Print 70 comment(s) - last by FastEddieLB.. on Sep 17 at 10:50 AM

Ten U.S. states experienced their hottest summer yet

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) most recent State of the Climate Report, released on September 8, claims that the summer of 2010 was the fourth hottest summer on record for the United States.

The NOAA has been conducting the State of the Climate Report since 1895, taking factors into account such as storm patterns, precipitation and temperature. Results are compiled at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC. 

Of the lower 48 states, only seven had normal temperatures through the months of June, July and August. 10 were classified as "above normal," 29 were "much above normal," and two were "below normal."

For the summer of 2010, 10 states experienced their warmest summer ever. These states were Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and Rhode Island. The Southeast had their warmest summer ever while the Northeast had their fourth warmest and the Central states had their third warmest. 

The above normal warmth occurred mostly on the eastern side of the country, setting temperature records in cities like Asheville, NC, Tallahassee, FL, Wilmington, DE, Tenton, NJ, Philadelphia and New York City. 

Precipitation trends were off as well. For the first five months of the year, the Upper Midwest received no rainfall. When the summer months hit, heavy rainfall swarmed the area. States like Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa and Michigan had their wettest summer in the top 10 this year, while Wisconsin experienced their wettest yet with 6.91 inches of rainfall above average. On the other hand, the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast experienced below average levels of precipitation due to a lack of tropical weather activity and a high pressure system.

As far as weather goes, Minnesota is set to break its record of 74 tornado's from 2001 while wildfires have settled down in the Western states due to milder weather. 

The NOAA's State of the Climate Report for August can be seen here

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Dr of crap on 9/15/2010 8:41:25 AM , Rating: 0
They have been publishing a state of climate since 1895??
Not even going to believe that one.

RE: Please
By mdogs444 on 9/15/2010 8:56:47 AM , Rating: 1
More of the same. Warmer weather is caused by global warming, and colder weather is caused by effects of global warming.

My toaster just stopped working this morning. I bet that's because of global warming too, right Tiffany?

RE: Please
By kaoken on 9/15/2010 9:16:42 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, it causes weather extremes.

RE: Please
By theapparition on 9/15/2010 10:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
Best part of this is when a year has higher than average temperatures, AGW proponents are quick to point it out. When lower then average, they are just as quick to point out that one years data does not equal climate change. So despite having one of the warmest summers on modern record (just after one of the coldest winters in record), that one data point does not equate to a trend. Fact is, overall yearly temperatures have trended downward since 2000. We'll see what 2010 average brings, but I have a feeling it won't be much different from previous years.

One thing I am certain of though, is that there are people screaming for money to fix this "problem".

RE: Please
By TSS on 9/15/2010 12:57:21 PM , Rating: 3
Well... It's likely that if global warming wasn't used as an excuse people would find other things to blame and get research budgets for.

....wait a minute. It's been getting hotter since the 70's and more and more research funds have been allocated to global warming since the 70's.....

Oh. My. God. The money is causing global warming! Quick! send it all to Al Gore, he'll rid us of this problem!

RE: Please
By tomvs123 on 9/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Please
By drycrust3 on 9/15/2010 1:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
There is only the recorded data, facts, and scientific hypothesis' created by climatologists. An opinion is worthless without one of these cited (which thankfully this article does from a reliable resource).

Excuse me, but it wasn't your so called "non-climatologists" who "tweaked" their raw data to fit their theory, it was climatologists! The person, who ever they are, that alerted us to this was most likely a "non-climatologist", and the journalists that broadcast it around the world are "non-climatologists". The only thing "climatologists" did was to excuse this!
So let us go through your requirements: climatologists corrupted their raw data, so that is useless; climatologists over emphasis or ignore known facts, so we don't know how significant those facts are on a world wide basis; and climatologists allow only their friends to peer review their science, so we don't know how reliable it is.
I can confirm that arguing with stupid people only makes you dumber

Will you ever understand why what "climatologists" did was wrong?

RE: Please
By theapparition on 9/15/2010 4:00:26 PM , Rating: 5
No one intelligent cares what a non-climatologist thinks about global warming

Great point! That's why I guess I won't listen to the leadership of the AGW movement (IPCC), of which not a single one of them has any qualifications in climate theory.

Like Rajendra Pachauri, who has a background in engineering and economics.

I can confirm that arguing with stupid people only makes you dumber

Another great point!
Which is exactly why I won't attempt to converse with you further.

RE: Please
By callmeroy on 9/16/2010 12:42:27 PM , Rating: 2 reply I've seen in a while. :)


RE: Please
By jimbojimbo on 9/15/2010 2:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
One thing I am certain of though, is that there are people screaming for money to fix this "problem".
Well, they won't try to fix anything but they will scream for money to conduct research to further support said "problem" no matter what.

RE: Please
By rtrski on 9/15/2010 11:01:24 AM , Rating: 3
Well, for a welcome change, Tiffy didn't include the obligatory hints that it was related to global warming or climate change, unless I missed it in my reading. She simply reported the statistics. Still, given obvious cant of her past blog posts, it's obvious why she would bother to add this one.

On top of that, anyone who thinks the plural of "tornados" needs an apostrophe still isn't scoring too high on the journalism standards scale.

BTW Tiffy K - do you plan to correct your whole "major global warming denier recants" posting now that the person in question has gone into detail about how he's been misrepresented in a Wall Street Journal editorial? Or do you only report when stories match your agenda?

RE: Please
By Botia on 9/15/2010 12:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
I just wish that Mr. Gore had never invented Global Warming.

RE: Please
By BZDTemp on 9/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Please
By kfonda on 9/15/2010 4:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
Bartender: You really think the world's gonna end?
Ford: Yes.
Bartender: Shouldn't we lie down? Put paper bags over our heads or something?
Ford: If you like.
Bartender: Would it help?
Ford: Not at all.

RE: Please
By Zehar on 9/15/2010 7:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
Classic :)

RE: Please
By Spuke on 9/15/2010 9:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
It would be nice if I could search those old reports from their website but it only goes back to 1998.

RE: Please
By ebakke on 9/15/2010 9:11:30 AM , Rating: 2
Nonsense! It's a government report, so obviously you can/should blindly trust their findings. And if you don't, you're on your own.

RE: Please
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/15/2010 9:17:26 AM , Rating: 4
Yep, blindly trust their findings from 1895, 75 years before NOAA even existed.

RE: Please
By bug77 on 9/15/2010 9:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
You close-minded denier! BOOOOO!!!

RE: Please
By Dr of crap on 9/15/2010 9:33:31 AM , Rating: 3
Can we PLEASE not do a believers vs non-believers thing again. It's the same old thing and ALL of you know you won't convince anyone to change their side. It's like polictics and religion, you're not going to get anything but thristy from all the yelling!

Let's just say that there are warming believers and those that don't believe, and leave at that.

But I think we can all believe that there were no reports from 1985!

RE: Please
By marvdmartian on 9/15/2010 10:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, we should stick with calling each other INFIDELS and NUTJOBS instead!! ;)

Here, let me get these out of the way for everyone:
"OMGWTFBBQ!!!!1!!11!!! It's the GLOBAL WARMINGS!!!"
"It's Obummer's fault!!"
"George W Bush is to blame!!!"

There, is everyone happy??

RE: Please
By RivuxGamma on 9/15/2010 9:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
Short answer: no.

Opinionated answer: Yes, because everyone, (there are exceptions, duh, but almost everyone), loves to be so goddamned polarized that they view the opposition as an enemy. They find it much easier to hate and blame something with a religious fervor than they do to take time and think about the issue.

Why do you think Glenn Beck is so popular? Hint: it's not because he's a snappy dresser.

RE: Please
By The Raven on 9/15/2010 11:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
But I think we can all believe that there were no reports from 1985!

1985??? Don't worry, in 2015 at the entrance to the Hilldale subdivision, I'll knock out old man Tannen with his knuckle cane, hijack the Delorean from Doc and Marty, go back to '85 and get the data we need.

See my respoonse to the OP.

How accurate these are might be another matter, but it should be useful in illustrating a trend.

RE: Please
By RivuxGamma on 9/15/2010 9:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
Great link. I went to the bottom and selected year 1900.

This was at the top of the page:
Some of the following data are preliminary and have not been quality controlled.


Just when I think I can't have less faith in huge manatees...

RE: Please
By marvdmartian on 9/16/2010 8:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
While you're back there, go to Hawaii, and see if you can get a copy of Obama's birth certificate.

Whether you can get it or not, one way or the other, we'll either shut up the birthers or the ones that whine about the birthers. ;)

RE: Please
By The Raven on 9/15/2010 10:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Please
By The Raven on 9/15/2010 10:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
The following link is found in the first part of the original article. This shows data back to 1900 from what I can see.

But I'm not sure where the other five years' data is. Maybe I missed something, but regardless I couldn't give a crap about "climate change". Clean air, yes. Climate change, no.

RE: Please
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/15/2010 11:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting, but I'm not sure that's what they were referring to in the article. The article says:
The NOAA has been conducting the State of the Climate Report since 1895, taking factors into account such as storm patterns, precipitation and temperature.

But the NOAA has only been around since 1970, and their archive of 'State of the Climate Reports' only goes back to 1998, so I think that either '1895' is a typo or that whole sentence is simply incorrect.

RE: Please
By The Raven on 9/15/2010 2:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
I see. Fair enough, but the NOAA has been around since then in one form or another. From the NOAA website 'About' page:
NOAA's roots date back to 1807, when the Nation’s first scientific agency, the Survey of the Coast, was established.

RE: Please
By kattanna on 9/15/2010 12:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
while they have been around in some fashion for that time, its also very hard to believe some of their current findings.

just recently one of their satellites was found to be giving very bad readings, like say 400+ degrees around lake michigan. search for "NOAA 16" for more info.

now, im not saying the earth as a whole isnt warming, thats entirely possible since we are in between ice ages, but if you spend some time going over the agencies data over the years and more importantly their methods, one cannot help but be left wondering, WTF?!?

RE: Please
By Enoch2001 on 9/15/2010 2:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
They have been publishing a state of climate since 1895?? Not even going to believe that one.

Ummm... k... why? Do you think it's too hard to believe that they had thermometers back then or something? Or that the record keeping abilities of a pre-computerized civilization was just unfathomable?

As an atmospheric science major, I can attest that the NOAA have in fact published this report since 1895.

Care to share your disbelief?

RE: Please
By Enoch2001 on 9/15/2010 2:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
For the uninitiated, a little back history on the nation's oldest scientific agency can be found here:

RE: Please
By roadhog1974 on 9/15/2010 9:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was a typo, hot dang.

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki