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

[Technician]

The main issue has not been whether or not there has been some global warming. There ha sbeen about 1 degree Centigrade. The issue is whether CO2, which comprises a fraction of 1% of the atmosphere could cause the observed increase in temperature. Another issue which I have not seen addressed is this: automobile engines don't put out co2, they put out CO( carbon monoxide) not carbon dioxide.

[Usiku]

This is quite incredible and scary. Thanks for the comparative and visual data which helps highlight the skyrocketing rate of global warming. Without long established ecological balance, we are going to crash and burn if we don't hurry up and wake up. Another simple illustration of this preventable predicament can be found at http://usiku.net/somedreamspoem.htm

[wrabbitt]

We need to stop all the hot air,coming out of Washington. Its amazing that how something so inactive,non-directional can produce so much hot air. But, then being old,and out of touch has its draw backs,and its still not getting us anywhere. Some of the antiquated ice was around when some senators were first elected, They need to have the ability to change, and not just follow the same direction that we know has taken us nowhere. Remove the road block called congress and maybe we can move in the direction of the future.Global warming ain't going to go away on its own. renewable energy will be used in the future, or we will end up in the stone ages, again.

[PaulErlich]

How come you chose this data and ignored the recent report from the same source about how the subsurface currents beneath the Arctic fluctuate cyclically causing the ice to diminish, and then re-establish?

[Sciguy]

Perhaps we're going about this all wrong. Maybe we don't need Al Gore making movies about global warming, and we don't need NASA to show us what's going on. What we need is someone who can twist the bible in a manner that absolutely proves to the godly that:
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?

[Dollerhide]

2nd-warmest year, eh NASA?

That's just under 1934, right?

[scifiwriter]

It might be a good time to look into buying property in Canada.

[wrabbitt]

We need to review the building of houses in lower New Orleans, if sea levels rise even slightly we can have a new Atlantis, With the Polar ice caps melting at historical rates, we need to look to the future. if man is at fault, or this is just a 10,000 year cycle, isn't the question any more. Something has happened to change global weather. and, we need to change our carbon out put, regardless of the cause, Wind power is non polluting, Solar power needs to be made more efficient but, still is better than burning coal,or oil. and it won't run out in the future. We should have been working on the fuel mileage issue thirty years ago. when gas was .30$ a gallon. Worried that to many will be laid off? The jobs went to other countrys any way,GO FIGURE?

[1observer]

You see the ideological anti-capitalist rhetoric, and you should know that there are others developing a rationale for imposing "temporary global dictatorship" to combat climate warming. Those are their words, not mine. Beware of despots in climate change clothing.

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

[helonias]

No problem Bushco will just delete the bad news and all will be well.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I have this to say: The ocean is very very LARGE. Like, bigger than your house, even. No, WAY bigger than even your whole neighborhood, and stuff. It's HUGE. Spans the globe, has
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!

[Dendroica]

There is a major mistake that many of the climate-ignorant do not, or can not understand.

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)

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

NASA is full of libruls.

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.

;-)

[WilliePilgrim]

So, on one hand the model is good for predicting but only if you are trying to predict something that is solvable with carbon credits. See, here is something I find bothersom. Not just that some very respectible scientists who are ardently in favor of limiting human impacts are nevetheless uncomfortable with the degree of confidence in these models precisely for the reason the author mentions, but the author is in favor of following the the model never the less instead of a supporting a virorous examination an challenge. One must actually look for flaws in it, not simply find good reasons why the flaws aren't applicable to the current working theory. And, it's annoying to be called bad names by people who you generally agree with regarding environmental concerns but if they vary from the IPCC finding they're labelled "deniers" and "corporate enablers". In the mean time I'm keeping my options open and wondering why the "true believers" don't. Oh, yeah, true belief is like religion and questioning leads to doubt.

[cognate]

Our politicians should address God about this.