backtop


Print 31 comment(s) - last by woody1.. on Aug 29 at 5:30 PM


  (Source: NOAA)
The first seven months of 2012 (January to July) were also the warmest of any on record since 1895

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists have found that July 2012 was the hottest month in the history of U.S. climate records.
 
The NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported that the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during the month of July 2012 was 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is about 3.3 degrees higher than the 20th century average. This means that this was both the hottest July and hottest month in the history of U.S. climate record-keeping, which began in 1895. 
 
According to the report, the warm July temperatures occurred mainly throughout the Midwest, the Plains and the Eastern Seaboard. In July 2012, Virginia experienced its hottest July ever while seven states recorded the month as their second hottest July and another 32 states had it land in their top 10 hottest Julys. 
 
The last warmest July was July 1936, which experienced an average U.S. temperature of 77.4 degrees Fahrenheit. 
 
July 2012 affected agriculture poorly, with the contiguous U.S. average of precipitation at 2.57 inches, which is 0.19 inch below average. The May to July period was the second warmest in history and the 12th driest. 
 
The first seven months of 2012 (January to July) were the warmest of any on record since 1895. The national temperature was 56.4 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 4.3 degrees above the long-term average. The first seven months were ranked the 15th driest January-July period too.
 
The year to date (August 2011-July 2012) was the warmest year on record with the nationally averaged temperature at 56.1 degrees Fahrenheit (3.3 degrees above the long-term average). The last record was broken during the July 2011-June 2012 period. 

Source: Science Daily



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Please no more crap science
By maugrimtr on 8/10/2012 10:02:45 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but using a weighted average calculation resembles what real scientists may do. We can't have that - the scientists would win if we ever admitted that they might know what they are doing.


RE: Please no more crap science
By dgingerich on 8/10/2012 11:28:17 AM , Rating: 3
Well, given that scientists these days have to get through modern liberal indoctrination known as the modern university system before they're allowed to be scientists, I'd say they're lacking some credibility right from the start. They start with a liberal presumption before they ever start practicing what is known as science these days. It colors all of their conclusions.

On top of that, they're using records that only go back 117 years to proclaim that this is a first, when human history shows we had higher sea levels and no ice caps at least three times, in just the last 3500. We didn't all drown back then, so why would the ice caps melting now do that to us? The warmer temperatures back then allowed us to grow more food and spread out, avoiding disease. Why would this be a problem now?


RE: Please no more crap science
By mindless1 on 8/10/2012 12:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
It would be a problem now because we have the inventions of titled property, national boundaries, a larger population, political agendas, disparity in income/mobility, etc.

We could already grow more food if we chose to except that market manipulation makes it unprofitable. As food prices rise it becomes more profitable again.

FWIW, my garden crops this year are doing better than ever BUT I have the luxury of being able to water them, and the higher water bill to go along with it.


RE: Please no more crap science
By woody1 on 8/29/2012 5:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's the Teavangelicals who have subverted science because of politics and religion. If more people had a "liberal" education, we wouldn't have the current situation where only 15% of the US population believe in evolution. The US is falling behind in science because of the popularity of religion-based pseudo-science.

As far as "we didn't all drown back then", the world population was a tiny fraction of what it is now when these events happened previously. Do you have some indication of what the effects were on populations at that time


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki