US Climate Update: Warmest 12 Months On Record

Tyler Durden's picture

The Northern Hemisphere just experienced the all-time warmest June on record, at 2.34°F above average. The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during June was 71.2°F, which is 2.0°F above the 20th century average, contributing to a record-warm first half of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since record-keeping began in 1895. Scorching temperatures during the second half of the month led many cities to set all-time temperature records. The nation, as a whole, experienced its tenth driest June on record. Record and near-record dry conditions were present across the Intermountain West. Over 170 all-time warm temperature records were broken or tied during the month. Temperatures in South Carolina (113°F) and Georgia (112°F) are currently under review by the U.S. State Climate Extremes Committee as possible all-time statewide temperature records. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, as of July 3, 56.0 percent of the contiguous U.S. experienced drought conditions, the most since records began.

Globally, the US is anomalous...


but it is the entire Northern Hemisphere that is bathing in the heat...

As rain (or lack thereof) remains a massive problem...


With some of the craziest anomalies ever in the US...



Source: NOAA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
drink or die's picture

At least we have a new culprit to blame for the bad economy...

Western's picture

Warmest 12 months on record, does that mean I need to pay an extra tax on top of my tax to some bank in Switzerland run by the rothschilds?

Caviar Emptor's picture

I think we're gonna need a new hemisphere!

Anusocracy's picture

The AGW crowd is missing their right and left hemispheres.

BKbroiler's picture


The only country that doesn't believe in global warming is the only one getting fried.

narapoiddyslexia's picture

Most Americans realize the truth, but ZH seems to attract more than its fair share of climate denialist crackpots. Anyone who has any actual interest (and not the fake interest of an oil company troll) must read through

James_Cole's picture


A lot of the best research on this topic comes out of American institutions, I wouldn't worry about what a few brain-dead idiots on zh think. What difference would it make if they did understand the basics anyway - a bunch of uneducated morons aren't exactly going to be the difference maker in finding ways to combat ocean acidification etc. 


White.Star.Line's picture

With this low opinion of ZH posters, I'm suprised that someone of your intellect would spend any time here....

Bicycle Repairman's picture

What about the southern hemisphere?

knukles's picture

Ignore it.
Toilets flush backwards down there.

Manthong's picture

I have one of the best carbon tans of my life this year because of all the extra carbony days..

I think that has something to do with the 11 year “carbon cycle”, or the “carbon maximum “or carbon UV radiation or something like that.

Maybe I can use a #2 pencil to fill in the strap lines on my backside.

FEDbuster's picture

I think you can trade your carbon tan credits for free rainforest nuts and fruits down at Whole Foods?

economics9698's picture

Al Bore got his money and his hookers, Obama is president, and there is no media coverage.  Those Yids are just so clever.

redpill's picture

Whether the planet is warming and whether humans are causing it have very little to do with the motivations of those attempting to impose centralized economic control upon the planet, and every single one of us by extension. Don't be fools and subject the human race to perpetual slavery based on this. The insatiable appetite of globalist authoritarianism is far more of a risk to all of us than a few degrees in temperature one way or another.

And it's worth noting in terms of direction, we should all be incredibly thankful it's getting warmer instead of colder.

Muppet of the Universe's picture

Alright this needs to end once and for all.









All of the planets in the solar system are heating at exponentially increasing rates.  All of them.

This isn't manmade.  This is stellar forces at work.  So stfu with ur carbon taxes illuminati retard shit.

Goddamn fuckin retards get a stupid consiracy in their head, and b/c 9/11 turned out to be true,

they wanna pretend all conspiracies are true.


Just accept the fact that you don't know what is causing it.  It doesn't help that our activity is contributing to the earth's heating,

but it is clearly a solar phenomenon.  fucking DUhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

BigJim's picture

 All of the planets in the solar system are heating at exponentially increasing rates.  All of them.

Some (fairly reputable) links would be appreciated.

My problem with your assertion is that the outer planets have extremely long 'years' (ie, time to complete their orbits)... Saturn 29 years, Uranus 84 years, Neptune 164 years.... and Pluto (recently relegated off the planets list) 248 years,  I fail to see how we can be sure any of these latter three have been seeing their temperatures increase 'exponentially' given the fact we haven't been closely or accurately monitoring them for anything like their entire orbits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty skeptical about most AGW claims, but I think there's too much misinformation being promulgated by both sides.

BigJim's picture

  ...A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005...

In the first decade of the 21st century, international panels of experts reviewed the evidence, and announced conclusions that were checked by virtually all the major national science academies, scientific societies, government science agencies and other bodies representative of scientific expertise. All these bodies agreed that the world faced a serious problem; all recommended that governments adopt strict policies to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. (All, that is, except a few self-appointed panels composed primarily of people with limited expertise in climate science, representing ideological and business interests that opposed all forms of government regulation.) Individual climate scientists, while almost unanimously in agreement with the consensus in its broad outlines, continued to argue vehemently over details, as always in frontier research. Critics pounced on every apparent discrepancy. They published long lists of scientists who denied there was any problem — although the lists included hardly any scientist who had made significant contributions to climate research.(58*) Debate over policies to restrict emissions grew increasingly intense.

This is your idea of objectivity?

There's a reason it's mainly non-climate 'science' scientists are often the most vociferous AGW skeptics. It's because they practice empirical-based science, are intimately familiar with what is considered good and bad science, and they can't believe the hypotheses of climate scientists are being treated as actionable, let alone settled.

It's a bit like the skepticism physicists have for Keynesian economics. Oooh! They're not economists, their opinion is worthless! All politicians and academics are in consensus that the correctness of Keynes' ideas is settled!

Flakmeister's picture

Sorry buddy... but the SCIENCE is settled and has been for a *long* time.... the uncertainty in the predictions is driven by the experimental uncertainties in the DATA...

Unless you don't think we can do IR spectroscopy and are confident that 125 years of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics is wrong....


Landrew's picture

I am living in Chile now for the next three months. The reservoirs are empty and the water is going to be rationed. I am working on a mountain 7.3k and there is no snow in the middle of winter here. At 11k there is very little snow with patchs of rock showing and melting by day. I have worked here for the last two years and I haven't seen anything like this year.

Nassim's picture

Yes amigo, that is because there is a La Nina event going on. Have you not noticed. Over here, in Melbourne Australia, our drought ended 3 years ago, when the Nino became a Nina. Please don't blame it on global warming or whatever, it has always been so. India's monsoon is tied in with it and the records go back many hundreds of years.

Here is the chart you should be checking out


Gatts's picture

I didn't get the impression that he was relating the melt to global warming, just making an observation over the past few years in his experience.

How long will it be before your drought returns and how long will it last? 10yrs, 20, 100?

Hope your prepared or will that 'fiscally responsible' govt. save you?


Transformer's picture

Climate change readings ‘inaccurate’


A climate change group has taken the National Institute for Atmospheric and Water Research (NIWA) to court over what they say are inaccurate temperature recordings.

The New Zealand Climate Education Trust – a branch of the NZ Climate Science Coalition – are challenging NIWA figures which show a rise in temperatures in New Zealand of 1degC over the past 100 years.

This figure is significantly higher than global warming figures around the world and the trust is questioning how NIWA calculated the figures and whether they are accurate.

Flakmeister's picture

Challenge them in court....LOL

Why don't they challenge them in scientific journals with a defensible analysis of the data? Oh, could it be because they are full of shit?

firstdivision's picture

As long as you have SPF 1000 your good.

James_Cole's picture

 I wouldn't worry about what a few brain-dead idiots on zh think

MiguelitoRaton's picture

The Earth has had 5 ice ages...what caused the earth to warm when it came out of those ice ages? Could it be simple climactic cycles?

BTW: Here is a PRECISE temperature recreation back to the Roman Empire...uh oh, it's a cooling trend:

Science and facts and's a bitch for those statist control freaks.

Money Squid's picture

Why waste your time with facts, sound scientific analysis and rational thought? The fact is wall street wants global warming as an excuse to implement a new global taxation program. So get with the fucking programme already.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Wall Street takes advantage of a lot of things.  Is LIBOR no big deal because WS says so?  Does the CDS mess not exist because WS profits?  

DaveyJones's picture

yes, I love the logic that some corrupt institution is gaming off it, so all related concepts are false. Last time I checked, that's every subject. And of course, the oil / carbon industry doesn't play games, pay senators or twist numbers or arms either.  

long-shorty's picture

well, the good news is that as abnormally hot as it is this year, if it averages half this abnormally hot for each of the next 10 years, it will be pretty clear that we've more than reversed your 2,000 years of global cooling in less than half a century. so then you can say "temperatures have been stable for the past 2,000 years." and 10 years after that, you'll probably be able to say, "the amount of warming, when averaged over the last 2,000 years, is quite small." it should take a good 25-30 years at least until you realize you were wrong, and by then you'll probably be old enough not to realize it.


Disenchanted's picture



Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now: Study

IPCC has got it all wrong, say boffins


10m years ago there was less CO2 - but the Earth was WARMER

Warmth and carbon 'decoupled': 'A surprising finding'


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure The Register is not an American enterprise...


btw I'm not up on the UK lingo, so what's a "boffin?"

mick_richfield's picture

It's a kind of bird.  Extinct, or soon will be.

Flakmeister's picture

Why don't you link the original paper and the press release?

Then this week, the Mail Online demonstrated that it had learned nothing from the episode when it misrepresented a new paper on 'Orbital forcing of tree-ring data' by a group of German, Swiss, Finnish and UK scientists, published in the journal Nature Climate Change on 8 July.

The study describes a reconstruction of summer temperatures over the past 2,000 years in northern Scandinavia based on an analysis of tree rings, concluding that there has been a gradual cooling trend over this period and that regional temperatures during Medieval and Roman times may have been warmer than previously thought.

Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, issued a press release about the new paper on 9 July to publicise the role of one of its staff, Professor Jan Esper, as lead author of the study. The release provides an accurate summary of some of the key points under the heading 'Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time'.

Somewhat predictably, the press release was picked up by climate change 'sceptics', who are obsessed with the Medieval Warm Period in the profoundly mistaken belief that if it can be proved that global average temperature was higher than today about 1,000 years ago, it will overturn the many lines of compelling evidence that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are causing the Earth to warm now. The current evidence suggests that some parts of the northern hemisphere may indeed have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today, but it is not clear that it was a global warming.


Could it be that because the Murdoch owned Daily Mail is deliberately twisting the facts?


DaveyJones's picture

Murdoch would never do such a thing.

Disenchanted's picture



Flakmeister's link said:


"but it is not clear that it was a global warming."


I guess it's possible that Zunli Lu and colleagues are also influenced by Murdoch, but I doubt it...


Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC



A proper temperature record for Antarctica is particularly interesting, as it illuminates one of the main debates in global-warming/climate-change: namely, were the so-called Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age merely regional, or were they global events? The medieval warmup experienced by northern Europeans from say 900AD to 1250AD seems to have been at least as hot as anything seen in the industrial era. If it was worldwide in extent that would strongly suggest that global warming may just be something that happens from time to time, not something caused by miniscule concentrations of CO2 (the atmosphere is 0.04 per cent CO2 right now; this figure might climb to 0.07 per cent in the medium term).


The oft-mentioned "scientific consensus", based in large part on the work of famous climate-alarmist scientists Michael Mann and Phil Jones and reflected in the statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says that isn't true. The IPCC consensus is that the medieval warming – and the "Little Ice Age" which followed it – only happened in Europe and maybe some other northern areas. They were local events only, and globally the world was cooler than it is now. The temperature increase seen in the latter half of the 20th century is a new thing caused by humanity's carbon emissions.


Lu and his colleagues' new work, however, indicates that in fact the medieval warm period and little ice age were both felt right down to Antarctica.


“We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” says the prof, who was at Oxford when most of the work was done but now has a position at Syracuse uni in the States. He and his colleagues write:


This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.


In other words, global warming has already occurred in historical, pre-industrial times, and then gone away again. Lu et al's work is published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. ®



Personally I think there is global warming/climate change but that it is a natural cyclic thing(looong cycles) and nothing to do with the activities of man...I'm wondering if it's connected with precession which is a 26,000 year cycle, and also natural cycles of the Sun itself??


There are many hints that it's not just global warming, but planetary warming as well...but I'm not a scientist so I'm just speculating.

Flakmeister's picture

Oh you mean this paper and author?


Three months ago, I wrote about a researcher, Dr Zunli Lu, whose new journal paper was misrepresented in an article published by the Mail Online, after it was transmitted through the echo chamber of climate change denial. Dr Lu took the unusual step of issuing a statement to explicitly refute an article about his work in the Mail Online, which grudgingly responded by making some minor amendments while still refusing to correct the most egregious errors.

An official objection was made by Mr Philip Bell, and the Press Complaints Commission ruled last month that the article was in breach of the Editors' Code of Practice. But rather than correct the errors, the Mail Online simply removed the article from its website without posting any explanation or apology.

Wow.. the article was ruled to be in "Breach of the Editors Code of Practice"......

Or maybe you could read this for more info

Hell, here is Lu's statement from Syracuse

So are you are a fool or a liar?

Disenchanted's picture


From Lu's statement:


We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula


The original story at

(Title: Scientists use a rare mineral to correlate past climate events in Europe and Antarctica)

does not seem to me to refute my previous post. In the original it has this:


They compared the results with climate conditions established in Northern Europe across a 2,000-year time frame. They found a direct correlation between the rise and fall of oxygen 18 in the crystals and the documented warming and cooling periods.


We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”


Now to me, if European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica I would surmise that these effects carried just as far in other directions...hence a global event. No? After all Northern Europe to the Artic is a hell of a lot less distance than NE to Antarctica.

Sounds to me like Dr. Lu has been experiencing some pressure from those who have an agenda, and he kinda sorta responded to that pressure with his statement regarding the supposed misrepresentation of his work. A statement that doesn't really refute the supposed misrepresentation. The original story I linked above was straight out of Syracuse University whom Lu is now affiliated with and you can clearly see the statement that Lu makes that I highlighted...That is not coming from The Daily Mail or The Register. He also mentioned "past climate changes."

The facts are that planet earth has been as warm or warmer previous to man's industrial with it. Personally I think it's a natural cyclical thing.


btw Huffington Post vs. The Daily Mail...I think we have a Mexican standoff there.


As for Bob Ward I'm sure he has no iron in the fire, right?


Bob Ward is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science.

Flakmeister's picture

Sounds you you don't have a clue what you talking about and are grasping at straws...

Take some advice and *really* learn the science and history of climate change...

The "SCIENCE", i.e. thermodynamics, isotopes, chemistry etc... was nailed down ~100 years ago, and we have just be waiting on the DATA and the overwhelming interpretation of the DATA is that we are anthropogenically warming the earth via the massive release of C02 in a geological tick.... 200 years for 1 Gigatonne of C02 is comparable to the rates required to explain massive changes to the biosphere observed in the past.... 

Disenchanted's picture



I think that bankruptcylawyer nailed it elsewhere in this thread as to the reasons you and others are bound and determined to link the cause of this current cycle of climate change to be the fault of humanity and its technology. He posted:


there is a big difference between understanding that there is a propoganda war about the meme of global warming because of the political ramifications it has for disparate taxation and regulation reasons ---------that being naked corporate energy lobbying for private interests, versus naked lobbying by government to increase its authority and taxation power and job excuses--versus other industries that seek to make money off of global warming hysteria like wall street pushing credit trading, al gore pushing books, and solar energy companies pushing anything that will help their bottom line.


In other words, it's just another way for the usual suspects to profiteer using bogus justifications.


Even Obama and his Goldman cronies saw it wasn't gonna fly and shut their CCX(Chicago Climate Exchange) down a year and a half ago.



The Chicago Climate Club Gets Capped



CCX was cofounded by Richard Sandor, a former research professor at Kellogg when the school received the Joyce grant, along with former Goldman Sachs ( GS - news - people ) CEO Hank Paulson. The group got off to a blazing start, with hundreds of companies, including DuPont ( DD - news - people ), Ford and Motorola ( MOT - news - people ), rushing in with agreements to buy and sell rights to emit CO2 above a legally binding quota. At its peak in May 2008, CCX was trading 10 million tons of carbon permits per month, causing the price of carbon offsets to rise from $1 per ton to a high of $7.40 in mid-2008. Time magazine called Sandor a "hero of the planet."


The actual operating system for CCX trading was provided by deposed former Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) head Franklin Raines, who had purchased the technology rights. Raines had become an expert in bundling bad subprime mortgages, and the technology was ideal for bundling worthless air credits.


Al Gore's longtime pal Maurice Strong, leader of the U.N. Rio de Janerio Earth Summit and a key Kyoto Protocol architect, was a CCX board member. Speaking in Rio, Strong left no doubt about his priorities: "We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." Another board member was Stuart Eizenstat, who led the U.S. delegation to Kyoto.


Several partner companies positioned themselves to capitalize on the CCX carbon-trading markets. One was Al Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP, a London-based firm established in 2004 that invests money from institutions and wealthy investors that are "going green." GIM planned to purchase lucrative CO2 offsets when anticipated federal government regulations were passed to mandate cap-and-trade.


Gore's co-founding partners in the venture are former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM) David Blood, along with Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. Bloomberg reported in March 2008 that the investment fund had hit a hard cap of $5 billion, and had been turning away investors.

Flakmeister's picture

You do understand you are commiting a fallacy known as "Appeal to Consequences"....

Moreover, if what you claim is correct, can you demonstrate a clear connection between CCX monies and the scientific advocates of AGW....No you can't because it is patently untrue....

Contrast this to the well known ties between academic "skeptics" and the fossil fuel industry...

Sorry, but you had better figure out what the best way to deal with C02 is given your ideology... I don't care how its done, as long as it is done...


Freddie's picture

A few of us know how corrupt those "institutions" are especially American universities.  It is all about grant money an dmore grant money.  US universities are as corrupt as the bannksters Mr. Sandusky.

Ever hear of La Nina, El Nino and Los Ninos?  Plus solar radioation?   Effing maroons.

We are going through El Nino right now.  It will pass.


Flakmeister's picture

Freddie is now using big words...

So in your judgement, just when did the current El Nino conditions come into being?

Perhaps you should read

and get back to me, kay?


bobnoxy's picture

No shit! That 99% of the world's trained experts, climate scientists, agree that global warming is man made and the greatest threat to all of us means nothing to a bunch of yahoos that read a few articles that told them what they wanted to hear.

The deniers aren't stupid. They flew past stupid in an F-16 at the speed of sound and are about out of fuel. The funniest part of all this is that the red states with all the non-believers are taking the brunt of the hot temps and droughts!

Don't worry, it'll cool off tonight. See, no global warming here!

It's not a normal cycle anymore when we're setting all time records. Fools.

Diogenes's picture

It would be a lot easier to take AGW seriously if its leading proponents weren't all liars and scam artists.

And where's my damn check? The University of East Anglia can't have gotten all the oil company money. I want my check.