iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Weather Records 2011: Average Global Temperature Was 11th Hottest On Record

SETH BORENSTEIN   01/19/12 06:41 PM ET  AP

WASHINGTON — The world last year wasn't quite as warm as it has been for most of the past decade, government scientists said Thursday, but it continues a general trend of rising temperatures.

The average global temperature was 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, making 2011 the 11th hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. That's 0.9 degrees warmer than the 20th century average, officials said. In fact, it was hotter than every year last century except 1998.

One reason 2011 was milder than recent years was the La Nina cooling of the central Pacific Ocean. La Ninas occur every few years and generally cause global temperatures to drop, but this was the warmest La Nina year on record.

And 2011 also was the warmest year on record for Spain and Norway, and the second warmest for the United Kingdom. In the United States, the average temperature of 53.8 was just 1 degree above normal, making last year only the 23rd warmest on record. But 17 cities – including Houston, Miami, Trenton and Austin – had their warmest years.

This marks the 35th straight year that global temperatures were warmer than normal. NOAA's records for world average temperatures date back to 1880.

"It would be premature to make any conclusion that we would see any hiatus of the longer-term warming trend," said Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. "Global temperatures are continuing to increase."

NASA, which calculates global temperatures in a slightly different way, announced essentially the same temperature for the year. But NASA's record-keeping calls it the ninth warmest ever.

Both NASA climate scientist James Hansen and University of Victoria's Andrew Weaver said they expect that in the next few years the world will set yet a new record high temperature. 2010 tied for the hottest on record.

NOAA also released new figures for extreme weather. The agency recalculated the number of billion-dollar weather disasters in the U.S., bumping the total from 12 to 14. Officials added Tropical Storm Lee, which dumped rain from Maryland to New England in September, and a July hail and wind storm in Colorado to the list.

The 14 extreme events smash the old record of nine billion-dollar disasters in 2008.

"America has endured an unusually large number of extreme events, totaling damages of more than $55 billion," NOAA deputy administrator Kathryn Sullivan said. She blamed a variety of factors, including population changes.

For the year, a record 58 percent of the United States had either extreme rainfall or severe drought, about triple what is normal for the country. Seven states – New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana and Kentucky – had their wettest years since those types of records were kept beginning in 1895. Texas had its driest year ever.

The record wet up north and dry down south fits with what climate change science predicts, but it is too early to say if 2011's precipitation extremes were due to global warming, Karl said. And the unusual number of deadly tornadoes can't be linked to global warming, he said.

But Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., which is a consortium of universities, said it's hard not to see the hand of man-made global warming behind the extremes.

"Where these events occur is largely driven by natural variability, but the fact that they are breaking records and causing tremendous damage when they do occur is undoubtedly because of the human stimulus," Trenberth said in an email.

___

NOAA's climate report: http://1.usa.gov/zeeYab

NASA's climate report: http://1.usa.gov/ynPirr

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — The world last year wasn't quite as warm as it has been for most of the past decade, government scientists said Thursday, but it continues a general trend of rising temperatures. T...
WASHINGTON — The world last year wasn't quite as warm as it has been for most of the past decade, government scientists said Thursday, but it continues a general trend of rising temperatures. T...
Filed by Chris Gentilviso  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 202
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:35 PM on 02/20/2012
considering the differences between the satellite data and ground based it would be more correct to say:
2011 was the 11th hotest year in 22 years of available satellite data.
now i'm no math brainiac, but isn't that normal?

http://www­.climate4y­ou.com/Glo­balTempera­tures.htm
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:47 AM on 02/20/2012
Isn't this good news?
I mean like maybe the world isn't coming to an end?
Why is it burried and what's the agenda?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:36 AM on 02/20/2012
using billion dollar disasters is very misleading because of things like fuel costs.
also the wide spread video reports via cell phones which were not available a few years ago.
and if man made co2 is such a problem why don't they report the tonage produced by factories for industry? maybe bubbles in our soda isn't worth dying for.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
10:49 PM on 02/07/2012
"And 2011 also was the warmest year on record for Spain and Norway"

The weather was sweet in Norway when I went there. Here I thought that it was generally like that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
08:38 AM on 01/27/2012
"The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2." -from the "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" editorial in the WSJ by 16 scientists
08:50 PM on 01/28/2012
In case you missed it here is a recent article which puts more doubt about the
agw theory/ The scientific evidence just keeps mounting and the defenders just keep bailing out. .....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1knmpog4n
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
07:00 PM on 01/25/2012
So if 2011 was slightly colder than 2010, and if January 2012 is colder than the same month last year, what are the next reported measurements of ocean temperatures and measurements of tide station mean sea levels likely to indicate?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Moose Luck 99
GEOENGINEERINGWATCH DOT ORG
06:17 PM on 01/25/2012
Nice chemtrails above that cow.

Air pollution site at AIRCRAP DOT ORG
08:40 AM on 01/23/2012
Just what does 'Average Global Temperature' mean ? How high do we go, how low , what sort of mesh/grid is used, is it two or three dimensional is it uniform over land and sea, how far down into the sea trenches, do we have a thermometer on top of Everest, bet we don't go down too many volcanos, how often are readings taken, is it the same interval for every grid point, how many satellite readings what statistic method is used what is the albedo record like ..................
photo
banana republican
Next in line for crumbs from the King's Table
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
04:00 AM on 01/23/2012
Here's my pet theory: if the extra heat is not going into warming, its going into phase change (extreme weather). First off: how surprising is it that a La Nina year isn't as hot as El Nino years? This should be rather obvious, by now. But does that mean nothing happened? I would submit that 2011 was WORSE for the cost of its weather disasters than 2010, even though 2010 was the hottest year on record. THATS is why the climatologists pushed to have IPCC and others adopt the terminology 'climate change': because 'global warming' leads to this false concern over temperature (as the skeptics would point out: who cares if the climate warms by 2 C?). The proper term is 'global heating', and if that extra heat isn't going into the warming of our oceans and atmosphere then it HAS to be going into creating weather and melting ice caps: events driven by phase change.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
07:16 PM on 01/21/2012
Here is how the years of this here 21st century stack up in terms of the global temperature record for the last 132 years:

2010 1st (tie)
2005 1st (tie)
2003 4
2002 5
2006 6
2007 7 (tie)
2009 7 (tie)
2004 9
2001 10
2011 11
2008 13

Is the trend of the temperature of the Earth's surface upward? Looks that way to me.

Is this upward trend going to end soon? Scientists say no.

Is this going to be a problem? Looks that way to me.

Are denialists going to keep denying that there is a problem? Who knows. Ask them. Probably.

Is the next el Nino year going to be very hot and interesting? I sure think so.

Can humanity survive without fossil fuel? Sure. Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and wave energy are ready for harvest, plus we can conserve. Even nuclear is a choice if we get backed up to the edge of the cliff.

Can humanity survive with the current rate of consumption of fossil fuel? I doubt it.

Will future generations consider this to be the most selfish and thoughtless generation of all history?
What do you think???
photo
smahl
I miss the days of Paul Wellstone.
12:58 AM on 01/22/2012
Whenever people talk about global warming they always put the claim on fossil fuels.I agree we can do better then fossil fuels. but at the same time is this really the reason that things are heating up?
This problem has gotten worse in the last 20 years. This is around the same time that cell phones, wireless devices and satellite tv have became more popular. my question would be could not some of the warming effects also be due to the large amount of increased waves running around that where not there before? and not just due to fossil fuel use?
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
07:54 AM on 01/22/2012
The temperature has been rising for over a hundred years. I have seen not evidence of a physical mechanism that links cell phones to atmospheric temperature rise. Remember, there are many scientists who study this and they think a lot, even about implausible things like cell phone energy having an effect. It is what they do. Have a nice day.
03:20 PM on 01/23/2012
Here are the changes in temperature over the earth-based temperature record (1880 to now).

http://tin­yurl.com/8­yarmd3

Here's the CO2 v SO2 emissions over that period

http://www­.nature.co­m/nature/j­ournal/v43­5/n7046/bo­x/nature03­671_BX2.ht­ml

Could I have a logical and consistent argument as to how CO2 correlates with the temperature changes observed over the entire temperature record?
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
09:52 PM on 01/23/2012
You know something? I don't have the time to chase down your incomplete links. Why don't you do your own work and bring your data and your argument here? If you
care so little about this topic that you cannot summarize your findings or comments for us, you are just wrecking your own credibility.

By the way, this past decade has been the hottest in the record books, and we have also had the highest carbon dioxide levels in a million years or so, or longer. We hmans have greatly disturbed the balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that doesn't precipitate out like water vapor does in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is what keeps Earth from being an ice world, because water vapor doesn't do the job at low temperatures when you need it most. We need carbon dioxide to stay warm. We just don't need so much that we wreck the planet for future generations.

But if you are in to "selfish", that possibility won't mean a thing to you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
09:25 AM on 01/21/2012
Roger Pielke Jr. has demolished the NOAA analysis of extreme weather events over time, pointing out that there have been many earlier extreme weather events that, if adjusted for INFLATION, would have caused more than a billion dollars of damage, and thus be included in the analysis. NOAA didn't recognize or consider these events, which, if included, would completely alter the conclusions of their analysis. NOAA has admitted the problem and is now committed to reworking their entire analysis to correct this obvious oversight.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cayce58
10:24 AM on 01/21/2012
What are you, 30,35 tops.You want an extreme weather event? It rained in January. I heard friggin thunder in January. Normal--It snows in december and melts in March. That is my 63 year old normal and my parents normal. It didn't rain in January until the mid 80's. That's when the oceans ran out of cold water to circulate to the surface and finally rose in temp.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
11:57 AM on 01/21/2012
What was true in 2007 is even more so in 2012. Since 2007 the reality of the temperature standstill has been accepted and many explanations offered for it, more than can possibly be true! We have seen predictions that half of the years between 2009 and 2014 would be HadCrut3 records (a prediction that now can’t possibly come to pass) which was later modified to half of the years between 2010 and 2015 (likewise.) The Met Office predict that 2012 -16 will be on average 0.54 deg C above the HadCrut3 baseline level, and 2017 -2021 some 0.76 deg C higher. Temperatures must go up, and quickly.

So how long must this standstill go on until bigger questions are asked about the rate of global warming? When asked if he would be worried if there was no increase in the next five years James Annan would only say it would only indicate a lower rate of warming! Some say that 15 years is the period for serious questions.- David Whitehouse, winner of a 5-year climate bet on the BBC.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:30 PM on 01/21/2012
Cayce58:

Richard2 claims to be retired and older than you. His comment profile also fits that of a paid professional shill.

Many deniers; few shills. So, how do you assess a shill?

1) Unlike simple deniers, a shill's posting history shows multiple daily comments on just one topic – here solely on global warming; deniers usually also comment on politics; professional shills don't because it doesn't net any pay;

2) Unlike deniers, shills avoid displaying overt ideologies, avoiding buzz phrases like: lib, Gore, Obama, free market, socialist, marxist, etc. But their ideology can sometimes be inferred from the HuffPo comments/topics they read w/o comment.

3) Shills rarely mention, let alone openly endorse, fossil fuels;

4) Unlike many deniers, shills avoid invectives, staying superficially polite, even if provoked. But more fundamentally, their remarks show utter disrespect for HuffPo's rules as well as other commenters;

5) Like deniers, they lie regularly about facts, contents of links they post, and often their personal background and credentials;

6) If banned, they immediately start new accounts;

7) May churn out meaningless claims to confuse readers and commenters;

8) Often serves up gish gallop (multiple lies and distortions) designed solely to waste intellectual bandwidth by intentionally soliciting carefully crafted refutations and responses, which they then don't bother to comprehend or often even read.

9) Relentless and utterly shameless in their comment patterns.
MGhamma
Reality is 100% biased!
10:34 PM on 01/21/2012
I see that you've stopped posting links to back up your claims.

I can understand that, concidering that when you do, it turns out that they always refute what you try to claim they say.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
09:07 PM on 01/20/2012
When the PDO turned cold, most of the meteorological and climate community
understood that the pattern was turning very similar the last time of the PDO reversal, the
1950s, and it was a matter of time before the global temperatures, which have leveled off,
would start falling in the same herby jerky fashion they had risen when the PDO turned
warm at the end of the 1970s. - Joe Bastardi

So is 2011 the signal that climate change that is occurring is a shift from a natural warming phase to a natural cooling phase?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
03:45 PM on 01/21/2012
Richard2 - You want to take a single La Nina year that is the 9th warmest year on record and call that an indication of a cooling trend? LOL.
06:32 PM on 01/21/2012
He is so freakin' wrong it's ridiculous. We're getting a bit of La Nina here at the outset of 2012, but after that it's probably El Nino, and GMT is going to shoot upwards.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:37 PM on 01/21/2012
Richard2 here claims to not be the following Richard2 referred to in the following comment about the Cascade Policy Institute, Portland, OR

"Richard - I think that the persons at CPI are decent folks - very smart, well-spoken, skilled. But the CPI is funded by and promotes the script of Corporate Libertarians. Koch Charities fund CPI interns who, I hope at least know that they promote policy that benefits Georgia Pacific, and other subsidiaries of Koch Industries (CPI O&C articles are a recent example). This is clearly Astroturf.

Readers can do their own research and decide for themselves. Check my posts...the Money Trail is evident. I hate the thought of Out-of State interests trying to steer the Oregon Legislature away from the interests of the citizens of Oregon. Big Money is known to corrupt the weak.

Finally, Richard2 - I now link you to that astroturf effort. I hereby dub thee "Errand Boy for Big Oil Wonks".

Posted on Oregon, city of Portland don't meet ambitious goals to power with renewable sources on December 15, 2010, 11:20AM"

http://connect.mlive.com/user/Korova_Milkbar/index.html
01:49 PM on 01/22/2012
2011. The warmest La Nina year on record. nuff said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
redhead55
06:34 PM on 01/20/2012
"...updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century..."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
04:18 PM on 01/20/2012
NOAA didn't report that 2011 was cooler than the average for the 21st Century, or by how much it was below the 21st Century average. Does anyone know?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roshi98
Dum spiro, spero
04:22 PM on 01/20/2012
You are familiar with the phrase "on record", right? Or are you another cheeky denialist searching desperately for another loophole to lend credence to your ideological perspective?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
05:03 PM on 01/20/2012
I would settle for objective, balanced reporting on weather and climate related topics. I find the following paragraph hard to swallow.

"The world last year wasn't quite as warm as it has been for most of the past decade, government scientists said Thursday, but it continues a general trend of rising temperatures."

How does a decline to one of the lowest annual temperatures of the decade "continue a general trend of rising annual temperatures?" Surely reality has been twisted into knots in the above paragraph.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gottlieb
hated by left since 1973 and right since 1982
03:33 AM on 01/21/2012
Denialists can throw up countless reasons against climate change but all their arguments mean nothing to the insurance companies who are raising the denialists premiums to manage the financial risk of climate change. I think we should say to all of them, "Tell it to your insurance company when they raise your premiums."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Milks
Ecologist
08:39 PM on 01/20/2012
Given that the 21st century is only 11 years old, the 21st century average isn't saying much. For what it's worth, the 2001 - 2011 average was 14.54ºC. 2011 yearly average was 14.51ºC, which was a new record high for La Niña years.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
08:59 PM on 01/20/2012
Thank you for providing this additional information. .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:34 PM on 01/20/2012
Meanwhile, RUPERT MURDOCH, News Corp./Fox News, $7.4 Billionaire (the guy who hires the guys who hires the global warming denying talking heads)

said more than 4 years ago.

“Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction. We must transform the way we use energy...”

http://www.newscorp.com/energy/full_speech.html
DIRECT FROM THE NEWS CORP. WEB SITE

Walking the talk, in 2011 he said,

"I am proud to announce that News Corporation has reached its first major sustainability milestone: we have become carbon neutral across all of our global operations and we are the first company of our kind to do so."

“But achieving net zero carbon emissions was never our only goal. Less than four years ago, I invited all of our employees, business partners and audiences to join us in this exciting initiative - and your response has been extraordinary. Today, I'm pleased to share some of our successes across the Company, as well as our long-term commitment to environmental sustainability.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-carbon-neutral_n_829640.html?ir=Green