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced warming is still an unproven hypothesis. The theory of natural variability has not been found to be false.

by Jesse McGreevy (not verified) on December 21, 2010 - 6:36am.

There has been a lot of talks, debates and suggestions on Climate change and instead of debating and wasting or consuming more time it is better to implement the solution. Instead of discussing so much and making the matter more complex the concerned authorities should channelize and use the funds for the right purpose. Climate change, gas emissions or global warming is not only the America's problem to solve, all the countries should come together and we as responsible citizens should start doing what we can towards protecting the environment.

Grandezza Real estate