Press release: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.
This preliminary analysis is prepared by scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.
2010 Global Climate Highlights:
- Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).*
- The global land surface temperatures for 2010 were the warmest on record at 1.80 F (1.00 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the land surface temperature is +/- 0.20 F (+/- 0.11 C).
- Global ocean surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.88 F (0.49 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence associated with the ocean surface temperature is +/- 0.11 F (+/- 0.06 C).
- In 2010 there was a dramatic shift in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which influences global temperature and precipitation patterns — when a moderate-to-strong El Niño transitioned to La Niña conditions by July. At the end of November, La Niña was moderate-to-strong.
- According to the Global Historical Climatology Network, 2010 was the wettest year on record, in terms of global average precipitation. As with any year, precipitation patterns were highly variable from region to region.
- The 2010 Pacific hurricane season had seven named storms and three hurricanes, the fewest on record since the mid-1960s when scientists started using satellite observations. By contrast, the Atlantic season was extremely active, with 19 named storms and 12 hurricanes. The year tied for third- and second-most storms and hurricanes on record, respectively.
- The Arctic sea ice extent had a record long growing season, with the annual maximum occurring at the latest date, March 31, since records began in 1979. Despite the shorter-than-normal melting season, the Arctic still reached its third smallest annual sea ice minimum on record behind 2007 and 2008. The Antarctic sea ice extent reached its eighth smallest annual maximum extent in March, while in September, the Antarctic sea ice rapidly expanded to its third largest extent on record.
- A negative Arctic Oscillation (AO) in January and February helped usher in very cold Arctic air to much of the Northern Hemisphere. Record cold and major snowstorms with heavy accumulations occurred across much of eastern North America, Europe and Asia. The February AO index reached -4.266, the largest negative anomaly since records began in 1950.
- From mid-June to mid-August, an unusually strong jet stream shifted northward of western Russia while plunging southward into Pakistan. The jet stream remained locked in place for weeks, bringing an unprecedented two-month heat wave to Russia and contributing to devastating floods in Pakistan at the end of July.
U.S. Climate Highlights:
- In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.
- Precipitation across the contiguous United States in 2010 was 1.02 inches (2.59 cm) above the long-term average. Like temperature, precipitation patterns are influenced by climate processes such as ENSO. A persistent storm track brought prolific summer rain to the northern Plains and upper Midwest. Wisconsin had its wettest summer on record, and many surrounding states had much above-normal precipitation. Since the start of records in the U.S. in 1895, precipitation across the United States is increasing at an average rate of approximately 0.18 inches per decade.
- The year began with extremely cold winter temperatures and snowfall amounts that broke monthly and seasonal records at many U.S. locations. Seasonal snowfall records fell in several cities, including Washington; Baltimore, Md., Philadelphia; Wilmington, Del.; and Atlantic City, N.J. Several NOAA studies established that this winter pattern was made more likely by the combined states of El Niño and the Arctic Oscillation.
- Twelve states, mainly in the Southeast, but extending northward into New England, experienced a record warm June-August. Several cities broke summer temperature records including New York (Central Park); Philadelphia; Trenton, N.J.; and Wilmington, Del.
- Preliminary totals indicate there were 1,302 U.S. tornadoes during 2010. The year will rank among the 10 busiest for tornadoes since records began in 1950. An active storm pattern across the Northern Plains during the summer contributed to a state-record 104 confirmed tornadoes in Minnesota in 2010, making Minnesota the national tornado leader for the first time.
- During 2010, substantial precipitation fell in many drought-stricken regions. The U.S. footprint of drought reached its smallest extent during July when less than eight percent of the country was experiencing drought conditions. The increased precipitation and eradication of drought limited the acres burned and number of wildfires during 2010. Hawaii had near-record dryness occurring in some areas for most of the year.
Scientists, researchers and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world’s climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers‘ critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Visit us online at www.noaa.gov or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/usnoaagov.
###
rbateman
In the HadCRUT / UK Met Office analysis 1998 has been ranked as the warmest year whereas the NOAA and NASA GISTEMP records put 2005 as very slightly warmer.
If you look at this tempature analysis map for December, where the blues denote cooler than average tempertures and the reds warmer than average (brown denotes much warmer than average temperatures) then you can see that the most heavily populated areas of the northern hemisphere, the eastern US and Europe, are shown in blue but you still have very large regions of the northern hemisphere in red or brown: north-eastern Canada, Greenland and eastern Siberia. These warmer than average areas, though large, are sparsely populated so their unusual warmth has not been very widely reported.
“rbateman
who was it that said 1998 was the warmest ever, and now it’s 2005?
In the HadCRUT / UK Met Office analysis 1998 has been ranked as the warmest year whereas the NOAA and NASA GISTEMP records put 2005 as very slightly warmer.”
That was before Hansen got hold of it!
Roger Otip,
It’s clear you wandered in here from an alarmist blog like realclimate, or climate progress, or similar. That’s good. We’re here to show you what’s really going on. Those blogs censor different points of view, so you only get their echo chamber opinions; what they want you to see. That’s bad business.
So as you are probably unaware, GISS manipulates the raw data to show either higher current temperatures, or lower pas temperatures, in order to show a faster, scarier rise.
And GISS isn’t the only one to do it; the problem is endemic to all government climate science, both here and abroad:
click1 [blink gif]
click2 [GISS “adjustment”]
click3 [temp is ALWAYS adjusted upward]
click4 [both hemispheres show decline – but CRU shows global warming]
click5 [actual urban heat island effect]
click6 [again, temps are always adjusted upward]
click7 [NOAA blink gif]
click8 [USHCN “adjustments”]
click9 [a local GISS adjustment. Upward, as always]
click10 [more upward “adjustments” from the raw data]
click11 [Briffa’s Yamal adjustments]
click12 [rural vs urban adjustments]
click13 [Michael Mann’s “adjustments”]
There are many more examples like these. And they all show upward temperature adjustments, or lower past temps, indicating an alarming rise. But their figures are fudged.
Government/university/UN/IPCC all have the same motive to manipulate the data: money. And lots of it.
By and large, the folks who post articles here are independent scientists like Willis Eschenbach and Bob Tisdale, who are not paid for their research. They do it out of true scientifc curiosity. They have no motive to misrepresent the data.
It’s up to you which ones to believe. But the evidence of manipulation is right here. Are you going to believe GISS? Or your lyin’ eyes?
Just to CMA! on this thread I said Venus emits more energy than it absorbs and for once did not have NASA-level of source to refer to. I still suspect that this statement is correct and that it is NOT being publicised because wham! it demolishes Hansen’s runaway GHG. However, I remembered my remark at this point was only assertion and have dug it out to qualify it hereby. I shall however be seeking out the data…
Does it matter , really?
Roger Otip says:
January 13, 2011 at 4:40 am
Roger – #1 HOW did 2005 (and now 2010) surpass 1998 as the warmest years (2 points if you actually get it right)?
#2 What was the anomoly for 1998 in 1999, 2003, and 2005?
Smokey
So it’s all a conspiracy?
PhilJourdan
In the HadCRUT / UK Met Office analysis 1998 has been ranked as the warmest year whereas the NOAA and NASA GISTEMP records put 2005 as very slightly warmer.
Smokey
There are 10.6 million similarly qualified people in the US, so that 30,000 only represents 0.3 percent of them, leaving 99.7 percent who have not signed this petition. And how many of those 30,000 are practising climate scientists with peer-reviewed research to their names?
You can disagree with them all you want, but you can’t duck the fact that the vast majority of climate scientists accept the consensus view that the planet is warming and that human activity is the primary driver of this warming.
Roger Otip says:
January 13, 2011 at 6:43 am
Roger, you did not answer my questions. I did not ask who had what, I asked how and when. Please address the questions.
I wish I could be around by the year 2500 because if the planet has been warming by .12 degrees per decade since 1895 then in 2500 it will be 7.26 degrees warmer where I live-I can only imagine Winters that actually reach an average high of 37.26 degrees in January, start up the barbie, put my flip-flops on, and watch bikini-clad beauties strolling by.
Here is how the past has changed with Hansen et al at the helm:
http://i54.tinypic.com/fylq2w.jpg
Notice how the start drops .2-.25°. Notice the changing relationship between 1950 and the mid 60s, inverting over time.
Then, one must delete those pesky rural measurements that don’t have enough UHI.
http://i44.tinypic.com/23vjjug.jpg
This shows a major monitoring station drop from 1965-85. Combined with the introduction of the MMTS about 1980, short cables compounded the UHI bias.
Here is GISS 1980 in the same chart with Giss 2010 and the satellite temp for 2009. http://i51.tinypic.com/30tlz7s.jpg
I can’t wait to see the bias from Anthony’s Surface Station Project paper. Looking at atmospheric and ocean trends, and the obviously overblown NASA temps, I suspect the actual warming is zero or less and is going more negative.
Roger Otip,
You can take every alarmist petition [and there are several of them], add up the signatures, and you will come nowhere near 30,000; not even close to a third of that number. Claiming that an editorial board of a journal speaks for its rank-and-file members is an apple/orange comparison. The only credible comparison is signature to signature — and there your false claim of “consensus” fails miserably.
It is typical of those mendaciously arguing that GISS, HadCRU, USHCN, NOAA, the UN/IPCC and others do not all “adjust” the temperature record upward — never downward — to show excessive warming. What are the odds of that, eh?
Attempting to re-frame the argument by raising the issue of “conspiracy” [which I never mentioned] is a typical tactic of those who don’t have the facts to support their failed assertions.
I provided verifiable links to those self-serving organizations, which all re-adjust the temperature record upward. Cognitive dissonance does not allow you to accept that fact, just as Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot accept that the world will not end on a particular date.
Your reaction to everyone here is the usual alarmist true believer response. You simply do not want to hear anything that debunks your repeatedly falsified world view.
Roger Otip (alarmist cliché bot) inaccurately asserts:
“the vast majority of climate scientists accept the consensus view that the planet is warming and that human activity is the primary driver of this warming”.
1) The statements cited are all over the map and not all assert that “human activity is the primary driver of this warming”.
Furthermore, such an assertion could mean that they believe human activity is responsible for 0.36C of the 0.7C of warming over the last century (as determined by data demonstrated to contain “an estimated warm bias of about 30%””).
2) The bureaucrats who “lead” these organizations demonstrably do NOT represent the majority of their membership!
An article in Vol. 90, Issue 10 (October, 2009) of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society demonstrates that only 24% of Meteorologists surveyed agreed with the AMS statement cited by Roger’s faulty Wikipedia page.
Click here and examine the facts.
3) The IPCC computer models which misled the gullible into believing human activities were the primary driver have been invalidated by none other than Phil Jones.
4) Owing to the corrupting influence of the $100 billion government gravy train (and counting), those scientist who are NOT publishing climatologists are arguably FAR better qualified to assess the state of climate science.
Click here to more comprehensively debunk the biggest lie of all (the alleged scientific consensus).
P.S.) One wonders if Roger Otip’s Wikipedia citation was compiled by the infamous propagandist known as Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor.
— Stephen Colbert
More importantly those “large areas” in the north are in that map projection highly distorted for area, look on a real globe (you know that spherical object in the library) and you will find the land area that they show as Brown is much smaller than the area with normal or below normal temperatures. Also important is that that area is also sparsely populated it has almost no data. That large blob of brown disappears if you remove the 1200 km spreading of temperatures from single stations.
Those areas of the world have almost no temperature measuring stations and everyone of those that do exist are immersed in a local heat island created by a small number of people expending a lot of energy to keep warm in bitter cold conditions.
That warming presented by the brown blob is about as real as if you said you could predict the temperature in Chicago by taking the temperature reading in Cheyenne Wyoming, and smearing it over the map to include the great lakes region.
Larry
They’ve got it wrong. 1998 was warmer than either 2005 or 2010. If anyone doubts that all they have to do is to pull down the satellite record from UAH MSU.
David L
Can you provide us with a link to your professional peer-reviewed scientific research?
Er…mod?
Someone posted a report from New Zealand, citing the fact that it contradicted climate change science. When I pointed out that the same report indicated that a strong warming trend had been observed between 1900 and 2009 in New Zealand, both the previous comment and mine were removed.
Is this normal?
REPLY: I haven’t seen it, but other moderators may have done something with it if it didn’t meet site policy or used banned words. Feel free to resubmit. – Anthony
Lucy Skywalker says: (January 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm)
Thinking… thinking… thinking…
ALL planets and moons are hot on the inside, Lucy. This heat is a combination of leftover gravitational energy from when they condensed plus heat generated from the decay of radioactive elements. Our own moon, which seems so cold and lifeless on the surface, is so hot on the inside that it has a fluid outer core. The heat flow from the surface of the moon was measured by the Heat Flow Experiment on Apollo 15 and 17.
But compare the extreme temperatures on the moon (which includes one of the coldest locations in the solar system) to the much more homogenous temperatures on Venus and explain this without relying on the greenhouse effect.
As for whether Venus currently emits more energy than it absorbs, I doubt you will find any evidence of that. Of course, it is true for any new planet or moon, but over time, the internal temperature lowers until the energy emitted equals the energy absorbed and the planet reaches equilibrium. I would guess that Venus has reached equilibrium by now.
Back on Earth, it is the addition of greenhouse gases that is moving our planet out of equilibrium and raising the temperature.
As an aside, isn’t it amusing how whenever someone learns a new fact, they immediately assume that no one else knew it either?
RE: Phil. says:
January 12, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Thanks for the info. However it is not merely that small adjustment by Hansen that bugs me. It is a whole sequence of small adjustments, one after another.
The shift from my stance from Alarmist to Skeptic dated from this Climate Audit post, which now makes an interesting historical document:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/
I wish I had the time to put together a history of all Hansen’s adjustments, readjustments, re-readjustments, and so on, for I think it would make a good story.
As far as the recent El Nino being a sign of warming goes, I wish it was. I like warming, as I live up north in New Hampshire. Unfortunately I have an uneasy feeling the warming may have occurred because the ENSO may have been jarred by cooling, and postulate it may actually be cooling which sets off oversized El Nino’s.
I know that sounds backwards, but I keep reading that a delayed reaction to big, tropical volcanic eruptions is an El Nino. In other words, the initial cooling of ash in the atmosphere, after a lag, triggers a warming El Nino.
Of course, there hasn’t been that sort of eruption recently. So why am I uneasy? I guess it is because there HAS been a quiet sun. Perhaps a quiet sun has the same effect as ash in the atmosphere: A cooling that, after a lag-time, triggers an El Nino.
I theorize the eruption of El Chichón in the early 1980’s might have triggered an El Nino all by itself, but Pinatubo blew up at the perfect time to delay El Chiton’s El Nino, and the eventual 1998 El Nino was the combined result of not one but two volcanoes.
In case you wonder how cooling can trigger a warm El Nino, consider how much energy is used up hauling cold water from the depths, in a La Nina. Imagine you had to pay the electric bill to pump all that heavy, dense, cold water up, and spread it out over the top of the Pacific. Then imagine something pulled the plug on all your pumps. You wouldn’t have to pay that energy bill any more, and the ocean would warm.
In essence a La Nina is an air-conditioner. More energy is used running that tropical air-conditioner than in shutting it off. More energy is involved in a La Nina than an El Nino. Cut off the “power,” (whether it be with volcanic ash or a quiet sun, ) and the tropical ocean isn’t “air-conditioned,” and warms.
OK. I have expressed my audacious idea. Now give me a few moments to put on a helmet and get into my bomb shelter, before you respond.
[snip – see policy page, no calls to religion]
Arno Arrak says:
January 13, 2011 at 9:38 am
They’ve got it wrong. 1998 was warmer than either 2005 or 2010. If anyone doubts that all they have to do is to pull down the satellite record from UAH MSU.
However Spencer says that UAH MSU shows a tie between 2010 and 1998.
With a margin of error of + or – .7 the top 8 years are all statisctically tied with 2005 and 2008.
In fact all of the top years shown are within the margin of error of 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 and the differences are statistically insignificant.
Since 1998 there is really no statistically significant trend.