2010 ties 2005 as warmest year on record worldwide

Jan 12, 2011 By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID , AP Science Writer
Two Tibetan woman stand at the foot of a glacier facing increased melting due to global warming. Last year tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record for global surface temperature, US government scientists said in a report on Wednesday that offered the latest data on climate change.

It's a tie: Last year equaled 2005 as the warmest year on record, government climate experts reported Wednesday.

The average worldwide temperature was 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit (0.62 degree Celsius) above normal last year. That's the same as six years ago, the National Climatic Data Center announced.

Climate experts have become increasingly concerned about rising over the last century. Most atmospheric scientists attribute the change to gases released into the air by industrial processes and gasoline-burning engines.

In addition, the Global Historical Climatology Network said Wednesday that last year was the wettest on record. Rain and snowfall patterns varied greatly around the world.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This color-coded map displays a long term progression of changing global surface temperatures anomalies. The final frame represents this image of global temperature anomalies averaged from 2005 to 2009.

"The warmth this year reinforces the notion that we are seeing climate change," said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at the climatic data center. Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000, he noted. The exception was 1998, which is the third warmest year on record going back to 1880.

Easterling said the data "unequivocally" disproves claims that ended in 2005.

The temperature readings are collected at land stations and from ships and buoys at sea. The "normal" reading they use is the average worldwide temperature for the 20th century, which was 57.0 degrees Fahrenheit.

Temperatures over land surfaces were the warmest on record last year, averaging 1.80 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, while were the third warmest on record at 0.88 degrees above average.

A La Nina condition took effect at the last half of the year, marked by below normal temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

While it was the wettest year on record, Easterling declined to link warmer temperatures with the unusual moisture, commenting that much more research would be needed in that area.

In 2010, global temperatures continued to rise. A new analysis from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows that 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and was part of the warmest decade on record. Credit: NASA/Earth Observatory/Robert Simmon

Other findings in the annual climate report included:

- There were just seven named storms and three hurricanes in the Pacific, the fewest since the mid-1960s. On the other hand the Atlantic hurricane season was very active with 19 named storms and 12 hurricanes.

- Arctic sea ice cover was the third smallest since records began in 1979, trailing only 2007 and 2008. The ice cover is considered a marker of as global warming tends to be seen first at the poles.

- Despite the overall warmth, 2010 saw record cold and snow in January and February in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly eastern North America.

- From mid-June to mid-August an unusually strong jet stream shifted northward, bringing an unprecedented two-month heat wave to Russia and adding to devastating floods in Pakistan.

- For the contiguous United States it was the 14th consecutive year with above average temperatures.

Explore further: Spain defends Canaries oil drilling plan

More information: http://www.noaa.gov

3.4 /5 (16 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors

Jul 15, 2010

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

Worlds oceans warmest on record this summer

Sep 16, 2009

(AP) -- The world's in hot water. Sea-surface temperatures worldwide have been the hottest on record over the last three months, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday.

Scientists say global warming is continuing

Jul 29, 2010

(AP) -- Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation.

NOAA: Global temperature ties for warmest on record

Oct 18, 2010

The first nine months of 2010 tied with the same period in 1998 for the warmest combined land and ocean surface temperature on record. The global average land surface temperature for January-September was ...

Recommended for you

UN climate talks shuffle to a close in Bonn

10 hours ago

Concern was high at a perceived lack of urgency as UN climate negotiations shuffled towards a close in Bonn on Saturday with just 14 months left to finalise a new, global pact.

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

Oct 24, 2014

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 37

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jonnyboy
3 / 5 (12) Jan 12, 2011
SOS.................(same old shit)
bbd
3 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2011
Why are "government climate experts" reporting on the weather? Remember, climate is measured over decades and centuries -- not by the week, the season or the year. You can't have your cake and eat it too Doctor Scientist and Mister Expert.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2011
"Why are "government climate experts" reporting on the weather?" - SuperTard

They aren't. They are reporting this year's global average temperature, and unlike Denialist Tards ,who think a winter storm proves the earth is cooling, don't proclaim that the earth is warming based on this single observation.

What happened to the Denialist Lie that the world was entering a cooling phase and that the world was in for 30 years of global cooling?

Lies.. Lies.. Lies.. Lies...

That is all the Denialist Tards have.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2011
"Same Old Shit" - King of the Tards

Reality has this nasty habit of not going away, not matter how hard you RepubliTards try.

Skepticus_Rex
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 13, 2011
Notice the word 'ties'? It didn't get hotter--yet. Let's see what the next decade brings...
ted208
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2011
Another Snow Job!
ted208
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2011
The Associated Press is a warmist's best friend. keeps them all warm and fuzzy.

Climate Change did for journalism what nasty priests did for religion.

Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 13, 2011
Just keep that raw data and station locations available to the public.... :)
Yvan_Dutil
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2011
They are, just dig a little to find them. Yet another false claim.
gvgoebel
5 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2011
I took one look at the title of this article and said: "I already KNOW what the comment section is going to say!"
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2011
So just out of curosity, how many times does someone get to use the word "tard" before they:

1.Lose all credibility
2.Start sounding like one themselves
3.Snap and go on a shooting spree

?
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2011
The average worldwide temperature was 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit (0.62 degree Celsius) above normal last year


What is "normal"?

Climate experts have become increasingly concerned about rising global temperatures over the last century


If this isn't opinion, then I'd like to see the study they did which shows an increase in concern. What scale did they use to measure the level of concern? How much did the concern increase as a percent of maximum concern? I mean, are we talking about a BIG increase in concern or just a small increase in concern? Is the increase in concern statistically significant or could it be noise in the concern data? I'd like to see satellite images of the concern, or maybe a computer model. I wonder if they predict the concern to continue to increase. If we get too much concern maybe we could get runaway concern leading to all out panic!!! We should form a UN panel to decide if the concern is man made or natural, I think.

GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2011
Most atmospheric scientists attribute the change to gases released into the air by industrial processes and gasoline-burning engines


Actually, most of them say that it's likely the source of some of the warming, but the magnitude isn't clear. Other factors such as black soot that we humans are pumping into the air also may contribute but the relative magnitude isn't clear yet. There could also be natural variation. That's all in the IPCC reports. Why do these articles constantly try to force their opinions on us and mis-state the facts? After a comment like that, everthing else they say has to be questioned too. Should I even bother listing all the things that are wrong with this article? Anybody who is too lazy to look up the real sources for themselves isn't going to listen to me anyway.

Anybody taking the time to read these comments should take the time to read the IPCC 4th assessment report. It's huge but at least read part of it. Please. Feed your brain. Educate it.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2011
There were just seven named storms and three hurricanes in the Pacific, the fewest since the mid-1960s


Let me rephrase that accurately: the fewest on record, since global storm tracking didn't exist before 1965, when the first satellites went up. Records prior to 1965 are mainly based on storms that make landfall. Also, despite the high level of activity in the Atlantic this year, global storm activity continues on a 4 year trend of near record lows with this year being the lowest in decades.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2011
A La Nina condition took effect at the last half of the year, marked by below normal temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean


...and an El Nino condition dominated the majority of the year, marked by above normal temperatures in the tropical Pacific and North America in the early half of the year. The NAO also shifted in 2010, raising average temperatures in Europe over the Summer, and probably responsible for the jet stream shift that cause the heat wave in Russia.
LKD
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2011
"The temperature readings are collected at land stations and from ships and buoys at sea. " ...Despite the fact more accurate satellite readings are available.

You forgot that part.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2011
Despite the fact more accurate satellite readings are available


You need to read up on how satellite temperature readings are done. They actually aren't able to directly measure the air temperature at ground level with a satellite. They have to look at what they can see from space and then do a callibrated calculation to derive the air temperature at ground level. The direct measurement of air temp at ground level is way more accurate. The advantage of satellite measurements is that they cover most of the planet on a high frequency, whereas ground measurements are only taken in certain places and at varying location and frequency in the case of ships. If the point you were trying to make is that it's difficult to measure average temperature over an area, then you're right about that though. We have a devil of a time just controlling the temperature and humidity inside the proof box here at the bakery I work at. (that's the room where the bread rises as it travels through)
LKD
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2011
GSwift,

No I am familiar, but you can't get skewed results from a satellite as you can from a ground based gauge. I would trust sat's far more than thermostats any day.
bbd
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2011
Lies.. Lies.. Lies.. Lies...

That is all the Denialist Tards have.


Brilliant comeback VD. Was your PhD thesis based on such convincing data? Perhaps a graduate course in advanced anger management would be beneficial for you.
Skepticus_Rex
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2011
They are, just dig a little to find them. Yet another false claim.


No they aren't, not all of them. As one example, the GISP2 raw data on the NASA site was replaced with 50-year averaged data a few years ago. Go check it out for yourself.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2011
No I am familiar, but you can't get skewed results from a satellite as you can from a ground based gauge


Actually satellite records tend to skew over time, as the satellites can't be maintained. The instruments tend to degrade as they age. Also, there is always discontinuity between one satellite and another. As old equipment is taken offline and new equipment replaces it, they must always make corrections to the analysis of the data so that the records from different equipment match up. They also compare the satellite analysis to ground measurements as part of that process. It's quite complicated to figure out the ground level air temp from satellite data. The calculations change depending on the type of surface for example. A city doesn't look the same from space as a farm a forest or a deep versus shallow ocean, and cloud cover is a major fly in the satellite ointment as well. There are people who analyze the satellite data as a full time carreer. It's not a simple thing.
Skepticus_Rex
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2011
Anybody taking the time to read these comments should take the time to read the IPCC 4th assessment report. It's huge but at least read part of it. Please. Feed your brain. Educate it.


Absolutely, yes! Without the least bit of sarcasm I can recommend doing exactly that. Then, to further that education, carefully factcheck that report--every source and footnote--and dig out as many errors of fact and propagandistically-based statements (anything from WWF is of that category) as can be found therein.

There are several rather glaring errors in that report as a result of relying upon propagandistic and error-laden sources, such as the Netherlands land-size data, Himalayan glacier data and timeframe (the erroneous 2035 date rather than the more possibly 'correct' 2350 prediction), etc.
LKD
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2011
It's not a simple thing.


Oh god, quite certainly! But I believe the less human involvement, the more pure the results. I would rather my computers and cars made by machine then hand, they are far more standardized.

I would rather rely on mathematical extrapolation than buoys or a thermostat that may be influenced by accidental position anomalies.

I know exactly what you are holding up as a standard, I just don't agree it's as accurate.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
@ LDK:

The satellite data must be 'corrected' to account for urban heat island in exactly the same way as the land data, by human hands. And also manually 'corrected' to screen out bad data from clouds and instrument drift. And also manually 'corrected' to acccount for changes in land use over time. And the list goes on. There's actually more human monkey business done to the satellite data than there is with the land data. The former and current head of NASA, as well as officials from NOAA, have spoken a number of times about the uncertainties of the satellite data. I'm sure you can look up some of those comments on google. There are lots of them.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
I can see from you comments that you are not going to be swayed from your faith in the satellites though. No matter what I say, you have a notion that satellites are good at measuring temperature and you will not change your mind. That's okay. I think most people believe the same as you do. Satellites are great at measuring some things, but temperature at ground level isn't one of them. Believe what you want though. The reality is that it's exceedingly difficult to measure global temperature at ground level, no matter what methods or instruments you want to use. I think the best way is to use multiple methods and multiple instrument types and have multiple teams analyze the same data, then take an overall view of what they all say. That's actually what they do though, and it seems to indicate a small temperature increase. That doesn't mean it's a continuing long term trend or that it's man made, but that's a different argument.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
Oh, I forgot to mention what's probably the biggest manual adjustment they have to do to the satellite data before they can estimate the ground level air temperature, and that's the snow and ice albedo adjustment. I can't believe I left that one out. Silly me.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
Oh, BTW, you won't find complete and accurate info on satellite temperature estimates on Wiki. Somebody has scrubbed Wiki of anything credible that brings temperature records into question. You'll have to actually nose around in the depths of the NASA and NOAA sites if you want to get a better idea about this stuff, and if you want to fully understand then you'll need to look even deeper than that and read some journals.
Skepticus_Rex
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2011
Many funny anomalies occur in this field.

Find evidence of a temperature decline in the tree-ring proxies? Must be a problem with the trees rather than the observations from various stations.

Find a decline in the temperature records in the ARGO data? Must be a materials error to be compensated for in the revised data.

Data missing from Arctic temperature records? No problem. Infill the missing data by inference from other stations hundreds of miles away. Lots of this sort of stuff goes on all the time.

One of the most recent so far as ice in the Arctic goes, anyone else remember the instrument decalibration that occurred as the sensors degraded in a satellite designed to measure amounts of ice? It was reporting more ice lost than actually was lost. While it was corrected once realized, it is one more evidence that sometimes things go wrong with satellites and that even when no apparent problems occur people play with the data to match up with other data when needed... :)
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
If anyone pays attention to NASA, NOAA, NHC, and Wunderground during hurricane season, you can surely testify that neither satellite nor any other instrument is absolutely as reliable as we like to think.

Atmospheric conditions are not stable and well behaved, and neither are instruments.

When you watch the raw data from a hurricane hunter aircraft, for example, you can find all sorts of wind, pressure, and temperature anomalies that don't make any sense whatsoever, and never get reported to the public through the "media" or TWC.

Satellite data also has a limited resolution. Each pixel is an average of the temperature in that grid, but in the real world, temperature can vary widely even over a matter of a few feet. In the shade, out of the shade, building assisted wind, concrete driveway vs grass lawn, lake, ditch or river vs dry land, etc.

Plus it's not just the temperature of the air that matters, but the specific heat capacity based on humidity and pressure.
tpb
2 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
If you look at the chart, from about 1905 to 1940 the slope of temperature rise is actually about the same or greater than during the the period from 1965 to 2010.
This would imply to me CO2 isn't the main driver of the slow steady rise in the earths average temperature.
OdinsAcolyte
1.4 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
The world continues to thaw from the last ice age. It is normal. It is correct. Adapt or die.
Skepticus_Rex_
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2011
If you take the global temperature data, tilt the graph about 20 degrees (only 'peer-reviewed' graphs are horizontal...why...oh yeah hide the decline...smirk :) ) and you see a definate temperature fall. If you invert the temperature graph, as done by WUWT you find tham, actually 2010 was the COOLEST year on record.
We all know that 1938 was the warmest year on record, it was in the US so therefore it must be the worlds warmest as the USA IS the world!
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
If you take the global temperature data, tilt the graph about 20 degrees (only 'peer-reviewed' graphs are horizontal...why...oh yeah hide the decline...smirk :) ) and you see a definate temperature fall. If you invert the temperature graph, as done by WUWT you find tham, actually 2010 was the COOLEST year on record.
We all know that 1938 was the warmest year on record, it was in the US so therefore it must be the worlds warmest as the USA IS the world!


Yet more MikeyK rear-underscore sockpuppet nonsense... Ignore the troll behind the sockpuppet.

Aside from this, note again the word "ties" in the article. If there was a tie there was no statistically significant warming. End of story. This precisely is the reason I noted above that we should wait to see what the next decade brings. This one certainly did not bring us anything statistically 'significant' except that the last decade was warmest in the record. But, it hasn't warmed beyond 2005 globally.
Skepticus_Rex_
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
Of course I conveniently forgot that 2010 had one of the strongest La Nina's develop from June-July but unlike "scientists" with their "qualifications" and "peer-review" it's obvious I know more than they do:)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
Contrary to the rear-underscore sockpuppet, peer-review does not guarantee that something published is error-free. I mean, look at the Mann study they let through in 2009. He inserted the Finland data upside down and peer-review still let it through!

That aside, take a look at the CRU data in another thread related to this one. Curious that the CRU version of events still shows no statistically significant warming.

MikeyK and his merry band of rear-underscore sockpuppets does not like that information much and he has a hatred for posters who bring it up before the public.

In other words, 1998 still holds the global record, followed by a tied 2005 and 2010 (which makes these latter two years the SECOND warmest in the global record).

Hmmm, still statistically insignificant... :)
MikeyK
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
.....and the ten warmest years recorded have ALL been between 1998 and 2010...hmmm
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Indeed. Yet, it still is statistically insignificant. It is especially more so considering that 2005 was cooler than 1998 and that 2010 tied with 2005.

This, of course, means that there actually was a downward or cooling trend, just as Phil Jones said, a trend that has continued but which also, as Phil said, was statistically insignificant. Hmmm...