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.
###
“Since 1998 there is really no statistically significant trend.”
And…
There is a reason for that.
Roger Otip,
Glad you brought up that US only being 2% of the Earth’s surface meme.
Pray tell me then how a few trees (BCPS) in a tiny, tiny area of that 2% can somehow be claimed to teleconnect to the rest of the world and thus provide proof for Mann’s hockey stick?
Mac said..
“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.”
————————————————————————————
Anthony
Thought that NIWA had to go to court and it was shown that they had falsified the temp record and it showed now warming for the last 60 years in New Zealand??
or have i got the wrong end of the stick?
NZ Temp data http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temp-record
“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.”
-Doesn’t automatically make them right, does it?
I thought 1934 was the hottest year of the 20th century–or was that only in the USA?
B. Ch. E. sez:
“I thought 1934 was the hottest year of the 20th century–or was that only in the USA?”
The answer depends upon whether you trust the flawed data provided by the government employees at GISS or peer reviewed science.
I am no editor, but shouldn’t the title be ’16th consecutive year of no statistically significant warming’?
Mac posted
NZ Temp data http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temp-record
spot the date… 16 december
——————————————————————————
Someone posted in Notes and Tips a link that showed a news line article
dated 23 december that NIWA went to court and backed down over the records that they kept and falsified.
Mac here the link
20th december not 23rd
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
no warming for 60 years
B. Ch. E.
1934 was I believe the warmest year for the 48 contiguous United States, but globally it doesn’t even rank in the top ten. In fact, it doesn’t even rank in the top 40. Globally, the 10 warmest years all fall within the past 13 years.
Roger (the alarmist cliché bot) Otip sez:
Only if you willfully ignore the peer reviewed science which says otherwise (and ignore the last 600 million years of temperature data in favor of the least reliable dataset of all — the last 150 years).
Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.
Anonymous Howard says: January 13, 2011 at 10:20 am
(1) I know about the Moon. Heck, WUWT this week.
(2) HERE is the source of evidence that Venus emits so much heat that it immediately explains the atmospheric homogeneity, and disqualifies the GHG effect as driver of that heat. To quote:
… however, checking as I do, I find Trenberth (of all people today!) says insolation here is 342 w/m^2 which means by the inverse square law, Venus 2/3 AU from Sun, its insolation should be ~2.2 times ours. WUWT? Story not over. Shall investigate further.
[AJB says: January 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm]
Ha, ha, very amusing! You probably overlooked the part of my comment where I said “Yes, the thermodynamics of water evaporation and condensation controls heat transport within the atmosphere, from region to region, and altitude to altitude.” For example, where I live, I look forward to winter rain because the condensation of water will release heat into the lower atmosphere and raise the air temperature away from freezing. Just like steam heat. Works every time.
Nevertheless, it is still true that this “has no meaning in the question of radiative balance of the Earth, between insolation from the Sun and radiation to outer space.”
Yes, I know all about getting a chill from emerging from water. What would be your point? That the Earth is cooled by evaporation? The only applicable evaporation would be the loss of helium into space from the upper atmosphere, along with the rare hydrogen molecule. This heat loss is so miniscule as to be neglected in any calculations.
The point of my example was to illustrate how rapidly radiative heat transfer works, compared to conductive heat transfer to air.
[George E. Smith says: January 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm]
Sorry, George, for the tardy response, but some of us cannot hover over the Internet. And you deserve a thoughtful reply.
As to whether CO2 absorbs/reradiates infrared radiation from the Earth: It does. A handy reference is the graph of spectral transmittance of the atmosphere, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric.transmittance.IR.jpg. It shows the bands at 1.3-1.5, 1.8-1.95, 2.25-3.0, and ~4 microns that you mentioned. It also shows bands at 9.4, 10.6, 12.5, and 15 microns in the far infrared. To confirm all this, I made reference to the NIST database on molecular absorption for CO2 (ref. http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1). You have to decipher from wavenumbers, but the spectral range presented is roughly from 2.5 to 18 microns. There are three major bands: 2.67-2.85 and 4.18-4.50 microns as you have mentioned, and, according to you, a non-existent band at 13.1-16.9 microns. There is a fourth feature of this absorption spectrum: a low absorptivity all across the entire spectral range, with particular lines at 9.4 and 10.6 microns. Why would I know about them? They are the working stuff of CO2 lasers. I have seen a 10-watt CO2 laser heat a piece of firebrick to incandescence, so there is simply no question that CO2 absorbs and reradiates at this wavelength.
All this is rather fatal to your contention that CO2 does not absorb anything from the Earth IR emission band.
Now, as to “cooling”: In science, it is necessary to be precise and literal in our meaning. You are using “cooling” in the same sense that modern politicians, in arriving at a budget increase less than an otherwise larger increase, refer to the result as a “budget cut.” Reduced warming is not “cooling.” One mustn’t confuse descriptions of process (heating, cooling) with movement of an equilibrium point (higher or lower temperature). As I have mentioned in an earlier post on another topic (unfortunately in the blog environment, this might as well be in “a universe long ago and far, far away”), the equilibrium temperature of a planet is proportional to the fourth root of the ratio of its absorption coefficient to its emission coefficient. Tinkering with that ratio will result in the planetary temperature finding a higher or lower equilibrium, but one still has to make a distinction between more or less heating (absorption) and more or less cooling (emission).
As to the atmosphere radiating at 57F: Mostly, the atmosphere is just a transmission medium for radiation upwelling from the Earth surface. It doesn’t take much gain in altitude to find that the atmospheric temperature becomes drastically lower.
As to whether re-radiation (or scattering) evenly splits up or down: Of course it does. As I said nothing on this subject in my original post, I have no idea who you are arguing with, so I will waste no one’s time further on this.
As to saturated solar absorption: Just look at the transmittance. The bands you mentioned (2.7 and 4.0) bottom out at zero, with some actual bandwidth at zero. Now, this does not mean that the radiation has just gotten “soaked up” by the CO2; it means that when the bolometer is pointed at the sun, all the radiation at those wavelengths has been scattered off the line of sight. It is now part of the background radiation of the sky (along with the visible Rayleigh scattering). This is a condition where the atmosphere (by virtue of the CO2 present) is optically “thick.” The absorption / re-emission is so effective, that all the radiation is being re-emitted isotropically. The situation is “saturated”, in that further additions of CO2 will not change this condition. In fact, slight reductions in CO2 will probably not change this condition. When something is “saturated,” further additions produce no change.
All the talk about mean free paths and so forth is, frankly, hokum. Every CO2 molecule is ready to either absorb at that band or emit. There is no reservoir of freshly-“emptied” CO2 molecules; they are being filled up again by their brother molecules as fast as they are shedding photons. And their brother molecules are being replenished in energy by the thermal mass of the rest of the atmosphere. (Your understanding of the science on this point is discredited by your claim that a 10.6-micron CO2 band does not exist. I’ve had skin blown off the back of my hand by a CO2 laser operating at that nonexistent band.)
As to insolation vs. Earth emission: Think about the fact that Earth is in radiative balance; the infrared power radiated to space must equal the insolation (making allowances for small changes in thermal reservoirs such as the oceans). But all of the Earth’s emission takes place in the long-wave infrared, whereas most of the insolation takes place in the ultraviolet, visible, and short-wave infrared. This means that far more upwards radiative flux is moving through the atmosphere in the long-wave IR than insolation is moving downward in the short-wave IR. Just a point to keep in mind.
Your final paragraphs are truisms. Handy for an argument. Who is going to argue against them?
I suggest relaxing, George. There is no reason for you to leap at my throat over the points I raised, especially when you were striking mortal blows at contentions I hadn’t made. I’ve had a long career in the physics of laser weapons, so I am passably acquainted with what happens when radiation interacts with the air. A little more civility and patience could benefit us all.
Lucy Skywalker says: (January 14, 2011 at 3:18 pm)
Consider the quality of your source. Let’s follow the trail.
You link to a blog article that begins with the statement, “The greenhouse effect is based on the idea that greenhouse gases impede radiation out to space, so that what comes in, doesn’t all get out,” which is not at all what the greenhouse effect theory says. With such a bad beginning, why read further? Strike one.
That blog then links to a “paper” on a website that defends Velikovskyism and proposes that Venus is only 6,000 years old. (A large positive heat flux from the planet is said to support this idea.) Strike two.
That “paper” then quotes data from the Pioneer Venus mission, which you reproduce in your comment. Continuing to follow the trail, let’s look at the paper that published those data: The Thermal Balance of Venus in Light of the Pioneer Venus Mission by Tomasko, et. al., 1980. The abstract says (emphasis added):
Pretty shaky basing your conclusions on a paper that immediately contradicts you! Strike three.
(As an aside, the abstract then goes on to say, “Comparison of the measured solar flux profile with thermal fluxes computed from the measured temperature structure and composition shows that the greenhouse mechanism explains essentially all of the 500 K difference between the surface and radiating temperatures of Venus.” Hmm.)
But what to make of this huge difference between the energy emitted and absorbed? It turns out to be nothing more exciting than measurement error.
Current estimates of the heat flux from the surface of Venus are in the range of 10–30 mW/m², not much different from that on the surface of Mars, and much less than Earth’s.