According to NASA scientists:
Through the first 11 months, 2007 is the second warmest year in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Niño -- La Niña cycle.
Figure (a) Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature; the 2007 point is the 11-month anomaly. [Green error bar is estimated 2σ uncertainty....]
Even an "unusually cold" December, would only drop 2007 to the third warmest year ever. NASA points out:
The six warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 15 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1988.
... the greatest warming has been in the Arctic. Polar amplification is an expected characteristic of global warming, as the loss of ice and snow engenders a positive feedback via increased absorption of sunlight. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low Arctic sea ice cover in September this year.
The sun is another source of natural global temperature variability. Figure 3, based on an analysis of satellite measurements by Richard Willson, shows that 2007 is at the minimum of the current 10-11 year solar cycle. Another analysis of the satellite data (not illustrated here), by Judith Lean, has the 2007 solar irradiance minimum slightly lower than the two prior minima in the satellite era.
Figure 3. Solar irradiance from analysis of satellite measurements by Willson and Mordvinov (Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, no. 5, 1199, 2003) and update (private communication). Click to enlarge.
This cyclic solar variability yields a climate forcing change of about 0.3 W/m2 between solar maxima and solar minima.... Several analyses have extracted empirical global temperature variations of amplitude about 0.1°C associated with the 10-11 year solar cycle, a magnitude consistent with climate model simulations....The solar minimum forcing is thus about 0.15 W/m2 relative to the mean solar forcing. For comparison, the human-made greenhouse gas climate forcing is now increasingly at a rate of about 0.3 W/m2 per decade. If the sun should remain 'stuck' in its present minimum for several decades, as has been suggested in analogy to the solar Maunder Minimum of the seventeenth century, that negative forcing would be balanced by a 5-year increase of greenhouse gases. Thus such solar variations cannot have a substantial impact on long-term global warming trends.
The cooler than normal equatorial region to the west of South America reflects the building La Niña phase of the Southern Oscillation. In the La Niña phase of the El Niño-La Niña cycle the equatorial winds in the Pacific Ocean blow with stronger than average force from the east, driving warm surface waters toward the Western Pacific. This induces an upwelling of cold deep water near Peru, which then spreads westward along the equator.
The natural variations of the Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle thus have minor but not entirely insignificant effects on year-to-year temperature change. Given that both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, it makes the unusual warmth this year all the more notable. It also suggests that, barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years.
Perhaps these record-breaking temperatures will finally move this country to action.
Related Posts:
1. god sees that our climate is changing;
2. god doesn't like it;
3. god wants us to cut the crap, stop making things worse, and use more godly and environmentally kind methods of living.
Many bible-philes massage the bible to suit their beliefs anyway, so how hard could it be to twist it a bit differently?
That's just under 1934, right?
Everybody wants an instant solution followed by a break for commercials. The sober reality is that it will take a system such as capitalism, energized by the mechanisms of self interest that millions of years of evolution have equipped us with, to address as ponderous problem as climate change. We are products of nature, not aliens. Let's not invoke the worst excesses of our societies and preach that we're saving the planet!
Point: Business people have begun to study the topic, so go see what they say. Visit businessweek.com, "The real costs of saving the planet."
Point: Look at the latest scientific analysis released since the IPCC summary report was published. It suggests we retain a healthy level of caution regarding climate forecasts. See sciencedaily.com, "New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability".
The problem may not be as bad nor as expensive as you think.
Ignore these "contrarians" and you pursue your own version of what Mr. Bush did, relying selectively upon intelligence "estimates" prior to war!
Let's fix what's wrong with civilization, and be decent to one another, without devolving into theocracy based upon climate warming scriptures.
1observer
more coverage than AT&T and Sprint put together.
In a word, BIG. Like, 'wow' big. It's a large
body of water. Yes, that damn dihydrogen
oxide, that crap gets EVERYWHERE, when's AlBore
going to do something about it, dammit?
Doesn't he know that unsafe levels of
dihydrogen oxide in the home are hazardous to
life?
Anyway, all B.S. aside, as the temperature of
this body of water rises, its' evaporation
rate will ALSO increase. And, as more and
more tons of water become airborne in vapor
form, oooh golly are we gonna see some STORMS,
like 'real estate brokers out of business'
storms.
Moral of the story? Mother Nature can be
a royal bitch, so don't get on her bad side,
and if you do, hope you have a life preserver!
The fact that this will be the second-warmest year on record is not proof of cooling! They look at individual day's weather report, or even a single year (witness the 1934 brouhaha) and think that a single-event is evidence against global climate change.
Climate is not weather. Climate is weather over time, weather is now. Today may be cooler, but when taken as a moving average, the global average temperatures are unquestionably advancing.
Every single year, since 1976, has been above the average for the twentieth century.
The odds of that happening, is 4 billion to 1. (2^32)
The guys who can make Excel draw funny lines are libruls.
Penguins and polar bears are libruls.
And even if the libruls are right, and I'm not sayin they are, their librul coastal cities drown first.
;-)