While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA by a significant margin according the the data directly available to the public from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC)
Here’s the graph of USA mean annual temperature from 1895-2010 produced by NCDC’s interactive climate database and graph generator, which you can operate yourself here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Note the rank highlighted in yellow. The pulldown menu gives you an idea of what was the warmest year in the USA from this data, arrows added:
Here’s the partial table output (you can use their online selector to output your own table) sorted by rank from NCDC web page. 1998 leads, followed by 2006, and then 1934. 2010 is quite a ways down, ranking 94th out of 116.
Climate At A Glance
Year to Date (Jan – Dec) Temperature
Contiguous United States
Year |
Temperature(deg F) |
RankBased on the Time Period Selected (1895-2010)* |
RankBased on the Period of Record (1895-2010)* |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 55.08 | 116 | 116 |
| 2006 | 55.04 | 115 | 115 |
| 1934 | 54.83 | 114 | 114 |
| 1999 | 54.67 | 113 | 113 |
| 1921 | 54.53 | 112 | 112 |
| 2001 | 54.41 | 111 | 111 |
| 2007 | 54.38 | 110 | 110 |
| 2005 | 54.36 | 109 | 109 |
| 1990 | 54.29 | 108 | 108 |
| 1931 | 54.29 | 108 | 108 |
| 1953 | 54.16 | 106 | 106 |
| 1987 | 54.11 | 105 | 105 |
| 1954 | 54.11 | 105 | 105 |
| 1986 | 54.09 | 103 | 103 |
| 2003 | 54.02 | 102 | 102 |
| 1939 | 54.01 | 101 | 101 |
| 2000 | 54.00 | 100 | 100 |
| 2002 | 53.94 | 99 | 99 |
| 1938 | 53.94 | 99 | 99 |
| 1991 | 53.90 | 97 | 97 |
| 1981 | 53.90 | 97 | 97 |
| 2004 | 53.84 | 95 | 95 |
| 2010 | 53.76 | 94 | 94 |
| 1933 | 53.74 | 93 | 93 |
| 1946 | 53.72 | 92 | 92 |
| 1994 | 53.64 | 91 | 91 |
| 1900 | 53.53 | 90 | 90 |
*Highest temperature rank denotes the hottest year for the period.
Lowest temperature rank denotes the coldest year for the period.
Data used to calculate Contiguous United States mean temperatures are from the USHCN version 2 data set.
Of course there is no mention of the USA temperature ranking in the recent press release from NOAA. The only mention of the USA in that PR that comes close is this:
In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.
There’s no mention of the 2010 ranking for the USA temperature at all, nor any mention of the fact that 2010 was not nearly as warm as 1998, or 1934. I find that more than a little odd for an agency whose mission is to serve the American people with accurate and representative climate data.
They couldn’t find room for a sentence or two to mention the USA historical temperature rank for 2010? Apparently not.
“That “Skeptical” Science article is a load of horse manure. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature by almost a millennium. There aren’t any known feedbacks that take anywhere near that long. But what should we expect from a blog run by a cartoonist?”
The planet has been here for 4+ billion years, those timescales are but a tick of the clock. Also interesting is your blind faith in data from one location, trapped for millenia being accurately measured and date stamped and representative of the globe as a whole, and being relevant to the current situation.
Smokey says:
There is nothing “non-sequitur” about showing the change in the atmosphere resulting from increased CO2. You just don’t like looking at the CO2 non-problem that way.
No, there is not, and if I’d said there was you would have a point. As it is you’ve just replaced one logical fallacy with another, what chance the facts in the face of such rabid opacity?
“a blog run by a cartoonist?”
“I don’t expect courtesy from those alarmist wackos, but it never hurts to ask.”
If you want some simple courtesy and respect it is customary to also show some.
Smokey says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm
That “Skeptical” Science article is a load of horse manure. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature by almost a millennium. There aren’t any known feedbacks that take anywhere near that long. But what should we expect from a blog run by a cartoonist?
———————————————–
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
SteveE says: January 17, 2011 at 1:50 am
Smokey says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm
That “Skeptical” Science article is a load of horse manure. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature by almost a millennium. There aren’t any known feedbacks that take anywhere near that long. But what should we expect from a blog run by a cartoonist?
———————————————–
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
So when CO2 gets high enough, it causes the temperature to crash? Or there are forcing(s) at work that blow CO2 out of the water so-to-speak, and CO2 is a bit player in climate.