English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The correct answer will be provided later today, so come back and check to see if you were right.

a) 1921
b) 1934
c) 1998
d) 2005

2007-08-15 05:25:26 · 18 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Politics & Government Politics

Either 1998 or 2005 are acceptable answers.

In the lower 48 United States:

"Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC"

However, globally:

"In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest."

These quotes are from RealClimate.org - a website run by climate scientists.

http://www.realclimate.org/

2007-08-15 07:12:28 · update #1

john_mcd_77 - "the hottest RECORDED year on Earth"

The purpose of this question was simply to combat the widespread misinformation that NASA's minor correction made 1934 the hottest year on Earth. 1934 was a very average year on a global scale.

2007-08-15 09:38:02 · update #2

18 answers

C or D Thanks to the data found in one of john_mcd_77's links he provided, but obviously didn't read.

jeeper_peeper321, 1998 lost its highest temp record nationally, not globally according to NASA's latest data. try again.

john_mcd_77, from your own link:
<<1998 falls from the top spot NATIONALLY, BUT NOT GLOBALLY.
A slight adjustment to U.S. temperature records has bumped 1998 as the hottest year in THE COUNTRY'S history and made the Dust Bowl year of 1934 the new record holder, according to NASA.

But the re-ranking DID NOT EFFECT GLOBAL RECORDS, and 1998 REMAINS TIED WITH 2005 AS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD, climatologist Gavin A. Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York said Tuesday>>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-temp15aug15,1,6588373.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Now if you attempt to read the data you mention from realclimate, claiming the data about global temps to be wrong, with your kind little insult, you will see it is also talking about national temperatures, not global.

I do believe the question was speaking of "globally", not "nationally" as you so convieniently use to rationalize your insults.

2007-08-15 07:32:01 · answer #1 · answered by jj 5 · 1 1

good day!.... it replaced into rewarming after the ice age approximately 640,000 years in the past, thank you Yellowstone Caldera..... For those of you new to the area of geology, the earth is project to many motivators while pondering the climate. basically one is guy..... the great one and that i propose fairly great one is what the earth does to itself....volcanos are to blame for some of the international cooling and while the action from the volcanos subsides it gets warm returned. Yellowstone is a huge "volcano", nonetheless no longer interior the classic way. it incredibly is observed as a "warm spot" that's a community of crust "floating" over a lake of molten rock... how great is this lake? present day readings have it as 52x37 supply or take slightly.... by potential of the way it is 52x37 miles in the time of ........ while (no longer if, yet while) it explodes returned, floor 0 would be from Salt Lake city to Calgery to Denver. The pyroclastic cloud will take out each little thing in this area and places like Bozeman Montana can anticipate being hit 7 seconds after the explosion. ny city will see a layer of ash 8 inches deep or perhaps England will see 3 inches. A digital nuclear iciness will over take the planet..... for numerous thousand years. while replaced into the final time..... approximately 640,000 years in the past... what's it incredibly is cost? properly interior the final thrice the cost has been approximately each 650,000-seven-hundred,000 years... wager we are approximately due. Oh by potential of how..... i will ought to look for it yet i be attentive to I study on the instant that South Africa replaced into having between the coldest winters on record....i assume they did no longer get the international warming memo....

2016-10-15 10:25:36 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Trick question--- You don't even have the right year listed.
Go back and do your "book lernen"
and ... I ... will provide the answer later.
______________________________________________
"Lost in many of the headlines, however, was this quote from the report's lead researcher, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies: "We couldn't say with 100 percent certainty that it's the warmest year, but I'm reasonably confident that it was flawed."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In all studies, there are margins of error. Much of the analysis involves satellite data that covers just the past three decades or so. Complicating matters, ground-based temperature-monitoring stations are sparse or nonexistent in many parts of the world, particularly in the Arctic. And a key to the results are satellite data that note sea surface temperatures since 1982. Prior years are gauged by less-precise data from ship logs.
Finally, reliable records for most ground locations go back only about a century, so setting records may not be as surprising as if they broke marks that had been around "

2007-08-15 05:37:30 · answer #3 · answered by Bo Remmington . American ! 4 · 0 3

Did you notice, that all the people who said 1998, are still using the outdated data from Nasa.

None of them are using the new data that NASA released last week, after NASA found out that their tempature program had a major flaw in it.

Of course, the global warming crowd did do everything in their power to make sure that the release wasn't publisied.

2007-08-15 05:41:21 · answer #4 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1 2

It's 1934...
but this fact has nothing to do with the trend of overall climate change which is an undeniable observable fact.

individual weather events have nothing to do with overall trends in the climate which is what the science of climate change is concerned with.

2007-08-15 05:38:41 · answer #5 · answered by Louis G 6 · 1 1

NASA and the LA Times say its 1934
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-temp15aug15,1,6588373.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

But I guess the LA Times is just a conservative propaganda machine, right?!? If so, I guess the DailyKOS is in on it too: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/11/121833/896


I get it I get it, global temperatures, multiple methodologies, blah blah blah blah.

Anyway, this is why I try to stay out of stupid debates like long-term weather prediction and religion. Its all a guessing game.

The CORRECT answer for the hottest year on EARTH would be somewhere back in the Cretaceous Period, unless you want to count before life was established.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/temperature.html#4600Myr

2007-08-15 05:44:19 · answer #6 · answered by freedom first 5 · 0 2

1934

2007-08-15 05:30:00 · answer #7 · answered by Leah 6 · 1 5

1934

2007-08-15 05:28:47 · answer #8 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 1 5

truthisback
"b)

http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2007/08/ho...

And here I was thinking that we should call it "global warmth" because the warm-ING had apparently ended, considering that it had been close to nine years since the "hottest year."

Apparently the reasons for calling it "global warmth" are even greater."

Dude didnt you know that NASA is a government funded company? Comon man you cant believe any politician democrat or republican go to a reliable site like Weatherchannel.com and btw its D.

2007-08-15 05:43:12 · answer #9 · answered by Mike G 2 · 0 2

I know in Vermont 1998 was one of the coolest and wettest summer on record.

2007-08-15 06:00:51 · answer #10 · answered by applecrisp 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers