Confirmed: July 2021 was the hottest month ever recorded in 142 years

Jimmy2x

Posts: 116   +8
Staff
Why it matters: Being first isn’t always a good thing, especially when it comes to climate temperatures. This past July scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recorded the highest average land and surface temperatures for the month of July since records began being kept 142 years ago.

July is typically the hottest month each year, but this past July clocked in as the hottest July on record with a combined land and surface temperature of 1.67 degrees fahrenheit (0.93 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average.

While the overall average surpassed recent highs, individuals in the Northern Hemisphere especially felt the burn, with land-surface temperatures recorded at 2.77 degrees F (1.54 degrees C) above average. These temperatures surpassed the previous surface temperature records recorded in July 2012.

NOAA administrator Rick Spinard, Ph.D., stated “July is typically the world’s warmest month of the year, but July 2021 outdid itself as the hottest July and month ever recorded. This new record adds to the disturbing and disruptive path that climate change has set for the globe.”

Significant climate events in July 2021 - Graph

Click to enlarge

NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), who is responsible for providing access to the country’s historic weather data, produces a monthly updated outlook for the global temperature ranking at the year’s end. Based on current data NCEI is virtually certain that 2021 will be a top 10 year for global temperatures.

In case you are looking for more 'good' news, NOAA also reported the fourth smallest Arctic sea-ice coverage in 43 years. Ten of the smallest sea ice extents reported for the Arctic have occurred since 2007. Arctic sea ice data is collected and provided by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

According to NOAA.gov climate data, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2005.

Permalink to story.

 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,528   +5,948
Yeah, it was a hot one.
Even if you don't believe in climate change, one thing I can say is that our oceans are also becoming more acidic, which is definitely the cause of humans... if we're not careful, we may not have any seafood to eat by 2100.

Think about it
And in 2100 the line will be "we may run low on seafood by 2200" and "we only have 20 years to flatten the climate curve!"

Even if you support climate change (which I believe the climate is indeed changing and mankind has a hand to play in it), one has to admit that for over 50 years now climate alarmists have made hundreds of predictions, not a single one of which has actually happened. "we may" "their could" "it might", none of this means anything. Meteorologists are more accurate then climate alarmists, and the fact they refuse to go after the biggest players of CO2 output, actively oppose nuclear power, and push feel good measures that repeatedly do nothing while texting from their new $1000 iphones speaks louder then any megaphone.

We were going to have a new ice age by 1994. Global starvation by 1997. Water shortages worldwide by 1999. Florida underwater by 2020. Now we'll have "irreversible damage" by 2050 and "may have no seafood" by 2100.

Think about it.
 

Tantor

Posts: 349   +629
Most US heat records were set in the 1930's. Death Valley's record is from 1913. Claiming that this was the hottest July is silly.

If you want real info on average world temps, check out the satellite data, which has much better world coverage. It shows that 2021 is about even with 1997.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

The climate changes all by itself. For example, the earth cooled and then warmed dramatically during the Little Ice Age, a period of 480 years between 1440–1920 AD. This happened without any human intervention.

Doomsday predictions should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Check out this compendium of mind-boggling climate predictions from the 1970's.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

 

shark975

Posts: 85   +103
(They fake the data)

BTW, there are people who study how NOAA fakes the data, and interestingly enough, they do it more by back adjusting old temperature records through "algorithms" to make the past appear colder than it actually was. Thus, today appears hotter by compare. The more you know...
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,215   +2,748
TechSpot Elite
(They fake the data)

BTW, there are people who study how NOAA fakes the data, and interestingly enough, they do it more by back adjusting old temperature records through "algorithms" to make the past appear colder than it actually was. Thus, today appears hotter by compare. The more you know...

There are people who spend their time trying to convince everyone that NOAA fakes their data. With pseudoscience behind their claims. The more you know...
 

Wereweeb

Posts: 70   +137
Even if you support climate change (which I believe the climate is indeed changing and mankind has a hand to play in it), one has to admit that for over 50 years now climate alarmists have made hundreds of predictions, not a single one of which has actually happened.

It's almost as if that's because we changed how we were behaving in order to avoid the predicted scenarios. Think about it, thinking is not as hard as you're making it up to be.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,528   +5,948
It's almost as if that's because we changed how we were behaving in order to avoid the predicted scenarios. Think about it, thinking is not as hard as you're making it up to be.
And countries like China and India dramatically increased their CO2 output at the same time, overtaking America's peak during the industrial revolution. Think about it, if America's CO2 output was going to destroy the world, then china released way more and disaster did not occur, then what made the american CO2 so dangerous? CO2 output has not slowed down globally, only at a national level has it improved, with both europe and the US making major strides in CO2 output per capita. AT least SOME of the alarmist predictions should have come to fruition, yet none of them did.

So I ask, why isnt florida underwater? Where was our ice age? Where are the global crop failures? Could it be, perhaps, that alarmists dont understand how the systems they are sperging out about actually work and instead are re-enacting the boy who cried wolf? Could it be that perhaps the ecosystems of earth are not in fact as fragile as glass and can adapt to changing conditions? If CO2 output is SOOOO dangerous why do these groups oppose nuclear power, why do they not tackle china and india, and why do they not go after shipping companies for burning filthy bunker oil and injecting the exhaust directly into the ocean, causing acidification at a far higher rate then atmospheric absorption?
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 1,202   +872
I find the claims of the deniers - here pretty interesting .
Lots of false arguments - about predictions . There was a recent article on Ars Technica showing that the main contrarian scientists prediction were all hopelessly wrong - and by and large the mainline predictions are tracking pretty good .
Oh they picked a cold period - what a lot of tosh . It was the right-wing paid polluter blogs that continually used 1998 to show no warming.
Even the disseminators of mis-information have mostly given up on arguing the world is not warming . That data was being massaged etc ( not understanding the science of normalization for different devices and ocean depths of sensors ).
The average citizen of the world can see the world is warming - weaker winters, earlier springs - daffodils popping up middle of winter .
You can make up fake stories - but people know super hot temperatures in the artic in the middle of winter is not normal.
Just continue with your usual lies of just a natural variation globally - with no known cause .

You know what's interesting is say a midwest farmer who denies man made climate change , and climate change altogether - will actually factor in climate change for their farm - weird huh??

here where I live -used to get 60 ground frosts a year - over last few years barely get 10
-You seriously think techspot readers are that stupid to believe your "truths"

Oh and the hottest day story - wow , just wow - please learn the difference between climate and weather. To get super hot days , it's like super 30 metre waves - all the factors line up - hot air of ocean moving inland , that now super super slow moving air masses over land held in deadspot , with a naturally intense sunshine day to boot
 
Last edited:

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,215   +2,748
TechSpot Elite
Could it be, perhaps, that alarmists dont understand how the systems they are sperging out about actually work and instead are re-enacting the boy who cried wolf?

You're implying that anyone who says that man-made global warming is real is an alarmist. That's a strawman argument, an argument against nothing.

Looking at the consensus of what climate scientists are saying is a better way to engage in the issue.

What's the use in caring so much about what alarmists say?
 

Plutoisaplanet

Posts: 759   +1,202
You're implying that anyone who says that man-made global warming is real is an alarmist. That's a strawman argument, an argument against nothing.

Looking at the consensus of what climate scientists are saying is a better way to engage in the issue.

What's the use in caring so much about what alarmists say?
That’s not at all what he’s saying lmao. If you look back, he believes the climate is changing (he probably includes warming in that but I can’t speak for him) and that mankind is partially the cause of it. What you quoted literally is something separate: that many climate scientists have been making doomsday predictions even about past dates that never came true and so he doesn’t believe their current predictions have merit either. He attributes the reason why they’ve been wrong to the fact that models are based on a whole system of inputs—or manmade assumptions—and may be missing factors they’re not aware of.

What you’re saying about the consensus of climate scientists means very little considering it’s a developing field. At one time the consensus of astronomers was that the earth was flat, and there were many of them who studied astronomy extensively. Scientific consensus is constantly evolving, or invalidating its past claims.

Today there are other constantly developing fields of science that seems to keep flip flopping. For example, nutrition is a study of another complex system where scientists keep learning more and keep changing their minds about flawed claims they’ve made before (ie. whether butter or margarine is healthier). Much of science is made up of theories that are based on evidence, but just because a hypothesis fits the currently available evidence doesn’t mean it’s the right hypothesis yet. The earth’s climate is not a very easy system to study and surely there are mountains of evidence still to be revealed.
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 1,202   +872
That’s not at all what he’s saying lmao. If you look back, he believes the climate is changing (he probably includes warming in that but I can’t speak for him) and that mankind is partially the cause of it. What you quoted literally is something separate: that many climate scientists have been making doomsday predictions even about past dates that never came true and so he doesn’t believe their current predictions have merit either. He attributes the reason why they’ve been wrong to the fact that models are based on a whole system of inputs—or manmade assumptions—and may be missing factors they’re not aware of.

What you’re saying about the consensus of climate scientists means very little considering it’s a developing field. At one time the consensus of astronomers was that the earth was flat, and there were many of them who studied astronomy extensively. Scientific consensus is constantly evolving, or invalidating its past claims.

Today there are other constantly developing fields of science that seems to keep flip flopping. For example, nutrition is a study of another complex system where scientists keep learning more and keep changing their minds about flawed claims they’ve made before (ie. whether butter or margarine is healthier). Much of science is made up of theories that are based on evidence, but just because a hypothesis fits the currently available evidence doesn’t mean it’s the right hypothesis yet. The earth’s climate is not a very easy system to study and surely there are mountains of evidence still to be revealed.
Astronomers have known the earth wasn't flat for 1000s of years - probably much more - humans 30000 years ago were not stupid .
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas for over a 100 years - it has never been refuted . Deniers saying but how can a small % effect the world climate is not science.
The basic model has been very good for awhile - concentrating on outliers is hardly a productive argument - as I stated the contatrian scientists often from other fields - have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
The 1970s debate about warming and cooling is interesting - most scientists thought the world will warm - but pollutants in the air have a cooling effect . At that time models were very nascent - so scientists were on the whole calling for more science. Yes without mankind's industrial revolution we should of been in a mini ice age .
Now as the models get more refined - they are getting even more accurate .
That man is the main reason for global warming passed the gold std of proof 2 years ago
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 2,215   +2,748
TechSpot Elite
That’s not at all what he’s saying lmao. If you look back, he believes the climate is changing (he probably includes warming in that but I can’t speak for him) and that mankind is partially the cause of it. What you quoted literally is something separate: that many climate scientists have been making doomsday predictions even about past dates that never came true and so he doesn’t believe their current predictions have merit either. He attributes the reason why they’ve been wrong to the fact that models are based on a whole system of inputs—or manmade assumptions—and may be missing factors they’re not aware of.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. How bout letting him answer about his thoughts. He specifically mentioned "alarmists," not any consensus. And the previous sentence to the one I quoted are those alarmist predictions and not ones that reflected the consensus at the time. For instance the ice age thing in the late '60s and early '70s. Some alarmists were saying that. Not the consensus.

What you’re saying about the consensus of climate scientists means very little considering it’s a developing field. At one time the consensus of astronomers was that the earth was flat, and there were many of them who studied astronomy extensively. Scientific consensus is constantly evolving, or invalidating its past claims.

Today there are other constantly developing fields of science that seems to keep flip flopping. For example, nutrition is a study of another complex system where scientists keep learning more and keep changing their minds about flawed claims they’ve made before (ie. whether butter or margarine is healthier). Much of science is made up of theories that are based on evidence, but just because a hypothesis fits the currently available evidence doesn’t mean it’s the right hypothesis yet. The earth’s climate is not a very easy system to study and surely there are mountains of evidence still to be revealed.

A lot of what everyone loves to include in arguments about climate science (and loads of other topics) are pop culture references, not science. Like the butter vs margarine thing. Please show where a consensus of scientists has flip-flopped about that.

And the fact that science conclusions evolve over time is inevitable as more data comes in. Your argument implies that we should do nothing until we have 100% certainty. That doesn't happen in science, there's always the possibility that something can be disproved. Using that logic nobody should do anything about anything. Ever.

Instead it makes sense to take action based on the best data we have, which is what's included in the IPCC report from last week. Note that those conclusions have been consistent for decades now.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,190   +3,784
You're making a lot of assumptions there. How bout letting him answer about his thoughts. He specifically mentioned "alarmists," not any consensus. And the previous sentence to the one I quoted are those alarmist predictions and not ones that reflected the consensus at the time. For instance the ice age thing in the late '60s and early '70s. Some alarmists were saying that. Not the consensus.
I think he‘s just understanding Insanegamer‘s entire statement differently than you do. So do I, btw.

Maybe the difficulty here is that the opinion he voices is neither the classic ‚we‘re doomed‘ nor ‚everything‘s fine, nothing to see here‘. It‘s more nuanced.

 
Heck this has probably been the coolest July in recent memory for me. I dont recall a single day here over 100 and many days it never even hit 90. If anything its been one of the coolest summers here in south Alabama.
 
Why are 99.9% of Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers and Climate Change deniers also Donald Trump supporters? It's become this weird 'cult of the stupid' a celebration of deep stupidity and a race to the bottom lead by the most stupid of them all.
Because you see what you want to see and believe all the nonsense the media like CNN tell you. Most "Anti-Vaxxers" you are probably referring to are not against vaccines in general just wary of the covid one. And I have never met a single person in real life who is actually dumb enough to think the world is flat.