2010: tied with 2005 for warmest year in history

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:23 PM GMT on January 16, 2011

Share this Blog
5
+

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

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 175 - 125

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Quoting HaloReachFan:


Neither is anything I see posted from you people.

Really?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
Not true HaloReachFan, I've seen a lot of papers linked written by climatologists and meteorologists.


link?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:


But apparently if something is peer reviewed then it means it is law. According to JFLORIDA


No, actually it means that the Harry Potter Wand of Infallibility has been waved over it, rendering it above reproach.

Fact and/or truth has nothing to do with it.

JFLORIDA simply missed getting the memo. So it taint his fault.


Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Quoting Patrap:
Ill get my coat..then.

Nice!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Neither is anything I see posted from you people.


But apparently if something is peer reviewed then it means it is law. According to JFLORIDA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
162---the paper was not written by a climatologist or meteorologist.


Neither is anything I see posted from you people.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
IV. CARBON DIOXIDE, COMPUTER MODELS, AND ALL THAT JAZZ
1. Cutting Carbon Dioxide Emissions will cause no Measurable
Difference to Future Climate
Public discussion about ‘carbon policy’ or ‘reducing greenhouse gases’ centres around the
need to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet even educated persons mostly have
no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour; that, as a minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide causes less than 4% of the warming produced by all
atmospheric greenhouse gases8; and that human emissions represent just a tiny portion (~3%)
of that 4%. What is presently missing from the public debate, then – and it is not provided by
computer model outputs, either – is an appreciation of the small scale (in context) of human
emissions.
Nonetheless, there is little dispute amongst scientists that atmospheric carbon dioxide
levels have increased by about 30% over the 20th century and that human emissions are one
of the main causes. Nor is there any disagreement that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
that exerts a small initial warming effect. But beyond this, there is no consensus at all as to
the magnitude of the warming that will be exerted by increased carbon dioxide once all likely
feedback loops are considered.

Link is in post 162
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DEKRE:


Showing the limits of applicability of a theory is NOT disproving it.

I object to the application of philosophy to the real world - all you do is end up with idiocies like Schr�dingers Cat.

You remind me of my students who give me the efficiency of a steam engine cycle to the full number of digits on their calculators.


I tend to agree, usually, about the application of philosophy to the real world. However, the way we do science, and the way we all attack these kind of problems, is based on the philosophy of science. I frankly don't know half as much about it as I should, but it becomes noticable when the process I'm trained to use (and how I'm trained to think) is different to the way things are portrayed in the media (or, for that matter, handled in other scientific subjects). That said, I've had plenty of students who give their answers using every last place on the calculator, and I've had to train them not to. The difference is, perhaps, that you would only take the number of places that are relevant to an engineering solution, whereas I'd need all the significant figures that actually meant something...

Trying to think of a decent analogy. Hmmn -- when we're looking at the pulse period of a given pulsar, it's important to be able to measure it to as many significant figures as we can -- the more accurate you can get the result, the deeper you can look for variations in that timing from which you can draw conclusions on changes in the state of the star, the presence of planets, etc. I'm all for throwing away pointless sig. figs when they genuinely are pointless -- but at the same time, I'm all for keeping sig, figs when they actually are significant :)

There's no point in giving the efficiency of a steam engine cycle to 100 sig figs if the numbers you put in the equation at the start are only known to 3... but if you're looking at making miniscule improvements to that efficiency, and the input variables are measured to 20 sig. figs precision, it doesn't make sense to give the answer to 2 sig figs, either!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
163. DEKRE
Quoting calusakat:


That is why slide rules helped teach reality so much better.

Calculators take away an awful lot of the "aha, insight' that once was part of calculating such things as steam engine efficiencies.




For once, I agree 100 % with you. My students in the era of the slide rule didn't make errors by a factor of 1000.
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting DEKRE:


Showing the limits of applicability of a theory is NOT disproving it.

I object to the application of philosophy to the real world - all you do is end up with idiocies like Schr%uFFFDdingers Cat.

You remind me of my students who give me the efficiency of a steam engine cycle to the full number of digits on their calculators.


That is why slide rules helped teach reality so much better. Useful (significant) digits were always an important part of the result.

Calculators took away an awful lot of the "aha, insight' that once was part of calculating such things as steam engine efficiencies.


Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Ill get my coat..then.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting DEKRE:


Look at the article. It says on the bottom of the first page - submitted

That paper will never pass peer review; it's written from a very clearly contrarian-biased position. Take this footnote:

"Some of the strongest AGWT advocates are rapidly acknowledging that no signicant global warming has been observed since at last 10 years contrary to the IPCC projections. Other factors, besides anthropogenic GHGs, are responsible of climate changes. In February 2010 Phil Jones, the ex director of the CRU center for climate change and the academic at the center of the climategate, has admitted that there has been no global warming since 1995."

...and then the paper's author goes on to cite the tabloid Daily Mail. That would be like an astronomer quoting from the National Enquirer.

The paper's author also used that decidedly unscientific 30,000-signer petition to bolster his nonsense. Good grief...

Though contrarians will doubtless flog this paper around as "proof" that we're about to enter the magical cooling period. QED.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
You could use quantum theory to predict how often a apple would jump up 10 feet because of the uncertainty of its position. However, I'm not counting on anyone observing such a thing!



You could, and the odds would be incredibly low, but there!

The difference in methods becomes important, though, when it comes to some of the more extreme systems that physicists have to deal with. A less extreme example, actually, is the functioning of GPS -- if people didn't take into account the effects of Gen. Rel, GPS just wouldn't work -- with a purely newtonian setup, all the results would be wrong (or, given how many people have GPS that points them into rivers, more wrong...).

The worry, though, is the presentation of theory as fact -- that's one of the biggest mistakes people make, and it means that trust of scientists is easy to take away...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Quadrantid:


I disagree entirely -- but that's part of the fun of these debates. However, Newton's law, as stated, falls down when applied to things such as the orbit of Mercury. It is only an approximation (as are all laws, and all theories), but it is an incredibly good one, almost all of the time. At the end of the day, though, if you go to enough significant figures, Newton's law WILL give you the wrong answer -- no ifs, buts, or maybes. The analogy of measuring the size of a house with a tape measure is actually bang on for why I still use Newtonian gravity in my calculations - the errors due to that approximation are so small compared to everything else as to be insignificant - so long as the objects I'm studying don't get to too small a distance.

What this might be highlighting, actually, is a difference between the methodology used in Physics, and that used in Engineering. I'm coming from one side of the fence, so apologies if I sound biased or get the engineering side wrong - but I guess the difference in view point comes down to a difference in the way that the two sides approach the problems. In physics, we have to look for the model that is the closest fit to the data -- and as we become more and more able to take the data, we have to refine the models ever further to make them fit (or come up with new models). So the things that, in most cases, are beyond the level of experimental or measurement error, have to be considered to get things as accurate as possible once experiments come out that can measure those things. In engineering, if something is beyond measurement error, and doesn't have any effect on what you're doing, it's just a theoretical nicety -- it's more important to make sure that the thing you're putting together works as well as possible than to determine which of two near-identical models is used to get to that result.

I stand by my argument, though -- there's no way on this planet to prove a theory, all you can do is disprove it -- a million positive results mean that your theory is really, really good -- but doesn't make it anything more than a theory. All it takes is one verifyable, repeatable result to shatter that theory and make us move on to another.


Well put.


Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
156. DEKRE
Quoting Quadrantid:


I disagree entirely -- ...


Showing the limits of applicability of a theory is NOT disproving it.

I object to the application of philosophy to the real world - all you do is end up with idiocies like Schrdingers Cat.

You remind me of my students who give me the efficiency of a steam engine cycle to the full number of digits on their calculators.
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
DEKRE is correct.



Where does it say it is not peer reviewed?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:

800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations





**************************

Sure will be neat when those Beta graph programs are used on real honest data.

I can hardly wait.

Darn, that shiver is starting up my leg again.



Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Quoting DEKRE:


Unfortunately, I'm only a simple university professor in engineering - philosophy is not for me

At least I was until my retirement last July

In any case, you are talking nonsense. Newton's law has not been disproved at all by the general theory of relativity, it has been extended. This is just a matter of the number of significant digits. All depends on the circumstances. The fact that it is possible to measure lengths to the femto-meter doesn't take away the usefulness of the tape measure to determine the length of a house.


I disagree entirely -- but that's part of the fun of these debates. However, Newton's law, as stated, falls down when applied to things such as the orbit of Mercury. It is only an approximation (as are all laws, and all theories), but it is an incredibly good one, almost all of the time. At the end of the day, though, if you go to enough significant figures, Newton's law WILL give you the wrong answer -- no ifs, buts, or maybes. The analogy of measuring the size of a house with a tape measure is actually bang on for why I still use Newtonian gravity in my calculations - the errors due to that approximation are so small compared to everything else as to be insignificant - so long as the objects I'm studying don't get to too small a distance.

What this might be highlighting, actually, is a difference between the methodology used in Physics, and that used in Engineering. I'm coming from one side of the fence, so apologies if I sound biased or get the engineering side wrong - but I guess the difference in view point comes down to a difference in the way that the two sides approach the problems. In physics, we have to look for the model that is the closest fit to the data -- and as we become more and more able to take the data, we have to refine the models ever further to make them fit (or come up with new models). So the things that, in most cases, are beyond the level of experimental or measurement error, have to be considered to get things as accurate as possible once experiments come out that can measure those things. In engineering, if something is beyond measurement error, and doesn't have any effect on what you're doing, it's just a theoretical nicety -- it's more important to make sure that the thing you're putting together works as well as possible than to determine which of two near-identical models is used to get to that result.

I stand by my argument, though -- there's no way on this planet to prove a theory, all you can do is disprove it -- a million positive results mean that your theory is really, really good -- but doesn't make it anything more than a theory. All it takes is one verifyable, repeatable result to shatter that theory and make us move on to another.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
150. DEKRE
Quoting HaloReachFan:


Not where I got it from sorry try again.


Look at the article. It says on the bottom of the first page - submitted
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting DEKRE:


Sorry, this article is not peer reviewed, it is only submitted - to a journal specialized in Social Science


Not where I got it from sorry try again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Brady Bunch comes to mind.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Why are you people yelling at me over this? I didn't peer review this article or journal or whatever you people call these things.

THIS IS PEER REVIEWED!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
146. DEKRE
Quoting HaloReachFan:


The peer reviewed paper/journal/article does not state where it got that from. But again you only quote that you don't want to go in on anything else said in the article.


Sorry, this article is not peer reviewed, it is only submitted - to a journal specialized in Social Science
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting HaloReachFan:
However, not everyone shares the IPCC%u2019s views [3].1 More than 30,000 scientists in
America (including 9,029 PhDs) have recently signed a petition stating that those claims
are extreme, that the climate system is more complex than what is now known, several mechanisms are not yet included in the climate models considered by the IPCC and that
this issue should be treated with some caution because incorrect environmental policies
could also cause extensive damage [3]. This article brie%uFB02y summarizes some of the rea-
sons, mostly derived from my own research, why the science behind the IPCC%u2019s claim is
questionable.


Oh, that 30,000 signer thing again? Are you aware that only 1/10 of one percent of the supposed signers of that petition--not a single one of whom is named--have a degree in the climate sciences? That's 0.1%.

0.1%.

That means 99.9% of the signers--if they actually exist, and there is a lot of doubt about that--are experienced elsewhere. Gathering climate info from them would be akin to going to a podiatrist for brain surgery.

When, oh when, will this silly bit of nonsense stop coming up?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
No it's not weather related but I thought it was interesting.I looked up my family name Edwards,and it turns out that some of our earlier family members came over as early as the 1500's!!.Very exciting to know!(for me that is).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
HaloReachFan, you mean the Oregon Petition which was full of fake signatures?

The Oregon petition has been discredited for years.


The peer reviewed paper/journal/article does not state where it got that from. But again you only quote that you don't want to go in on anything else said in the article.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Yes the numbers continue to rise sadly..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
SNOW TO MAKE A COME BACK ACROSS THE SOUTH-EAST


Watching the models for next week around Thursday/Friday.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLWeatherFreak91:
Has anyone considered that an increase in temperatures will cause the avg global dew point to rise, an increase in cloud cover, and therefore an increase in albedo causing the global temps to decrease???


one word on that,..

Venus
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

800,000 Year Record of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations




Carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million) for the last 800,000 years, measured from trapped bubbles of air in an Antarctic ice core. More information: Climate Change Impacts on the U.S.


Over the last 800,000 years, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 35 percent since the start of the industrial revolution. Globally, over the past several decades, about 80 percent of human-induced CO2 emissions came from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 percent resulted from deforestation and associated agricultural practices. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the CO2 concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Has anyone considered that an increase in temperatures will cause the avg global dew point to rise, an increase in cloud cover, and therefore an increase in albedo causing the global temps to decrease???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
One just has to log out and view this page to see who is being seen..
..and not.

The Voters decide.


"fair and Balanced we are"...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
128. DEKRE
Quoting Quadrantid:




Argle -- another epic rant -- sorry!


Unfortunately, I'm only a simple university professor in engineering - philosophy is not for me

At least I was until my retirement last July

In any case, you are talking nonsense. Newton's law has not been disproved at all by the general theory of relativity, it has been extended. This is just a matter of the number of significant digits. All depends on the circumstances. The fact that it is possible to measure lengths to the femto-meter doesn't take away the usefulness of the tape measure to determine the length of a house.
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
dont google my handle and wunderground in Google Images.


Ya may be awhile
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
People will Boo0hoo the NOAA Climate Data.

But hit F5 600 times to get dem NOAA Cane Numbers forecast posted here "furst" easily.


Phood fer thought.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 175 - 125

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
33 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron