By The Numbers: The U.S.'s Warmest Year Yet [Infographic]In the U.S. 2012 was the warmest year since national record keeping began in 1895. From January through December the 4451 U.S. weather stations that have been tracking temperatures for at least 30 years measured nearly 31000 high-temperature records but only 5900 lows. That's the largest ratio of high to low records ever. There is a lot of natural variability in these numbers says Claudia Tebaldi a senior scientist at the independent research organization Climate Central. But it's definitely behavior that has the imprint of a warming climate. Scientists say this trend will continue. A report published last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the lifespan of individual high-temperature records will continue to shorten: heat records that would likely have stood for twenty years in recent times will topple after an average of just two years by the end of the century.Some highlights:  Mouse over the timelines below to see the value of each data point:About these visualizations:
On the U.S. maps each gold point represents one of the 4451 U.S. weather stations that has been recording temperatures for at least 30 years the length of time the National Climatic Data Center uses as its standard for establishing a record. The area of the circle around each point represents the number of temperature records set to date at that station.The interactive bar chart compares the relative numbers of high- and low-temperature records set each year which corrects for the fact that more stations are established every year.The data for all these visualizations comes from the National Climatic Data Center.This is what pisses me off about statistics... You can say It's the hottest year on record if you use the ratio between record highs and record lows but REALLY what you want to look at is the total average temperature not the extremes.In 1913 Death Valley recorded a high of 134 degrees.  So 1913 would be the hottest year on record since it had the highest temperature ever recorded right?If you look at the world average temperature (which is all that really matters) 2012 was the 10th hottest on record which means we are not experiencing run-away global warming since compared to 9 other years 2012 was cooler.Also data provided by the IPCC to support the AGW theory shows that before man even existed there were hotter periods than there are now so it's hotter than it has been in the last 100 years or so (ignoring the 9 years it was hotter) but that isn't even a blink of an eye in the big scope of things.Warm year.... big deal. Bet it don't hold a candle to the year 712AD when the Vikings were farming on Greenland. It was named Greenland for a reason. See interglacial.Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.In the present interglacial the Holocene the climatic optimum occurred during the Subboreal (5 to 2.5 ka BP which corresponds to 3000 BC-500 BC) and Atlanticum (9 to 5 ka which corresponds to roughly 7000 BC-3000 BC). Our current climatic phase following this climatic optimum is still within the same interglacial (the Holocene). This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about 2000 years ago with another warm period until the Little Ice Age (1250-1850).The preceding interglacial optimum occurred during the Late Pleistocene Eemian Stage 131â€Âœ114 ka. During the Eemian the climatic optimum took place during pollen zone E4 in the type area (city of Amersfoort Netherlands). Here this zone is characterized by the expansion of Quercus (Oak) Corylus (Hazel) Taxus Ulmus (Elm) Fraxinus (Ash) Carpinus (Hornbeam) and Picea (Spruce). During the Eemian Stage sea level was about 8 meters higher than today and the water temperature of the North Sea was c. 2 °C higher than at present.Will someone please tell poopsci that the earth's climate actually goes through warm and cold phases and that one human lifetime's worth of measurements is like saying the world is on fire because your furnace is running?Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.It was called Greenland in order to attract settlers.  False advertising.  But you know your made up idea sounds better so you run with that one.As for global warming I won't waste time on that one.  But i will admit that yes we do cycle through ice ages and we seem to be cycling through one now.  The question really is - do all ice ages cycle back to cold so quickly?  And if they don't is there a reason why this one seems to be doing so?But I defer to you - because you think Greenland was given its name because...wait for it...it's in the name. (See anything on Google)Sorry but I now need to go wash the dishes with some some Joy.  Let's see what happens.Ohhh I cannot wait to hear from all of the global warming deniers on the internet who think they know so much more than the experts. Bring it on guys. You can troll all you want but it doesn't change what's happening to our planet. We're pumping Billions of tons of carbon into our atmosphere on an annual basis. This doesn't matter to the deniers. They just want to feel like they're smarter than the experts. STFU already and help make the world a better place.This reminds me of when I was young. Back then a summer high would be 25 degrees Celsius in Toronto. Recently the summer high broke the 30 degree mark and continues to rise exponentially each summer.Umm... they do know that the sun is at it's solar high... right?
---------------------------
I reject your reality and substitute my own.Artext
Yes via the sun cycles the Earth warms they know this.And they also know since the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels humans are amplifying the warming and pollution.And they keep trying to educate the public but there is a certain percentage that just wants
to deny it happening or likes to just argue for the sake of arguing.Being more efficient and creating less pollution is a good thing.
There is no devious plot behind it.It hit 117 in Austin back in 2008. That's the warmest I've seen it here. Just sayin'.@justthefacts....The story of it being just clever advertising is widely told and believed but it is a myth. At the time that Greenland was discovered the Earth was a bit warmer and southern Greenland actually had green meadows and could sustain villages of Norse settlers and their cattle sheep goats horses etc. The name was actually an accurate description of the land at the time.
 Since that time the Earth had cooled down some and the ice sheets advanced forcing the Norse settlers out again.
 A similar history befell the early Norse settlers to Vineland (North America). When they arrived the weather was warm enough to grow grapes. Ultimately global cooling drove the Norsemen back to Greenland and then Iceland. The colony in Iceland was well established by that time and survived.Next time do a little real research before inserting your foot in your mouth. AS for the rest of my made up idea.... here I did a little research for you... this is by the IPCC themselves... http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/12/prweb10252442.htm ... they will explain to you since you wont take my word for it... how the sun is in its most active state and probably the cause for most of the global warming trend we are experiencing at this time. What's in a name? I guess myths are your specialty.... hence your username? lol.Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.@ RobotCan you give me one good reason why without cars and factories and all the C02 we humans are pumping into the air... the world was still ALOT warmer than it is today 1200 years ago? 'Amplifying' is a relative term... the question is not ARE we amplifying... You can say elephants walking amplifies an earthquake but by how much??? The fact is that we are in a natural warming cycle ... and our contribution to this warming trend is speculative at best. Other factors have a much higher probability of effecting global climate than C02. And one last point I'd like to make... just because a majority of scientists believe a theory to be true does not make it true. There have been MANY examples in history of scientific beliefs by the majority that were eventually proven false... so just because there are people like frosttty out there that put all the faith in the experts doesn't mean the experts cant be wrong. The fact is that C02 while being a greenhouse gas... is a minor player in the mix of things that go into effecting global climate. Having said that I don't know if I'm right or wrong. But guess what? Neither do the 'experts'. That's why there is a controversy. If there was real proof there would be no argument.Ever hear of the Blank State theory? Goes like this:One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate or tabula rasa which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities. Proponents of the theory which began with the work of Aristotle and was expressed by everyone from St. Thomas Aquinas to the empiricist philosopher John Locke insisted that all mental content was the result of experience and education. For these thinkers nothing was instinct or the result of nature. The idea found its most famous expression in psychology in the ideas of Sigmund Freud whose theories of the unconscious stressed that the elemental aspects of an individual’s personality were constructed by their earliest childhood experiences.How it was Proven Wrong:While there’s little doubt that a person’s experiences and learned behaviors have a huge impact on their disposition it is also now widely accepted that genes and other family traits inherited from birth along with certain innate instincts also play a crucial role. This was only proven after years of study that covered the ways in which similar gestures like smiling and certain features of language could be found throughout the world in radically different cultures. Meanwhile studies of adopted children and twins raised in separate families have come to similar conclusions about the ways certain traits can exist from birthRead more: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php#ixzz2JgpCLIg1So you see... experts are not always right. You cant just blindly accept a theory as fact JUST BECAUSE they say so. Seriously ... google some stuff.... interglacials solar activity and climate greenhouse gases... and google them individually... as related to climate change.. and you'll see that C02 is a small fry in all this. Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.