https://www.commondreams.org/news/hottest-june-on-record

As people in much of North America, Europe, and Africa suffer sweltering heatwaves, a pair of U.S. government agencies that track and record weather joined international counterparts Thursday in confirming that last month was the hottest June ever recorded, based on global average temperature.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that the average surface temperature—that includes water and land—in June was 1.89°F above average, a "174-year global climate record."

"Additionally," the agency said, "Earth's ocean surface temperature anomaly—which indicates how much warmer or cooler temperatures are from the long-term average—were the highest ever recorded, according to scientists from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information."

"For the third consecutive month, the global ocean surface temperature hit a record high as weak El Niño conditions that emerged in May continued to strengthen in June," NOAA added. "Globally, June 2023 set a record for the highest monthly sea surface temperature anomaly of any month in NOAA's climate record."

Conversely, NOAA said Thursday that global sea ice coverage receded last month to the lowest level in any June ever observed.

"This primarily was a result of the record-low sea ice in the Antarctic that occurred for the second consecutive month," the agency explained. "Earth's global sea ice extent in June 2023 was 330,000 square miles less than the previous record low from June 2019."

Meanwhile, surface temperature analysis by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies said Thursday that last month was the hottest June in its record book, which dates back to 1880.

"This month is part of a pattern of increasing global temperatures, as a result of human activities, mainly carbon dioxide emissions," the agency said on Twitter.


However, in EV fundie land...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340215599789


American Christians have become increasingly polarized on issues of climate change and environmental regulation. In recent years, mainline Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church have made explicit declarations of support for global climate action. Prominent Southern Baptists and other evangelical Protestants, on the other hand, have issued statements that are strikingly similar to the talking points of secular climate skeptics, and have attempted to stamp out “green” efforts within their own ranks. An analysis of resolutions and campaigns by evangelicals over the past 40 years shows that anti-environmentalism within conservative Christianity stems from fears that “stewardship” of God’s creation is drifting toward neo-pagan nature worship, and from apocalyptic beliefs about “end times” that make it pointless to worry about global warming. As the climate crisis deepens, the moral authority of Christian leaders and organizations may play a decisive role in swaying public policy toward (or away from) action to mitigate global warming.
In what is certainly the most famous essay ever written about religion and the environment, the historian Lynn White Jr. argued that medieval Judeo-Christian ideas were at “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis” (White, 1967). Citing passages in the Bible that separate God from nature and grant humanity dominion over all, White wrote: “Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” He also opined that much, if not most, environmental degradation is directly traceable to Christianity’s radical anthropocentrism (White, 1967: 1205).
Recent research seems to confirm White’s rather bleak assessment of the relationship between Christian beliefs and environmental attitudes. University of Cincinnati political scientist Matthew B. Arbuckle and Georgetown University public policy expert David M. Konisky recently reported (forthcoming) that American Christians, as a whole, have lower levels of environmental concern than do non-Christians (Jews, people of other faiths, and nonbelievers). Arbuckle and Konisky also found, tellingly, that the higher the level of religious commitment (as measured by self-reports of religion’s personal importance, frequency of religious service attendance, and frequency of prayer), the lower the level of environmental concern. Another recent study showed, similarly, that American Christians, collectively, when considered without regard for denomination, have less environmental concern than do Americans of other faiths or those who say they are not affiliated with any institutional forms of religion (Clements et al., 2014).
But, then, how are we to make sense of declarations from the mainline Protestant faiths in the United States—Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans—proclaiming that God wants humans to care for creation? And what about Pope Francis’s powerful new encyclical on climate change, “Laudato Si”? Yes, some Christians do believe that humans are separate from, and superior to, nature, and that God has given humans license to multiply without limit and to dominate and exploit the rest of creation. But it is also obvious, both from their own statements and from opinion surveys (see Figure 1), that other Christians, though they have read the same Bible, have come to radically different conclusions about what God wants and expects of humans.

As my New Age Climate Denying Trump loving Sister said when I presented NOAAs June data to her,”They’re lying!”

Uh, what motivation would NOAA have to lie about their data?

Ah they just want to sell us on Solar panels and wind turbines! Then launches into a rant about wind turbines m, electric cars and Canadian forest fires being set on purpose.

This is somebody who is one signature away from getting a PhD, already has an MBA, and is a CPA who runs multiple successful companies she started up. She’s not a stupid person, but has some really wild ideas.

When I tell her I’ve personally witnessed the glaciers on Mt Rainier recede a mile up the mountain from the road to Paradise and I’d have to deny what I’ve witnessed myself to believe NOAA is lying. Her response is that’s not because of us it’s a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can do about it.

At that point I just have to shake my head in disbelief and walk away.

WTF?

"This is somebody who is one signature away from getting a PhD, already has an MBA, and is a CPA who runs multiple successful companies she started up. She’s not a stupid person, but has some really wild ideas."
-------------------

There is a term for this. Dumber than a Mormon.

Like I said, she’s not dumb, just lives in a bubble of her own making.

Not exactly a bubble of her own making. It is a prefab bubble that she just adopted. All the climate scientists are lying because they are being paid off by the solar panel manufacturers.

I hear that oil companies still have quite a bit of money. The Exxons and BPs and Royal Dutch Shells of the world are doing quite well. You'd think they could buy themselves some climate scientists and debunk all these climate change lies.

Turns out they do in fact have climate scientists on staff. Years ago the oil companies would not publicly publish their findings, but now they are being published. And guess what. They are getting the exact same results that other scientists are getting, because they have the same instruments reporting the same data.

That's one of the nice things about science. It can be confirmed by replicating the experiments. Or in cases like Cold Fusion, or MMR causing autism, failing to replicate the experiments.

There was a Facebook meme I saw yesterday, that I'm not sure if it was snark or there is actually reason to believe it is true, but in either case, it was certainly memorable (a basic requirement for a meme) and close enough to true, if perhaps not literally so.

"The seven hottest days on earth in the last 100,000 years all happened last week."


A few years ago I read where for nearly everyone alive now, they have never seen a month in their entire life when the average temperature for that month was below the average temp for that month for the 20th century.

Yep, like the children of Lake Wobegon, all of whom are above average, all the monthly temps for the last 50 or 60 years (I've forgotten when the last below average month was) have been above average.

ETA: I looked it up. The last below average monthly temp was 460 months ago, or 38.3 years ago. so I guess there are quite a few people alive who have seen a month cooler than the 20th century average for that month. Still, 38 years of 100% above average is pretty impressive.

https://www.axios.com/2018/11/20/earth-warmer-than-average-406-straight-months-climate-change



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2023 11:39PM by Brother Of Jerry.

been warmer?
are you certain about that?

I live in Tokyo. It's not just hot, it's humid. I sometimes find myself feeling wiped out by mid-day because of the heat and humidity.

I walked to the post office today. I took a shower before and a shower after. My clothes were soaked when I got home.

It's too bad that everything becomes an issue of left and right, religious and secular. Shouldn't data be the most important thing to look at?

I guess that means we need to have trustworthy sources of data. And that's where things go sideways. If a left-leaning news source says that climate change is real, all the right-leaning viewers will dismiss it. And vice versa.

After all, the news lied about "my team". They said that the guy who won the popularity contest is a piece of garbage, so they must be lying about everything else, right?

I don't know who created this website, but it has some climate data.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/cause-areas/long-term-future/climate-change?gad=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw5MOlBhBTEiwAAJ8e1vvQElIs3bETDHcFmsRt3eTgaN79ROcfOTx95l0YedA8Htj8yp3JQBoCGyQQAvD_BwE

I've intentionally avoided left-leaning and right-leaning sources, hoping to find something as neutral as possible. And I'm sure someone will find a reason not to trust this source as well.

Having said all that, when you understand the mind of a climate change denier, you understand that they're not just dumb or crazy, but they just don't have the luxury of breathing room and time to look at the issues from a 30,000 foot view. Recognizing climate change as an issue is a luxury of the wealthy.

Don't believe me? Think of families in a remote village who burn cow dung or wood for cooking. Every day. If their village had reliable electricity, they wouldn't need to burn cow dung or wood. Electricity has brought people out of poverty. And clean electricity is the key. But when you spend ⅓ of your day gathering firewood, ⅓ of your day getting water, and the other ⅓ of your day looking for food, you're not really concerned about climate change. That's why many of the people in the less developed countries cook using cow dung or any firewood they can scavenge. They're more worried about just surviving.

The fumes from these fires cause lung problems. Once again, getting clean, reliable electricity would bring these people out of poverty.

Not to mention, many people do not have clean drinking water. When your whole day is spent worrying about how to get clean drinking water, you don't spend much time thinking about saving the planet.

This is why many people are in favor of nuclear power. People who do not want nuclear power will cite 3 Mile Island and Fukushima, saying we should not have nuclear power. Of course, those plants were built decades ago. Think of the progress the passenger car has made in the last 3 decades. Is it reasonable to believe that no progress has been made in nuclear technology? It might be time to give nuclear a second look.

There's also the whole fact that the language around climate change keeps changing. Not that I wholeheartedly agree, but I can see from the POV of a climate change denier. First it was called global warming, then climate change, and then climate activists flew around the world on private jets, meaning "they really don't care about climate change so I don't have to care, either." When you're living paycheck to paycheck, a new tax tied to climate change is automatically lumped into some nebulous conspiracy of the rich and powerful to take our freedoms, using climate change as a pretext.

I love how so many people on the internet become experts when an issue comes up. What we're really doing is copying and pasting from our favorite websites. We don't really understand the issues enough to have an informed opinion because climate change is a nuanced issue. My opinion is that developing nations create much more pollution than developed nations. See the website above. The US is not the major polluter. The US does pollute disproportionately. We have very little reliable public transportation. Living in Tokyo, I see how public transportation can be done. It's amazing.

Anyway, just remember that people who don't think the planet needs our help are not crazy or stupid. They're watching a different movie. They don't trust the news or the government. Remember that trust in institutions is at an all time low these days. I can give several examples why people on the left and the right have ample reasons to think that those in power are not telling them the truth.

In the end, I'm on team human.

I can try to explain why I think both sides have a point depending on what part of the issue we are discussing. It was about 10+ years ago when I first heard about global warming which made no sense to me at first since we have had cycles of ice ages and warming before.

There was a geologist here who tipped me off about a book by Richard Alley called The Two Mile Time Machine about an ice core study. (I can’t remember that poster’s name.)

That book led me to do further investigation and I’ve decided that both sides are only seeing part of the complicated issue of climate change. They are talking about different things.

The global warming deniers are right about the big picture. The earth has had extremes before, and over time will again long after we are gone. It seems naïve to think that humans control anything. Ice ages have come and gone. Earth was once molten hot. And these happened without humans burning oil.
I don’t think anyone would argue with how insignificant humans have been in Earth’s geological history. That's not what the global warming/climate change situation is about.

The item that the global warming supporters and scientists are really talking about is not the same idea as what the deniers are pointing out. The issue is really about ABRUPT climate change.

From what I understand (backed by evidence from the ice core), when there have been abrupt changes, there was a straw that broke the camel’s back (so to speak) and measurements that showed what seemed to trigger a big change. This is where we humans come in. We are insignificant in the big picture, but we can be the straw that broke the camel’s back. We can trigger something abrupt. Let me elaborate.

We have been in a sweet spot when it comes to climate for tens of thousands of years. The factors that balance and maintain that sweet spot have been relatively consistent. But humans can (and already have) tipped the scale just enough to pop us out of the sweet spot. That appears to be what is happening. The book explains exactly what small things humans do and how they can have a huge impact when it comes to abrupt climate changes.

Sure, the sun and things far bigger than humans have a bigger impact, but humans potentially could speed things up and ruin the lucky current circumstances we have enjoyed for so long. We are in a fragile lucky loop as we can see from the core sample. Breaking the loop will likely kick us out of the climate garden of Eden. This appears to be underway.

So, it is not like in the big picture anyone expects the climate to stay in nice cycles that have been so suitable for human prosperity. But in the small picture, we could tip the scales. The global warming advocates are really talking about ways to prolong and maintain the fortunate loop we are in. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what the issues really are.

If anyone is interested in the evidence the ice core presents, check out Alley’s book. It explains why we happen to be in a sweet spot and exactly what human activity can do. I'm sure there are better books out there by now.

This is all first-rate stuff, as per.

I would add, however, a couple of additional pieces: both related to disaster. It is simply too easy for us to presume that earthly life is kumbaya. The first point is accordingly that we know things will ultimately end badly. The halcyon cycles will continue for a while but then cease functioning at some point due to nuclear war, an asteroid, or the eventual expansion of the sun, followed thereafter by the universal whimper of entropy. Humans may make it through one or two, or ten or twelve, of those events but the probability that intelligent life can survive infinitely is risibly small. So. . . perspective.

More timely and relevantly, it's important to remember that extinction is an exceedingly common event. Species come and go, and there's no reason why humans won't succumb to the same end at some point. In fact, DNA bears witness to several times when genetic bottlenecks almost killed off all HSS--and it was luck, not skill, that provided the bottle opener. Is there some reason that such luck will perforce continue? The answers that humans have conjured up to explain away the reality of human vulnerability are 1) we're smart enough to solve such existential problems, and/or 2) God'll fix it because he thinks we're really cool.

So where are we now? The climate is changing precipitously and species are blinking out of existence like fire flies at dawn. Can humans buck the trend? Possibly. But when we tend to think of genius in terms of Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Michio Kaku, and Joe Rogan, the omens do not seem particularly auspicious even before superimposing Putin, Xi, and others with both the power and the insouciance to preclude global adjustments to such dangers.

So yeah, climate cycles come and go and we may be okay. But what is happening now is not part of a normal cycle. The question then becomes, wy take the risk? Are we really going to rely on the possibility that some mysterious natural or human miracle will enable us to continue blissfully along our current path without risking disaster? Is there some supernal reason to believe that we can't go extinct?

I submit that blissful ignorance is no better than hoping that the God of the Gaps suddenly leaps out of the holes in which he has been hiding and orders all that carbon to sequester itself in forests that no longer exist.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2023 09:37PM by Lot's Wife.

True all that.

Thanks for the additional chipper facts that always cheer me up about humanity and our existence!

I'm thinking of the movie Don't Look Up after reading your comments.

No worries though, because all those problems will be gone when I die. Poof!

What if a mischievous ghawd doesn't let you die!!

All my carefully crafted plans will come crashing down!

I have faith in dagny. As opposed to you and your incarnate entropy, I see her more as a cosmic curtain that will eventually fall in accordance with the laws of gravity.

--LW, aka Banquo's Ghost

Unless there really is such a thing as reincarnation and we will end up having to live in the world we are building, or unbuilding now...

Sounds ominous but "recorded history" is just a blink in time of earth's history.

If we stopped keeping records (and "comparing" them!) we'd probably be much more happy, not to mention, content, as we slowly baked to death!

We’d probably also start blaming God for thunder storms and offering small people as placatory sacrifices.

we had a mild June. After steady slowly falling snow for months almost every single day, it was nice to not have too much heat too fast. We had thunderstorms almost every evening or daytime, mostly evening. Glad I'm not where the temps are making up for my lack of heat in June. South of us like SLC didn't have as mild of weather as we did.

July has been hotter, but didn't start until we were into the month. It usually is really hot by July. I hate heat for so very many reasons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2023 10:21PM by cl2.

Jeez, the SCCOJCOFLDS, has records older than 174 years.

What load of BS, Just making headlines for the gullible.

Would you care to be more specific? I’m curious what you think is BS.

Worldwide temp records go back to the late 1800s. They got more extensive and more precisely calibrated over the years.

Prior to that time, there are indirect ways to estimate the temperature. We have a pretty good idea of temps going back a thousand years. Prior to that the n7mbers are less precise.

CO2 was discovered around 1800, and by 1804, Joseph Fourier had discovered that it was a greenhouse gas. We’ve been measuring it quite precisely from Maura Loa for over fifty years now. Meanwhile, we have about 800,000 years of ice core data from which we can measure CO2 concentrations back over several glacial and interglacial periods. Over that entire period CO2 has oscillated between 170 PPM ( cold period) and 270 PPM (warm periods).

We have now cruised past 400 PPM and will probably hit 500 PPM around the end of the century. We don’t know for sure what that will do to the world climate, but it is not likely to be an improvement over the Goldilocks climate we have had the last 8,000 years or so.

In the UK temperatures were actually gl

Below average.

The global warming hoax has got to be the largest conspiracy of all time, and I can't believe many of you are falling for it. In fact, it's astounding that so many scientists across so many disciplines, and working under almost every political ideology, are able to keep the hoax going with all of this so called "data". Heck, I've even seen "climate change" claims coming from Red Chinese scientists! It seems like it's just the North Koreans who aren't buying into this nonsense. I guess in today's world, you've got to isolate your people to protect them from this so called science.

Can't you see how it's all concocted to benefit...well I'm sure it benefits someone, and when we find out who that is, the whole thing will certainly unravel...it's surely just a matter of time before the cabal in charge of manufacturing all these "facts" is discovered and dismantled. I'll lay down a bet right now that somehow the internet is involved. And chemtrails, probably.

*SATIRE



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2023 08:58PM by Maude.

Just Stop Oil agenda...... and results.

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1680237084467154945?s=20

I saw a picture of the weather station that recorded Paris' hottest ever temperature last summer. It was right next to a freeway that had recently been widened by another 2 lanes.

In 174 years since temperature records supposedly began (it's longer for Europe), a hell of a lot of land around temperature measuring sites has been covered with buildings and roads.

For those who believe humans raising CO2 in the atmosphere by 0.014% of its composition is driving warming, when did the natural warming that started at the end of the Little Ice Age finish and human effects take over? Why have some ice ages accompanied far higher CO2 levels than now? If the default CO2 level was pre industrial, why do plants photosynthesise most efficiently at 3 times that level?

Finally, if you really believe that burning fossil fuels is going to end life on Earth, wouldn't you be too terrified to ever drive a car, fly, or consume anything transported by fossil fuel power? How much do you actually believe?

Yes, CO2 levels have been considerably higher in the geologic past. But it increased to those levels over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Plant and animal populations had time to adapt or move. What’s different this time is the speed of the change, measured in decades.

Burning fossil fuels is not going to end life on earth. I think it extremely unlikely that it will even end human life on earth. People like to exaggerate to make their case seem stronger. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a case at all.

But cause an agriculture collapse or some such and a couple billion people perish - yeah, that could happen. Or the US southwest reaching Sahara levels of dryness - that could happen too.

The sun was also cooler in the geologic past.

The increasing warm temperatures will lead to the loss of a lot of animal species. Some of us care about that.

We're about to experience "punctuated equilibrium," the dynamic Stephen Jay Gould explained 50 or so years ago. In short, the rate of evolutionary change accelerates stepwise when environmental conditions suddenly change.

“Greenhouse gas emission accounting usually focuses on how much energy and fuel civilians use. But recent work, including our own, shows that the US military is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries. If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal.”

https://theconversation.com/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-as-many-as-140-countries-shrinking-this-war-machine-is-a-must-119269


It’s not hard to notice that the very leaders who talk the most about GCC are the very people who are the least serious about it.

First correction - amount of fossil fuel consumed in the US does not omit military consumption. Where did they come up with that idea?

Second - yes, the military uses a lot, but listing it between Peru and Portugal doesn't tell us much. What percentage of overall US usage is military? That would be useful information.

>It’s not hard to notice that the very leaders who talk the most about GCC are the very people who are the least serious about it.

Ah, the Al Gore defense. It is also not hard to notice that some of the same people who complain about other people not doing enough then advocate doing even less. Like that makes sense.


Like I said earlier, insurance companies are going to be the drivers of change. They don't care about the politics. They just want to appropriately price risk, and that price is going up. There will be places that eventually will not be able to purchase flood/fire insurance at any price. For some places that day is already here.

So the moon landing was fake?

As fake as the supposedly fake temperature records.

Conspiracy theorists seem to think there are puppet masters pulling the world's strings, and somehow they are always successful, except that the conspiracy theorist has it all figured out, and will not let their strings get pulled.

They can't accept that nobody is controlling the world. Sure, there are agendas out there. And everybody else has agendas too, that conflict with or obliquely nudge all the other agendas.

Ask Puppetmaster Putin how his week-long war that was going to result in the annexation of Ukraine turned out.


I must admit that the New World Order War Against Cash™ is going along faster than I could have hoped. There are stores that no longer accept cash because it just makes them too much of a robbery target. Creating Covid as a way to suppress the use of cash (icky-poo virus cooties, doncha know) was a brilliant move by the Overlords, though giving out Frequent Flyer miles was their best move. And Amazon. The Overlords did that too, just to force us to use credit cards. The Overlords are diabolical.

So the moon landing was fake.

Every time you hit the brakes, the brake's frictioning parts heat up to (if I recall the studies correctly) somewhere in the 400 degrees Fairlyhot, which is approximately a different number in degrees Centralfrugal.

But forget all my scientific rigor...: The most constant, remorseless, unrelenting man-made heat sources (after Gladys Lot's chafing thighs) are brakes.

We can only hope that one day we'll be able to harness parachute power, in conjunction with big fluffy intersection pillows.

IsaythisinthenameofJesusChrist,amen.

ED... you must have been riot on Testimony Sundays.

When I was a small child, we lived a couple blocks from the train station. My dad would take me down to the station at night when a freight train came in. It was a long downhill grade to the train station, and when the train arrived, the brake shoes glowed red hot. At the dark end of the train platform, the brakes looked like an infinite string of parentheses fading off into the distance.

After that we went across the street and got a "coney island" hot dog, laden with chili and chopped raw onion. Life didn't get any better than that when you are four years old. :)

In the UK we had a mild June and so far July has been much cooler than average.

Humans have been lucky to live in a relatively stable climate since the climate stabilized around 8000 BCE after the end of the last Ice Age.

Think of it like this -- if you keep bending a piece of wire too fast beyond a certain frequency, it will eventually heat up and break.

The current level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is around 420 PPM.

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

The last time levels were this high was in the Pliocene Era.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/climate-milestone-earths-co2-level-passes-400-ppm/


Winters will be more severe in some places and less than normal in others. Ocean currents will change. Arid climates will be much hotter and dryer. The best rule of thumb that I've seen is about a 10° latitude shift -- so Chicago and Boston will have a climate like the southern USA, and London will be more like southern France. South Florida will be more like Guyana.

Most crops and domestic animals don't do well between the Tropic of Cancer/Capricorn -- and that weather/climate line is going to move +/- ten degrees, so it's going to stress water resources, agriculture, populations, etc. -- besides higher ocean temperatures driving more extreme weather -- more floods, more tornadoes, more snow storms, more hurricanes, more seismic activity as the ice caps melt.

And Mother Nature doesn't give a d**n about silly lines that humans draw on maps.