2007: Fifth warmest year on record
The data is in, and 2007 finished as the 5th warmest year on record for the globe, according to figures released by the National Climatic Data Center. For land areas only, 2007 ranked as the warmest year on record. For the oceans, 2007 was the ninth warmest year on record. La Niña continued to strengthen at the end of the year, creating ocean surface temperatures in large areas of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific more than -3°F (-1.7°C) below average. The rapid decay of the El Niño event that rang in 2007 and subsequent development of a moderate La Niña event caused the failure of the forecast issued by the United Kingdom Meteorological Office on January 4 of 2007, predicting a a 60% chance that 2007 would be the warmest year on record. The forecasters cited the combined influence of the continuing global warming trend, and the presence of a moderate El Niño event.
Figure 1. Global temperatures (land plus ocean) for 1880-2007. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.
The warmest years on record globally were 2005 and 1998, when the global average temperatures were 1.08°F and 1.04°F higher than the long-term average of 57°F. The 2007 temperature was .99°F above average. Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of more than 1°F (0.6°C) since 1900. Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend. All ten of the top ten warmest years for the globe have occurred since 1995. The global temperature record goes back to 1880.
Tenth warmest year on record for the U.S.
For the contiguous U.S., 2007 was the tenth warmest year on record. U.S. weather records go back to 1895. Six of the 10 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S. have occurred since 1998, part of a three decade period in which mean temperatures for the contiguous U.S. have risen at a rate near 0.6°F per decade.
Figure 2. U.S. temperatures for 1895-2007. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.
Arctic sea ice remains near record low levels
December 2007 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent was the second lowest on record for the month of December, 13% below its extent in 1979 when satellite measurements began, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. December was the second straight month that a new monthly minimum Arctic sea ice record was not set, following a string of five months in a row where monthly records were set. However, the December 2007 sea ice extent was very close to the record low extent set in 2006, and the ice is much thinner than it was in 2006. This will likely cause a very early melting season and a probable return to record lows by April.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index
Not much to talk about here weatherwise in Trinidad, (11n 61 w ). The dry season is setting in as it should. Dry now to June, when the ITCZ and the Tropical waves start affecting things.
Not looking forward to this dry season, when the Sahara dust makes things most unpleasant and drops our visibility down to 3 miles for up to a week. Gets progressively worse each year.
Rainfall at my location for 2007 was 181.2 cm ( about 7 feet ), and the 10 yr average is 202 cm so not much change there.
The change has been in the rainfall pattern. We currently have intense, brief showers with days on hot dry weather between them, very different to the recent past which was days of rain and drizzle with mildew and mould being an issue.
The change has affected water catchment, agriculture, etc., and causes far more damage in terms of flash-floods and landslides on the hills along the North coast. Part of the reason for the change in the pattern is the Sahara dust, which is affecting the temperature as well, causing local heavy convection along the West coast of the Island ( where there are no resevoirs), during the early part of the rainy season ( June to August).
Its all interesting, and is changing fast.
yeah, so those stats are like useless. We need Prof. Peabodys WayBack machine,to go back billions of years, and get some real stats. Then, you could state the Top Ten Hottest Years on record.
Not totally useless. Yes records have only been kept since the 1800's. BUT since 1895 alone the global human population has more than doubled. Within that time the FACT is that the earth has warmed. Facts cannot be ignored.
Over 6.6 billion inhabitants stripping the world of it's resources, and using more than ever before is going to have some affect on the weather across the world. Noone can argue that the world population as a whole doesnt have any affect on the weather, because we do.
Take major metropolitan area's for example, even small cities of say 30,000. The concrete and buildings in these cities tend to keep heat at the surface, which of course rises up through to the atmostphere. Now speckle hundreds of thousands of these small "heating pads" across the globe and voila, instant warmer places. Even here in Baton Rouge the temperature 9 times outta 10 is warmer than the outskirts to the south. That's just one small example that doesnt even include burned fuels, de-forestation, and waste.
So since records have been kept the average temperature has gone up. That's proven and cannot be argued, and since it's all we have to go by, in a lot of scientists eyes global warming is happening.
Do I believe it's going to have the huge catastrophic impacts that they predict? No, I think some of the predictions are completely bogus. I do however see what the charts say, and relitave to the boom in human population...I'd say we have something to do with it.
Again that's what our figures say, and it's all we have to go by. Doesnt matter what happened in the past, this is now, and it's all we've got.
Scientists predict that phase 25(due sometime between 2017-2020) may be a record for lest active sunspots. Which means we'll most likely be talking about Global Cooling.
Also note this prediction has nothing to do with the 1970's Global Cooling scare. Then' we barely knew much about sunspots and their role on climate change.
I concur but again i state...a million years ago the earth didnt even have a human population (according to records).
The impacts of manmade gases that ineract with atmospheric gases has to have some impact. You cannot justify that the amount of resources we currently use are equalized on a daily bases by the earth itself. The things that we do on a daily basis from the start of a car to the running of a fuel plant affect the atmosphere in some way.
You can base changes on the past, because as you said history does repeat itself. What's not repeated is the amount of people. Earth is more populated now than it ever has been so really we (scientists included) can only really guess what affect we are having based on our 200 year old records, which right now are proving that the earth is warming. 10,000 years from now, if the population is still fluroushing, is when we will need to evaluate everything.
Of course, if it's still warming then I think we'd all be baked to death!
Historically, we have never been in this position before. Historical data is good, but cannot tell the future because so much has changed ( regardless of why ). The current weather prediction models are still heavily weighted in favour of historical data, and dont take into account recent events ( like the partial elimination of the North ice caps, the southern spread of the sahara etc etc etc ). Will the two examples above reverse themselves next year or in 50 years ? We dont know that.
It is true to say that the climate has changed recently, and that human activity is the most probable cause.
Even better!!!
The demand for a perfect data set is nothing but a way to procrastinate a decision. All human decisions are made with limited data.
The argument that there is insufficient data cuts both ways. If there is insufficient data to support a conclusion then it follows that there is insufficient data to support an alternative interpretation.
Saying that the data we have is meaningless
ok, I'll say it
The data we have is meaningless.
We do not have a clue what all of this means. Especially when there is absolutely no standard for taking those temps, and they are talking about 10th's and 100th's of one degree. Everyone is all over the place with it, and we do not have a clue how solar, oceans, biology, botany, orbits, you name it come into play with it.
BTW my normal body temperature is around 96.8.
101 might mean a cold to you, but a coma for me.
yes having a record of my temp is important.
Eye Temperature - off-white -20C
Eye wall Temperature - black - -69C
E # - 5.5
Eye Adjustment Factor - 0.0
Current Intensity: 5.5 0.0= CI 5.5
Dvorak Visible Analysis: Tropical Cyclone Funa
Embedded Center is 2 degrees - E 7.0
Eye Adjustment Factors
1) E number suppose to be limted to E6.0 because of large ragged eyes
2) Subtract 1.0 for ragged eyes above E5.0
Banding Features - 1/2 degree - 0.5
CI = 7.0 limited to 6.0-1.0 0.5 = CI 5.5
Link
I don't mean to sound disrespectful but the NWS called for accumulating snow in New York with the last coastal low however most of it was freezing rain.
to CO2 being the be all and end all for global warming?
apples and oranges
.
yeah "some"....but how does anyone measure levels of Co2 with much certainty in such a complex world? Billions of it are being consumed by plants instantaneosly, and produced in tandum.
Last time I heard, Co2 makes up 1/100 of 1% of our atmosphere. There's more evidence of solar connections and vapor contributions....
My own 2 bits: Isn't it odd that the beginng of the increased rate of rise of the "US" and "Global" temperatures coincide exactly with the advent of the infrared spectromoter in space (the same device that began measuring the sea ice coverage over the Arctic)? I put US and global in quotes above because those measurements are not US and global before the satellites, they are the temperature of the locations at which we measure it...always changing with changing instruments. Is there a cycle? Yes. Does it suddenly change when we finally began to measure the temperature over a far larger spatial area by satellite? Yes. Do we have enough of a satellite record to be sure we aren't simply seeing a 30-year cycle in a different way? Heck NO!
The timing of it all is a little too neat and tidy for the facism that the real drivers behind the "control your energy usage for you" crowd want.
NCEP claiming and others spouting that number X is the global temperature without having a pixel for every point on the globe, but instead a couple of hundred surface measurements (some conducted by farmers to whom everything is relative and most of which were in the US) is bull dookey. Guess what...that statement applies to everything before 1980.
Do we need to make every reasonable effort to make as little an imprint as possible on the environment? Absolutely. When we go camping, we pick up the trash, but stop short of collecting the pee off of the base of that tree over there. (How do we know that our scent will not stop the deer that were going to meet from mating and making babies?) Same goes for more effecient use of our fuels and the byproducts produced. It is only reasonable to a point.
The impacts of manmade gases that interact with atmospheric gases has to have some impact.
yeah "some"....but how does anyone measure levels of Co2 with much certainty in such a complex world? Billions of it are being consumed by plants instantaneosly, and produced in tandum.
Last time I heard, Co2 makes up 1/100 of 1% of our atmosphere. There's more evidence of solar connections and vapor contributions....
Hah! love the handle!
Your average CO2 molecule will stay a gas in the atmosphere for more than 100 years allowing for the gas to be evenly distributed around the hemisphere. The only noticible change from location to location in the CO2 concentration has to do with northern or southern hemisphere growing seasons
And, yes, CO2 is about 1/100 of the atmosphere by volume, slighly more by mass.
A record rainfall of 0.66 inches fell on Melbourne yesterday. This
deluge breaks the old record of 0.29 set in 1955.
Vapor is looping
More rain appears to be coming. Nat'l Radar loop (Big)
Maybe some lightning too.
75. MichaelSTL
I hope that apparent pattern doesn't bear out for your area this year. ENSO affects number, size, & distribution of tornadoes. (Just an opinion;)
That has nothing to do with what I said.......And plants and a zillion other things consume that Co2 when its produced....How do you even know at what point Co2 becomes beneficial? You cant measure it, it is impossible to do so reliably......
and if I was on "ignore" you must have looked at my post anyways.
HiExpress~ That deluge was nice. Had another .12" today.
Funa forecast track
Lake Okeechobee didn't get that much.
NEW TORNADO POLICY for Dallas-Ft. Worth area:
In case of possible tornadoes sweeping through the Dallas-Ft.
Worth area, we ask that all residents take shelter at Texas Stadium. We
are certain that a touchdown will not occur there.
Thank you for your cooperation,
National Weather Bureau
Hurricane-Force Winds within 40 miles from center
Storm-Force Winds within 65 miles from center
Gale-Force Winds within 180 miles from center.
Organization has increased in the last 6 hours. An irregular eye with deep convection cooling around it. The system is maintaining good equatorward outflow. CIMSS shows low to moderate shear over the system. The system is expected to weaken as it comes under the influence of stronger wind shear that exist about 25S with significantly cooler sea surface temperatures.
Dvorak based on DT5.5, Thus T5.5/5.5/D1.0/24 HRS.
Global models agree that the system will move along a rapid poleward track, turning gradually southward then southwest. The system is expected to become a strong extra-tropical low.
Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 23.5S 175.7E 80 knots [CAT 3]
48 HRS: 32.3S 169.0E 45 knots [CAT 1]
Periods of cold light rain...mixed with light sleet and snow...will continue through 7 am across portions of northeast Louisiana...and much of west...central...and east Mississippi. Sleet or snow accumulations will be light...mainly on colder surfaces such as metal objects and in grassy areas. A light accumulation on area bridges and overpasses will also be possible with this activity. As a result...motorists should use caution when commuting through the area this morning.
....SYNOPSIS....
GULF OF MEXICO/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC OCEAN WEST OF 50W....
Moderate to strong convection is spreading across the Gulf of Mexico north of 25N and the Southeast United States. This activity is associated with the leading edge of a storm system’s surface low at 21N/91W and warm front extending from the low to Central Florida at 26N-82W. This area lies within the left entrance region of an upper ridge axis across the Caribbean and thus allowing deep shower activity to prevail. The preceding mid-upper level southwesterly flow aloft is spreading a swath of mid-upper level cloudiness and showers across Mexico from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico west of 90W. Otherwise, clear to partly cloudy skies is seen elsewhere.
Deep layer anticyclonic flow covers the Atlantic Ocean west of 60W. Mid-upper level cloudiness flows from the Southeast United States to 60W north of 30N. At the surface, anticyclonic flow and fair weather dominates south of 30N from 55W to the Bahamas...centered on a 1027 mb high near 28N-62W.
by W456
This morning's QuikSCAT and surface observations revealed winds above 20 knots dominates the region. This is producing 7-8 ft seas across most parts and 13 ft seas along the Colombian coast where the pressure gradient is tightest. This increase in wind and the subsequent wave activity can be blamed on the broad 1027 mb high north of the region. Upper ridging and dry air covers the entire basin with plentiful clear to partly cloudy skies especially over the Eastern Caribbean where confluent flow alft exist. Any shower activity will be confined to isolated patches of tradewind moisture and because of the tradewind speed, these should be brief. The exception will be along parts the Central American terrain, especially the windward sides where orographical lift will cause enhance rainfall and because they are being blocked, showers may be persistent but shallow here. Enjoy the Caribbean today!
by W456
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index