Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencen ... orological-year-wa.html?ref=hp
Published: Dec 11, 2010
Author: Eli Kintisch
Post Date: 2010-12-11 16:38:48 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 10952
Comments: 18
The 2010 meteorological year, which ended on 30 November, was the warmest in NASA's 130-year record, data posted by the agency today shows. Over the oceans as well as on land, the average global temperature for the 12-month period that began last December was 14.65°C. That's 0.65°C warmer than the average global temperature between 1951 and 1980, a period scientists use as a basis for comparison. The 2010 meteorological year was slightly warmer than the previous warmest year, the 2005 calendar year, when the average temperature was 14.53°C. In 2010, temperatures measured over land alone were also the warmest ever, with instruments showing a December-November average of 14.85°C. Combining this warming with above-average ocean temperatures led to the global average of 14.65°C. November brought frigid temperatures to certain areas of Europe. But the data, compiled by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, show that, globally, last month was the warmest November ever recorded, nearly 0.96°C warmer than the 1951 to 1980 average for the month. According to NASA climatologist and Goddard director James Hansen, the main driver for the increased warmth was the Arctic, where temperatures in Hudson Bay were "10°C above normal" for November. That month, Hansen says, "sea ice was absent while normally that [body of water] is covered by sea ice." Water devoid of ice absorbs much more solar radiation than water covered with ice, which reflects much of the radiation back toward space. The record temperatures occurred despite a moderate occurrence of La Niña, a phenomenon over the Pacific Ocean that tends to lead to cooler temperatures at the surface, affecting the global mean.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Skip Intro (#0)
I meant to add this for the skeptics here. Which of the following do you base your expert knowledge of climate science on? A) I listen to Rush Limbaugh B) I listen to Sean Hannity C) I listen to Glenn Beck D) All of the above
Thank you. 8D
Utter nonsense. 2010 will be remembered for just two warm months, attributable to the El Nino effect, with the rest of the year being nothing but average, or less than average temperature. January was cooler than January in 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 1998. February was cooler than February in 2007, 2004, 2002, and 1998. March was exceptionally warm at a temperature anomaly of 0.971. However it was, given the errors, statistically comparable with March 2008 (0.907) and March 1990 (0.910). April was cooler than April 2007, 2005, and 1998. May was cooler than May 2003 and 1998. June was exceptionally warm at 0.827 deg C though statistically identical to June 2005 (0.825) and 1998. July, when things started to cool, was cooler than July 2006, 2005 and 1998. August was cooler than August 2009, about the same as 2005, and cooler than 2001 and 1998. September was cooler than September 2009, 2007, 2005, 2001 and 1998. October the last month for which there are records was cooler than October 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 1998.
It's all the fault of the USA's overuse of DHMO.
E) “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Over 1,000 other scientists have courageously stepped up to fight the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) who are trying to use "global warming" and "climate change" to control every single aspect of our economy and our lives.
Which of the following do you base your expert knowledge of climate science on? A) I listen to Al Gore B) I listen to Keith Obermann C) Wow man, don't bogart the doobie... D) Huh?????
NASA.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory [of global warming] wrong” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
One guy disagrees. OK, that's the way science works. It doesn't mean he's right and NASA is wrong though, does it? Of course, this is the only guy who will get any time on Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/Fox. The current NASA people working on this will just get the middle finger from the Limbaugh/Fox ill-literati.
There are now more scientists who publicly disagree with the watermelons than publicly agree with them -- over 1,000 scientific dissenters in total. Man-made global warming is a hoax perpetrated by people who care more about power and prestige than facts and evidence. Sure climate is changing. There is evidence in the geological record that climate has changed, alternating between warming and cooling, for 5 million years. There were no SUVs 5 million years ago.
There's nothing in the article I posted that says anything about "man made".
But that is always the insinuation. If climate change is not man-made then there is no point in restricting whatever it is they want to restrict. Al Gore and the rest are engaged in a campaign to restrict our behavior in the name of "saving the planet", which is utter nonsense. Look, I agree we need to end our dependence on oil. I have been a big supporter of hydrogen fuel cells for cars. Mercedes, Toyota, Hyundai and now GM agree. The technology works and it is now cost effective. I support a change because of economics (we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas which hurts our economy) and national security (we are sending a lot of that money to unstable or hostile countries which hurts our security). That still doesn't mean that man-made climate change it a fact. It's not a fact. It's a fiction.
I'm not arguing that it is. In fact, I really don't know. I do know that Al Gore was (is) an ass for his over the top fear mongering. I also know that the climate is changing, certainly for the reasons you mentioned. If there's an extra kicker due to man, we won't be able to quantify it for decades. It just annoys me that anytime "climate change" is mentioned there are some who immediately jump to deny it even though it's happened time and again. That can't be denied by anyone who bothers to look at the evidence.
Of course, I completely agree with that. The geological record shows 5 million years of cooling (including 5 major ice ages and several minor ice ages) along with many periods of warming. I understand your point. There are people who don't think and just parrot what they hear on TV or the radio (mad dog, gnu new taxes, Isuckabigdickski, Lucy's mom, etc). These people make me crazy too. Back to reality. Half of the pollution in the U.S. is caused by cars. Imported oil puts us at huge risk. So what do we do? All auto companies have long term fuel cell research. Hydrogen fuel cells actually do work and are on the verge of being cost effective. GM is starting a pilot in Hawaii. Mercedes is moving full speed ahead in Germany, helping to build 1,000 hydrogen refueling stations. Most other auto companies are spending tons of money on us. Unless something comes out of nowhere (unlikely) hydrogen fuel cells ARE the future. Hybrids have given us some great technology (regenerative braking), but they are not the future, because they still rely on gasoline. Some plug-in electrics (the Telsa Sportser) have show than electric cars can be cool, sexy, and out- perform their gasoline counterparts, but they are also not the future, because they it take forever (hours not minutes) to recharge them. The future is hydrogen fuel cells. But we need a refueling infrastructure. There are a lot of ways that government could help. There are a lot of ways that government can hurt. Right now, government is hurting. If we really want to shift the balance and move forward, we'd shift the tax structure. Eliminate the personal income tax and put the equivalent tax on gas at the pump. That would change things very quickly.
Dude, check this out. This really is the future. Americans can have big SUVs and sexy fast performance cars with ZERO emissions. The technology works today. We're a very small number of years away from it being cost effective. This is the future. We should go for it.
Sounds cool, but how old is this video? He says the target is Q4 2010, so that's been missed. I'd expect to see this come from the Europeans first. They've got a much bigger financial incentive to do it, given the price of fuel there.
It was a technology target, which GM has met. GM has signed a deal with Hawaii to roll this out over the next five years. ditto for Mercedes. Their technology target was met and they are rolling out 1,000 refueling stations in Germany. I'm a technology guy. I don't jump on bandwagons. This technology is real. The big economic question is how do you roll it out? That depends on a national refueling network. That's the hesitation the auto companies are experiencing.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#2. To: All (#0)
#3. To: Skip Intro (#0)
NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever
#4. To: Skip Intro (#0)
(Edited)
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#5. To: Skip Intro (#0)
#6. To: Skip Intro (#2)
(Edited)
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#7. To: Skip Intro (#2)
(Edited)
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#8. To: jwpegler (#7)
Which of the following do you base your expert knowledge of climate science on?
#9. To: Skip Intro (#8)
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#10. To: jwpegler (#9)
#11. To: Skip Intro (#10)
(Edited)
One guy disagrees.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#12. To: jwpegler (#11)
Man-made global warming is a hoax perpetrated by people who care more about power and prestige than facts and evidence.
#13. To: Skip Intro (#12)
(Edited)
There's nothing in the article I posted that says anything about "man made".
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#14. To: jwpegler (#13)
That still doesn't mean that man-made climate change it a fact. It's not a fact. It's a fiction.
#15. To: Skip Intro (#14)
(Edited)
It just annoys me that anytime "climate change" is mentioned there are some who immediately jump to deny it even though it's happened time and again. That can't be denied by anyone who bothers to look at the evidence.
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#16. To: Skip Intro (#14)
(Edited)
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
#17. To: jwpegler (#16)
#18. To: Skip Intro (#17)
"It's very important to remember the law is not simply what powerful people would want others to believe it is." -- Julian Assange
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]