DfT Publishes Ricardo Report on Technology Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions from Heavy Goods Vehicles; Focus on Vehicles, Powertrains and Fuels
Toyota Motor Kyushu Doubles Output Capacity For Hybrid Parts for HS 250h

Preliminary Data Shows June 2009 Second Warmest on Record Globally; Global Sea Surface Temperature Hits June Record

Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for June 2009 and the January-June 2009 year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record, according to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), part of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

June’s Blended Land and Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius. Source: NCDC. Click to enlarge.

Sea surface temperatures during June 2009 were warmer than average across much of the world’s oceans, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across the southern oceans. The global ocean SST for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59 °C (1.06 °F) above the 20th century average of 16.4 °C (61.5 °F). This broke the previous June record set in 2005.

Large portions of each inhabited continent were substantially warmer than average during June 2009. The warmest anomalies most notable in parts of Africa and most of Eurasia, with temperatures of 3°C (5°F) or more above average.

The most notable cooler-than-average temperatures were present from the southwestern US to the Northern Plains, the Canadian Prairie Provinces, central Asia, and across the boundary of northeastern China and southeastern Russia.

The most notable above-average precipitation during June 2009 was present across parts of central and northeastern Europe, eastern Asia, northern Brazil, and most of the northern half of the contiguous United States. The driest anomalies occurred across India, southeastern Asia, northern South America, southeastern and south central contiguous US, and parts of the western Pacific Islands.

El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) transitioned from ENSO-neutral to El Niño conditions across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2009. If El Niño conditions continue to mature as projected by NOAA, global temperatures are likely to continue to threaten previous record highs.



The data only goes back to 1880 - "on record" means about 129 years...relative to what scientists believe is the age of the earth, 4.5 billion years, can we really draw an serious conclusions with only 129 years of data? Especially since the data shows another period of time when temperature rose "drastically", 1940-1945, and that was about .5 of a degree at it's max - we are about 1.1 degree now. However, the 1940-45 period is interesting - lots of things were being blown up then & massive amounts of carbon was put into the atmosphere including from the factories making war material. BUT, what is puzzling is that in the decades following WWII, there was copious amounts of nuclear weapons testing and industrialization without environmental laws going on and there is no clear trend in the data until the 80's and beyond. Maybe it's just the sheer amount of smokestacks (cough! China) and deforestation (Brazil) across the globe that is causing what we're seeing now?


Clearly the reading of popular science books on greenhouse science like Fred Pearce's "Last generation"
Or William Ruddiman's fantastic "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate",
is too much like hard work for many.
Even the wiki entry, its shorter,

Much harder, and much more dangerous work, was done by thousands of scientists, over decades, lumping ice cores over glaciers and across frozen Antartic valleys in order to drill down into the past to obtain more than 100,000 years of ice core records. That is one way we know about the past climate. And deposits of mud and the remains of life contained in them are another that tell us about sea temperature. Is is a perfect understanding of the past? Probably not. It is, however, considerably better than idle musings of armchair experts.


Quoting wiki as a reputable source is like quoting the National Enquirer. Drawing conclusions from 100,000 years of data for a known existence of earth that is 4.5 billion years isn't very intelligent either. And where is the scientific method --- the experimentation proving the same results over and over again? Sounds more like junk science to me. Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi may think global warming is making them sick...I think they're simply cuckoo.

Roger Pham

This certain refutes the contention from the Denialist camp that "the earth has been cooling for the past several years..." Bad news: Global Warming continues.


Nobody can predict future climate change based on a range of scenarios with absolute certainty. I think all of the top researchers working on GCC would freely admit that. However, with my limited knowledge about climate science, I find the theories of anthropogenic GCC caused by CO2, HFCs, soot, etc. far more compelling than those of the denialsts.

Here is something for the denialists to consider: If mankind significantly reduces its output of those chemicals by replacing oil and coal energy with as much renewable energy as is practical while practicing as much conservation as possible, the worst outcome will be a cleaner, safer and much more peaceful existence for all. If the denialists lose their bet, well, who's gonna pay?


It is doubtful we should trust The National Weather Service (their station siting is poor) but I found this weather map interesting for the U.S.



Record low temps and max low temps all over NA. How does NOAA think they can pitch their claims?



NA ≠ World



You are so right. I'd rather trust you.



"Drawing conclusions from 100,000 years of data for a known existence of earth that is 4.5 billion years isn't very intelligent either."

Climate science is based on far, far more than 100,000 years of ice core data. And you know that.

Do we really need to know all about the economy in Mesopotamia to understand what caused the current crisis? Because that is essentially what you're arguing. Not very intelligent.

The comments to this entry are closed.