NASA: 2007 Second Warmest Year Ever, with Record Warmth Likely by 2010

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.

... 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.

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.

Anyone notice a trend? And the most warming is far from the urban heat islands of major cities:

... 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.

But couldn't this all be the sun going through a phase of high solar radiation, a favorite explanation of those who deny that human-generated greenhouse gases are the primary cause of warming? No. As NASA explains:

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.

Not only are we in a solar minimum, we are also in a cool phase for the Pacific Ocean:

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.

What does this all mean?

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.

As you may recall, a Science magazine article from August predicted "at least half of the years after 2009 [will] exceed the warmest year currently on record."

Perhaps these record-breaking temperatures will finally move this country to action.

Related Posts:

• Must read from Hansen: Stop the madness about the tiny revision in NASA's temperature data!


• 2007: Still the Second Hottest Year on Record


• 2007: First or second hottest year on record so far

Comments

[rcat99]

Perhaps the negative reaction we tend to get on the assertion of imminent climate disaster is the result of inferred finger-pointing. Those who feel they are being criticized for their long-established life-styles, I would imagine, can't help but be defensive and incredulous. Who wants to be blamed for destroying the planet?

It would be good if we could calmly look at the evidence -- we would have to acknowledge mainstream science -- and agree that this is where the earth was 1000 years ago, then it was here 100 years ago, today we are here and, assuming we stay on course, this will be the condition in 50, 100 or 1000 years hence. Then we ask: Is this a desirable course? Should we change something and if so, what are we willing to change? What is the trade off? Is it worth it?

As far as the issue of human impact on the environment and long-term climate change, I find it hard to believe that 6 billion people living, eating, drinking, breathing, etc., on the surface of the globe does not have an impact. I know that the Gaia theorists believe that mother earth will ultimately take care of herself but that's over very, very long cycles and a lot of unpleasantness can befall human beings in the process.

Obviously, we affect each other, we affect the environment and the environment affects us. I don't see how it could be any other way. But it doesn't necessarily have to be in a bad way. It's putting these obvious relationships into pejorative terms that causes some to get their backs up.

[PerryWhite]

What is the proper/cor­rect/ideal temperature for the earth?

[jdm58]

I don't know what Congress is waiting for. H.R.6, which was clotured last week, was the best chance this country had to stop this madness. I wrote my Senators about it (one didn't even vote). Click here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00416
See how your Senator voted, and if "nay" or "didn't vote", call or send them an e-mail and let them know where you stand. If they voted "yea", send them a thank you. The more they hear from us, the voters, the less "voice" the oil and coal lobbyists have. Only 7 more votes are needed to end cloture and make the bill veto-proof, and 5 Senators didn't even vote. Some of these Senators are up for re-election next year, you might remind them their vote will effect yours. While the rest of the world is meeting in Bali, trying to settle on a solution that will slow the warming process down, and protect Islands like the Maldives from sinking under the ocean,displacing thousands of people, our government is sitting on its hands, saying change is too hard. It is making me sick.

[AreYouSerious]

I know tons of smart, educated people who don't believe in Global Warming. I believe in it, it seems pretty common sensical. Earth billion years old, Industrial Revolution begins, polutants polute air, thus causing harm on Earth. I don't need a NASA report to show me that we're causing a lot of harm to earth, but apparently even a NASA report can't convince some of my educated friends and family that Global Warming does exist. I feel those who don't believe in it won't until it is too late.

[Tator]

Junk Science-This from NASA who was just caught fudging the data and had to correct it. They also resisted releasing their source code for there models because we find out they again added a fudge factor to force the data they way they wanted it.

Sorry folks you are relying on UN HACK socialist scientist and those at the Academic Grant Tit. You are getting snookered.

[Ammobob]

Since somewhat 'reliable' data has only been collected since 1880 and half the temperature rise of 0.6 C occurred BEFORE 1950, records for 'mean higher global temperatures' will occur almost annually, don't you think?

There is much conflicting data collected over a relatively short time span. Though to be sure, climate change is happening.

[usna73]

In 2008 Americans will again have the opportunity to decide if they think science is relevant, OR if they prefer to have decisions made by someone who doesn't believe that evolution is valid. Well I guess that there is always the "rapture" as we literally destroy our planet. The only thing that appears not to be truly evolved is the brains of right wing Neanderthals.

[Gabrielle]

TOO LATE...PAS­S THE TIPPING POINT...

[dave]

If we end global capitalism we would end global warming. Until we show the courage to fight that evil, we can never truly combat global warming.