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
Something to look up and study
Kind of hard to forecast, this far out.
But I think it is fair to say, that with temps rising generally, and ongoing freak weather -including incredible winter cold and storms for many places- we can anticipate an active season. Regardless of the elNino/laNina phase.
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.
Even Dr. Masters had a blog on this. Shear is the biggest factor not warming temperatures ect ect. Instead of ect ect. I'm going to start using whine whine
Good one...
I've gone back and I've found nothing that helps your people's case either. Just a bunch of silly nonsense spouted by people 'who want to help the planet'
Absolutely, trained character assassination by proxy. No mention of the data and findings. Just the same old stuff that makes this blog boring and even tyrannical now days. Let alone the pay per post indivuduals who now hammer the drum at the call of the host. In particular when banned individuals spew it the same way they did under their previous handle. LOL
http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.142.html
Your silly attempt at silencing people from presenting differing viewpoints will not work here.
If this blog were part of an engineering group with only BS, MS and Phd's your point might have validity.
Neither is this blog a peer review group.
I know because I have two Phd's in my family and it is so hilarious when they start that peer review crap at the dinner table. Like we say in those instances, who cares whether it is peer reviewed, if its raining outside, it doesn't take a scientist to confirm it.
Not everything has to be peer reviewed or cited.
You are deliberately making such demands in an effort to censor those with whom you disagree.
It is wrong for you to even attempt to silence those with differing views of such a very personal subject such as the weather.
Personal, yes, because we all must deal with it on a daily basis for the most part.
It is part of our lives and for you to try to, essentially, tape our mouths shut is...reprehensible.
Fallacies about Global Warming
Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate
The peer-review process was established for the benefit of editors who did not have good knowledge across all the fields that their journals addressed. It provided a "sanity check" to avoid the risk of publishing papers which were so outlandish that the journal would be ridiculed and lose its reputation.
In principle this notion seems entirely reasonable, but it neglects certain aspects of human nature, especially the tendency for reviewers to defend their own (earlier) papers, and indirectly their reputations, against challengers. Peer review also ignores the strong tendency for papers that disagree with a popular hypothesis, one the reviewer understands and perhaps supports, to receive a closer and often hostile scrutiny.
Reviewers are selected from practitioners in the field, but many scientific fields are so small that the reviewers will know the authors. The reviewers may even have worked with the authors in the past or wish to work with them in future, so the objectivity of any review is likely to be tainted by this association.
Some journals now request that authors suggest appropriate reviewers but this is a sure way to identify reviewers who will be favourable to certain propositions.
It also follows that if the editor of a journal wishes to reject a paper, then it will be sent to a reviewer who is likely to reject it, whereas a paper that the editor favours to be published will be sent to a reviewer who is expected to be sympathetic. In 2002 the editor-in-chief of the journal "Science" announced that there was no longer any doubt that human activity was changing climate, so what are the realistic chances of this journal publishing a paper that suggests otherwise?
The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires the use of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed.
In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work.
Link
My understanding of shear is that it is generally upperlevel winds that tend to prevent clouds from gaining altitude by blowing them away (I am being purposefully simplistic here).
But winds are the result of pressure/temperature gradients.
And weather/climate obviously affects that.
So, with record cold and hot temps being the norm these days, I would expect shear to be an ongoing issue against hurricane formation.
But my own feeling is that extreme weather will be the norm, and Hurricanes are extreme weather.
Beer would be good with them Dud's
You are back-pedalling here.....
Don't feel bad people he won't link anything and I went back on the other blog and looked at who JFLORIDA had linked none of those people are educated in the field they used them for. Typical but who cares really.
There is a fundamental problem with all numerical models - they just cannot be replicated. If you use the grid and boundary conditions of the first work, it becomes trivial. If you use your own grid and boundary conditions you get a different result - any numerical model has to be calibrated - most are not.
The nonsense I have received from my graduate students, including PhD students is beyond imagination.
I fixed it to give it a title that was on their website now it makes more sense.
You missed my point.
This is not a blog solely populated by degreed individuals.
It is a blog provided so that people can gather and blog about their views of the weather. Be they right or wrong, it matters not.
Expecting people to adhere to the standards of a specialized blog is nothing short of "CENSORSHIP OF FREE SPEECH".
If I remember correctly, long ago, those who insisted, against CTW, that the world was round, risked being burned at the stake for such heresy.
If you want this to become a 'Degrees Only' blog, by all means, get the Doctor to make those changes immediately.
Otherwise stop trying to censor the free speech of those who visit here.
Harry Potter is a fictional character, so is the belief that being degreed in a subject makes your views above challenge by others who are not so degreed.
CTW - Current Thinking and Writing
Agree.
But those conditions can change in 6 months.
And other conditions can come into play, like SAL, weather over the SAHEL in the next couple of months, the extent of the Polar ice by March, etc etc.
Mean steering currents are harder to predict than seasonal activity. This is at least partially because of our relative skill in predicting ENSO events.
I see.
What you say cuts both ways.....
I saw no censorship, but rather a continued attempt to correct what he sees as erroneous views.
Like what you are trying to do.
Obviously you are not part of a family of engineers like myself.
Four generations to be exact.
I have lived my life hearing the question' Do you have a degree in that subject?'
Especially at parties and large get-togethers. Kind of like going to a wedding between two employees of Disney. The only thing being discussed is Disney related topics. Changing the subject isn't even on the menu.
Oh the comfort of a closed mind. It's about physics bro. BTW, I have read most of the free ones and many of the payed versions from that list, let alone hundreds of others that are not on that list. You apparently only read propaganda, so stay there and enjoy your paradise while you can, and keep that dewy decimal system straight in that library. LOL
True.
But steering currents have a minimal effect on Hurricane formation, once the storm is below say 25 N..
They affect where the storm will end up, if it forms.
BTW HaloReachFan my comments were not directed at you. I simply chose your comment to open up the floor for my comments.
My comments were directed 'out there' where the lurkers and travelers exist.
I meant you no disrespect.
I think I understand your situation.
But it should not prejudice you against ALL people with degrees.
That's silly.
Oh no. I didn't see any disrespect in my eyes your all good.
Which is why I wish there were better ways for us to predict synoptic scale steering. That's far more important than numbers.
Sure looks like you are putting words into his mouth.
Isn't putting words into someones mouth kind of like telling a lie?
Doesn't that make you a...nevermind.
When arguing with a fool...boy that was close.
Glad you caught yourself there!
That is simply a wrong statement. You have 845 to go bro, but then again, you don't read them anyhow. Neither qualifications are required to study and provide pertinent, meaningful information/data about climate let alone the impacts of the obvious corruption going on in today's disappointing science community on the subject. Confining the science to a term climate scientist/meteorologist is actually quite humorous. Kinda like an air pollution meteorologist, No? Have fun, I will waste no more CO2 on you :)
Good point.
Matters more to everyone, in the end.
Evening folks.
Nice blog from Dr. Masters.
That we are seeing global warming during solar minimum is a lot more convincing than we haven't been around long enough to trust our observations.
Of course when I say "our" I mean we as humans with specific reference to specialists in meteorological and atmospheric science with degrees from accredited universities and years of professional experience in the field with the latest technologies at their service.
You are just trying to get a rise out of Calusakat, are'nt you? LOL
I don't think of it as prejudice at all.
Whenever a person attempts to stifle amiable conversation with that stupid refrain about 'is that peer reviewed or that person can't be right because they don't have a degree in the subject, I see it as nothing but an attempt at violating a persons free speech rights.
If you don't like what is being presented, then, by all means feel free to present your side in like manner.
Freedom of speech should reign supreme even when it is about AGW.
"...In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work..."
And yes, these are the "peer-reviewed" journals.
Unfortunately, this is a problem which is very common in north america. The education system tend to form what we call "educated idiots", people who are very good in a small field of specialization, without any knowledge outside their field. Of course, they have only one subject.
Maybe Kurt Vonnegut was right and cockroaches will rule the universe.
Why would they hide information, and that of which was paid with public monies ? Just wait on the UVA item. It will be a doosie :) out>>>>>
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 — Blog Index