Posted on 01/09/2007 11:32:42 AM PST by cogitator
Jan. 9, 2007 — The 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on record and nearly identical to the record set in 1998, according to scientists at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Seven months in 2006 were much warmer than average, including December, which ended as the fourth warmest December since records began in 1895. (Click NOAA image for larger view of U.S. state temperature rankings for 2006. Please credit “NOAA.”)
Based on preliminary data, the 2006 annual average temperature was 55 degrees F—2.2 degrees F (1.2 degrees C) above the 20th Century mean and 0.07 degrees F (0.04 degrees C) warmer than 1998. NOAA originally estimated in mid-December that the 2006 annual average temperature for the contiguous United States would likely be 2 degrees F (1.1 degrees C) above the 20th Century mean, which would have made 2006 the third warmest year on record, slightly cooler than 1998 and 1934, according to preliminary data. Further analysis of annual temperatures and an unusually warm December caused the change in records.
These values were calculated using a network of more than 1,200 U.S. Historical Climatology Network stations. These data, primarily from rural stations, have been adjusted to remove artificial effects resulting from factors such as urbanization and station and instrument changes, which occurred during the period of record.
An improved data set being developed at NCDC and scheduled for release in 2007 incorporates recent scientific advances that better address uncertainties in the instrumental record. Small changes in annual average temperatures will affect individual rankings. Although undergoing final testing and development, this new data set also shows 2006 and 1998 to be the two warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., but with 2006 slightly cooler than 1998.
The unusually warm temperatures during much of the first half of the cold season (October-December) helped reduce residential energy needs for the nation as a whole. Using the Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index (REDTI—an index developed at NOAA to relate energy usage to climate), NOAA scientists determined that the nation's residential energy demand was approximately 13.5 percent lower than what would have occurred under average climate conditions for the season.
After a cold start to December, the persistence of spring-like temperatures in the eastern two-thirds of the country during the final two to three weeks of 2006 made this the fourth warmest December on record in the U.S., and helped bring the annual average to record high levels. For example, the monthly average temperature in Boston was 8 degrees F above average, and in Minneapolis-St Paul, the temperature was 17 degrees F above average for the last three weeks of December. Even in Denver, which had its third snowiest December on record and endured a major blizzard that brought the city to a standstill during the holiday travel season, the temperature for the month was 1.4 degrees F warmer than the 1971-2000 average.
Five states had their warmest December on record (Minnesota, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire) and no state was colder than average in December.
The unusually warm start to this winter reflected the rarity of Arctic outbreaks across the country as an El Niño episode continued in the equatorial Pacific. A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases. This has made warmer-than-average conditions more common in the U.S. and other parts of the world. It is unclear how much of the recent anomalous warmth was due to greenhouse-gas-induced warming and how much was due to the El Niño-related circulation pattern. It is known that El Niño is playing a major role in this winter's short-term warm period.
U.S. and global annual temperatures are now approximately 1.0 degrees F warmer than at the start of the 20th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, increasing globally since the mid-1970s at a rate approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record.
Which raises the question, if they have this much trouble trying to figure out the average tempreture for the US with all the data and technology they have today, how did they do it for earlier years with much less data was available? But yet they will claim some number to the hundreth degree, when they are probably lucky if they are within 1 degree.
If its global warming shouldn't every state be warmer? And every country be warmer than normal?
you won't hear Al Gore mention that will you?
Yeah? Well I live in Colorado and it's not exactly a tropical paradise out here.
I guess that's why everybody says, "The 70's were pretty cool, man."
If you want to know, start here: Quality Control of Monthly Temperature Data: The GHCN Experience
Being from the NE, I LOVE global warming !
"These values were calculated using a network of more than 1,200 U.S. Historical Climatology Network stations. These data, primarily from rural stations, have been adjusted to remove artificial effects resulting from factors such as urbanization and station and instrument changes, which occurred during the period of record."
I wonder if the raw station data are available?
Perhaps "Mother Earth" is fixing herself.
She knows warmer temperatures reduces fossil fuel usage, so she's raising the temperatures to save her ozone layer.
Envirowackos should think about it.
I saw a report last week that New Zealand is having a record cold summer.
In Cleveland, OH 2006 was a warm year. January started the year warm and December ended it warm with mostly normal months in between. Summer didn't seem all that hot this year, though.
I think that the raw data are available, but finding it quickly is beyond my powers.
The only thing that matters is that the sheeple buy into "global warming" so the libs can score political points and the universities can score federal cash.
Althought the choice of words is usual sloppy in this sort of article, I notice undue care here to mislead by ambiguity.
"Historical record"?
Truly reliable records (accurate and continuous for all data sites) only go back about a hundred years, for every site.
Trying to draw conclusions from such imperfect data is like trying to characterize a teenager's behaviour from the last ten minutes of his life --- while he's asleep.
Or precisely defining my route from San Francisco to New York, knowing only the last 200 feet before reaching my destination.
I would love to see (not holding my breath) the presumed record of the last 5000 years of population numbers and global climate by whatever means they choose to present them both on one graph. Real or imagined, but supported by some sort of attempted scientific method.
The point being underlined being that this brouhaha is not about global warming, but about civilization's role in it. And the parasites' attempt to push us back to the stone age; with them as our leaders, of course.
Because there were only 5 thermometers to start with. ;)
Of course, "On Record" is synonymous with "in the last 120 years or so." Interesting from the perspective of the country's history, but pretty meaningless from the perspective of earth's history.
As they keep seeking to improve the data set and refine the way they come up with global averages, who's to say they aren't introducing bias? How do we know they not judging the merits of various reckoning methods by the degree to which they "prove" the known "fact" of Global Warming?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.