Ecocentric

2012 Was the Hottest Year in U.S. History. And Yes — It’s Climate Change

Last year was the hottest ever for the continental U.S. — and it wasn't even close. Just in case you needed more evidence that the climate really is changing

  • Share
  • Read Later
Danny Wilcox Frazier / Redux for TIME

A dead branch sits in the cracked earth near the Morse Reservoir, north of Indianapolis, on July 22, 2012

It’s official: 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S. — and it wasn’t even close. Last year beat the previous record holder — 1998, the summer of which I spent broiling to death as a New York intern — by a full 1ºF (0.56ºC). That’s a landslide, by meteorological standards. That’s Alabama beating Notre Dame to a bloody Irish pulp last night for the college football championship. It was really, really hot last year.

I could cite more statistics to prove the point, but I think this map from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does it better than anything else:

As the numbers and colors on that map show, every one of the lower 48 states experienced an annual temperature average last year that was higher than the 20th century average for that state. (The average temperature for the continental U.S. in 2012 was 55.3ºF [12.9ºC], 3.2ºF [1.8ºC] higher than the 20th century average.) Nineteen states — including Texas, New York, Ohio and Oklahoma — had their highest annual average temperatures on record; 26 others had years that ranked in the top-1o hottest ever. Did I say it was hot? It was hot.

And that was just the temperature. Last year was also unusually dry for the continental U.S. The average precipitation total was 26.57 in. (67.49 cm), 2.57 in. (6.53 cm) below average — good for the 15th driest year on record. And that national number hid devastating local extremes, as much of the Midwest was gripped — and remains gripped — in a historic drought. In July, 61% of the country was experiencing some drought conditions — roughly equal to the devastating droughts of the 1950s, if smaller and less extreme than the Dust Bowl droughts of the 1930s. The prolonged dry spells and brutally hot weather set the stage for massive wildfires — 9.2 million acres (3.7 million hectares) of forests were charred in 2012, the third most in the 13-year record.

And while 2012 certainly stood out for its high temperatures, it was hardly unusual. The last decade globally has been the hottest in recorded history. (U.S. temperature records go back to 1895.) And the heat has been above average for some time. Want to know the last time the continental U.S. had a record cold month? December 1983.

It should go without saying that the main driver behind these rising temperatures is man-made climate change, as Angela Anderson of the Union of Concerned Scientists said:

Unfortunately, this won’t be the last time we break records like this. The longer we delay reducing emissions, the more climate change we’re going to lock in. The President has promised to make climate change a priority in his second term, but he needs to turn those words into action. The price tag for dealing with unchecked climate change makes the fiscal cliff look like a crack in the sidewalk.

The problem is that we tend to gawk at these temperature extremes, or at multibillion-dollar storms, then shrug and go back to our daily business. That shouldn’t be an option anymore.

Of course, it could always be worse. Right now in balmy Australia, the average-high national temperature is a cool 40.33º. Except … that’s actually in Celsius. Which means Australia is burning through average high temperatures of 104.6ºF (40.3ºC). Those shrimp will be barbie-ing themselves.

113 comments
info12
info12

Is sad here is you  probably  really believe this. The good news with rising  sea levels almost  half your crazy state won't be around much longer.


http://www.xiteos.com/

followolero
followolero

Expect our political body to rule that it's way to soon to tell if what we know really is and then spend years arguing that we can't do anything about it anyways so doing nothing is preferred over doing something. Our man made climate change just became the new norm of something 'natural' we simply have to get used to. 


http://www.xmodels.me

VayaSimonech
VayaSimonech

Floodings and extreme weather is quite a fact here in Europe nowadays, regardless of politics and using a little common sense, I have serious doubts that this has nothing to do with global warming.

Seo en Málaga

Anniem10000
Anniem10000

Let’s say global warming is a hoax, that many of the scientific community are lying-why we don’t know- that it is a fact that emissions man made or natural do change climates-but never mind all that, even if it is a hoax. Why would it not be to everyone’s benefit to have cleaner air, and explore and begin to create energy from alternate methods than those which ultimately will be depleted?

What is the argument? 

TopGunFitzgerald
TopGunFitzgerald

HOAX Global Cooling aka(Climate Cahnge) changes every second of the day, everywhere all over. Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.

The earth has been cooling the last 15 YEARS!!!!!,   Google  "east anglia hoax"

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is giving an iPad to a 13-year-old who said he found evidence that human-induced global warming is a hoax through books at a local library.
“It was really easy for me to find this evidence, really easy,” said Alex, who called in to Limbaugh's show from Wilmington, Ind. “I believe the reason that the liberals do not have the evidence is because they do not want the evidence, they do not want to hear that it is wrong.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html  Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

MikeAlan
MikeAlan

and how does the author know its due to man made release of gas?   Schmuck

RobertBernal
RobertBernal

We all know about the problem. Now we must instead "argue" about the BEST solution, that is, to IDENTIFY the lowest cost to the safest and most plentiful source of clean energy. It is solar and it's ability to enable the rise of exponential MACHINES that create it as cheap as dirt, is it LFTR (the better and far safer nuclear) or is it a more expensive combination of ALL the renewables?

It is now time for people to learn some basic science and math and all agree on which is the best to "go all out" for!

Shyloh4m
Shyloh4m

I think it is kind of cool how we keep breaking our records. At the same time I am kind of scared because that means global warming is instead of being a myth it is becoming reality. This is very informing about the earth. I did not feel the warmth of the summer last year though and how it broke the record. I also do not believe the president could possibly come up with a climate control program. I think it is quite impossible for there to be climate control.

A lot of the states broke records which is pretty cool. I did not believe global warming before and i got into an argument about it but now that I read this I believe it is happening. If this is not the last time we break a record i wonder how hot the earth is going to be getting eventually in five or ten years. It is really scary how this is happening and the New England region I have noticed have been getting warmer in the winter time.

hew44
hew44

I really enjoy this debate. There is no doubt that climate change is happening, but I really doubt that people are the cause. If you think about natural CO2 emissions which include anything from dead leaves to forest fires and volcanic eruptions (all of which are naturally occuring) then you can see that our cars + factories are just a drop in the bucket. The idea that people could change the climate is rediculous. Its like saying that we can control the weather.

johnpaily1
johnpaily1

We are paying the price for our ignorance of Nature. Common sense tells us that when anything is unilaterally heated it breaks down. The principle and design of earth and her functioning suggest that when environmental heat is increased unilaterally then earths environment unwinds. Earth reacts to this force by winding. We are goverend by two opposing forces - sun that heat up and and earth that cools [rain/snow]. Design of earth tells us that when one part peaks in heat another part is expected peak in coldness. The exponentially increasing heat of the environment by human activity in a quantum world that changes constantly invariably means there would be accelerated climate change, leading to huge destruction by all the forces of nature. The earths winding force invariably means we can expect huge earth quakes. Eventually it would end in huge volcanic eruptions. Watch out for yellow stone. There is hope for humanity in God provided he awakens to the principle and design on which earth functions and develop management of energy of earth’s environment - some one take this message to the world http://www.scribd.com/doc/114273537/Climate-Change-and-Its-Relation-to-Energy

joukot
joukot

Name calling will not help either side. Climate change is a well documented fact, and the more we delay sensible actions the more expensive it will be. It is clear some industries will suffer and they bitterly oppose any actions. The situation is almost identical to the claims by tobacco industries that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

JKBullis
JKBullis

Back in December it seemed we were getting to a higher level of debate, a little less focused on anecdotal reporting and more on real recognition of the underlying problems.  Here it seems we have reverted to name calling. 

redleg
redleg

2 of the last 4 winters in south florida were extremely cold, for months on end. absolute PROOF that global warming is a fraud, as a hot area was unusually cold. END of debate

lordsnooty01
lordsnooty01

Talk about flogging a dead horse.......the whole argument for MM climate change, global warming or whatever else you would like to call it, was based totally and utterly on a lie. Now correct me if i'm wrong, but in the human race, information and trust can only be relied / built upon when credibility is apparent...and this is where the story ends.....lies, manipulation, fables, selective data processing etc.......before the uncovering, people were actually buying in to the whole "maybe, just maybe" theory, but since, support has done nothing more than dwindle. I guess the pro-CC camp need to employ another PR company to invent another name for it if people are to be duped once again, the CC slogan has run its course and does nothing more than switch people off.

dobe
dobe

Broiling to death? Exaggerate much? It is sad when stories that purport to inform us of important FACTUAL information are written or edited so carelessly that skepticism on the part of the reader is automatic.

Williswinning
Williswinning

@TopGunFitzgeraldLOL, no it is not. I'm not Goolging some made up articles that the Koch brothers paid for, I'm an actual scientist, though in a different field, and know the truth.

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@Colep - Very interesting analysis; thanks for the link! So we are left with the fact of global warming; and the fact of increased GHG's, (notably CO2 whose concentration is also increasing ominously in the oceans).

You cite a statistical treatment of the correlation of the time series of temperature and GHG concentrations that does not "prove" causality, but that does not rule it out..

We might scratch our heads and ponder, "Well then, what is causing Global Warming?" My money is still on human generated GHG's as the ultimate cause of the observed warming, together with deforestation; soot, it turns out; and contingent feedbacks such as loss of albedo and liberation of sequestered methane. We do know that there has been no recent increase in solar irradiance that can explain the observed warming. What else is there that could explain the observed warming, that the community of climate scientists have not been able to discover?

Garzhad
Garzhad

@RobertBernal

Solar will not be a major source of energy for the not-so-near future, not until crazy-big leaps in battery technology are made. You can only generate power in daylight, after all, and our ability to store energy for extended periods of time in any significant quantity is currently very mediocre, relegating solar to an energy 'support' role.

Oil, coal, and natural gas are going to be our energy-mainstays for quite awhile yet, at least until 4th generation nuclear reactors are realized and the ignorant public get over the irrational fear of that energy source.

GarotadaGavea
GarotadaGavea

@hew44@hew44 do a little experiment in your house: Take a pan. fill with water. turn on the stove, put pan with water on top of heat, do NOT cover the pan, and see if the water boils. Make sure you turn on the stop watch to register if and when the water boils. Bear in mind: AIR IS ALSO A FLUID. After this experiment Google: "First Law of Thermodynamics" and "Second Law of Thermodynamics" and "Entropy". Expecting that the laws of physics are going to change to suit human convenience is a sign of a mental disorder.

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@hew44 - Yes, there is no doubt that the planet is heating up. There is also no doubt that the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from a steady 275-280 PPM pre-Industrial Revolution, to over 390 PPM and rising today. The correlation of CO2 and temperature is startlingly direct. Here's a historical record:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

and here's the more recent record:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

What you have to ask yourself is: is the warming causing the increase in CO2, or is the increase in CO2 causing the warming? Next time you are stuck in traffic on the freeway, consider that question... While human emissions account for only about 3% of the worldwide CO2 emissions, they are the 3% that are not being soaked up by "natural" CO2 sinks (forests, the ocean, etc.) So not a drop in the bucket, but a steady trickle into an already full bucket, that has to overflow at some point. If you are familiar with the problem of the ozone hole over Antarctica, and the fact that human-generated CFC's caused it, then you can appreciate that humans can indeed cause atmospheric disruptions on a global scale. 

Cent-fan has a comment further down about how thin a gaseous membrane our atmosphere is, that you might enjoy too...

GarotadaGavea
GarotadaGavea

@johnpaily1 Amen, bro. If you want a little more information check First Law of Thermodynamics, Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy. That covers it all.

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@JKBullis - Those "contributors" who are skeptical of AGW don't have data, or models, or alternate plausible explanations for the observed phenomena; which, in this case, is the hottest year in the U.S. in recorded history. OF COURSE they have reverted to name calling - they have no alternative hypotheses to advance. Sad...

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@redleg - Don't you have something better to do than embarrassing yourself by flaunting your ignorance? Climate science is clearly something you know nothing about, yet you have the audacity to proclaim "END of debate". What a knucklehead! Maybe there is something that you actually know something about, that you could comment on somewhere else. Trust me, climate science (and science in general) ain't it...

cent-fan
cent-fan

@lordsnooty01   The only way anything you say can be reasoned is if the world temperature is actually not rising.  If you believe that it's all a great conspiracy that even includes the outside thermometer at your window then fine, you're deluded but you are comfortable explaining it as a vast plot by suntan lotion manufacturers(?) and you don't think that's crazy.

If you believe the temperature is rising but man has nothing to do it then offer a scientific explanation.  We can measure the sun's energy, we can measure the tilt of the earth, and we can even estimate orangutan farts if you think human's have nothing to do with it but you're going to have to pick one.  So pick a vast conspiracy or a natural cause.  Whatever you choose I know in the next ten years we'll see another record breaking year and you won't be able to explain that either.

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

@lordsnooty01 You're wrong. Furthermore, it is exactly because of scientific illiterates and useful idiots like you that we are now witnessing what will inevitably spell the end of human civilization as we have known it. Now that we are seeing the actual rapid rise in average temperatures, it's really too late to do much about it, except some radical attempt to re-engineer the climate. Thanks, a-hole.

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@dobe - Did you miss the shiny object, the NOAA map of temperature in 2012 compared to historical records? The FACTUAL information that you may not have been aware of? Care to comment on that?

Anniem10000
Anniem10000

@Garzhad @RobertBernal I dont think it is irrational to fear a source of energy that can potentially destroy large areas of land and people with  any major accident.

Or, do accidents never really happen?

And what about all the by product of this form of energy?

 Really, as a society we  can do much better than to accept this narrow minded and short sighted form of energy. We are ignorant to believe what we are doing today will always be ok. I think it is not in the next 50 years, but beyond that, we will be thought of as incredibly self serving as future generations will have to sop up the mess we chose to not envision nor act upon.

I have no degree in Science, but the facts-as dry as they are-are available in multiple sources at your local college libraries, scientific reviews and multiple meetings of the minds. I may agree we are not approaching the problem effectively in some ways, it does not mean the problem is not there.

lordsnooty01
lordsnooty01

@shepherdwong @lordsnooty01 ...oh do get a grip, I'm wong, but your right (or should that be reversed)......of course, the foundation of every believers argument..... brick wall and eventually the argument will crumble. When you say rapid rise, you mean of less than 0.5C - built on the probable bias data entered into a climate modelling programme, yes? Too late to do much about what exactly - are you really that brainwashed that you believe humans can control climate of this world............it is not I that is an a-hole as you so delicately put it, but more you a fool for such beliefs.

dobe
dobe

@jay.clemons @dobe This is not about your DATA at all, but your choice of words for describing your subjective experience in 1998. I recognize you may have been hot and uncomfortable, but I seriously doubt you were "broiling to death." Is this distinction clear? If not, we may as well drop this now. If so, please understand that when someone wants to present information to me they believe is important, their credibility is inversely proportional with how exaggerated are claims made in their opening statement. I support your work and your concern. I think you may be more believable if you don't describe yourself someone who does not currently exist, since you claim you died by broiling 15 years ago.

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@lordsnooty01 - Hey, knucklehead; we are talking about global warming here! You know, heat waves for decades; melting glaciers; rising sea level; droughts, fires, superstorms; ocean acidification... And you come in here with your fractured spelling, fractured syntax, fractured logic and babble about "data bigots"??!! - no wonder no one takes you seriously. If you don't accept the NOAA data, hook us up with data that you do trust. Oh, you can't? Then scurry away like the roach that you are.

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@redleg @DBritt @lordsnooty01 - Better to keep quiet and risk being thought a fool, than to open your mouth, and remove all doubt. No one cares what happened millions of years ago, right? Why don't you get that?!

lordsnooty01
lordsnooty01

@DBritt @lordsnooty01 I'm pretty sure your wrong......as well as being totally impertinent, you do nothing more than present a fatuous rambling.......ignorance and a simpleton approach works well for you, eh?

I wonder which the majority fall under on here.......

In context, there are three kind of data bigots:

1. Those who think their data is precise and torture it to justify any decision they’ve subconsciously already made.

2. Those who think their data is imprecise and then ignore it to justify a decision they’ve subconsciously already made.

3. Those who think Mr. Data should not have been given status as a sentient being, and hence that he was property.

redleg
redleg

@DBritt @lordsnooty01 wow how embarrassingly pretentious can one person be?  you don't know what the temperature was on ANY DAY 200 years ago . . . going back millions of years . . . but a few decades of cobbled together, inaccurate weather stats from fallible human instruments can tell us everything about the climate of the earth over millions of years.  it's very scary how you elitists can actually believe this stuff.

DBritt
DBritt

@lordsnooty01 This type of argument is very pernicious.. it's easy for an ignorant person to claim that we can't know the truth because that seems so plausible to him.  However, it is completely wrong.  There are lifetimes of research into understanding the climate, and the fact is we do understand it quite well.  If you cared to back up your statements by learning something about the field you would find out how little you know (and how much is known).  We know the temperature record remarkably accurately over the past 5.5 million years and have a very good understanding of what caused sustained changes over a large portion of that range.

Also, I'm pretty sure data can't be bigoted..

lordsnooty01
lordsnooty01

@shepherdwong @lordsnooty01 "the last decade globally has been.......", absolutely ingenious statement......records in earths life represent a mere nanosecond in history terms, about 160 years (give or take a few years) so hottest maybe in this small window of accurately available data window, but considering Earths 4.5 billion year existence, you have to be totally moronic to use that as a plausible argument. Just like you, the data is biased, bigoted and questionable.

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

@lordsnooty01 @shepherdwong The point is,  "the probable bias data entered into a climate modelling," exactly matches the warming we are witnessing.

"The last decade globally has been the hottest in recorded history."

Idiot.

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@dobe @jay.clemons - If it is true that you "recognize the importance of the message, and would like to see those spreading the message utilizing responsible language and accurate information in doing so..", maybe you could be one of those people, dobe.

Let's review some bidding here: Your original comment, 

"Broiling to death? Exaggerate much? It is sad when stories that purport to inform us of important FACTUAL information are written or edited so carelessly that skepticism on the part of the reader is automatic."

while arguably unfalse on its face, shows no recognition of the importance of the NOAA report. On the contrary, you seemed to suggest that the author's "exaggeration" of "broiling to death" should make the reader skeptical of the veracity of the NOAA data. So then people come on the website and make absurdly fallacious arguments about one cold day in January disproving global warming, or how humans cannot possibly create  global effects, and you have nothing to say?

I'm pretty sure that Bryan Walsh never imagined that his colorful prose would prejudice readers against the validity of a NOAA temperature record; but you failed us, dobe. You let your anal retention get in the way of an important understanding. (Or did you? What do you believe about global warming after learning the new data?) Your "Chicken Little" comment reveals that you are not above the use of analogy and metaphor; so now I add hypocrisy to my list of particulars. Bryan Walsh did not literally "broil to death" in 1998, and I think you know that. But people did drown to death in Hurricane Sandy in 2012; and die of extreme heat in states that were hotter than ever in 2012; and so on. Those are the facts. 

By the way; discerning the significance of unusually high temperatures is not made more difficult by statements like "much above normal" - you are wrong. Would it be less "exaggerated and panicky" to say 2-sigma variation, which is what those temperatures are? Yes it would. Would it be more understandable to a lay audience? No, it would not. Since the terms are functionally equivalent, what's your beef?

Last thing: if you do understand that global warming is a real and present danger, and choose to obfuscate the danger for reasons of semantic rectitude, then yes; you are part of the problem. You can fire back if you wish, but I am done hogging the common space here to respond to an insignificant quibble. Feel free to keep beating the dead horse (not an actual "dead horse", dobe - it's a "figure of speech"..); but please - help get the word out that the planet has a fever, and we'd better deal with it or life will get pretty miserable for future generations. Thank you.


dobe
dobe

@jay.clemons @dobe You indulge in the same disappointing rhetoric as Walsh - my house is not on fire (I speak litterally here, and I assure you there is neither smoke nor flames about. My complaint is the Chicken LIttle screaming antics. I recognize the importance of the message, and I would like to see those spreading the message utilizing responsible language and accurate information in doing so. I have no doubts that 2012 was likely the hottest year ever recorded - I spent July and August 2012 in AZ-NM-TX-OK-KS-MO-IL-TN-AL-FL-MS-LA, and am no stranger to 114° F. days in unconditiioned settings. Yet I manage to resist the urge to publish articles claiming that I "broiled to death."  

Data in and of itself is useless. To be useful, it needs to be analyzed and acted upon with intelligence, commitment, and vision. That becomes more difficult to do when it is presented in an exaggerated, panicky way, and with those vague statements like temperatures were "much above normal."

That you are so stimulated by the excitement is your burden to bear, and you have my sympathy. Meantime, I remain convinced that if you are looking to have people SERIOUSLY evaluate your concerns and the data you present, doing so by claiming you "broiled to death" 15 years ago is not helpful.

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@dobe @jay.clemons - Here's a guy telling you that your house is on fire, and you are complaining about his grammar and his wardrobe. (That's an analogy...) No really: your house is on fire! Forget about the wardrobe and the arm-waving; concentrate on your burning house!

My beef with you is that you are spending a great deal of emotional energy attacking the messenger, when you should be focused on the message. I have agreed with you that the author of this article was somewhat flippant, but it seems that you can't GET OVER IT. And scarcely a word about how THIS WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER RECORDED IN THE U.S. of A. The fact that Bryan Walsh used some fanciful language in reporting these data doesn't affect hundreds of millions of people; but you remain committed to being "disappointed" by his presentation. That's just sad..

(BTW, I have not treated you with "aggressive nastiness." No profanity, no name calling, etc. Indeed, it is you who came on here to "comment" on an article about temperature data and merely criticized the author of the article, repeatedly, for dramatizing the dramatic findings..)

But, about that data. More trivial criticisms from you about the imprecision of the rankings: "Record warmest", "much above normal"..I also caught the numbers associated with each state - did you see that for over half of the states, 2012 was either the hottest or second hottest year ever recorded? That presentation was actually quite good, in my opinion, in giving a sense of how hot last year really was. Especially for those of our brethren who still(!) can't believe that our planet is heating up because of all the greenhouse gases we are emitting. Well, it is pretty undeniable that at least the US is heating WAY up; stay tuned for the global data..

dobe
dobe

@jay.clemons @dobe I was commenting on the story as presented. If you review my first comment, you'll see that I used the phrase, "stories...are written or edited", and was NOT saying anything about the accuracy or usefulness of the data accompanying the article, other than the fact that the Author of the Story's exaggeration was, in my opinion, a poor way to broach a serious subject. 

I have not, and am not now commenting on said data. 

What aspect of marketing, or public relations, or "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" do you not get? If you want an audience, you'd best work at attracting one. If your goal is a serious audience for a serious subject, starting out with a gross exaggeration just before displaying data you want to be taken seriously is not a good beginning. 

There is no explanation for this clunky beginning, no, "ok, seriously now,..." comment to inform or assure his audience he is Now a Serious Man about Serious Matters. It impressed me as poorly done, and I remain firm in that opinion.

Moving on, I don't know what your beef is with me. Perhaps you are much more perceptive, critical, and distinguishing in every aspect of your life. I read this story to become more informed, and at no point do I care to commit to examining every iota of it to determine if the source is the author, the NOAA, some Serious Angry Reader of Comment looking to vent some of his aggression, or other.

I thought the hyperbolic style poorly chosen. Still do. I did manage to ignore the reference to Notre Dame being beaten to a "bloody Irish pulp" and perhaps should have stopped there, since there were two (2) gross exaggerations in the opening paragraph before ANY data was presented to justify the headline.

Please understand that - when I review something purported to be important scientific DATA, but findings are presented with such imprecise terminology as "much below," "below," "near," "above," and "much above," I reserve the right to (1) be disappointed, and (2) continue to believe the presentation style is poorly chosen.

In fact, I'd say my disappointment is "Much Above" what I normally experience when I'm trying to inform myself of important issues. Same goes for your aggressive nastiness. I'm not the problem, man, get a grip, huh?

jay.clemons
jay.clemons

@dobe @jay.clemons - You appear to be afflicted with the same imprecision of language that you impute to Bryan Walsh. In the first place, the DATA is not my data, or Bryan Walsh's data; it is NOAA data. In the second place, I was not hot and uncomfortable in New York in 1998; that was Bryan Walsh.  While I agree with you that his hyperbole about "broiling to death" did not lend extra credibility to his presentation, I was personally able to put the hyperbole in perspective and focus on the actual factual point of the article, which I still haven't seen you comment on... You must really be exercised by the report of the shrimp in Australia barbie-ing themselves....

   I hope you are not seriously discounting the credibility of the NOAA report because the reporter tarted up the presentation. If you are perceptive, you will find other accounts in the media of the NOAA data without objectionable dramatization. It is that temperature data that is important, providing ever more evidence of rapid and dangerous global warming. If you are skeptical of the data because the Time magazine reporter was flippant in his reporting, then I fear you are not a serious person.