Just for the lower 48 states.

[RetiredGySgt]

UNITED STATES Climate Summary

The average temperature in May 2009 was 62.5 F. This was 1.4 F warmer than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 24th warmest May in 115 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

We are all gonna die, or drown. Ya at this rate assuming everything stays constant, A BIG ASSUMPTION as nature never stays constant, by 2100 we will see a 1 degree change from 2000. Ya earth shattering indeed.

 

[American Horse]

UNITED STATES Climate Summary

The average temperature in May 2009 was 62.5 F. This was 1.4 F warmer than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 24th warmest May in 115 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

We are all gonna die, or drown. Ya at this rate assuming everything stays constant, A BIG ASSUMPTION as nature never stays constant, by 2100 we will see a 1 degree change from 2000. Ya earth shattering indeed.

Without all the hot air from AlGore this would be meaningless.

 

[Annie]

Just came across this, links at site:

U.S. Climate Report Assailed - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com

June 18, 2009, 3:45 PM
U.S. Climate Report Assailed
By JOHN TIERNEY

The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters. Dr. Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, asks:

[Why] is a report characterized by [White House] Science Advisor John Holdren as being the “most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive” analysis relying on a secondary, non-peer source citing another non-peer reviewed source from 2000 to support a claim that a large amount of uncited and more recent peer-reviewed literature says the opposite about?

You can check out Dr. Pielke’s blog for a detailed rebuttal of how the report presents science in his area of expertise, the study of trends in natural disasters and their relation to climate change. While the new federal report (prepared by 13 agencies and the White House) paints a dire picture of climate change’s impacts, Dr. Pielke says that the authors of this new report, like those of previous reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Stern Review, cherrypick weak evidence that fits their own policy preferences. He faults all these reports for all relying on “non-peer reviewed, unsupportable studies rather than the relevant peer-reviewed literature” and for “featuring non-peer-reviewed work conducted by the authors.”

Dr. Pielke contrasts these reports’ conclusions about trends in natural disasters with the some quite different findings last year by the federal Climate Change Science Program. Dr. Pielke summarizes some of its less sensational conclusions:

1. Over the long-term, U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.
2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.
3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation . . . there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).
4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms
5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.
6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.
Do those benign trends seem surprising to you? What do you think of Dr. Pielke’s arguments? Here’s his overall conclusion about the dangers of hyping the link between natural disasters and climate change: “Until the climate science community cleans up its act on this subject it will continue to give legitimate opportunities for opponents to action to criticize the climate science community.”