A PopSci interactive of the 30,854 record-breaking highs recorded across the country in 2012
Posted 01.31.2013 at 4:44 pm
13 Comments
In the U.S., 2012 was the warmest year since national record keeping began in 1895. From January through December, the 4,451 U.S. weather stations that have been tracking temperatures for at least 30 years measured nearly 31,000 high-temperature records but only 5,900 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:
- A springtime heat wave resulted in the warmest March since record keeping began.
- Wisconsin and 24 other states experienced the warmest March on record.
- In March, three Michigan high temperature records were beaten by a margin of 32°F.
- On March 20, some 700 records were tied or broken--the most on a single day in 2012. It was 89°F in Columbia, South Carolina, that day.
- The oldest high-temperature record that fell in 2012 was beaten when the mercury hit 87°F at Elko Regional Airport in Nevada on April 22.
- A heat wave from June 23 to July 9 produced 324 all-time records, mostly in the Midwest and Southeast. The hottest among them: 118°F in Norton, Kansas, on June 28.
- July 2012 was the single warmest month on record in the U.S.
- The three hottest days were recorded in Death Valley: 128°F on July 12, and 126°F on August 9 and 10.
- Sidney Municipal Airport in Nebraska logged 59 record highs, the most of any weather station.
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 4,451 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.
13 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
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 2,000 years ago, with another warm period until the Little Ice Age (1250-1850).
The preceding interglacial optimum occurred during the Late Pleistocene Eemian Stage, 131–114 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.
in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone
http://al.ly/AvJ
http://al.ly/AvJ
http://al.ly/AvJ
http://al.ly/AvJ
│＼＿╭╭╭╭╭＿／│
│ │＼｜／
│ ● ● │—☆—
│○ ╰┬┬┬╯ ○│／｜＼
│ ╰—╯ ／
╰—┬○————┬○╯
╭│ │╮
╰┴—————┴╯ sdfe
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.
upto I saw the paycheck four $6892, I did not believe that...my... father in law was like truly earning money in their spare time at there computar.. there sisters neighbour has done this 4 only about 13 months and by now took care of the loans on their house and bought themselves a Renault 5. I went here,......
_________
BIT40.ℂOM
_________
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.
@ Robot
Can 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 birth
Read more: http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php#ixzz2JgpCLIg1
So 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.