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: 725 - 675

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

Quoting Neapolitan:

I'm going to ignore this ignorant, racist, and utterly bigoted piece of moronic white supremacist garbage, and its author as well. I hope everyone else does the same.
Quoting Levi32:


Are you sure you are willing to make that statement? What about the fact that we still don't fully understand clouds, much less having the ability to correctly model them? What about the fact that we don't yet fully understand some of the most significant modulators of global climate such as the polar annular modes, and stratospheric/mesospheric processes that are still under study and have limited observation?


I'm glad I can consider you, someone that I uphold for being very smart, but yet not arrogant and full of yourself, because you don't portray human understanding for science like we are God.

That's a rare feat these days!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tazmanian:


lol


If you try that i will report you and i mean it really i mean it

cloning t rex bad... mammoths just smell.
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
sure lets bring back a t-rex next


lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LoveStormsatNight:
From the Environmental Protection Agency:


Who cares about the EPA? Dr. Hansen has gotten mad.

The future does belong to the Chinese. Why? Are they environmentally friendly? Heck no... how many coal fired electric plants come on per week?

Are they moving towards a renewable based economy in 115 or so years?

Yes...

Infinitely faster than the US, where I cannot even get my tax refund until after February
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
Quoting EnergyMoron:
Dr. Hansen loses it

Interesting article.

I have kind of the opposite take on the elections. Mind you I can appreciate anybody who doesn't see the opportunity...

There is opportunity. Reagan signed the Montreal protocol...

I am definitely not impressed that my tax return cannot be filed right now.
its only a month away
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 170 Comments: 53534
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
why not make a whole battlion of em of lets say 1500 2000 in a herd ulimate weapon and all you do is release it to feed off the enemy


The enemy sends ultrasonic/infrared commands to em and they attack the Boss.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. Hansen loses it

Interesting article.

I have kind of the opposite take on the elections. Mind you I can appreciate anybody who doesn't see the opportunity...

There is opportunity. Reagan signed the Montreal protocol...

I am definitely not impressed that my tax return cannot be filed right now.
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
Quoting ILwthrfan:


Guns serve one purpose and that one purpose is to kill.


go hug a dang tree.

Personally, I like to defend my family and friends against the wicked.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
why not make a whole battlion of em of lets say 1500 2000 in a herd ulimate weapon and all you do is release it to feed off the enemy


LOL

Hannible already tried that
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
sure lets bring back a t-rex next


If they find a preserved cell in the Arctic, you can be sure that they will try it....

That mammoth cell was preserved in the Russian permafrost...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
why not make a whole battlion of em of lets say 1500 2000 in a herd ulimate weapon and all you do is release it to feed off the enemy
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 170 Comments: 53534
Quoting EnergyMoron:


While strictly against human cloningsince it can only lead to slavery...

Why not?


Mankind keeps experimenting.... that flask is going to blow in his face
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
sure lets bring back a t-rex next
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 170 Comments: 53534
Quoting sunlinepr:
Researchers aim to resurrect mammoth in five years
Link



TOKYO (AFP) – Japanese researchers will launch a project this year to resurrect the long-extinct mammoth by using cloning technology to bring the ancient pachyderm back to life in around five years time.

The researchers will try to revive the species by obtaining tissue this summer from the carcass of a mammoth preserved in a Russian research laboratory, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported.

"Preparations to realise this goal have been made," Akira Iritani, leader of the team and a professor emeritus of Kyoto University, told the mass-circulation daily.

Under the plan, the nuclei of mammoth cells will be inserted into an elephant's egg cell from which the nuclei have been removed, to create an embryo containing mammoth genes, the report said.


While strictly against human cloningsince it can only lead to slavery...

Why not?
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:




Stay civil, folks. Enjoy the evening.


Civil... the feds are not returning our money until after February 15.

I worked on taxes tonight since in theory I get a big refund from the solar panels....

Obama and company says we are broke and can't pay out until February 15 at the earliest according to tax software.

Um....

Not paying debts immediately is a sign the US should be downgraded to junk status.... since it

WASTES ENERGY
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
Researchers aim to resurrect mammoth in five years
Link



TOKYO (AFP) – Japanese researchers will launch a project this year to resurrect the long-extinct mammoth by using cloning technology to bring the ancient pachyderm back to life in around five years time.

The researchers will try to revive the species by obtaining tissue this summer from the carcass of a mammoth preserved in a Russian research laboratory, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported.

"Preparations to realise this goal have been made," Akira Iritani, leader of the team and a professor emeritus of Kyoto University, told the mass-circulation daily.

Under the plan, the nuclei of mammoth cells will be inserted into an elephant's egg cell from which the nuclei have been removed, to create an embryo containing mammoth genes, the report said.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:




Stay civil, folks. Enjoy the evening.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
704.

Lol. I must chuckle a bit at your refusal to admit that I have given sources for my data all of these past two weeks, and gave it when asked for by anyone. You cannot question the validity of those sources for they were the same ones used by you and others. You won't even admit that you have already read the material that you are asking me to dig up for you now, holding onto it as the last "mistake" I have made in scientific analysis. And yet, if I ask you to cite any post at all during the last couple weeks that I have made where I didn't properly source my data, you refuse to do that as well, because you wouldn't be able to find one.

This back and forth isn't going anywhere. I'll say goodnight now for my flight leaves early tomorrow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:


Howdy, pal...Who's in charge here?!



LMBO. The inmates?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PSLFLCaneVet:


Evening, Press. How it be?


Howdy, pal...Who's in charge here?!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
George Noory is on the radio RIGHT NOW explaining everything...


Evening, Press. How it be?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


reference the specific article like the IPCC does in its assessment. The IPCC is not really a research organization. You are posting a generality with no specific reference or criticism. It is invalid until it is based and grounded in accepted study.

Thats how it works. We build on foundations. Not just out in the middle of the air.


Whos we? you are a climate scientist?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
George Noory is on the radio RIGHT NOW explaining everything...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Upon considering the comments in that "Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming" Article, someone posted this link called

Welcome to the Environmentalism is Fascism website.
Link

Interesting for those who like to observe and analyze both sides....


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
hey PSL
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 170 Comments: 53534
Quoting JFLORIDA:


reference the specific article like the IPCC does in its assessment. The IPCC is not really a research organization. You are posting a generality with no specific reference or criticism. It is invalid until it is based and grounded in accepted study.

Thats how it works. We build on foundations. Not just out in the middle of the air.


No. Every time you have asked me to source data (most of the time I had already done it in the original post), I have done it, and every time you still had a problem. I see no point in trying to convince you of something you have already read for yourself, and said as much in post #650.

650. JFLORIDA 5:46 PM AKST on January 17, 2011
So half a meter based on extremely conservative 2007 projections used in the IPCC report and 1-2 meters based in current research. Is that correct STL? That sounds more in line with my recent reading.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
is it me
or is it
hot in here



LOL. Hey Keeper.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
No thats not valid. Post the specific study you have a problem with and YOUR reasoning. You should have no problem doing that if it is something you have genuinely researched.

Even if you have a valid concern attempting to disparage a field is ridiculous.

Besides if you are considering a career in this field you should use accepted procedure. You will thank me later if you are successful.

When history looks back on people like Watts and his followers I can guarantee you it is not going to be kind. Dont get drawn into that disaster.


No, I don't think so, and was very tempted to post the Angry Birds "Peace Treaty" vid, LOL :) Out>>>>>>>

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
692. JRRP
Nils-Axel M%uFFFDrner
Link

He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising. He's also been the Chairman of INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. He also led the Maldives Sea Level Project.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 170 Comments: 53534
Quoting JFLORIDA:
No thats not valid. Post the specific study you have a problem with and YOUR reasoning. You should have no problem doing that if it is something you have genuinely researched.

Even if you have a valid concern attempting to disparage a field is ridiculous.

Besides if you are considering a career in this field you should use accepted procedure. You will thank me later if you are successful.

When history looks back on people like Watts and his followers I can guarantee you it is not going to be kind. Dont get drawn into that disaster.


I have before, and you never accepted it.

As for the sea-level, I was not picking on a specific study or getting into the details. I was simply mentioning the recent opinions of climatologists since the release of the last IPCC report that sea levels could rise even more than expected. You yourself said you had read as much.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
is it me
or is it
hot in here


That's an inconvenient truth.

*ducks*
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
is it me
or is it
hot in here
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 170 Comments: 53534
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Oss respect is earned.

Misleading people is the most disrespectful thing I can imagine. You can whine over lame civility arguments and perhaps get some weak minded approval but I respect the truth. And thats about it.


Show me where I have posted anything that is false, incorrect, or a non-truth. You can't find it! Climate science should not be an emotion. It should be clear and free, period. We are not there by any means. I keep an opened mind, but consider that of which you seem to overlook as relevant and pertinent info into the equation. I am sorry for your loss. It obviously hurts as exemplified by your anger and unwillingness to consider the basic principles of the scientific method.

It is what it is,,, and that is,,, unsettled science ......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
No you ridiculed a report and professionals YOU NEVER BOTHERED TO READ and had no idea what they or it said.

Save your excuses for those that can't make reasoned arguments.

"oh you're being mean to me" is unbelievable from you now.


You misunderstood my whole post about the IPCC projections for sea level. I had already read their report on the subject, but was showing a graph from a very popular AGW website, and mentioning recent research about sea-level rises possibly exceeding 1 meter by 2100.

As for ridicule....what are you doing right now?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Because you post incompetent innuendo night after night after night.

NO. Thats not close to acceptable. Now you are trying some ad hominem argument to cover.

Thats not even valid. Do you understand that? You cant even criticize my ratings validly.

You do better and stop wasting my time.



The word "harassment" certainly has come to mind reading your last several posts.

During my school break I have been showing you data and the sources, official ones, for that data, arguing based on conclusions from the same data that AGW theorists use. There is nothing invalid about the data I have posted for the last couple weeks. As you are so fond of telling other people, "go show me a post where I posted invalid data."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
671. Xyrus2000 6:25 PM AKST on January 17, 2011

If you were to actually take a look at some of the articles written at Anthony Watts' website, taking them in without automatic bias, I think you'd find that they are quite educated and filled with interesting points. However, nobody on the AGW side will acknowledge anything written on that website because of other silly reasons. Simply read some of the articles and point to where they "encourage bad or misinformation."

I dislike the people you describe who simply say "no" without reason except to be contrary, but many of the people given that label are given it wrongly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 725 - 675

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

Scattered Clouds
78 °F
Scattered Clouds