US scientists say June was hottest since 1880

WASHINGTON: -- The US government's climate agency Monday reported that this June's global temperatures were the hottest since record keeping began in 1880.It was also the 352nd consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th-century average.

Record warmth was registered in Greenland, parts of northern South America, areas in eastern and central Africa and parts of southern and south-eastern Asia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

The average temperature for land and ocean surfaces around the world was 16.2 degrees Celsius, compared with the average of 15.5 degrees over the past century.

The report supported warnings by climate scientists that the world faces temperature increases of 4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century, if no preventative action is taken.

The only way to avoid drastic rises in sea levels and lethal drought is to keep that increase to 2 degrees or less, they say.

Global average temperatures have already risen by 0.85 degrees since 1880.

To keep below the 2-degree-Celsius increase, the world would have to lower global greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide by 40 to 70 per cent compared with 2010 - and do it by 2050. International negotiations on climate have stalled. The next round is slated for Paris in 2015.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/US-scientists-say-June-was-hottest-since-1880-30239135.html


-- The Nation 2014-07-22

Maybe it is Russia testing its geo-thermic weapons of mass destruction over the US mainland.

Do you think they're going to keep this up until everyone is frozen solid?

Do you think they're going to keep this up until everyone is frozen solid?

No, they will blame the freezing temperatures on rising temperatures.

I only wish what our scientists say and what our politicians say were the same thing.... We have one party which insists that there is no such thing as global warming...

But.. but.. seventeen years! Polar vortex! Global warming cash cow! 97% myth!

Did I miss any?

Interesting to see here a pro climate change scientist referred to as "climate scientists" and in other articles anti climate change scientists are referred to as "climate change skeptics"

Funny, I have just been reading about places that are breaking cold records. (NZ, OZ, Ireland, US Midwest)

Funny, I have just been reading about places that are breaking cold records. (NZ, OZ, Ireland, US Midwest)

Believe it or not, the average global temperature is not measured in New Zealand, Ireland or the midwest USA.

"Record warmth was registered in Greenland, parts of northern South America, areas in eastern and central Africa and parts of southern and south-eastern Asia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said."

Such a small sample to claim the average temperature for the entire world. They make it really difficult to accept the theory when the data appears to be manipulated.

Are they now suggesting there was "Global Warming" in 1880? The climate has been changing since the beginning of time.

Funny, I have just been reading about places that are breaking cold records. (NZ, OZ, Ireland, US Midwest)

Believe it or not, the average global temperature is not measured in New Zealand, Ireland or the midwest USA.

Maybe they should have included those places in the average.

Classic.

We constantly hear from the climate alarmists that one swallow doesn't make a summer; that short-term events are irrelevant; that six cold European winters in a row don't disprove global warming theory; that the 18 years of flat global temperatures is not enough to show that climate models are flawed.

But take one data point, one month where the figures seem to be favouring the alarmists, and they go into meltdown shrill megaphone mode -- must slash carbon emissions, "lethal" doomsday awaits, must act now, etc etc etc, and the compliant global media and other nitwits pick it up without a moment's pause.

The most endangered species of the 21st century is undoubtedly critical thinking.

Phew, I remember it well hot enough to boil a monkey's bum it was!

<deleted>' cold where I am now.

Not my home City ... but close enough ... "Brisbane hits coldest temperature in 103 years"

I'm off to cut another tree down to burn it tonight.

FGW

Keep it to 2 degrees or less by limiting population growth? Global population was 1.5 billion in the 1880s, over 4 times that now. Let those same scientists discuss it with the leaders of less developed nations(how to control population growth). Plenty of ice in that igloo.

"Record warmth was registered in Greenland, parts of northern South America, areas in eastern and central Africa and parts of southern and south-eastern Asia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said."

Such a small sample to claim the average temperature for the entire world. They make it really difficult to accept the theory when the data appears to be manipulated.

Temperatures are measured in mega cities which have a warmer micro-climate. This way these guys can raise a lot of government money and donations. If they do not claim the world is collapsing they will not get any funds, that is their business. Remember they claimed a global ice period if Sadam would inflame the oir wells in Iraq. Later he did so and nothing happened. In Germany these "experts" raised DM 1.000.000.000 (half billion €) for expertises about the forrest dying which was not worth the paper it was written on as nothing was real and the forrests are still in perfect conditions 30 years later. So beware of these "green experts".

"The US government's climate agency". They wouldn't be paid to come to that conclusion?.......Would they?........Never!

It's not global warming but the 'Ice age' is coming very soon and equator countries will be safe.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Are they now suggesting there was "Global Warming" in 1880? The climate has been changing since the beginning of time.

But not at the rate at which it is changing currently.

Alan

"The US government's climate agency". They wouldn't be paid to come to that conclusion?.......Would they?........Never!

I doubt that they are paid to come to any conclusion. What information they decide to release as a press release might be swayed by what is in their best interest, however.

The sky is falling.

Thank god we revoked the carbon tax.

"The US government's climate agency". They wouldn't be paid to come to that conclusion?.......Would they?........Never!

It's not the warmest June since 1880... Hell, it's not even the hottest June in my lifetime... Me tinks someone has an agenda...

Sorry, but when you refute an assertion you need to do a bit better than saying "no it's not". If that's the extent of your argument, it can be instantly invalidated by a subsequent "yes it is" reply.

Australia just did away with their carbon tax scheme. Said the massive costs produced few results. (paraphrased)

It would appear there are some smart Australians after all.

Australia just did away with their carbon tax scheme. Said the massive costs produced few results. (paraphrased)

If true, that would certainly put a kink in the conventional wisdom of "clean up after yourself". But it's not, so it doesn't. Australian National University research paper: Impact of the carbon price on Australia’s electricity demand, supply and emissions

Quoting from the abstract:

Australia's carbon price has been in operation for two years. [snip] demand in the national electricity market (NEM) declined by 3.8 per cent, the emissions intensity of electricity supply by 4.6 per cent, and overall emissions by 8.2 per cent, compared to the two-year period before the carbon price.

We estimate that the carbon price led to an average 10 per cent increase in nominal retail household electricity prices, an average 15 per cent increase in industrial electricity prices and a 59 per cent increase in wholesale (spot) electricity prices. It is likely that in response, households, businesses and the industrial sector reduced their electricity use. The carbon price markedly changed relative costs between different types of power plants. Emissions-intensive brown coal and black coal generators reduced output and 4GW of emissions-intensive generation capacity was taken offline. We estimate that these shifts in the supply mix resulted in a 16 to 28kg CO2/MWh reduction in the emissions intensity of power supply in the NEM, a reduction between 1.8 and 3.3 per cent. The combined impact attributable to the carbon price is estimated as a reduction of between 5 and 8 million tonnes of CO2 emissions (3.2 to 5 per cent) in 2012/13 and between 6 and 9 million tonnes (3.5 to 5.6 per cent) in 2013/14, and between 11 and 17 million tonnes cumulatively.

We conclude that the carbon price has worked as expected in terms of its short-term impacts. However, its effect on investment in power generation assets has probably been limited, because of policy uncertainty about the continuation of the carbon pricing mechanism. For emissions pricing to have its full effect, a stable, long-term policy framework is needed.

(emphasis mine)

Summary: analysis by researchers at the Australian National University concluded that carbon pricing worked in the short term, but political interference caused uncertainty in the markets and its full impact wasn't realized. Some positive effects of the tax: output of dirty energy was reduced, and renewable energy grew 38% since 2012. But that's threatened now because of the market shift back to fossil fuels.

It would appear there are some smart Australians after all.

This was the work of one Australian: Prime Minister Tony Abbott (I suppose that's who you were "paraphrasing"). And if you and Tony both think that dumping pollution into the environment shouldn't come with consequences, then you're using some new definition of the word "smart" than the rest of us are.

I have no objection to a government using so-called "sin taxes" as a means to change a destructive behavior of its population. The tax was working as designed until it was axed prematurely. I don't know what kind of politician scraps an initiative that requires ten or twenty years to produce the expected results, using the reasoning that expected results haven't been seen after two years. I guess a "smart" one, right?

...and the bottom line is the politicians are in charge and you are not.

post-153732-0-03330800-1360083642_thumb.jpg

So what is this post? I clicked on the link and received this message:

"

Sorry, you don't have permission for that!

[#10171]

You do not have permission to view this attachment."

But, at least "chuckd" appears to be able to see it, he liked it.

Me too, but you should be able to see it without clicking on the link. I can.