2010: tied with 2005 for warmest year in history
The year 2010 was tied with 2005 as Earth's warmest year in history, according to separate calculations performed by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Temperatures during 2010 were 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the 20th century average. Reliable global temperature records go back to 1880. NOAA reported that the Northern Hemisphere had its warmest year on record in 2010, the Southern Hemisphere its 6th warmest, land areas their 2nd warmest, and the oceans their 3rd warmest. Global satellite-measured temperatures of the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere during 2010 were virtually tied with 1998 for warmest on record, according to the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). The 1998 temperatures were 0.01°C warmer than 2010, but the difference is so small that the two years should be considered tied for first place. These measurements are very sensitive to the effect of major El Niño events that warm the waters and atmosphere over the Eastern Pacific. Thus the 1998 El Niño--the strongest such event ever recorded--set a global lower atmospheric temperature record that had been impossible to match until 2010.
Figure 1. Departure of temperature from average for 2010. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
Earth's warmest temperatures in 2010, relative to average, occurred in western Greenland and eastern Canada, where record-duration sea ice loss contributed to temperatures that were 9°F (5°C) above average for the year (Figure 1.) The coolest temperatures, relative to average, were in central Siberia, 5.4°F (3°C) below average. In addition to being the warmest year on record globally, it was also the wettest (Figure 4.)
Figure 2. The latest rankings by NOAA of the hottest years globally since 1880. Earth's ten hottest years have all come since 1998, and the decade of the 2000s was by far the warmest decade in the historical record. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
Figure 3. Global departure of temperature from average for 1880-2010, as computed by NASA.
Figure 4. Global departure of precipitation from average for 1900 - 2010. The year 2010 set a new record for wettest year in Earth's history. The difference in precipitation from average in 2010 was about 13% higher than that of the previous record wettest year, 1956. Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
A record warm year during a deep solar minimum: an unusual occurrence
The 2010 record warmth was unusual in that it occurred during a period when energy from the sun was at its lowest levels since satellite measurements began in the 1970s. The 11-year sunspot cycle causes a 0.1% variation in the amount of energy reaching the Earth. White et al. (1997) found that sea surface temperatures varied by about 0.04 - 0.07°C on time scales of 11 - 22 years due to this change in solar energy, with temperatures lagging the sunspot cycle by 1.5 - 3 years (because the ocean is slow to heat up and cool down in response.) So, although solar activity began to pick up somewhat in 2010, the 1.5 - 3 year lag in ocean temperature response meant that the record low solar activity of 2008 - 2009 was what affected global temperatures in 2010. Given that the departure of Earth's temperature from average during 2010 was 0.62°C, this difference would have been perhaps 10% greater had we been 2 - 3 years past the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. The previous global temperature record, set in 2005, occurred 3 - 5 years after the twin-peaked previous solar cycle. It is very difficult to get a record warm year during a deep solar minimum, making the 2010 record one likely to be broken later this decade as the sun begins to exert a greater warming influence on the planet.
Figure 5. During 2008 - 2009, the energy from the sun arriving at the top of Earth's atmosphere (Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI) as measured by satellites fell to its lowest value since satellite measurements began in 1978. Image credit: Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos World Radiation Center.
References
Skepticalscience.com has an in-depth discussion of Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
Wunderground climate change blogger Dr. Ricky Rood has a comprehensive 5-part series on how the sun affects climate.
Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, 2010, "Solar Influences on Climate", Accepted in Rev. Geophys, 2010.
White, W.B., J. Lean, D.R. Cayan and M.D. Dettinger (1997), Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar irradiance, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 3255-3266.
Thunderstorms hurl antimatter into space
NASA announced this week that mature thunderstorms can produce antimatter when exceptionally powerful lightning bolts occur. The antimattter beams were detected by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The amount of antimatter produced is tiny, though, and probably not enough to help power a starship.
"Cap'n, we're running low on antimatter to power the warp engines. Can you fly in low over those thunderstorms to replenish our reserves? We'll use the transporters to gather the antimatter and funnel it into the antimatter containment vessel."
"OK, Scotty!"
I'll have a new post on Tuesday.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 — Blog Index
These storms happen every 250 years or so on average. So it doesn't take a genious or a math wiz to see it's been 150 years since the last one so the odds are improving that it will happen again...AGW or not.
You'll notice I'm avoiding these same old arguments as well. Too counter-productive and aggravating. I wanna Florida snowstorm, till then.....Horsefeathers!
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110117rainmaker.htm
Where was Kansas on the meter they had in Rock and Roll High School?
Yet here we are on the 18th, with temps average to above average in most places (in the past 48 hours, there have been 118 record highs or high minimums and just four record lows), and unseasonably warm weather forecast for much of the country over at least the next week. Except for lobes of typically cold weather in the upper Midwest and extreme Northeast--it is January, after all--highs are expected to remain at or above normal pretty much everywhere.
I'm not at all saying this January thaw is "evidence" of overall warming. I'm not even suggesting it's unusual. What I'm doing is highlighting--again--the silliness and dishonesty of those who latch onto every snowstorm or cold snap as "proof" that the planet isn't warming--then refuse to acknowledge how wrong they were. (And, rabid denier though he is, I have to give JB props for making such a forecast. He's great at meteorology--it's climatology where he doesn't have much credibility.)
Ah, well. Here in Naples, the ten-day forecast says we'll be in the 70s all the way through the period. Sounds good to me... ;-)
Or perhaps professional wrestling would be a good match for him.
I don't mind Nea's stuff because he's much more open to debate and polished, but JFLORIDA, buddy, tone it down a bit, man... It's ok for people to disagree with your view. That's what sparks healthy debate. You seem to take it as a personal attack when someone doesn't agree with you, and then mud-slinging follows typically to the tune of how said person is ignorant or ignoring science...
If you want to sway someone's opinion, you're going about it the wrong way... At first, I listened to your posts, but your attitude on this blog, specifically, has completely turned me off to not only your posts, but even the whole AGW theory.
I work as a data analyst... It's VERY easy to take sets of data, publish charts and graphs, and then qualify the data in a manner to sway someone's opinion. Often, it's my job to take the same set of data and make it look like it says two completely opposite things. This concept alone, combined with all of the big money companies that stand to win or lose based on the outcome of these theories is enough for me to not buy in 100%.
I'm with the wait and see, but paying attention crowd.
Cheers
I am glad the one lesson I learned well at an early age; no matter how smart one believes he is, there is always someone smarter.
What actually frightens me about the arrogance, is that one day, one of these people (or the like) may be operating on you or defending you in a court. Arrogance and bias have never been as useful as fairness and open-mindedness. The former can be dangerous.
I'm fascinated. Can you give more details about your job and what you do - without getting personal or getting you into trouble. I'm just really curious what kind of job does what you described.
Kinda like when you proclaim every serious weather event as proof of AGW.
Sure sounds like you are using the same argument for both sides.
Try something else for a change.
Might I suggest you try something that is, apparently, very foreign to you...the TRUTH?
Try it, you might like it.
3 relevant notes to Dr. Masters Blog.
1. The spectral output from the sun is not uniform and changes out of phase with the 11 year total maximum output. That is to say, the absorbed spectra that heat the water or lower atmosphere the most are not at the peak during the total solar maximum output.
2. Is the south pacific really at their "Z" storm already, or is that just the English spelling?
3. Did he say "wessils?"
I'm a data analyst as well and a cartographer. I know first hand you can make a map lie even if the data is correct. Simply changing the range of numbers in a classification or adding more or less classes can dramatically change the way a map looks. And considering most look at a chart or map and believe it without even looking at the underlying data, its easy to fool a lot of people.
Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?
Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
But if this extreme weather was exceeded by similar conditions in 1974 how can it be claimed that global temperatures have increased dramatically and that the world's climate has reacted accordingly? Then they claim that climate is average weather. If this is so then how do they explain that the weather extremes have not increased during the past 40 years but global climate has worsened?
My apologies, but I don't recall having done that--that is, as you say, "proclaim every serious weather event as proof of AGW". Can you please point back to the comment or blog post where I did that? If you can possibly do that, let me know so I can publicly apologize for making such an unfounded, unscientific statement. If, on the other hand, you're not able to, I'll be expecting both a retraction and an apology from you.
Deal?
Nothing is misleading, you just falsely believe that all scientists who research the climate have either a climatology or meteorology degree. Many prominent alarmists have the same credentials of scientists who appear on the list,
Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. History of Science
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography
Shall we ignore all the papers written by any of the above?
That is because the list is anti-AGW Alarm which is stated explicitly in the title,
"850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm"
Thus various papers "support skepticism of the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW."
Viewing: 751 - 775
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 — Blog Index