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: 675 - 625

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

Quoting Levi32:


Energy transfered from what to what?


heat of fusion, ie the extra energy needed to be given to ice to melt into water. The graph is showing the amount of extra energy "used up" whenever the refreeze is less than the melt. It takes approx 333kJ/kg to melt ice into water and the same amount to freeze water into ice.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:

Sadly mistaken. Levi is as denialist as they come.


I wouldn't say that. He's more skeptical than the average skeptic, but he isn't a mad-dog denier. He does have his reasons, and they are more substantive than "It's a consipiracy!" or "Just because.".


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


And not fully understanding something is a lot different than fully understanding something. This is something that the scientists supporting the "unequivocal" AGW seem to have missed. Using words like "unequivocal," "certain," and applying opposing theorists with the label "deniers" implies that they essentially know all there is to know concerning the climate, and that their theory is infallible. That is horribly misguided and an appallingly warped use of the scientific method. If their theory is so certain, they should be spending their time looking for evidence that could prove them wrong. That's how you test a theory.


You seem to have a very misguided view of the climate science community. Have you been to an AGU conference?

There are skeptics. Well reasoned skeptics. However, they don't deny that the planet is warming. They also don't deny that we aren't at least contributing to it in some way.

What they are skeptical of is our contribution, and regardless of contribution what the possible impacts are. These scientists (and they are, they contribute research, papers, data) are doing good science and helping to make sure that we get things right.

The "deniers" are more people like McIntyre and Watts. They encourage bad or misinformation. They refuse to admit when they are wrong. They encourage the bizarre idea that all climate scientists are in a conspiracy for money, world domination, and the creation of a neo-fascist socialist utopia. And when they do find an error in a data set (bound to happen given the huge amounts of data gathered) they hold it forth like it is the end all, be all truth that shows global warming to be a big farce. They play to the armchair deniers fed on a steady anti-science diet of Fox n00z and Glenn Blech, neither of which wouldn't know what scientific research was if $DIETY itself came down and pointed it out to them.

I enjoy discussing the science with intelligent skeptics such as yourself. I would actually love to see more research papers and models produce by skeptical scientists. But unfortunately a large portion of "skeptics" aren't skeptics. Skeptics educate themselves on a subject, build up well reasoned arguments, and then discuss their point of view.

But deniers don't do that. They just deny. They'll find, use, and perpetuate any myth, incorrect fact, or outright lie that backs their position. They don't discuss. They don't want to discuss. And to ensure that they will talk at you while the have their hands over their ears.

Now to be fair, there are also environut whackjobs on the AGW side who make ridiculous claims like the world will end (it won't), be destroyed (it won't), kill all life on the planet (not by AGW), or kill off the human race (more of chance of nuclear war doing that). These guys aren't any better (from a science perspective). But these loons also aren't as numerous nor as loud. As an added bonus, they pollute less.

At any rate, skeptics are good. I'd like more of them. Deniers are bad. Mindless supporters are bad, though slightly better due to their efforts to not pollute.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
I lived for a number of years in the mountains just north of Ventura, California, a nice little surfing town 80 miles northwest of L.A. Ventura is ground zero, as it were, for dealing in a practical way with some of the effects of warming-induced sea level rise. "Sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last century and are expected to swell at an increasing rate as climate change warms the ocean, experts say. In California, the sea is projected to rise as much as 55 inches by the end of the century and gobble up 41 square miles of coastal land, according to a 2009 state-commissioned report by the Pacific Institute."

On that California note, there's this: Temperature hits 90 degrees in Chatsworth and high 80s in other parts of Southern California. After that oddly cool 2010 summer, it's perhaps even more odd to have summer temps in dead winter.

To quote John Lennon, "Strange days indeed. Most peculiar, Mama."

there is also the possible effect
of the bulging of the seas in the deeper abysses caused by the spin of the earth
and there true depth increases won't be known
till a storm is capable of moving the bulges
and cause higher than normal surges during storms.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
663 I would like those with the obvious arrogance to question the climate consensus and current atmospheric science to at least know a little about it.

THAT SHOULD NOT BE TOO MUCH TO ASK.

OSS is spamming the board with garbage again after we have been through this before time and time again. Just to cover the fact they have no idea what any of this is about.

I am tired of coming here and not getting honest straightforward answers. That is not jsut annoying its unethical. It totally wasts my time.

I am here to learn new things and if I can help others. Not to be harassed and misled.


It seems you're the one doing that right now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


It would aid in comparison between storms and the data would be easily achievable and searchable, which is a problem with individual extratropical cyclones.


Is there any proven scientific correlation between a Hurricane Season / Winter Season and so on? If there is, then that data could be used to further predict the next season.... That would be a good proposal for the NHC (Maybe should be called the National Climatic or Weather Center or the US Weather Agency or whatever....)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Dont give me one of your stupid links now. You dont even know what the hell you are talking about. A monkey armed with a crayon is more of a intellectual threat.

And dont try to cover up the incompetence. any more.





Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
Quoting alfabob:
Black dots indicate yearly average, red line is running summation from 1979.



Energy transfered from what to what?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Honestly, whenever I read a site, either denial, or proGW and they type an article, I try and find out whether thats what impression an entire reading of the source gives (if and when they bother).

Quite often in the blogosphere, excitement about a polarized issue can get in the way of resourced knowledge, and thats a shame because there are some talented writers around.

One example is the *850 articles refuting AGW someone pointed to earlier. Reading a random sample of those articles, all the ones I read actually weren't pro or anti AGW, they were just about a precise issue, sometimes not relating to bigger climate issues. In fact some of them would be classified as quite pro AGW if you read past the first sentence of the abstract.

*disclaimer* Just so everyones clear on my biased background, I'm a closet environmentalist who thinks the carbon based economy is hurting the planet, a) by causing climate change, ie warming causing feedbacks like desertification / more extreme weather events and b) by pollution by the carbon industry (mining, oil, air pollution etc). I don't think life on this planet will end because of CO2 emissions, and I don't think some of the wilder projections will turn out correct, however, I would rather my government act now and save the billions it would take to act later.*
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Its not like its classified information. You would think those questioning the scientific consensus would have at least read the report by now.


This is your consensus?

75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming


Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
Quoting sunlinepr:
Hi everyone....

Levi, I have a concern.... don't know if anyone has asked this to you or to any of the blog members....

Why the winter season isn't documented the same way the Hurricane season does? Why aren't blizards named and categorized, pressures and all variables recorded and even ACE's calculated. That way we will have reference by name, attached to weather data needed for future analysis and comparisons, not only of winter systems but of winter seasons.


Interesting question. It would have to take into account many variables, but it could be done. I think Europe unofficially names its severe winter storms, but no official classification system has been developed. It would aid in comparison between storms and the data would be easily achievable and searchable, which is a problem with individual extratropical cyclones.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Has anyone read about the possible Super Winter Storm that California is due. If this comes true,40 days with 10 feet of water. 1/4 of California would be underwater. the article said it would 4 to 5 times worse than a earthquake and cost 400 to 500 billion dollars in damages. The last storm like this happened in 1861.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hi everyone....

Levi, I have a concern.... don't know if anyone has asked this to you or if any of the blog members knows why??....

Why the winter season isn't documented the same way the Hurricane season does? Why aren't blizards named and categorized, pressures and all variables recorded and even ACE's calculated. That way we will have reference by name, attached to weather data needed for future analysis and comparisons, not only of winter systems but of winter seasons.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Yeah, I have read the excerpts on sea-level rise, as well as the recent findings since then on the possibility of over 1 meter rise in sea level by 2100. If you have a problem with graphs posted on skepticalscience.com, then perhaps folks here should be wary of relying on posting pages from that site and others like it, and then proclaiming them to be fact.


I don't have a problem with posting graphs from skeptical science, I don't have a problem with unsourced copypaste from wattsupwiththat either.

I have a problem with misrepresenting official IPCC projections. Can you see the difference?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FFtrombi:


The graph you point to wasn't an IPCC graph, that kinda stuff can be hard to notice.

Anyway I know Levi32 isn't a denialist, based on his commentary here he is more of a gaiaist :) A good thing for the *denialists (for want of a better word) would be to actually read the IPCC report from 2007 (AR4) in full, as well as the AR5 when it comes out. You don't have to agree with the findings, but it makes pointing holes in it easier if you actually read what you don't agree with.

Sadly mistaken. Levi is as denialist as they come.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:

Another case of confusing regional (local?) changes with global changes.


Perhaps if you had read the following posts you would have seen the significance of that report.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CanadianClimateHawk:


Very interesting. Where is the rest of the data series covering at least several decades and covering a wide representative area of the Arctic? If not it's nothing more than a meteorological notation for one summer for one part of the Arctic. Interesting but of little value comparing it to the knowledge we have today about the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice.

Another case of confusing regional (local?) changes with global changes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FFtrombi:


The graph you point to wasn't an IPCC graph, that kinda stuff can be hard to notice.

Anyway I know Levi32 isn't a denialist, based on his commentary here he is more of a gaiaist :) A good thing for the *denialists (for want of a better word) would be to actually read the IPCC report from 2007 (AR4) in full, as well as the AR5 when it comes out. You don't have to agree with the findings, but it makes pointing holes in it easier if you actually read what you don't agree with.


Yeah, I have read the excerpts on sea-level rise, as well as the recent findings since then on the possibility of over 1 meter rise in sea level by 2100. If you have a problem with graphs posted on skepticalscience.com, then perhaps folks here should be wary of relying on posting pages from that site and others like it, and then proclaiming them to be fact.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
647. DEKRE
Sea level rise is one aspect, but land sinking has quite a similar effect.
For example, since at the end of the last ice age a tremendous load has been removed from the scandinavian shield, this shield is still rising. In consequence, the other end namely northern Germany is sinking. Continents are in a hydrostatic equilibrium or are trying to establish one. One end goes up, another goes down.
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting Levi32:


Though something I heard today is interesting, that the IPCC projections of possibly over a meter of sea-level rise by 2100 require an average increase in sea level of almost 11mm every year until then, and the last 20 years have only seen an average rate of 2.7mm/year. Not once has the target rate of increase been achieved yet.


Yes, but that's only one possibility. That being said, ocean level rise is not a linear response. Potentially anywhere from 15-30% of that rise would be caused by thermal expansion alone, which wouldn't be apparent until later in the century.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


I did use the modifier "possibly,"


The graph you point to wasn't an IPCC graph, that kinda stuff can be hard to notice.

Anyway I know Levi32 isn't a denialist, based on his commentary here he is more of a gaiaist :) A good thing for the *denialists (for want of a better word) would be to actually read the IPCC report from 2007 (AR4) in full, as well as the AR5 when it comes out. You don't have to agree with the findings, but it makes pointing holes in it easier if you actually read what you don't agree with.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I lived for a number of years in the mountains just north of Ventura, California, a nice little surfing town 80 miles northwest of L.A. Ventura is ground zero, as it were, for dealing in a practical way with some of the effects of warming-induced sea level rise. "Sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the last century and are expected to swell at an increasing rate as climate change warms the ocean, experts say. In California, the sea is projected to rise as much as 55 inches by the end of the century and gobble up 41 square miles of coastal land, according to a 2009 state-commissioned report by the Pacific Institute."

On that California note, there's this: Temperature hits 90 degrees in Chatsworth and high 80s in other parts of Southern California. After that oddly cool 2010 summer, it's perhaps even more odd to have summer temps in dead winter.

To quote John Lennon, "Strange days indeed. Most peculiar, Mama."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13304
Quoting FFtrombi:


Well what you heard was wrong. The 2007 IPCC meeting projections for sea level rise:


Figure 10.33. Projections and uncertainties (5 to 95% ranges) of global average sea level rise and its components in 2090 to 2099 (relative to 1980 to 1999) for the six SRES marker scenarios. The projected sea level rise assumes that the part of the present-day ice sheet mass imbalance that is due to recent ice flow acceleration will persist unchanged. It does not include the contribution shown from scaled-up ice sheet discharge, which is an alternative possibility. It is also possible that the present imbalance might be transient, in which case the projected sea level rise is reduced by 0.02 m. It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.

I don't see a 1m projection there. Hearsay is all well and good, but sometimes it's good to check @ the source ;)


I did use the modifier "possibly," as I have read on many of the frequently-cited AGW-promoting websites, used by just about every AGW-supporting blogger here that is fond of posting pages from them.


Figure 3: Projection of sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on IPCC temperature projections for three different emission scenarios. The sea-level range projected in the IPCC AR4 for these scenarios are shown for comparison in the bars on the bottom right. Also shown in red is observed sea-level (Vermeer 2009).

Skepticalscience
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Clouds are simple. Clouds in the atmosphere are not.

And so it is with any process in the atmosphere, or ocean, or any complex system. The basic mechanics are easily understood (with enough science and math background). It's when you throw them all together when things get murky. When you have systems interacting with systems, what once may have been a simple linear equations now can only be solved numerically through a Navier-Stokes algorithm. A simple example is gravity. You don't get much simpler than F=-mg. However, now take a handful of bodies orbiting each other and try to predict their paths. At that point you need numerical methods and a computer.

As for your other processes you stated, there has been and continues to be a lot research in these areas. A quick Google search turned up quite a few hits. But not fully understanding something is a lot different than having no understanding. I'm not an expert in those fields so for more info you may want consult the research yourself and see what you think of it.

Regardless, increasing global temperatures are caused by a net increase of energy being retained by the Earth. Satellite measurements have shown this to be occurring in the troposphere (both by direct measurements as well as a cooling stratosphere). Weather patterns are too short lived to be causing the long term increases we're seeing. However, I do agree with you that it is the rare (becoming common?) arctic weather pattern we have seen the past couple of years that have lead to a more rapid decrease in arctic ice.

On a completely unrelated note, someone just lost control on the road behind my house from the ice we're getting and ran into a speed limit sign. :P

~X~


And not fully understanding something is a lot different than fully understanding something. This is something that the scientists supporting the "unequivocal" AGW seem to have missed. Using words like "unequivocal," "certain," and applying opposing theorists with the label "deniers" implies that they essentially know all there is to know concerning the climate, and that their theory is infallible. That is horribly misguided and an appallingly warped use of the scientific method. If their theory is so certain, they should be spending their time looking for evidence that could prove them wrong. That's how you test a theory.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
A blonde was watching the news. The reporter said that 9 Brazillian men had died in the flooding. The blonde asked, "HOW MANY IS A BRAZILLIAN?!" L


wut lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Fact #1: If guns prevented crime, America would be the safest nation on the planet.



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

Actual Truth: Criminals commit crimes and they often use guns to commit those crimes.

Outlaw guns and the citizens would be defenseless against the criminals who would simply purchase guns illegally and be embolden to attack what they see as defenseless targets.

Have you ever considered the time it takes the police to respond to a 911 call? They don't appear instantly using a Star Trek transporter.

Have you ever considered that criminals are cowards and the only reason they do what they do is because they are relatively sure that their victims will be unarmed or simply too chicken to defend themselves.

Remember, the victims are told that the best thing to do is simply lie down and let the criminals have their way. Let the police handle it, they are told.

Actual Truth: If more citizens had guns in their homes then the creeple people aka criminals would have doubts about whether the target was armed and could defend themselves, and being the cowards they are, they would not be so quick to do the deed.

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

Fact #2: America is not the safest nation on the planet. Not by any measure.


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

Is that a fact.

So, you would have no problem going into the neighborhoods of Cuidad Juarez or most any city in Mexico. Guess you haven't been reading about all the slaughter of even women and children, or all the beheadings.

You must live in one special bubble not to know how really safe we are here in America. I cannot imagine the dread you must feel believing such silly things.

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

My assertion, then: more guns %u2260 more safety.

On purely logical and statistical grounds--that is, without talking about the Second Amendment or individual freedoms or whatever--I challenge anyone to disprove that.



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

Totally illogical, for all of the reasons I mentioned above in this post.

Statistical?...Ah yes, numbers, those things that can be twisted to serve any purpose desired.

Grab a map of America.

Now grab a red crayola.

Color in the high crime areas with that red crayola. When you have finished that quick little chore, take that map and put it on the wall.

Notice how much more of the map is untouched by that red crayola. Those red areas are really more like dots than large areas.

The rest of that map is where most of us live and prosper. No where near the we are all going to die situation you seem to suggest.

Heck, crime is so non-existent in my area that UPS and FedEx drop off packages at the front door without even needing a signature. The one thing they do is put those packages in baggies when it looks like rain

Want to change things. Go work in those red colored areas and help make them smaller.



Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Quoting Levi32:


Though something I heard today is interesting, that the IPCC projections of possibly over a meter of sea-level rise by 2100 require an average increase in sea level of almost 11mm every year until then, and the last 20 years have only seen an average rate of 2.7mm/year. Not once has the target rate of increase been achieved yet.


Well what you heard was wrong. The 2007 IPCC meeting projections for sea level rise:

Figure 10.33. Projections and uncertainties (5 to 95% ranges) of global average sea level rise and its components in 2090 to 2099 (relative to 1980 to 1999) for the six SRES marker scenarios. The projected sea level rise assumes that the part of the present-day ice sheet mass imbalance that is due to recent ice flow acceleration will persist unchanged. It does not include the contribution shown from scaled-up ice sheet discharge, which is an alternative possibility. It is also possible that the present imbalance might be transient, in which case the projected sea level rise is reduced by 0.02 m. It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.

I don't see a 1m projection there. Hearsay is all well and good, but sometimes it's good to check @ the source ;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A blonde was watching the news. The reporter said that 9 Brazillian men had died in the flooding. The blonde asked, "HOW MANY IS A BRAZILLIAN?!" L
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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?


Clouds are simple. Clouds in the atmosphere are not.

And so it is with any process in the atmosphere, or ocean, or any complex system. The basic mechanics are easily understood (with enough science and math background). It's when you throw them all together when things get murky. When you have systems interacting with systems, what once may have been a simple linear equations now can only be solved numerically through a Navier-Stokes algorithm. A simple example is gravity. You don't get much simpler than F=-mg. However, now take a handful of bodies orbiting each other and try to predict their paths. At that point you need numerical methods and a computer.

As for your other processes you stated, there has been and continues to be a lot research in these areas. A quick Google search turned up quite a few hits. But not fully understanding something is a lot different than having no understanding. I'm not an expert in those fields so for more info you may want consult the research yourself and see what you think of it.

Regardless, increasing global temperatures are caused by a net increase of energy being retained by the Earth. Satellite measurements have shown this to be occurring in the troposphere (both by direct measurements as well as a cooling stratosphere). Weather patterns are too short lived to be causing the long term increases we're seeing. However, I do agree with you that it is the rare (becoming common?) arctic weather pattern we have seen the past couple of years that have lead to a more rapid decrease in arctic ice.

On a completely unrelated note, someone just lost control on the road behind my house from the ice we're getting and ran into a speed limit sign. :P

~X~
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
632. DEKRE
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?


We do know all the basic laws governing these processes - we just can't solve the equations - far too complex. This is why we have to go to numerical models, with all their problems.

In an analogy - we know perfectly, to every detail, how a neuron functions - this doesn't mean at all that we know how the brain works!
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting MichaelSTL:


It is worth noting that the graph you posted doesn't remove the seasonal cycle or corrects for the "inverse barometer" effect (sea level pressure variation can change sea levels):



Also, when looking at this, there is an evident step in sea level around 2007, coinciding with the change in the PDO from warm to cool (I believe that is what it shows; a 10 year running mean of temperatures shows a brief dip at that time too, but followed by continued warming, consistent with what RealClimate scientists said about it, not the magical cycle worshipers):



Though something I heard today is interesting, that the IPCC projections of possibly over a meter of sea-level rise by 2100 require an average increase in sea level of almost 11mm every year until then, and the last 20 years have only seen an average rate of 2.7mm/year. Not once has the target rate of increase been achieved yet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yes, I did--but not before bringing it up one final time because A) my name was attached to it, B) I wanted to completely disavow any possible association with it, and C) I didn't want the author to deny making such an entry.

Thanks for posting that "something completely different". I take it you see that graph (reproduced below) which clearly show the overall trend of increasing sea levels. It's always heartening when folks pay attention to science.



Yep, considering we will probably see the largest change in 2010 since they started keeping records. Yes, I do indeed pay attention :)
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
628. DEKRE
Quoting Levi32:


It sounds like they were just as shocked about changes in the arctic in the 1920s as we are today.





United States Weather Bureau, Monthly Weather Review, November, 1922


Wow
Member Since: April 27, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting MichaelSTL:
So much for the predicted massive global cooling from La Nina (again):



And of course surface temperatures show less variation from ENSO.


Also, somebody else has taken up Bastardi's bet:

I accept Joe Bastardi%u2019s wager on global warming %u2014 and I also challenge him to one on Arctic sea ice

Boy, he is going to become bankrupt at this rate!

I also made my own bet regarding January temperatures, compared to 2008 (although of course no deniers took it up).


You are making some strong statements based off of about 5 days of data. How about we wait until the monthly averages come in. The GISS data set recorded the largest month-to-month drop (November to December 2010) that can be found in at least the last 30 years of Meteorological station data, and the 2nd largest drop in at least 30 years in the Land-Ocean Temperature Index.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I haven't been following Bastardi's bets, has he accepted any yet?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
625. Skyepony (Mod)
Levi~ Interesting article. Checked at some temps around here the following winter. Feb the AO could have been negative. I keep seeing the Hudson/Baffin Bay late freeze & neg AO in the same years. The warm water & lack of sea ice may be causing the miss placed high.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 675 - 625

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.