2010 On Track To Become Hottest Year On Record, NASA Scientists Say

McClatchy:

Worldwide, 2010 is on track to become the warmest year on record.

Scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies reported recently that the average global temperature was higher over the past 12 months than during any other 12-month period in history. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released corroborating data, adding that the past four months, including June, have each individually been the hottest on record as well.

Read the whole story: McClatchy

Comments

[eifer]

12:09 PM on 08/21/2010

Except in California, where it's been cooler than ever

[Richard2]

02:05 PM on 08/09/2010

Advocacy science at its best.

[maxwells]

07:03 PM on 08/10/2010

So, Richard2: are you really an honest skeptic or just another paid shill?

[Richard2]

04:03 PM on 08/13/2010

An honest skeptic. The best kind.

[maxwells]

07:12 PM on 08/10/2010

Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying you're a paid shill, but don't you think it's perfectly obvious that the only reason to pay any attention to a paid shill is simply to point out that they behave exactly like a paid shill?

Meanwhile, you might try looking for a more constructive use of your time. Even if it's paid work, lying incessantly is distinctly unhelpful to the world at large and it's also bad for your psyche.

[SFTor]

09:18 PM on 08/02/2010

The link to the post below:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[SFTor]

09:17 PM on 08/02/2010

A little about the AGW consensus: recently 10,567 scientists were asked to take an online poll, asking whether AGW was real.

Of those 10,567, 79 scientists chose to participate. In other words, they self-selected. Of those 76 answered that AGW was real, 3 that it was not, roughly speaking. This was quantified as a 96.2% positive response.

If a "no response" category had been included, the numbers would have been as follows:
0.7% positive, 0.02% negative, 99.1% no response.

Doesn't look quite as convincing, now does it?

[Publicola]

09:33 PM on 08/02/2010

SFTor: "10,567 scientists were asked to take an online poll, asking whether AGW was real. Of those 10,567, 79 scientists chose to participate."

That is a patent lie.

Do you even bother to read what you cite, SFTor?

"With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys"

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[SFTor]

02:10 PM on 08/03/2010

You are right. I did not read the article well enough.

The 79 refer to people who had recently published papers.

I stand corrected, and will be more diligent in the future.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Publicola]

07:03 PM on 08/03/2010

SFTor: "You are right. I did not read the article well enough. The 79 refer to people who had recently published papers."

Wrong again.

Did you bother to actually read the article?

[BlackbirdHighway]

12:53 PM on 08/02/2010

July 2010 was the 305th consecutive month of above average temperatures. The deniers keep saying the world is cooling, the world is cooling. Why don't you guys just can it until we get a below average month. That should keep you quiet for the next 1000 years or so.

[SFTor]

09:03 PM on 08/02/2010

Hello BlackBird,

maybe you could stop calling people "deniers." As you can see from my posts I am not "denying" anything.

I follow these debates, and I participate because I believe no one is served by the strident positions taken by each side.

The world is not going to hell. It is going to be OK. I think we all know this.

It is a little warmer than it was in the 1940 to 1970 period, when temperatures did indeed fall. I don't see what is so unusual about climate change. We all know that climate stasis does not exist pretty much.

The energy poured into the climate change discussion would be put to much better use if it was redirected towards ocean fisheries managemenent. Now that is a real problem.

[Publicola]

09:40 PM on 08/02/2010

SFTor: "As you can see from my posts I am not 'denying'/ anything."

Do you agree that the following are all scientific facts, SFTor? If not you are by definition a global warming science denier.

-------------------------------------------

* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in two thousand years or more.

* Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the Earth's temperature would be below freezing.

* The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic CO2, and there is no other viable scientific explanation for said increase.

* There is a strong correlation between said CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles, increases in solar radiation, and natural increases in atmospheric CO2 - cannot explain said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than AGW survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.

Hope this helps.

[Richard2]

06:43 PM on 08/01/2010

From the lead article in today's San Diego Union-Tribune:

"Its been 77 years since July in San Diego was this COOL."

The average temperature was 65.8 degrees. In 1933, the average was 65.5 degrees. So 77 years ago, the month of July was an incredible .3 degrees cooler than last month!

In other news, the San Diego Padres are "on track" to win their division in baseball. Other contenders have stubbornly refused to concede the division, and are clearly in denial.

[Publicola]

08:53 PM on 08/01/2010

Q: Why are global warming science deniers seemingly unable to understand the concept of global averages?

A: Because they are global warming science deniers, of course.

---------------------------------------

Who pays you to be an incessant global warming science denier here on HuffPo, R2?

[Richard2]

10:48 AM on 08/02/2010

Do you understand the concept of global averages taken from earth satellites? Do you understand why they may be more accurate than land based temperature systems? Do you understand that even they are not perfect, as currently operated?

Do you understand that land based temperature systems have reported more temperature rise than satellite systems? Which should the public have more confidence in?

Developing a global temperature is a difficult task. Mankind doesn't permanently live on the vast majority of the surface of the earth.

[Publicola]

11:37 AM on 08/02/2010

R2: "Do you understand why [satellites] may be more accurate than land based temperature systems?"

Do you understand that satellites are more accurate for atmospheric temperature but not for surface temperature, which rises at a different rate?

Do you also understand that, like the surface temperature measurements, the satellite temperature measurements show that the globe has warmed over recent decades?

---------------------------------------

Who pays you to be an incessant global warming science denier here on HuffPo, R2?

[maxwells]

01:20 PM on 08/02/2010

www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

"They sought to manufacture uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence showing their products to be hazardous to human health.

They pioneered a strategy of 'information laundering' in which they used - even covertly established - seemingly independent front organizations to make the industry's own case and confuse the public.

They promoted scientific spokespeople and invested in scientific research in an attempt to lend legitimacy to their public relations efforts.

They attempted to recast the debate by charging that the wholly legitimate health concerns raised about smoking were not based upon 'sound science.'

Finally, they cultivated close ties with government officials and members of Congress. While many corporations and institutions seek access to government, Tobacco's size and power gave it enormous leverage."

As one Brown and Williamson Tobacco internal memo noted,

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

Sound like RICHARD2's ~1450 HuffPo posts and PROFESSIONAL deniers of anthropogenic global warming?

That's because the oil and fossil fuels industries directly and deliberately lifted them from Big Tobacco's campaign to avoid liability - efforts that succeeded for decades.

Do we still have decades?

[StephenBP]

12:38 PM on 08/01/2010

The arguments of the denialists are getting more feeble with time, but still they insist on their contrarian memes and doubt sowing. Here is a report from Dr. Pablo Clemente-Colon, chief scientist of the National Ice Center, just back from the Arctic, as reported on a NOAA website:

"Just to clarify, not only is the Arctic sea ice extent decreasing, but just as critical, the mean thickness of the Arctic sea ice pack also has precipitously decreased. In fact, although not quite an ice extent minimum record year, by February, this year was already a minimum record year for the amount of thick multiyear ice present in the pack.
We suspect that the increasing presence of icebergs broken off from ice shelves and glaciers within the Antarctic sea ice pack is a major contributor to a temporary but increasing trend in the Antarctic sea ice extent. Since the rapid disappearance of the Antarctic ice shelves and glaciers itself is seen as a response to global warming, the slight increase in sea ice extent that we are observing can be paradoxically linked to the same warming trend."

So I rate this information as expert level, first hand observation coming from someone with a great deal of knowledge, insight, and experience. This is not third rate opinion from a college dropout info-tainer. This is not biased, agenda driven, distortion fostering opinion from a fossil fuel supported website. Question authority, but recognize expertise. And be suspicious of professional doubters.

[Richard2]

10:53 PM on 08/01/2010

If the Arctic Sea ice is currently unusually thin, then why during July was the loss in sea ice extent the lowest in reent yearst? That "thin ice" seems to be holding up very well. Is there another explanation for this slow decline in sea ice extent, or is the judgement that the ice is thin really in question?

The 2010 sea ice minimum will likely occur in September, only about a month away. Time will tell how "thin" the ice really is.

[Publicola]

11:56 AM on 08/02/2010

R2: "during July was the loss in sea ice extent the lowest in reent yearst?"

Really. Cite your source.

In any event, per the National Snow and Ice Data Center sea ice extent for July is well below the 1979-2000 average:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

And more generally, "Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years"

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

[BlackbirdHighway]

01:12 PM on 08/02/2010

When the Arctic Ice in September is ABOVE the 1979-2000 average then you can let us all know. Until then, the ice is most certainly not "holding up very well". I expect we won't be hearing from you in the next 1000 years or so.

[StephenBP]

10:09 AM on 08/01/2010

Minimum Arctic ice extent since 2007 have been under 5 million square kilometers. It used to be up near 8 million square kilometers. Current ice extent is far below average.

So why is Richard2 citing Watts to claim that the polar regions of the earth appear normal?
Watts own charts clearly show the below normal extent of the ice. What the heck is up with that? Can't Richard2 read a graph?

I've caught Watts in two outright lies in the past weeks. In one case, he conferred a Doctorate on a British Politician who only had a Bachelor's degree. In another, he made a big sensation about a thousands of animals lost in a South American cold snap, inflating the number to millions of animals. In this case, however, However, Watts appears to be reposting other people's graphs and they clearly show that the ice is diminishing.

When someone tells you black is white, and up is down, what choice do you have but to conclude that the speaker has imbibed too much of the "Clear skies initiative" Koolaid.

[Richard2]

11:04 AM on 08/01/2010

Good points. The Antarctic sea ice extent is currently above normal. The Arctic sea ice extent is currently below normal. Taken together, the earth's sea ice extent is very close to the long term average. That is what I meant by normal. It is appropriate to note both situations where sea ice is above normal and below normal. To emphasize only one, but not the other, is to be misleading.


Similarly, back in 2007 several climate scientists were publically suggesting that the Arctic sea ice might completely disappear that year. The sea ice was "in a death spiral." The abundent data from the Arctic clearly shows that this event did not occur as suggested. The sea ice has actually recovered some since 2007.

It is a fair and difficult question to consider whether the Arctic sea ice minimum this September will be above that of last year, or above that of 2007. Also whether on a longer term basis the sea ice will decline or recover. What is not fair is to focus on only one subset of observations, the ones indicating sea ice decline, without also noting and taking into account the other subset of observations, which indicate some recovery of sea ice in the Arcti, and a continuance of the above average sea ice in the Antarctic.

[Publicola]

09:23 PM on 08/01/2010

As with the Arctic, the Antarctic is losing ice mass due to global warming:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

R2: "It is appropriate to note both situations where sea ice is above normal and below normal. To emphasize only one, but not the other, is to be misleading."

It is more appropriate to note the polar ice mass. To emphasize sea ice, but not mention the fact that ice mass on both poles is decreasing, is to be deeply misleading.

R2: "back in 2007 several climate scientists were publically suggesting that the Arctic sea ice might completely disappear that year. The sea ice was 'in a death spiral.' "

Arctic sea ice is indeed declining rapidly:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

[Richard2]

09:47 AM on 07/31/2010

Isn't this headline a little inconsistent with the trends in the polar regions of the earth, which appear normal:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/sea-ice-page

[Publicola]

11:25 AM on 07/31/2010

R2: "Isn't this headline a little inconsistent with the trends in the polar regions of the earth,"

No - the polar regions of the earth are warming and melting.

R2: "which appear normal:"

(link to a TV weatherman's global warming denier blog snipped)

If by "normal" you mean that the polar caps have been melting:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2009JC005312.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

then why yes, the polar regions do appear "normal".

Do you understand basic statistics, R2? And who pays you to incessantly post global warming science disinformation here on HuffPo?

[maxwells]

06:55 PM on 07/31/2010

Your post seems entirely consistent with your ~1,400 HuffPo posts, which began ~Feb. 18, 2009, nearly 100% being denials of anthropogenic global warming and its many facets. Who, other than a paid pro, would post 1,400 comments, nearly all on one and only topic?

Ergo, many have asked you often whether you're a paid troll, corporate shill, i.e., a "paid, professional denier of anthropogenic global warming." You responded only once as follows.

Richard2 05:19 PM on 7/18/2010 "Max, I am not, nor have ever been, a paid professional AGW denier...."

That one response was slyly worded to leave uncertain what you meant by AGW. So, I and others have repeatedly asked you the simple follow-up question: "What does AGW mean to you, Richard2?" Rather than answer and put the matter to rest, your sole response was on Jul 19, 2010 at 10:07:38:

Richard2: "“Does anyone not know what the "A" in AGW stands for? Does anyone not know what AGW is an abbreviation of?””

Nice evasion, Richard2, but why can't you answer such a simple follow-up question directly? Would it bother your handler and legal staff?”

Who, if anyone, pays for your comments, Richard2? Exxon? Koch Industries? Free Enterprise Institute? Another right-wing think tank funded by the fossil fuel industry? Given Huffpo's policy on corporate shills, not just us but HuffPo reviewers would probably want to know, don'tcha think?

[maxwells]

07:07 PM on 07/31/2010

I'm far from the first to note the consistency of Richard2's comments. Starting more than a year ago, his pattern was already apparent to others early on, as in:

GuyRC on Apr 3, 2009 at 14:38:22

“Richard2 has been on huffpost for 2 months and spams every climate aritcle with right wing think tank propoganda. Other clues you are dealing with a fossil fuel industry troll: They pretend that Al Gore is a scientist to discredit real scientists. They post factoids cherry picked from data sets, mis-analyzed by hacks, and posted on fossil fuel industry sponsored web sites instead of referencing scientific papers in peer reviewd journals where the same data has been analyzed by qualified scientists who conclude that agw is real.”

[santiago sherwood]

09:46 PM on 07/30/2010

so what does it take for people to change. I work in the wind power business and everyone says its needed but don't build it here. what most people don't get is most of the power is lost in transition. We need to generate power where it is needed. but we would rather burn coal.

[larmarch5]

06:43 PM on 07/30/2010

Russia's Heat Woes:
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2010/07/russia-burns-in-worst-heat-wave.html

[allouchsit]

05:47 PM on 07/29/2010

The current year is NOT "the hottest year on record." http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25940

[chrisd3]

08:16 PM on 07/29/2010

False. We can tell as early as the second paragraph, which mentions some cool temperatures in Sydney, that this is bunk. But the final confirmation comes later:

"Phil Jones, former Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) confirmed to the BBC that global temperatures have not increased since 1998."

That is a flat-out lie. It is NOT what Phil Jones told the BBC. That alone is sufficient to mark the piece as a worthless piece of denier junk.

They don't even seem to know that Jones is not the "former" Director of CRU. He stepped down temporarily during the investigations but resumed his position when he, along with everyone else, was cleared of any wrongdoing. To claim to be knowledgable about climate science and not know this is nothing short of pathetic.

[Publicola]

06:00 PM on 07/30/2010

That article written by Dr. Tim Ball - he of the ever-morphing, dishonest resume:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die

Tim Ball has amongst other things also claims that global warming ended in 1930:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/now_tim_ball_says_that_global.php

Tim Ball has a PhD in Geography - there's no way that Dr. Ball does not understand basic statistics well enough to know that Dr. Jones did not say that global temperatures have not increased since 1998.

[RunningBecky]

06:43 PM on 07/30/2010

Very well said! So much junk out there and all designed to confuse public opinion about something that is now a scientifically verified fact. Huggs Becky

[emrogers]

11:28 PM on 07/29/2010

It most certainly is. That report is fraudulent. NASA must be under the all powerful Al Gore's spell as well. That's the theory isn't it? That Al Gore has duped everyone to run studies that will say the earth is warming so he'll make money.I wish you tards would listen to yourselves on occasion.

[HLL]

09:59 AM on 07/29/2010

~ There's no such thing as global warming. Everything's fine with the Earth. The oceans can handle all the oil and gas being vomited into them, thousands of species of animals aren't really becoming extinct.......

If you believe the above then you won't be interested in this amazing documentary film, HOME. It's about where the Earth is at today, what is being done, and what more can be done.

It is free, narrated by Glenn Close, visually stunning and inspiring. Bookmark it for whenever you have the time ☮:

http://www.youtube.com/homeproject

[Netflyer]

12:16 AM on 07/30/2010

Thanks HLL,
Peace

[HLL]

10:57 AM on 07/30/2010

So welcome, Netflyer. The prayer is that soon, our government will put the Earth first. Many countries are doing that already, just wish the USA would follow. ☮

[dragonmaster]

04:33 PM on 07/28/2010

Its official the first decade of the 21st century is the warmest on record

"Global warming is undeniable," and it's happening fast, a new U.S. government report says.

An in-depth analysis of ten climate indicators all point to a marked warming over the past three decades, with the most recent decade being the hottest on record, according to the latest of the U.S. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's annual "State of the Climate" reports, which was released Wednesday. Reliable global climate record-keeping began in the 1880s.

The report focused on climate changes measured in 2009 in the context of newly available data on long-term developments.

(See "Heat Wave: 2010 to Be One of Hottest Years on Record.") For instance, surface air temperatures recorded from more than 7,000 weather stations around the world over the past few decades confirm an "unmistakable upward trend," the study says.

see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/100728-global-warming-noaa-climate-hottest-decade-science-environment/

[sherwoodforest]

03:36 PM on 07/28/2010

Some one should put a warm heater in front of Inhofe's office- considering that climate change is such a hoax in his opinion. He put up an igloo on the mall last winter- and called it Al Gore's new home- ha ha ha.
So why don't we get a nice bonfire going on the Mall and put Inhofe's name on it- he could be the climate deniers Burning Man mascot. Inhofe had so much to say about the snow, so what does he think about all the heat all over the globe???? (sound of crickets- sounds of media outlets NOT doing their jobs again)