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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Hopefully it's an outlier (Score:1, Interesting)
What the critics are saying:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-referring-to-when-you-say-july-is-the-record-warmest/
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.
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:Hopefully it's an outlier (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.