2010 was so Hot…

January 18, 2011

Click for larger image

How Hot was it?

From Hot Topic:

All of the major global temperature series — surface and satellite — report that 2010 is tied for first place as the warmest year in the long term record. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center both have 2010 tied with their previous record holder 2005, while the UK’s Climatic Research Unit and the satellite series from the University of Alabama Huntley(sic)  report that 2010 is tied with 1998.

As they note, even the much touted ( by deniers) Satellite Data series from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, (UAH) show 2010 as tied for the warmest year in the record. (Satellite data, we’re told, has not been corrupted by evil scientists roasting weenies under the temp stations..)

NASA has a nice explanatory page, which discusses the differences and similarities between the various data sets.  The NASA set by itself looks like this.

Per NASA:

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. The thin line represents annual data, while the thick line is a five-year running mean.

For Uncle Dittohead and Aunt Teabag, mere data from the world’s best and most professional scientists may not be enough. After all, they are all “in on it”. Part of the conspiracy to fool us about global warming.

That’s why, rather than argue this or that temp data set with deniers, I say, “If you don’t like temperature data, throw it out.”
The earth itself is a thermometer, and every moment, thousands, if not millions of indicators are showing us what the planet’s temperature is doing.  In a recent study, Nasa researchers collected data from more than 29000 physical, biological, and atmospheric processes. The melting of frozen lakes and rivers, the blooming dates of flowers, the spawning of fish, and migration of birds.  The vast majority, almost 90 percent, were found to be changing in a manner consistent with warming.

“…the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth’s natural systems. The data were collected from about 80 studies, each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004.

Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth’s poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.”

The team conducted a “joint attribution” study. They showed that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.”

The planet is warming. We’re doing it. The consequences are dire. And we need to stop.

29000 Data Sets Show Warming

More Key Indicators from Nasa


Advertisements

5 Responses to “2010 was so Hot…”

  1. omnologos Says:

    It’s truly unbelievable…you spend so much time building up your case and then fall miserably at the very end. The “29,000 data sets” article has an incredible number of…limitations, starting from the fact that 28,000 data sets are from Europe alone (if you count them, there’s more changes NOT compatible with warming in Europe than compatible with warming everywhere else). And what study can report about 114 data sets for Asia, 14 for Africa, 64 for South America and 30 for Oceania, and seriously make any claim about observing “global” changes? (In fact, the authors do specify “in some continents”, rather than in all of them).

    And so your touting around of the “29,000” number becomes as meaningless as Monckton talking of global cooling.

    “Make an argument that you can get killed on, and you will kill us all”. You know where that is from.

  2. greenman3610 Says:

    I think that study, along with observations of shrinking sea ice, glaciers, rising sea levels, changes in ocean acidity, collapse of ice shelves that have been stable for millenia, changes in planting zones, impacts of insect damage to temperate zone forests, and increases in extreme precipitation events, make the case that you don’t need surface temps to show the planet is changing.
    That’s what the National Academy sensibly concluded in reviewing surface temps.

    • omnologos Says:

      Whatever…surely it shouldn’t be banded about as anything special. Hopefully somebody somewhere is collecting a few more data sets from some newer place than usual

      • greenman3610 Says:

        Well, I think you should write to NASA and set them straight on this.

        • omnologos Says:

          But before I write, you should read (especially the stuff you link to):

          Improved observation networks are urgently needed to enhance data sets and to document sensitivity of physical and biological systems to warming in tropical and sub- tropical regions, where many developing countries are located.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: