Washington (DC) - Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published temperature data for 2008. In the United States, the temperature was "0.2 degrees [Fahrenheit] above the 20th Century average [of 53.2 degrees F]." Also, "The average [U.S.] December 2008 temperature of 32.5 degrees F was 0.9 degree below the 20th Century average."


In 2008, the United States had 14 states that were rated "Below Normal," four states that were "Much Below Normal," six states "Above Normal" and two states "Much Above Normal." The remaining 22 were rated "Near Normal." No annual records were set in 2008, and the country was warmer to the Southeast and cooler to the West, Northwest and Northern middle. Northeast and southern middle, including a strip across Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia were all normal.

In 2008, the United States recorded an average precipitation of 30.48 inches, which is 1.34 inches above the long-term average. Twenty-two states recorded "Above Normal" precipitation, with eight recording "Much Above Normal." Two states were "Below Normal," Florida and Oklahoma. And only Texas was rated "Much Below Normal." The remaining 14 states were rated "Near Normal." No annual precipitation records were set in 2008.

The NOAA has observed, "The nation's January-December average temperature has increased at a rate of 0.12 degrees F per decade since 1895, and at a faster rate of 0.41 degrees F per decade during the last 50 years."




In December, 2008, a series of snowstorms "moved across the western, central, and northern states during December, breaking more than 2000 daily snowfall records." NOAA satellites observed that during this time, 6.8 million square miles of North America were covered by snow (including Canada), which is 0.4 million square miles above the average.

In 2008, NOAA estimates 77,772 wildfires burned approximately 5.2 million acres in the United States.

Website claims NOAA uses inaccurate data...

Jan 09, 2009 13:58     

In general, the website link below shows the numbers have been proven inaccurate. For example, they're taking some measurements on top of buildings, even near exhaust vents and such. Not the most reliable. For info related to this redress of global warming claims, check out JoNova and The Skeptics Handbook: http://joannenova.com.au/wp/global-warming/
Dozer42 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -2

Whatever happened to Global Warming?

Jan 09, 2009 14:01     

First it was Global Cooling around the 70's-80's (oops), then it was Global Warming (oops)... oh yeah, since those two were wrong lets just call it Climate Change. I love this term. If I fart in an elevator and the temp goes up .5 degrees it's climate change.
CJ report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +11

I wonder...

Jan 09, 2009 14:59     

If there were global warming bugs in the 20's and 30's, by looking at that chart it looks similar to what we've been experiencing. I've never been sold on global warming, but going green has impact on other more important things IMO and I hope we still put focus on that.
Action Jackson report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +11

"Filtered" Values

Jan 09, 2009 15:00     

Any idea how the red Filtered Values line was calculated. It that a 3-year average, 6-year, 13-year? As you can see if you average the entire century you get a flat line. When you look by the year, it's all over the place. Then you get the filtered values that show a cooling trend during the 50s, 60s, and 70s and then a warm up after that. But you could show any trend with this data by "filtering" it differently. A good example of data manipulation to show the trend you want it to show. They argue that the pattern of filtered values would predict a upswing in temp in the coming years that mimics the double peak humps starting the 90s.

Paul123 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -3

I see a graph with an upward trend...

Jan 09, 2009 15:06     

This one piece of data neither confirms or denounces global warming...looking at the data as a whole shows you the big picture. [The issue isn't whether or not the Earth is warming - as most people who look at the graph see clearly it is. The concerns are over man's influence on global warming. One of the other posters included a link that's very interesting to read. -Rick]
BDF report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +3

@CJ

Jan 09, 2009 16:42     

What's next you ask? Global Melting! Followed by Global Idol! Arg...
Ronald Stepp report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

re: I see a graph with an upward trend...

Jan 09, 2009 16:51     

Yes from this graph it looks like the earth is warming, but 113 years is nothing more than a blip on earths time scale. We have no idea what's going on for sure man made or otherwise. Unfortunately we probably won't know the correct answer until several years from now.
Ricko report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +3

Trillions of tons of greenhouse gases = no effect?!

Jan 10, 2009 13:11     

You simply cannot rationally expect to pollute the earth's atmosphere with trillions of tons of various greenhouse gasses (particularly in such a compressed space of time - ie since the industrial revolution) and not expect it to have disrupting effects on the climate. But this is all really about the point that you cannot do just whatever you like and you cannot avoid facing the responsibility for your damaging actions. That's why those on the supposed 'freedom-loving' right-wing hate the whole concept of GW or, to be more accurate, global climate disruption. They are now down to their last gambits. The lie that cleaner & greener living will cost everyone in vast taxes (this is a particularly amusing line they're spinning right now - like as if the collapse of the private financial system and the various bailouts to private businesses is coming cost free!). Despite the vast majority weight of evidence and scientific opinion they clutch at any single short-term of narrow geographical anomaly or outspoken critic as if it applies globally & 'proves' the entire anti case. It's simply an increasingly isolated absurdity.

DaveBG report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -2

Unfortunately we live in earth timescale 'blips' of 113 years....

Jan 10, 2009 14:57     

In the long-term Earth will be hotter than Hades when the sun becomes a Red Giant...or perhaps our sun somehow mutates to a Dwarf and Earth is an icebox. The point is that we better look at short-term trends because that's what affects us and our kids! In that context, the trend of 113 years is very relevant given the average time-span. I don't know if Rick owns a lot of oil stocks or if he just doesn't want Climate Change (man-made) to be true because he's oversensitive and the truth would hurt too much...either way he just appears very obstinate.

D Mytty report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

Well, I suppose that different people will look at ...

Jan 12, 2009 05:52     

Well, I suppose that different people will look at different parts of the graph and come up with diffrent interpretations! Me, I cannot help notice that the 'red line ' appears to show a gradual temperature increase as the centuary wore on......
PC report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Misleading

Jan 13, 2009 03:13     

The graph would be more relevant if it also showed the mean temperature for the 19th century. You can manipulate statistics in many ways - however, the upward trend looks clear enough to me.
John E report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

@ John E and others

Jan 13, 2009 13:06     

There are 2 reasons an upward trend is seen: 1)The "filtered values" which, as I previously pointed out, no one knows how they were filtered. 2)The graph starts low goes high, then low and and back to high. Therefore your brain, which weights the first and last information heavier than stuff in the middle (like that email where the first and last letter of each word were kept the same but all the other letters were scrambled) sees low then high. For some reason you automatically assume that 19th Century temps will be lower. What if they are higher? But you hit the nail on the head. Statistics can certainly be manipulated in many ways. What is clear to me is that recent highs are about the same as in the 1920s & 30s. Look just at the raw data not the filtered stuff.

Paul123 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1