Feds say 2007 to be 5th hottest on record

[wiffleball 4,662]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Worldwide, 2007 is on pace to be the fifth warmest year on record, based on preliminary data released Thursday by federal scientists. This year is expected to be the eighth warmest for the United States since records were first kept in 1895.

 

The average temperature for the year is expected to be about 58 degrees Fahrenheit worldwide, and about 54.3 degrees Fahrenheit across the contiguous United States, said the report by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

 

A vast swath of the United States was warmer than usual this year, leading to severe drought conditions and wildfires in the West and Southeast. Texas was the only state to record below-average temperatures.

 

"Within the last 30 years, the rate of warming is about three times greater than the rate of warming since 1900," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch at the center. "The annual temperatures continue to be either near-record or at record levels year in and year out."

 

In the United States, the months of March and August were the second warmest in more than 100 years. Six states -- Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Florida -- had the warmest August on record.

 

All but four states -- Texas, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont -- had either "above average" or "significantly above average" temperatures from January through November, compared to the 113 years that records have been kept. Wyoming had its second warmest year; Idaho and Utah had the fifth-warmest years on record.

 

North Carolina had its driest year so far. From midsummer into December, more than three-quarters of the Southeast was in drought, the report said.

 

The problem in Texas, Lawrimore said, was too much rain, leading to flooding and the wettest summer on record. The cloudy and rainy weather for much of the year contributed to the cooler temperatures for the state, he said.

 

Globally, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997, said the report.

(Yeah, but some homeless people died of exopsure in Peru, so this must be a lie.)

 

"When you see these numbers, it's screaming out at you, 'This is global warming,"' said climate scientist Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada. "It's the beginning and it's unequivocal."

 

Weaver said previous warm weather records probably would have been broken this year were it not for some cooling toward the end of the year because of La Niña -- a cooling of the mid-Pacific equatorial region.

 

Globally, the greatest warming took place in high altitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the NOAA report said. The impact of that can be seen in the large reductions in Arctic sea ice, which is melting so rapidly that some scientists have predicted it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040. The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in September estimated the surface area of the Arctic sea ice nearly 23 percent below the previous record set in 2005.

 

The National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration will update its data in early January to reflect the last few weeks of December

 

 

Not that will keep Bozo/RP and their blog friends from telling us that it got record cold somewhere in Minnesota in the winter so GW must be a myth..

 

Oh wait, they already did.

[Bert 1,102]

The Feds also said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

[wiffleball 4,662]

The Feds also said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

...and if you listen to Bozo/RP types, the DID! they DID!

 

 

 

 

 

 

..there were all secretly trucked into Syria where radical terrorists hell-bent on destoring America haven't used the damn things in 6 six years...

[Juggernauts 0]

Problem is, the Feds have lied to us before.

[BMoney 0]

btu if people in Peru are that focking hot....

 

and the glaciers melt.....

 

itll bring them relief by means of water.....

 

 

slap an * on this decade...i blame HGH....

 

ill just sit back here and wait for snowstorm #4 to hit this sat.....fock global warming...

 

1 degree...its about 1 freaking degree? no one has ever heard of el nino?

[Mr. Dynasty 0]

fact: records were first kept in 1895.

 

fact: 2007 is on pace to be the warmest year on record.

 

fact: the earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

[wiffleball 4,662]

fact: records were first kept in 1895.

 

fact: 2007 is on pace to be the warmest year on record.

 

fact: the earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

 

So, when it was 300 degrees on the planet and the air was filled with sulphuric acid fumes - and there was nobody here, you want they should stick a thermometer in the earth's tuckus?

[kpbuckeye 2]

who gives a fock? seriously, you have some man love for RP and Boz.

[Mr. Dynasty 0]

So, when it was 300 degrees on the planet and the air was filled with sulphuric acid fumes

 

 

that's next year if I don't stop driving my SUV, right?

[shovelheadt 62]

fact: records were first kept in 1895.

 

fact: 2007 is on pace to be the warmest year on record.

 

fact: the earth is approx. 4.5 billion years old.

 

Bingo!

 

I've watched many a program on "global warming" and the consensus is this....The earth has gone through major climate warming in the past, multiple times. And this was all before the age of industry. And it will do so again, with or without our involvement.

[Juggernauts 0]

Bingo!

 

I've watched many a program on "global warming" and the consensus is this....The earth has gone through major climate warming in the past, multiple times. And this was all before the age of industry. And it will do so again, with or without our involvement.

 

 

My science prof in college said global warming was BS. He said hundreds of years ago Greenland (which is covered in ice and snow) was called Greenland for a reason. It had a ton of vegetation and was a warmer climate.

 

Of course, then I heard that Greenland was called Greenland even though it wasn't green to confuse invading Vikings.

 

I don't know what to believe!

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Standard stuff really, your news is old, biased, and simply untrue......but you know that, ur just looking for fight in the hopes that my shorts will fall off and you can finally get a shot of my c0ck. Heres the news fraud slinger........

 

NASA Backtracks On 1998 Warmest Year Claim

NASA Corrects 120 Years Worth of Bad Data, Notes NCPA Expert

 

DALLAS (August 14, 2007) - The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen's famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.

 

"Hansen's conclusions that the majority of the 10 hottest years occurred since 1990 are false," Burnett said. "While Hansen's original declaration made headlines, NASA's correction has been ignored."

 

According to NASA's newly published data:

 

* The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;

* The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;

* Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and

* Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

 

NASA's ground based temperature records for the past 120 years, which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, almost entirely due to human actions, have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly.

[wiffleball 4,662]

Bingo!

 

I've watched many a program on "global warming" and the consensus is this....The earth has gone through major climate warming in the past, multiple times. And this was all before the age of industry. And it will do so again, with or without our involvement.

 

I tend to agree.

 

While I think man CAN have an impact on his environment. - All you have to do is look at say, Ohio and Pittsburgh areas 100 years ago versus now. They actually have MORE plants and animals and LESS pollution than 100 years ago (because of man-made changes).

 

On a macroscopic level, I'm not convinced that if we stopped using greenhouses gases and carbon emissions today that the earth would suddently reverse course.

 

BUT what I have said repeatedly in the past is that I can think of about 1,000 other much more immediate and beneficial reasons for cutting back on oil, etc. and I've YET to hear anybody say why that would be a bad idea.

[pimptastic69 0]

When is all the bad stuff supposed to start? I want to make sure I get back down to FLA one more time before it's underwater. With all the predicted doom and gloom, Disney World shouldn't be so crowded anymore.

[shovelheadt 62]

Of course, then I heard that Greenland was called Greenland even though it wasn't green to confuse invading Vikings.

 

I heard something similar to this, along with tricking people into settling there.

[wiffleball 4,662]

Standard stuff really, your news is old, biased, and simply untrue......but you know that, ur just looking for fight in the hopes that my shorts will fall off and you can finally get a shot of my c0ck. Heres the news fraud slinger........

 

NASA Backtracks On 1998 Warmest Year Claim

NASA Corrects 120 Years Worth of Bad Data, Notes NCPA Expert

 

DALLAS (August 14, 2007) - The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen's famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.

 

"Hansen's conclusions that the majority of the 10 hottest years occurred since 1990 are false," Burnett said. "While Hansen's original declaration made headlines, NASA's correction has been ignored."

 

According to NASA's newly published data:

 

* The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;

* The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;

* Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and

* Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions during the last century occurred.

 

NASA's ground based temperature records for the past 120 years, which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, almost entirely due to human actions, have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly.

 

 

Boy, hard to know where to start with this one. - As always with your posts, so in no particular order:

 

1. What's your source? Mine? AP clearly stated. Yours? Not so much.

 

2. Who's talking about 1998? I don't see any mention of it in what I posted. Yet your article is all over it. - Not sure why.

Comedy points though: "2007 is set to be the warmest on record." Bozo: 1998 is a LIE a LIE I tell you!!

 

3. And, uh, really most importantly, you DO know the difference between say, NASA (your article) and NOAA (my article)??

 

4. And last - Is there ANYTHING that you posted that contradicts that 2007 is NOT one of the hottest on record?

 

...Cause if not, you're pretty much just flailing around blindly like a blind man in a windstorm.

 

 

- as per usual.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Boy, hard to know where to start with this one. - As always with your posts, so in no particular order:

 

1. What's your source? Mine? AP clearly stated. Yours? Not so much.

 

2. Who's talking about 1998? I don't see any mention of it in what I posted. Yet your article is all over it. - Not sure why.

 

3. And, uh, really most importantly, you DO know the difference between say, NASA (your article) and NOAA (my article)??

 

4. And last - Is there ANYTHING that you posted that contradicts that 2007 is NOT one of the hottest on record?

 

...Cause if not, you're pretty much just flailing around blindly like a blind man in a windstorm.

 

You specifically highlighted ....

 

"Globally, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997, said the report."

 

So I owned you on that. And since your source is obviously flawed, why the fock should we assume they are correct about 2007? Its implied ownage, I guess to big a leap for you to make (or just more intellectual dishonesty). Sources? Here you go........

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...amp;btnG=Search

 

Think you'll be able to read through all NINE HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND?

[GettnHuge 1]

they nailed it this year when a full half million level 5 hurricanes all struck the US

[wiffleball 4,662]

Its implied ownage,

 

"Implied ownage." Too focking funny.

 

Just to remind your feeble mind:

 

1. Still haven't given me your original source.

 

2. Why did you have entire paragraphs dedicated to NASA & 1998? Different agency, Different year. But other than that - real close.

 

3. Your article is all about the flaws of an entirely different agency, you KNOW that right. I mean I wouldn't expect YOU to pick that up on your own , but I DID point it out for you for God's sake. - And you STILL can't get that? "Explicit Obtusage" seems more appropriate in your case.

 

4. I'm sorry, I'm still waiting on you to refute NOAA's 2007 assertion. You know, the TITLE of the thread?

 

 

- And please don't come back to me with some story about how the FDA was wrong about Alar in 1977 or something. "If they were wrong then..."

[Boz/BoFan 0]

"Implied ownage." Too focking funny.

 

Just to remind your feeble mind:

 

1. Still haven't given me your original source.

 

2. Why did you have entire paragraphs dedicated to NASA & 1998? Different agency, Different year. But other than that - real close.

 

3. Your article is all about the flaws of an entirely different agency, you KNOW that right. I mean I wouldn't expect YOU to pick that up on your own , but I DID point it out for you for God's sake. - And you STILL can't get that? "Explicit Obtusage" seems more appropriate in your case.

 

4. I'm sorry, I'm still waiting on you to refute NOAA's 2007 assertion. You know, the TITLE of the thread?

- And please don't come back to me with some story about how the FDA was wrong about Alar in 1977 or something. "If they were wrong then..."

 

 

You really are a juvenile. You cant even see the irony of your posts. If my info/retort to you is so off topic, so irrelevant, why do you keep asking for a source? Your pseudo parsing just illustrates just how detached you are, you think you can just insult the intelligence of those who read this thread by grasping at straws and violently spinning?

Is ur password JohnEdwards69 ?