.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

June is cooler in 2017 but still the 4th hottest June on record

Sou | 2:06 AM Go to the first of 25 comments. Add a comment

Summary: June 2017 was the fourth hottest June on record. The 12 months to June 2017 was the second hottest July to June period on record.

According to GISS NASA, the average global surface temperature anomaly for June was 0.69 °C, which is 0.10 °C less than the hottest June in 2016, making June 2017 the fourth hottest June in the record. It's the hottest June in any year when there was no El Nino.

Below is a chart of the average of 12 months to June each year. The 12 months to June 2017 averaged 0.91 °C above the 1951-1980 mean, which was 0.10 °C cooler than the 12 months to June 2016.

This makes it the second hottest July to June 12 month period on record.

Figure 1 | Global mean surface temperature anomaly for the 12 months to June each year. The base period is 1951-1980. Data source: GISS NASA


Next is a chart of the month of June only. This June was 0.69 °C above the 1951-1980 average and was the fourth hottest June on record. It was 0.10 °C cooler than June 2016, which was 0.79 °C above the 51-80 mean. 1998 and 2015 were both 0.78 °C above the 1951-1980 mean. If you consider that the surface temperature in June in 1998, 2015 and 2016 were affected by El Nino, then this June is the hottest June in a year without an ENSO event.

Hover over the chart to see the anomaly in any June:
Figure 2 | Global mean surface temperature anomaly for the the month of June only. The base period is 1951-1980. Data source: GISS NASA


ENSO year comparisons - another El Niño? Probably not.


In the chart below you can see the global mean temperature trend by month. It shows the strongest El Niño years since 1950, which were followed by a La Nina. I've included the 2015-17 period for comparison. The BoM ENSO update is now showing inactive, with no ENSO even likely this year.

Of the seven very strong, strong and strong to moderate El Ninos since 1950, there were only three that were followed by a La Nina (not including 2015-17, which I don't count). The chart spans a three year period. That is, for the 2015-16 El Niño and subsequent, it goes from January 2015 to December 2017, or would if the data allowed. (For a more detailed explanation see the HW articles: El Niño to La Niña years with more detail here.)


Figure 3 | Global mean surface temperature for strong or moderate/strong El Nino years that were followed by a La Nina. Also includes the 2015/16 El Nino for comparison. Data source: GISS NASA






Where was it hot?


In May it was very hot in much of Antarctica. It cooled right down there in June. Move the arrow at the left to the right to compare June with May.

June 17
May 17


Figure 4 | Maps showing mean surface temperature, anomalies for June and May, from the 1951-1980 mean. Data source: GISS NASA


Year to date chart


For the record, here is the year to date progressive chart. You need to understand what it is to make sense of it. The chart below shows the average temperature for the year at each point on each separate line on the chart. The topmost line is last year (2016). At January, the point is just the anomaly for January. At February, the point is the average anomaly for January and February. At June, it's the average of January to June inclusive - all the way to December, which is the average for the whole year.

So the 2017 year shows that the average for the period January to June is 0.94 °C. This is 0.16 °C lower than the average for the year was this time last year during the massive El Nino. The average over the entire 2016 year is 0.99 °C (the point marked for December on the 2016 line) so although it's not completely impossible for this year to be another hottest year, the next few months would have to be very hot for that to happen.

Figure 5 | Progressive year to date global mean surface temperature anomaly. The base period is 1951-1980. Data source: GISS NASA

The anomalies for the rest of the year would have to average at least 1.05 °C for 2017 to be hotter overall than last year. That seems highly unlikely. The anomalies would have to average 0.8 °C or less for 2015 to be hotter than 2017. That's not impossible.




25 comments:

  1. Well a temperature "recovery" is definitely underway, at least!

    And, it really was historically cold as hell here in eastern Newfoundland this May/June so that proves global warming doesn't exist too!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's the hottest June in any year when there was no El Nino.

    Back to you Judy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Denier world all aflutter over conclusions reached in research paper titled:

    "On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding"

    The gist is thus:

    "The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus,it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years
    have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.

    Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO 2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings."

    Paper by:
    Dr. James P. Wallace III
    Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo
    Dr. Craig D. Idso

    2
    The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of the Report:
    Dr. Alan Carlin
    Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
    Washington, DC.
    Author,
    Environmentalism Gone Mad
    , Stairway Press, 2015.
    Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
    BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
    Dr. Harold H. Doiron
    Retired VP
    -
    Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
    Ex
    -
    NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
    B.S. Physics, University of Louis
    iana
    -
    Lafayette
    M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
    Dr. Theodore R. Eck
    Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
    M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
    Fulbright Professor of International Economics
    Former Chief Economist of Amo
    co Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
    Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
    Dr. Richard A. Keen
    Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
    Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Color
    ado
    M.S., Astro
    -
    Geophysics, University of Colorado
    B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
    Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
    IPCC Expert Reviewer
    Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
    Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
    M.S., Atmospheric Sci
    ence, Purdue University
    Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
    Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
    B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
    Dr. George T. Wolff
    Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
    Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
    M.S., Meteorology, New York
    University
    B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't provide a link.

      Is it this one?

      http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

      Delete
    2. Anon you are posting on a science site not social media. Grow up.

      Delete
    3. It's a rehash of nonsense that this bunch of aged climate disinformers have put together before.

      What it looks as if they do is go to Skeptical Science and pick out a few denier memes at random, cobble them together, and feed them to deniers wherever they can find them. They aren't serious. They are just out to con anyone dumb enough to think that the USA is the whole world. Or stupid enough to think that all the world cooked up a giant hoax 200 years ago, and kept it a secret from the 8% dim dismals.

      Delete
    4. Very amusing that our anonymous friend informs us in all seriousness that it has the "Denier world all aflutter". So thanks to anon for showing us that deniers are a sad collection of gullible pricks and fossil fuel industry shills, but we already knew that.

      Delete
    5. "Thoughts?"

      Here are some thoughts from elsewhere:

      "... rife with flaws because they start from a desired conclusion .."


      "They don’t bother trying to hide their bias ..."

      "The paper itself has little scientific content."

      "Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false."

      "If this is the best contrarians can do, it’s no wonder that even Scott Pruitt thinks challenging the established climate science underpinning the EPA Endangerment Finding is a losing effort."

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming

      Delete
    6. Potholer54 has an analysis on his recent video about peer review. His legitimate beef is that this paper is being described as "peer reviewed" because they have a few people sign it to say they agree.
      https://youtu.be/LIlBsfTx3Kc

      Delete
    7. My interpretation is that Potholer's main beef is that this paper does not stand up to the briefest of scrutiny, at which point it really doesn't matter how many climate change deniers sing its praises.

      Delete
    8. Millicent, yes, when there are so many things wrong with it is is hard to pick out the main one!

      Delete
  4. A "research paper" published where?

    That's a serious question: the bizarre petition attached to it seems to indicate that, rather than relying on genuine peer review, it relies on a mass of Orwell's sheep bleating as loudly as they can.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW the stand out line from the Snopes *FALSE* is this pearler
      “This study was not published by the Cato Institute,” a representative of the libertarian think tank told us.

      Joe D’Aleo when Cato thinks you stink, then mate, you really do stink.

      Delete
    2. A climate change denier rejected by the climate change deniers. Oh, the shame! :-)

      Delete
  6. potholer has a new video on peer review

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIlBsfTx3Kc

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is it just me, or are other folk getting this message when trying to access Pharyngula, Greg Laden's, or other ScienceBlogs?

    Your access to this site has been limited

    Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503)

    Reason: Exceeded the maximum global requests per minute for crawlers or humans.

    Important note for site admins: If you are the administrator of this website note that your access has been limited because you broke one of the Wordfence blocking rules. The reason your access was limited is: "Exceeded the maximum global requests per minute for crawlers or humans."
    "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I got that this morning. It worked a little while later.

      Delete
    2. I got to Greg Laden's site okay. When I tried to post a comment I got your message, Bernard. Looks like a bug in one of the plug-ins that are used by scienceblogs.com (Wordfence). I expect it'll be sorted out soon (or later).

      Delete
    3. Its because you've all been banned!

      No, but seriously, thanks for the info. We are having a strange technical difficulty, worse on but not limited to mobile devices. I've reported it to the bosses.

      Delete
  8. I just found a bona fide ice age comether in Nunavut! In the comments to:
    http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674arctic_warming_events_are_more_frequent_and_last_longer_report_says/

    Fascinating.

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.