2010 ties 2005 as warmest year on record worldwide
January 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 global temperatures 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 climate warming 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 ocean temperatures 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 climate change 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.
More information: http://www.noaa.gov
©2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
29 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
30 comments
-
Scotland passes turbine test to harness tidal power,
41 comments
-
More human population = greater mass?
May 25, 2012
-
Conversion from aircraft bearing to normal degrees
May 23, 2012
-
Interpretation/Analysis of the Lab results(HEPA filter)
May 22, 2012
-
Has anyone here attended the The Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology?
May 22, 2012
-
Earthquakes: Mag 6 N. Italy and Mag 5.6 W. Bulgaria
May 21, 2012
-
determining time frame for most recent geological layers
May 17, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
10 hours ago |
4.5 / 5 (12) |
0
Australia hails surprise super-telescope decision
Australia has hailed a surprise decision giving it a role in a radio telescope project aimed at revolutionising astronomy, vowing to draw on its decades of experience in space science.
10 hours ago |
5 / 5 (2) |
0
Astronomers seize last chance in lifetime for Venus Transit
Astronomers are gearing for one the rarest events in the Solar System: an alignment of Earth, Venus and the Sun that will not be seen for another 105 years.
10 hours ago |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
Astronauts enter world's 1st private supply ship
(AP) -- Space station astronauts floated into the Dragon on Saturday, a day after its heralded arrival as the world's first commercial supply ship.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
10 hours ago |
5 / 5 (5) |
0
Dragon arrives at space station in historic 1st (Update 2)
The privately bankrolled Dragon capsule made a historic arrival at the International Space Station on Friday, triumphantly captured by astronauts wielding a giant robot arm.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
5 / 5 (10) |
19
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors’ tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
Thousands of shellfish found dead in Peru
Thousands of crustaceans were found dead off the coast of Lima following the mystery mass death of dolphins and pelicans, the Peruvian Navy said Friday.
Family history of Alzheimer's affects functional connectivity
(HealthDay) -- Cognitively normal individuals with a family history of late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) may display lower resting state functional connectivity in the default mode network (DMN) of the brain, ...
Jan 12, 2011
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (10)
Jan 12, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (10)
Jan 12, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (10)
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.
Jan 12, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (9)
Reality has this nasty habit of not going away, not matter how hard you RepubliTards try.
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (11)
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (10)
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (10)
Climate Change did for journalism what nasty priests did for religion.
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (13)
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
1.Lose all credibility
2.Start sounding like one themselves
3.Snap and go on a shooting spree
?
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
What is "normal"?
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.
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
...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.
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (2)
You forgot that part.
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
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)
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 13, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 14, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
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.
Jan 14, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 14, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
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.
Jan 14, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
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.
Jan 14, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 14, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Jan 14, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (3)
Jan 14, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Jan 15, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
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... :)
Jan 16, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
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.
Jan 17, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
This would imply to me CO2 isn't the main driver of the slow steady rise in the earths average temperature.
Jan 17, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (3)
Jan 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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!
Jan 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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.
Jan 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Jan 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
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... :)
Jan 21, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Jan 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
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...