July Heat Set U.S. Record 422
gollum123 sends this excerpt from CNN:
"The July heat wave that wilted crops, shriveled rivers and fueled wildfires officially went into the books Wednesday as the hottest single month on record for the continental United States. The average temperature across the Lower 48 was 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.3 degrees above the 20th-century average, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration reported. That edged out the previous high mark, set in 1936, by two-tenths of a degree, NOAA said. In addition, the seven months of 2012 to date are the warmest of any year on record and were drier than average as well, NOAA said. U.S. forecasters started keeping records in 1895. And the past 12 months have been the warmest of any such period on record, topping a mark set between July 2011 and this past June. Every U.S. state except Washington experienced warmer-than-average temperatures, NOAA reported."
Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Informative)
25.33 degrees for those that both care and didn't already type '77.6f in c' into google.
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Funny)
Cold temperatures in Celsius. Hot temperatures in Fahrenheit. It's the natural way.
Re: (Score:2)
depends how cold it is....
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Funny)
Should we also rename Fahrenheit 451 to Celsius 232.778?
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:4, Insightful)
Should we also rename Fahrenheit 451 to Celsius 232.778?
505.928 Kelvin is better.
Re: (Score:2)
Always been a Rankine man myself...
Re: (Score:2)
3 decimal points on a thermometer, you had better be carefull or people will confuse you with a climatologist.
Central limit theorem (Score:3)
Futurama (Score:3)
"First one, then the other."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course. It's a coincidence. Not related to AGW or anything. I'm sure it's just the sensors being closer to pavement. Also, it hasn't felt any hotter for me, so it must just be the crazy greens trying to take all our money for their solar companies. Just keep letting me burn my dinosaur.
Re: (Score:3)
Incidental temperatures fucking are a coincidence. More storms, less rain, cold winters, whatever - it's not the issue. That's the argument AGW denialists have been using for years, ok?
Headlines like this prove nothing - the overwhelming body of scientific literature shows that AGW does exist, and localised weather is not really a good indication of it (though some, especially those in the media, try to make it so).
Re: (Score:2)
the overwhelming body of scientific literature shows that AGW does exist, and localised weather is not really a good indication of it (though some, especially those in the media, try to make it so).
Where do you propose to define the cut-off point between weather and climate though? One is the average of the other. You can lose a lot of detail when you average everything.Don't know about where you live, but where I am, the weather has been strange,. Two of the last three winters had countryside buried in snow and ice for weeks on end where we usually get occasional frosts. So far this year, we've had dry sunny weather in spring when it usually rains, and it has been pissing rain all summer so bad that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Headlines like this prove nothing - the overwhelming body of scientific literature shows that AGW does exist,"
No, it really doesn't. It hasn't been proved, just marketed better than the other theories (which seem to explain things better).
If you're so sure of this tell me what % of carbon is mans contribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Unless we break the PETM global average, this is really "Meh!"
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Insightful)
The 5 stages of denial:
1: It's not happening.
2: It's happening, but it's no big deal.
3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do.
4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive.
5: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, the alternative is worse, so let's just get on with it.
Alright - we're at step 2 of the denial process! Looks like we've made progress in the last.... 25 years or so. I hope step 3 won't take another 25 years.
FTFY (Score:2)
The 5 stages of denial:
1: It's not happening.
2: It's happening, but it's no big deal.
3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do.
4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive.
5: It's happening, it's a big deal, it's too late to do what we could have done earlier, next time be rich like us so you can insulate yourself from the consequences
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The 5 XXXx 6 stages of denial:
1: It's not happening.
2: It's happening, but it's no big deal.
3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do.
4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive.
5: It's happening, it's a big deal, it's too late to do what we could have done earlier, next time be rich like us so you can insulate yourself from the consequences
6. It's happening. We're DOOMED! Why didn't those damned greenie hippies DO something about this while the
Re: (Score:2)
This July's record heat is only 0.2 degrees higher then the previous record. Let's not blow things out of proportion. (Unless you think the record set in the 1930s is indicative of global warming too?)
Yeah, the new records they set in the Olympics were only milliseconds faster.
Let's not give them a medal or anything. Cause you know.. you don't want to
blow it out of proportion. What's a record anyway, if they are so close to each
other. Amirite?
-AI
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I love it.... "Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012." Of course, if you randomly take out data points you don't like, you're going to get the result you're looking for. Not to mention that their entire post focuses on the fact that not all states all linearly increased in temperatures, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of how temperatures are come about.
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Informative)
I love it.... "Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012." Of course, if you randomly take out data points you don't like, you're going to get the result you're looking for. Not to mention that their entire post focuses on the fact that not all states all linearly increased in temperatures, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of how temperatures are come about.
FWIW, a graph tends to be of more value if you evaluate and potentially take out outlier points.
If you are looking for trends. Also, some toss lowest and highest as well.
Just saying.
-AI
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Informative)
No, poster is correct. It's called winsorising [wikipedia.org]. It's common to toss out the top and bottom 5% just to discount anomalies.
But you don't discount it after you see the data because you don't like it, you plan to discount it before you collect the data and more importantly you do it indiscriminately and equally on both sides of the data set. Not just points you don't like after you see the data.
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:4, Funny)
Urgh.
Okay kids, time to brace for the usual arguments:
"Itz teh global WarminGz!"
"Iz nawt! Itz teh outLiarz!"
"Yoo Dunt no SHIT abut SCIENCE!"
(rinse, repeat, ad nauseum...)
Seriously. Get a grip.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a pretty charitable depiction.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In 1936, according to the article, it was almost as warm. Basically, a "so what?". Between then and now, States have had record cold temperatures as well. This report would be just one more Jeopardy! item, were it not for the political hay that will be made of it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the fact that weather is setting records across the globe year after year right now, is not a concern because equipment used in 1936 had almost the same reading?
You know what, global environment change might be man made or natural cycle, but if it turns out to be man made, I hope you will do the honorable thing and let someone who tried to save the planet have your spot.
Re: (Score:2)
save the planet
The planet's fine. WE are fucked. [youtube.com]
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Insightful)
And the fact that weather is setting records across the globe year after year right now, is not a concern because equipment used in 1936 had almost the same reading?
I think the fact that the previous record was set in 1936 pretty much disproves your "fact" that the weather is setting records "year after year". "Year after year" to most people means "every year or two", not "every 7 decades or so".
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Informative)
I think the fact that the previous record was set in 1936 pretty much disproves your "fact" that the weather is setting records "year after year". "Year after year" to most people means "every year or two", not "every 7 decades or so".
Back in 2009 they were saying the it had been the warmest decade ever recorded, [independent.co.uk] and the years between then and now haven't been any less exceptional either.
So yeah, "setting records year after year" is a pretty accurate good description.
It IS "every year or two" (Score:4, Interesting)
1936 was an outlier. It happened "every 7 decades or so".
The last decade, setting YEAR AFTER YEAR records was NOT an outlier.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, about that deep statistical analysis. I went to Waterloo in the 80s in the math faculty and I went back 2 years ago just to have a look around, and found myself in the stats department, a hall with about 12 offices.
You know how those office doors have jokes on them? 3 of the doors had the math behind the IPCC model with snide comments and exclamation marks. If you think their math is valid I don't think you've sought professional guidance there.
Follow the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1936, according to the article, it was almost as warm. Basically, a "so what?".
Never read The Grapes of Wrath I take it.
0.2 degrees higher than the the hottest month on record is certainly a notable event.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not surprising that record cold temperatures are still being set when the record is only a bit over 100 years old. Since the 1980's however the number of hot records being set has outnumbered the number of cold records being set by a considerable margin. If there were no global warming you'd expect the number of hot records and number of cold records to be approximately equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you know some way for the atmosphere to clear all the heat trapping CO2 we've been dumping for the past 100 years, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Easily solved: use the much colder methane ice from Titan instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Once and for all! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
For now it's still an outlier but in 10 or 20 years it may be the new normal.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The dust bowl was not caused by temperatures, it was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent wind erosion.
It kinda was something other than nature that exasperated the situation.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't believe anyone from the UK hasn't replied yet - June [bbc.co.uk] was literally absurd in terms of rain here - Where I live, we get an average of 12 inches of rain per _year_, distributed evenly between the months, on average.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, coffee is one of the plants severely affected by global warming.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-502303_162-20121250.html [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a reason to buy futures?
Re:All except Washington (Score:4, Funny)
What about the rest of the world? (Score:2, Insightful)
America may be baking, but what about the planet as a whole? Before blaming the elevated temperatures on global warming, does anyone have data on whether or not the globe is also melting along with us?
Re:What about the rest of the world? (Score:4, Funny)
Before blaming the elevated temperatures on global warming, does anyone have data on whether or not the globe is also melting along with us?
Oooo! I do I do!
Signed,
Greenland
Re:What about the rest of the world? (Score:5, Informative)
I dunno about other areas, but I've read that Europe is also suffering from a very intense heat wave.
Keep in mind that this doesn't mean that the entire planet will heat up uniformly. Some areas may even become unusually cooler.
The biggest concern is actually an increase in natural disasters like hurricanes.
Re:What about the rest of the world? (Score:4, Funny)
Hi,
Northern Europe here. We've not seen summer yet this year. It's just cold and wet.
regards,
Sweden
Re:What about the rest of the world? (Score:4, Interesting)
We Canadians, you're neighbours to the north, also recorded record heat and record (lack of) rainfall in July.
Hopefully August will be better. As I type this, it's been raining heavily for the last 20 minutes. We've had more rain in the last 20 mins here in Ottawa that we've had the entire month of July. I'm pretty sure I heard my grass cheering.
Re:What about the rest of the world? (Score:5, Funny)
Far from it. Here in NZ it is noticeably colder than it was just 6 months ago. In fact nearly every one of the last six months has been colder than the month before!
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully last-july and august are the "meses de las cometas [wikipedia.org]"(months of the kites) wich brings some air flows refreshing the sunset
Re: (Score:3)
Before blaming the elevated temperatures on global warming [...]
Begs the question: Who's blaming this on global warming? The CNN article isn't. Hell, even the summary isn't.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's kinda like coming home and before she says anything, instantly telling your wife you didn't touch that woman at all tonight...
Re: (Score:2)
America may be baking, but what about the planet as a whole? Before blaming the elevated temperatures on global warming, does anyone have data on whether or not the globe is also melting along with us?
For the record, average global warming doesn't mean evenly distributed global warming. All it requires is that there are more degrees increase times area of landmass in regions that are hotter than previously than there are degrees decrease times area of landmass in regions that are colder than in previous measurements. That is, if we take measurements in ten regions and find that six of them have a 2 degree increase and four of them have a one degree decrease, the average would be a 1 degree net increase
Re: (Score:2)
Define global warming. Define stoped.
The last ten years the sun e.g. was in a cold cycle is noww slowly gettig hotter again.
There are dozens of effects finally defining the local temperature.
That has nothing to do with GLOBAL warming.
Why don't you look a bit around over the rest of the GLOBE to get an idea how bad it already is?
There are also dozens of effects finally defining whether you get lung cancer.
However, we're pretty sure that smoking is one of the more significant ones now.
Choose, denialists (Score:2)
Either a cold winter doesn't disprove AGW or this absolutely proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
CHOOSE
Re: (Score:2)
This, right here.
Of course, I'm hoping you didn't expect differently.
Re:Choose (Score:4, Funny)
That's easy: I choose to accept all evidence that fits my predefined worldview (whatever that may be), and pretend any contradicting evidence doesn't exist or is incorrect.
Hey, it works for a lot of other things, why should AGW be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, the worldview of your wallet?
Re: (Score:3)
Nice. Conversely:
Choose, believers: Either a cold winter disproves AGW or this doesn't prove it. CHOOSE
I've heard the similarly inconsistent arguments from both sides of the debate.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no, not enough suffixes. It should be believerists. Apparently, "deniers" wasn't perjorative enough, so you need to whack some extra letters on the end to make the term sound even more dramatic.
Re: (Score:3)
To prove that the Global Warming is Anthropomorphic requires a lot of additional evidence, which has been gathered. There is now a strong concensus among scientists that "man-made" is the only explanation that fits [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone who says a warm summer proves it, or a cold winter disproves it, doesn't understand the science. At all.
Talk to the actual scientists. There's very good consensus that it's real.
Re: (Score:2)
Either a cold winter doesn't disprove AGW or this absolutely proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Anyone who talks of climate trends with anything less that a 30 year view is an idiot. However for those idiots that say "Global warming has stalled for the last 10 years" it's nice to rub their faces in their own shit.
Re:Choose, denialists (Score:5, Informative)
I hope you're being snarky.
http://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2011/noaa_globaltemp_2010.jpg [ucar.edu]
Maybe there was *a* summer as hot in '36 but it's definitely hotter overall than '36.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps you should learn to read. Even the summary says it correctly. Every single month of THIS year is hotter than the hottest one of a random year on record.
Re: (Score:3)
Since the temperature isn't any hotter than it was in 1936
In what way is 0.2 degrees higher temperature than July 1936 not hotter?
The global alarmists said (in 2001) that we would soon never see snow.
Who precisely said that, and what specifically did they say.
You don't seem to be too good with the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that this year was incredibly hot, it's not even that the last year was also very warm. It's that the top 10 hottest years are all since 1998 with 2012 looking like it will be the hottest.
Obviously that's not true if we beat a record from 1936.
-AI
Re:Choose, denialists (Score:4, Insightful)
The 1936 record was a monthly average record, not a yearly record. Even if we didn't beat it, 1936 wouldn't be in the top 10 yearly records while 2012 will almost certainly be.
The monthly records prior to 2012 were not all in the same year. The new monthly records are now all from the same year.
well that settles it.. (Score:2)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Score:4, Informative)
Minor correction: the O in NOAA is Oceanic, not Oceanographic.
Hello from Oklahoma.... (Score:2)
This may set a record for the national average, but it has been cooler and milder than last summer here in Oklahoma.
Our avg. July temp. is 91-94 F, but the past 3 or so summers it has been 7-10+F over avg.
Here is an example :this July [weather.com].
And here is Aug. this year(so far...note the diff between avg. and observed) [weather.com]
Glad to share! ;-)
Living in Seattle is Killing Me (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Living in Seattle is Killing Me (Score:4, Funny)
the sun does not shine
That star gets on my nerves. It ruins expensive stuff; car interiors, house paint... basically anything not made of rock. You end up blinded by it driving east or west. Two sets of expensive eye wear required; one for exposure to the naked fusion reactor and one for everything else. Expose yourself enough and you get any of several forms of skin cancer. Trying to work on the property in the summer is hell.
Try to appreciate your clouds.
Re: (Score:2)
Run, children, run from the Pacific NorthWest. Do not come here, the sun does not shine.
No! Do not listen to the infidel! That's just the shadow from the mighty Balmer's lifted chair, ready to be flung at a moment's notice!
AGW Converts (Score:5, Insightful)
Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans
"The results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature are in and Richard Muller, the study's director (formerly an AGW skeptic) declares, 'Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=4 [nytimes.com]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501 [bbc.co.uk]
CEO Exxon admits AGW is real and burning fossil fuels causes it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/27/exxon-ceo-climate-energy-fears-overblown/ [foxnews.com]
The natural progression:
We are now at step 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AGW Converts (Score:4, Informative)
52 million years ago is easily long enough for tectonics to feature. The continents weren't in the same places they are now, and ocean currents around Antarctica flowed very differently.
Oh, and it was also a time of high CO2.
So I wouldn't go thinking you've made some great rebuttal of AGW there if I was you.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize weather patterns were slightly different 50 million years ago when the continental layout was different, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paleogene-EoceneGlobal.jpg [wikipedia.org]
The Gulf Stream and most of the other major currents which move warm/cold water that sets up our weather system were very different then. Any place being much hotter or colder than what we experience 'there' now isn't suprising at all.
I'm ready. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been watching climate change debates most of my life.
First, it was the threat of nucler wear, and the nuclear winter to follow. This was well explained, and there wa polenty of data to back it up, and anotehr good reason to abandon nuclear weapons. In the midst of the destruction and poisoning, we would be huddled around burning straw, freezing to death. Women and children would be affected the most.
Then, it was the new Ice Age, inevitable due to climate cycles that were very well explained and with plenty of data. This was a good reason to either acllerate the adoption of advanced technologies, or to eschew them in favor of a sustainable lifestyle in the coming freeze. Oh, and to get as much oil as possible, just in case. And of course it would cause calamity and chaos, we would need to share resources, and we might get by, but don't count on it. Oh, and women and children woudl be affected the most.
Next, it's Global Warming, with now massive evidence of the causes and impacts, much more data, and warnings that we need to do everything to both prevent and adapt to it. We need to abandon our technology, improve it, change fuel sources, use fuels that don't cause other harms, and do it all now. NOW. Oh, and women and children will be affected the most, and the soonest.
Well, if AGW is real, which it seems to be, then I'm ready to both prevent it and mitigate the consequences of what is going to happen no matter what we do.
Just one thing.
So far, most of the solutions to AGW rely on taking from me pretty much eveyrthing that makes my life, as a middle-class U.S. citizen, special. I can deal with that, but so far ther eis little real discussion of the problems of the rest of world hell-bent on achieving the same special life as I have. I don't begrudge them that. But I'm concerned that they are going to tip the climate over the edge sooner than I could have, and will not readily listen to complaints that they are ruining things for all of us.
I expect to give up a lot - I will have to change my diet, my transportation, pay way more taxes, do with less or most everything, and in the end all it will get me is a feeling of contribution. I will not live long enough to see the results. No, I am not that young.
And I will get the nagging feeling that deep inside this, the truth is, that most of the AGW movement is very, very happy that I am paying for my profiligate lifestyle. Because I neither deserve it, nor shoudl it be even permitted. That bunch has been at it since the Nuclear Winter debate, in one fashion or another.
Because that is the way it's going. The so-called 98% are taking it in the shorts, while the top 1% cling to their place at the top. And the bottom 1% scheme to take all of that and more from the top 1% first, and then from whoever they designate as their next targets. And when the top 1% is ruined, then it's the next 1% and the next.
Soon enough, it will be me.
All so a very few can have their way, and rule us all. They hope.
Then again, this may not work out that way. If sensible people prevail.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm ready. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, what a downer.
I'm a lot more hopeful. I think the challenges brought on by climate change are going to unleash a wave of human creativity and problem-solving the likes of which we have never seen before. We're going to adapt and thrive, and our grandkids are going to wonder why we dilly-dallied for so long in the first place.
But then I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy.
Re: (Score:2)
The glass is always full...
Re: (Score:3)
I've been watching climate change debates most of my life.
First, it was the threat of nucler wear, and the nuclear winter to follow. This was well explained, and there wa polenty of data to back it up, and anotehr good reason to abandon nuclear weapons. In the midst of the destruction and poisoning, we would be huddled around burning straw, freezing to death. Women and children would be affected the most.
Has the Nuclear winter hypothesis fallen out of favour? If it hasn't, then science warned about a catastrophe that could occur if we had a large scale nuclear war, fortunately for a variety of reasons, including the warnings of scientists, nuclear war was averted.
Looks like the science did good there.
Then, it was the new Ice Age, inevitable due to climate cycles that were very well explained and with plenty of data.
No it wasn't. The new Ice Age was never a popular hypothesis, there were a small handful of papers when scientists were still trying to figure out the long term effects of atmospheric CO2. The Ice Age made a bi
Re: (Score:2)
So far, most of the solutions to AGW rely on taking from me pretty much eveyrthing that makes my life, as a middle-class U.S. citizen, special.
Huh?
Damn cold, too! (Score:2)
It's gettin' hot in hurrr (Score:2)
so take off all yo clothes...
(C-walks to the pool in the back yard)
Whew! Thank goodness! (Score:2)
I sure am glad global warming doesn't exist, this could have been SO much worse.
-AI
How can this be! (Score:2)
North Carolina passed a law against global warming. This is illegal!
Re:Brace yourselves (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
His face smells. Possibly because of global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not his face. Common mistake.
And he's not a he. Less common mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Over in England, We have had the wettest April through June since our records began [BBC News] [bbc.co.uk]. Please send us some sunny weather!
Well we might not be able to send any sunny weather over, but we're making a pretty good effort at stalling the Atlantic thermohaline cycle. That'll stop your rain for you.
Re: (Score:3)
It's long been predicted as the most likely scenario that global warming will make Britain wetter. Britain's weather mostly comes from the Atlantic, and warmer weather causes more evaporation, which turns to rain as it hits land masses.
Re: (Score:2)
Your climate model intrigues me and I would like to subscribeto your newsletter.