NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

...

February was 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest globally on record. For the U.S., the temperature was near average, 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average of 34.7°F (1.5°C), which was 2.0°F (1.1°C) warmer than February 2007.

Globally, the February average temperature was 0.68°F/0.38°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../feb/feb08.html

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

the climate has and will change.... just ask the dinosaurs.

[HAL 9000 96]

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

...

February was 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest globally on record. For the U.S., the temperature was near average, 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average of 34.7°F (1.5°C), which was 2.0°F (1.1°C) warmer than February 2007.

Globally, the February average temperature was 0.68°F/0.38°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../feb/feb08.html

Funny... 'rest of the world' don't count for lots of folks here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Someone should post an article about the rising sea levels.

[GaryC 7]

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

...

February was 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest globally on record. For the U.S., the temperature was near average, 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average of 34.7°F (1.5°C), which was 2.0°F (1.1°C) warmer than February 2007.

Globally, the February average temperature was 0.68°F/0.38°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../feb/feb08.html

Funny... 'rest of the world' don't count for lots of folks here.

This tells me that the warming has at least stopped. It isn't going up now is it?

[HAL 9000 96]

R-E-S-T-O-F-T-H-E-W-O-R-L-D...

[GaryC 7]

R-E-S-T-O-F-T-H-E-W-O-R-L-D...

It has stopped for the entire planet. I read the story.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the climate has and will change.... just ask the dinosaurs.

Or rather ask the Mexicans about that big ####-off hole in their country.

[HAL 9000 96]

Lol, 6

Gary... remember, climate vs weather. One is looooong term. The other is within our grasp of understanding (e.g. recorded history, for starters).

Speaking of which... just you wait 'til summer buddy

[GaryC 7]

Lol, 6

Gary... remember, climate vs weather. One is looooong term. The other is within our grasp of understanding (e.g. recorded history, for starters).

Speaking of which... just you wait 'til summer buddy

I know the difference between climate and weather. The trend (climate) has been steady for the last 10 years. That fact is just as significant as the rise we have been seeing since the 70's. And the fact that the global temp went down for 20 years in the 60's and 70's is also just as significant. The fact we had a cooler winter isn't significant in it's self but put it with the data since 1998 and the trend is a leveling. I don't think we are cooling, I don't think we are warming. I just don't think the BS about man-made GW is true. If it were, the trend would always climb since CO2 has been steadly going up.

[HAL 9000 96]

No, Gary... climate is long term. Weather is short term. The peas you're arguing over are weather fluctuations over the short term.

[GaryC 7]

No, Gary... climate is long term. Weather is short term. The peas you're arguing over are weather fluctuations over the short term.

Then by that logic all the hub-bub over the changes in the last 75 years is unwarrented. Are you saying we are not having global warming?

[HAL 9000 96]

Well it could mean that the GW argument is

1) applicable to a shift in climate, which in scientific terms would be more 'catastrophic' as it would then take either a combination of man-made efforts and/or a very, veeery long term natural homeostatic effect to fix, if at all

or

2) applicable to weather changes, which in scientific terms would be much easier to 'correct' - unless there is some kind of threshold that we haven't yet been accurately able to define through empirial evidence that would place us in climactic shifts

I personally believe we're somewhere in the middle.

[GaryC 7]

Well it could mean that the GW argument is

1) applicable to a shift in climate, which in scientific terms would be more 'catastrophic' as it would then take either a combination of man-made efforts and/or a very, veeery long term natural homeostatic effect to fix, if at all

or

2) applicable to weather changes, which in scientific terms would be much easier to 'correct' - unless there is some kind of threshold that we haven't yet been accurately able to define through empirial evidence that would place us in climactic shifts

I personally believe we're somewhere in the middle.

I think the theory is flawed. I think that they took some data and saw changes and made a theory that fit the data. There is nothing wrong with that, it's how we develope understanding of our world. But I think they jumped to conclusions based on faulty and incomplete understanding and that is how we came up with this man-made GW BS. You do realize that most of the theories are based on computer models and not real world data?

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary, I remind you I do science every day. Its not that their different hypotheses as to how GW has developed and how the predictions of GW will affect us in the future- its about keeping bias out of the picture. Each set of hypotheses being tested and retested will be subject to more than just one set of data obtained in one particular way. Rather, this will continue to be an ongoing refinement so as to settle what portions of the different phenomena described in more detail than any skewed politico or pseudo politico could ponder, are legitimately linked to the artificial factors that create, develop, maintain, and affect GW in a very probable concert with the natural cycles that also are capable of creating, developing, and affecting GW.

The issue is not as simple as making one set of conclusions from one particular model- based on actual evidence- but rather unifying all evidence that has been verified to be consistent with evidence that can either support or reject a hypothesis.

Science that is based on making conclusions based on no hypothesis is called fishing.

If anything, as I delineated above in my previous post and have said before, I think that the global warming debate needs to be addressed from the weather and climate points of view to gain a more complete picture as to what is really going on.