Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Submission + - Warmest 12-month Period Recorded in US ( 6

seanzig writes: Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground provides a good overview of the State of the Climate Report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). May 2011 through Apr. 2012 broke the previous record (Nov. 1999 — Oct. 2000). A number of other interesting records (e.g., warmest March on record) and stats emerged. It just presents the data and does not surmise anything about the causes or what should be done about it.
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warmest 12-month Period Recorded in US

Comments Filter:
  • What the author fails to make obvious, is that his climate data is for the lower 48-states and does not include Alaska, "Temperatures in the contiguous U.S. during May 2011 - April 2012 broke the previous record for warmest 12-month period, set November 1999 - October 2000, by 0.1F." Anyone else would be able to look around and see that Alaska set an all-time record for snowfall at over 11 feet, ( So why was th
    • by seanzig ( 834642 )

      The 2nd sentence of the entire article says "Temperatures in the contiguous U.S...." Perhaps he should have put that in the title, but I wouldn't call it misleading. It makes sense to exclude Hawaii and Alaska in such a study because they are entirely different climatologically.

      As for the US being a small percentage of the Earth's surface, you're right. Like the poster (me) said - he's presenting data, not conclusions. If you want a more complete picture, you have to read his other articles on the same

      • "As for the US being a small percentage of the Earth's surface, you're right. Like the poster (me) said - he's presenting data, not conclusions."

        Yes, but honest data presented in a misleading way is still misleading.

        However, unlike GP I'm not accusing the article, I'm accusing you.

        You can't get away with the excuse that the article is only about 2% of the Earth's surface (U.S. 48 states only), but at the same time not even mention that in your summary, unless it was your intention to mislead.

        Further, the excuse that it's only about 2% of the Earth can be broken down even further: my state hasn't been terrible warm, and the last 2 years it h

        • by seanzig ( 834642 )

          Well, of course someone is trying to make a point. It's an interesting, significant data point, no more, no less. Not including "contiguous" or "continental" in the summary was an oversight on my part, but it's very clear in the article (just count the number of times it says "contiguous" or look at the big map in Figure 3). Nonetheless, I suspect that people in the continental U.S. would find it interesting that the past year has been the warmest ever recorded overall. You mention your state - you obvi

          • The military also had a remote viewing manual called "Operation Stargate" which was training psychics. Just because the military plans for something and researches it doesn't make it true.
          • I agree, the article was up-front about just what the topic was.

            I can accept that it was an oversight, these things do happen.

            "thought climate change was a crock for years until I started looking at it myself..."

            And I have been researching it for years now, looking at evidence on all sides. I'm not a scientist myself, but I have a good technical, science-oriented education and I can follow a research paper.

            I would not try to refute that "climate change", per se, is a reality. I do, however, believe that the evidence that a significant amount of it has been man-caused is thin, at best.

The absent ones are always at fault.