How Hot Is 2015? Put Down Your Coffee Before Reading This from NOAA.

August 17, 2015


Read down the rows and let this one sink in.


The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months, while January 2007 had the third highest, at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above its monthly average.

June 2015 also marks the fourth month this year that has broken its monthly temperature record, along with February, March, and May. The other months of 2015 were not far behind: January was second warmest for its respective month and April was third warmest. These six warm months combined with the previous six months (four of which were also record warm) to make the period July 2014–June 2015 the warmest 12-month period in the 136-year period of record, surpassing the previous record set just last month (June 2014–May 2015). As shown in the table (above), the 10 warmest 12-month periods have all been marked in the past 10 months.

11 Responses to “How Hot Is 2015? Put Down Your Coffee Before Reading This from NOAA.”

  1. Will be interesting to see how low Arctic ice area will go this year:

    Will no doubt be one of the 5th lowest but since 2nd to 5th lowest are all jumbled up there at max melt point this year could very well turn out to be the 2nd lowest.

  2. rlmrdl Says:

    And STILL the response in Paris will be to argue and fiddle and do nothing. And when they get home the response of the people will be to wonder how the Kardashians are getting on or whether the paparazzi have got another unauthorised pic of little George.

  3. indy222 Says:

    I’ve been reading the work of cloud physicist at Univ Utah Tim Garrett. Now that you’ve put your coffee down, you should not pick it up at any point when reading his papers. He makes a soberingly solid thermodynamics-based theoretical and observationally confirmed case for a close connection between the size of the world economy and CO2 emissions, and that it takes 9.7 +- 0.3 milliwatts of energy to support the maintenance of $1 (1990 inflation adjusted) of accumulated gross world product. He also shows that carbonization of our energy has been going down at the miniscule rate of 0.29%/year for the past 35 years, and actually has reversed and is now RE-carbonizing (thanks to Asia) for the past decade. He’s run forecasts using IPCC and A,B, and SRES assumption models but including a massive decarbonization assumption of 50% in 50 years ( a little less severe than Obama’s plan for the U.S. ……………. and finds there is NO scenario that leads to dropping atmospheric CO2, and only near collapse of accumulated Gross World Product by over half + strong decarboniziation, even keeps it below 500ppm. Given the loss of the West Antarctic, and the Arctic Ocean at even today’s 400ppm and under, it paints a very depressing picture. Summary here: and the diff Eq’s for the wonky are here: and earlier links.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      thanks, I think

    • gdo22 Says:

      It’s not very depressing if it’s what needs to be done. If we were to cut GWP by over half, then we’d go back to the 1990’s level again, which isn’t that bad.

      Unless of course accumulated GWP means something different than what I think it does. But even if we had to make bigger cuts, our species has been alive for 200,000 years. About 199,745 of those years were spent before the Industrial Revolution was considered to have begun back in 1760. We very likely won’t have to make cuts THAT deep, but still, given all this information, and our species’ history, we should be able to survive the GWP cuts necessary to keep atmospheric CO2 below 500 ppm, right?

      • greenman3610 Says:

        many scientists think so, but 500 is still disastrously high if we stay there – there will have to be some kind of gradual draw-down.

      • indy222 Says:

        You do have to be careful. The relevant GWP is not the analog of GDP. GDP is actually the gross domestic product for the year in question. Accumulated GDP is the sum of all GDP’s since the Beginning. GWP is the accumulated total for the world. That’s the interesting thing about GWP and energy. We need energy just to maintain the accumulated STUFF that we already made over the generations, not just to make new stuff for this year. Energy use is proportional to the ACCUMULATED wealth of all years up to the present. So cutting it in half doesn’t mean going from a 4% GDP to a 2% GDP (which already has Wall Street people moaning and complaining). It means getting rid of half the world’s total Wealth.

  4. indy222 Says:

    Right; 500 is still disastrously high if we stay there, that was the point of my post. And yes, a much smaller world that makes way for all the species we’ve almost killed off would be a better world – but getting there the hard way from above is a very different adventure than coming up to that level from below, and then being sane and stopping growth at that point. National Academy of Science astronomer Sandra Faber gave an interesting public lecture last year, and gave a figure for a long-term (astronomically of course!) stable figure for the human population allowing a natural ecosystem around us, was roughly 50 million. We could have 500 million with care, perhaps, and elbowing a bit. Not 7 billion, not even 2 billion. We’ve survived this far by eating through our seed corn. Topsoil disappearing at 1%/year, most of the ocean’s large fish gone, mass quantities of chemicals in plastics untested for toxicity since our (industry bought) FDA only requires testing of chemicals if they are DESIGNED to be eaten, a tiny fraction of the total artificial chemical compounds we’re spreading across the planet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: