A report released today by the National Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization shows that while the globe warmed by an average of one degree between 2003 and 2007, eleven western states warmed by 1.7 degrees and Arizona by 2.2 degrees for the last five years (2003 through 2007), the global climate has averaged 1.0 degree Fahrenheit warmer than its 20th century average while temperatures in the southwest averaged 1.7 degrees warmer (and those in Arizona were 2.2 degrees warmer). The full report is available here.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This is a continuation of a discussion on the role of Global Warming in the decline of moose populations in Minnesota. It is also a discussion of Global Warming denialism.
When I started to write Part II of this post, I realized that one aspect of the argument would probably distract from all the…
NOAA has released the data for average global surface temperature for the month of May. The number is 0.87 degrees C (1.57 degrees F) above the 20th century average for their data set. This is the highest value seen for the month of May since 1880, which is the earliest year in the database. The…
NOAA will announce today that 2014 was the warmest year during the instrumental record, which begins in 1880. The announcement, which addresses findings of both NOAA and NASA, will be made today at 11:00 Eastern. Below is the press release from NOAA.
I talked about this and other climate matters…
Since the Daily Mail is a British thing and the latest form of entertainment in Britain is Libel Tourism, I won't say to you that the Daily Mail is a rag full of lies and deceit. Instead, I'll let you be the judge.
These studies:
Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming
23…
Er, uh, but it's a dry heat, right?
Be interesting to do a chi squared test on that map, wouldn't it?
It figures. Up where we could *use* a little more heat, nothing, while the people who are already quite hot enough get it all. See the Keeweenaw Peninsula, jutting into Lake Superior? See the white county at the tip? That's us.
Temperature is given in Fahrenheit here, not centigrades? But even then, an increase by an average of one degree between 2003 and 2007 seems incredibly large to me, for such a short time span?
Stefan,
Fixed a stupid error on my part. Thanks.
Ah, that makes more sense, now I also understand how they got the new, current average - Thanks! The differences in, and the total amout of warming are amazing, anyway!
Saw something on television awhile back, and apologies because I can't remember where or what. Anyway ...
A group of people went out to find where the temperature stations were that were reporting the temperature changes. (sorry, scientist I'm not).
What they found was improper placement of the recorders. Two Examples: in the middle of an asphalt parking lot and at a fire station next to two fan units blowing air out of the air conditioning units.
My question would be: we do realize the planet is warming but how accurate is this information we're getting?
I especially question the info we receive after seeing the story on television.
Did they also report where the rest of the recorders were?
Realclimate.org has addressed this strawman on more than a few occasions.
Are the red states warming faster then the blue states?
Ah, it seems a bit reactionist to compare 100 years to 4 without some sort of mention of "anomaly", doesn't it?
Of course it is in the southwest. But that brings its own problems; nothing encourages fire more than a dry heat. There's also loss of water supplies from intense evaporation.
And finally, note the north central plains, around the Dakotas and Minnesota. The additional heat there is *not* a dry heat.
They didn't report where the rest of the recorders were. Going on memory alone, they chose random locations and this is what they came up with.
Just don't buy all this global "warming" hyperbole.
If you have Freeman J. Dyson's book A Many-Colored Glass ~ Reflection on the Place of Life in the Universe, go to page 46 and start reading his words on climate.
Not that I completely agree with him either yet found his analysis interesting. From page 49 he say: When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations, and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than rely on computer models.