It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


2006 Hotter Than Any Year Since Record Keeping Began

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:18 PM

The first eight months of 2006 was the warmest in the continental
United States since record-keeping began in 1895, NOAA officials
said today.

Above-average rainfall last month in the central and southwestern
parts of the country alleviated drought conditions in some areas,
but moderate-to-extreme drought continued to affect 40 percent
of the country, according to a statement from NOAA's National
Climatic Data Center.

The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous
United States, based on preliminary data, was 2.4 degrees
Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 72.1 degrees.
This summer, at an average of 74.5 degrees, was slightly cooler
than the record of 74.7 degrees set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era.

Eight of the past 10 summers have been warmer than the U.S.
average for the same period going back to 1895.


Firstly I'll note I did say since record keeping began, which was over
a century ago, I put it in the thread title because I don't feeol like
having people say I was coercing people to read it, or that I did'nt
include all the facts.

This really does'nt surprise me, which in itself is a bad thing.

Comments, Opinions?


[edit on 9/14/2006 by iori_komei]

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:55 PM
I want to ask about the equipment used to measure temperatures and the people who actually do this.

Were they all the same design?
Where they all calibrated the same way?
Did they even calibrate them 100 years ago?
How many collection points are used?
Is all this info available to the public?
Who controls and collects this data?
Do these personnel have background checks done on them before getting hired?

These 2 points can make or break this info if you ask me. I hope this info makes some of you think about the hiring processes we have in this country and the importance of reliable readings from properly maintained equipment. We are only talking about a few degrees difference, so there can't be any room for error since so many people are worried about the changes in global weather.

I find it hard to trust anyone or any info that was taken before computers were used to process this info because of the scale of this operation, not to mention any background checks that might be in place for these positions.

Imagine all the data that was collected somewhere to figure this out before email was available. Was that data transfered to some program in the past decade? Who did the transfer? Who was the overseer of this project? Can we trust these people? Is there a chance of the older data being changed during this process? I only say this because this is the forum to discuss stuff like this and there have been manipulations of info to alter the public's opinion of important events. You wouldn't be on his forum if that wasn't true, so is it possible that the NOAA is up to no good?

I hope this doesn't cause the topic to go way off course, but you did ask for comments and opinions.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:03 PM
Oh,but didn't you know? It's all happened before. Relax.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:03 PM
If 2006 had the hottest summer and the winter of 2006-2007 turns out to be one of the coldest, wouldn't that even each other out?

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:12 PM

Originally posted by RRconservative
If 2006 had the hottest summer and the winter of 2006-2007 turns out to be one of the coldest, wouldn't that even each other out?

Not really, it would mean our weather systems are becoming as
polarised as our politics.

Which is bad, in both cases.

Honestly it'd be odd to have the hottest summer followed by the
coldest winter.

But than, winters are getting warmer as well,so theres less of a

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:14 PM
Oh, and NJ Mooch.

That's a very good question, and one that I honestly don't know the
answer to.

I suspect that only in the last 25 years have scientists actually been
looking at the data from the early days.

Since bhefore than the data would have most likely been stored near
or in the place it was recorded.

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:17 PM
Sorry! Thought I had some info to add, but realized that it was covered in the original post. If this can be deleted, please do it!

[edit on 15-9-2006 by RRconservative]

new topics

top topics


log in