HOT PLANET: Global temperatures continue to be warmer than average, though 2012 was not a record globally.
Image: Flickr/NASA Earth Observatory
The globe was unusually warm last year but fell shy of a global record despite chart-topping heat in the United States, according to separate federal analyses released yesterday.
NASA ranks 2012 as the ninth-warmest year for the planet since record keeping began in 1880, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration places it at No. 10.
The two agencies, which conduct separate analyses of global temperature data using slightly different methods, agree that the Earth was about 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer last year than the 20th-century average, in part due to record warmth in the lower 48 United States.
"This past year, unlike the U.S. temperatures, the global temperatures were not a record but they were certainly warm," said Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
According to NOAA's analysis, 2012 was the 26th consecutive year of above-average global temperatures. The average worldwide temperature reached 58 degrees Fahrenheit last year, the agency said. NASA arrived at a slightly different figure, 58.3 F.
But experts from both agencies said the above-average warmth last year fit the pattern of increasing temperatures caused by man-made climate change.
Planet moving 'out of energy balance'
"Each decade has been significantly warmer than the prior decade since the mid-1970s, and that warming trend has been conclusively related to the effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions," said climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
According to NASA's analysis, eight of the nine hottest years on record have occurred since 2000. NOAA ranks all 12 years of the 21st century among the 14 warmest in its record.
The pace of warming appears to have slowed somewhat, Hansen said, describing a temporary "standstill" he attributed to the cooling influence of more frequent La Niña weather patterns.
But the scientist, noting that each of the past several decades has been warmer than its predecessor, said he expected the pace of warming to pick up again soon.
"On the decadal time scale, it's going to get warmer because we know the planet is out of energy balance," Hansen said.
In addition to record warmth in the contiguous United States, 2012 saw unusual heat blanket the Arctic, where sea ice cover melted to an annual low last summer, shattering the record set in 2007. The eastern tropical Pacific Ocean was cooler than normal, a sign of the La Niña pattern that was in place as 2012 began and fizzled later in the year.
2012 is the warmest year with a low- to moderate-strength La Niña in NOAA's records, Karl said, bumping 2011 from the top spot.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
38 Comments
Add Commentbeen waiting for the usual deniers' comments but nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswait, do I hear chicken sounds from their corner?
9th warmest? According to the global warming cultists we were all doomed by now. If Malaria didn't get us then starvation would have by now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"According to the global warming cultists we were all doomed by now. If Malaria didn't get us then starvation would have by now."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you inserted a disclaimer stating that no straw men were harmed in the making of your comment, you would be uttering a blatant falsehood.
yep, chicken noises...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismillions of people starving to death from the direct and indirect consequences of man-made climate change and you joke about it? malaria on the rise despite billions being sunk into containing it and you use your ignorance of fact to defend your egotistical abuse of polluting industries? US farmers going bankrupt by the thousands, many killing themselves?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe chicken sounds from your corner?... sounds like a headless chicken sh...
You made that up. Did someone pay you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd just like to point out, assuming there is no warming then one would expect that any given year has a 50/50 chance of being warmer than the average for contemporary years. What's the chance of a warmer than average year every year for the last 26 years? 1/(2^26) or about 1 in 64 million to one against...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly there's a trend here.
Nice succinct report, appreciate the quotes from James Hansen. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"According to NASA's analysis, eight of the nine hottest years on record have occurred since 2000. NOAA ranks all 12 years of the 21st century among the 14 warmest in its record." Can anyone tell me how many years of temperature data NOAA has out of the earth's 4.5 billion years. Does it include any of the last five glaciation periods or any of the very hot periods proceeding each glaciation period?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually yes. There are a number of radiological ways to get temperature data. Perhaps if you looked for the science rather than asking here you would find it, assuming that you are actually interested in finding it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs lying on sciam really the best thing you can do with your life?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'd just like to point out"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat you seem to have no idea how stats work. Rest assured, you can go back as long as you wish, the present data stand.
So, recalling your previous factless comments on climate change,
"clearly there is a trend here".
But hey, no sweat, go preach your gospel to the farmers. They will love to hear the good news from you, that their ongoing and ever increasing problems from AGW are statistically really only a minor hickup in the larger scheme of all things tharterish.
"I'd just like to point out, assuming there is no warming"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI first intented to wait for your inevitable reply about how statistics work and then shoot you in the other foot. But one should avoid unnecessary cruelty so straight to the point:
Your comment is based on ASSUMING THERE IS NO WARMING.
The one problem with that comment is that THERE IS WARMING.
Which means, your comment is completely meaningless.
It's like basing a business model on gold-plated light bulbs on the assumption that there is no daylight, selling gas-guzzlers on the assumption that fuel is not getting more expensive, posting comments on the assumption that SciAm readers will not think and so on.
But you get the idea.
At least I assume so.
Not relevant. It is the change in conditions over a VERY short period of time which is the issue, coupled with the large unneccessary cost incurred for climate change which can be avoided by less expensive changes to our energy infrastructure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is IMMATERIAL what the climate was in previous ages, it is only relevant what it is like now and how it is changing.
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - James Hansen et al.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake it easy. It looks like you misunderstood tharter's comment. They were just trying to illustrate how unlikely it is that no warming has taken place. Unless I'M reading the post the wrong way, the fact that the odds of 26 straight years being warmer than average are 64 million to one is solid proof that "Clearly there's a trend here."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeant to say, "Unless I'M reading the post the wrong way, the fact that the odds of 26 straight years being warmer than average are 64 million to one WITHOUT ANY UNDERLYING TREND is solid proof that "Clearly there's a trend here."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the sun has been in a quiet period for the last few years and La Nina has been mostly dominant since 2006. 2012 was the warmest La Nina year on record BTW. Climate Change is not determined by daily weather nor can 10-year snippets of time tell us much about the direction of the Earth's massive climate system with all the thermal inertia it has.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf warming was a matter of lottery then you could say there is a 50/50 chance of next year being warmer or not. But since when is the weather a lottery? Planes taking off on the odd chance of flight weather being 50/50 hailstorm or sunshine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd since climate is weather observed over a long period it cannot be a lottery either.
Tomorrow's weather is a consequence of physical facts happening today. And climate reflects these same facts on a large time scale.
Facts add up to other facts. Weather and climate have that in common with for example arithmetic. Whereas what you are saying is that the sum of 2 and 2 is a 50/50 thing. It's not. Believe me, the result of 2 and 2 is proved not to be a matter of chance or assumption or wild guessing but of hard fact adding up to 4.
In short, climate is NOT a lottery, it does NOT depend on chance. Therefore your and tharter's comments are (whatever). And applying his personal understanding of statistics to the climate is even more (whatever)squared.
If you were curious teenagers, fine. You're both not. You both parade as if you graduated magna cum lauda in climatology and math a long time ago. Which you obviously haven't. What does that then say about you?
You may want to seriously reconsider your standpoint.
"It is IMMATERIAL what the climate was in previous ages, it is only relevant what it is like now and how it is changing."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is NOT immaterial because climate history can tell us a lot of things. Worse, climate is NEVER immaterial because it is based on material fact. Which you don't seem to understand.
But let's suppose for a moment that only today's climate was relevant. Then you'd only consider today's facts and numbers? But since these facts are NOT and can NOT be the result of a lottery as you suggest you'd have to accept the results unless you can prove the math wrong which you can't. Even more so because you want to test climate stats on the assumption that they would be different if there was no warming; of course the stats would be different if there was no warming; unfortunately for you the stats are based on facts, and the facts are that the climate has been warming anormally. And since there is not enough natural reason, and since the evidence points to humans, one has factual reason enough to conclude that the present anormal warming is man-made. To argue about certain details is fine, to argue the overall conclusion is &%ç*.
BUT, how can you ask to reconsider today's changing weather ASSUMING that there was no warming and that the weather should be reviewed as a 50/50 lottery?
If it was a lottery you woulnd't have to consider anything because tomorrow's climate would then be the luck of the draw; so your whole comment is self-destroying.
Or, from a gamer's point of view, your comment is equivalent to shooting oneself in both feet by cross-fire. Quite a marksman you are. Or a good reason for gun control.
""The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo come here and pretend this in the face of all and any evidence... an EXTREMELY stupid thing to say.
"It looks like you misunderstood tharter's comment. They were just trying to illustrate how unlikely it is that no warming has taken place."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe I'm too material. I am used to consider tomorrow's weather based on facts, not on the application of odds.
"Unless I'M reading the post the wrong way, the fact that the odds of 26 straight years being warmer than average are 64 million to one is solid proof that "Clearly there's a trend here."
tharter would be saying that regardless of fact, the simple odds would prove a warming trend?
If tharter backs up your interpretation I will have to apologize.
(Am I so used to deniers that I see them now everywhere?)
I already apologize to tharter for having misinterpreted his comment as favouring climate change denial. I'm so used to hear deniers say that the climate has not warmed, that it is only temporary and perfectly normal, even that the temperature average has been flat or even cooling in the last ten years etc. When he brought up odds I immediately thought, what the hell, now someone attempts to explain climate warming by simple odds as if it was a lottery. And I pulverized my own feet? Good wake up call really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what got me convinced ultimately that he was subtly trying to give climate denial a new spin was his use of odds. Like saying that if red came out 26 times in a row at a roulette table, that this would indicate a trend. That he was trying to prove that it could easily have gone the other way. This completely abstract approach is against my completely concrete nature.
Yes, sorry if it was poorly worded. If the yearly average temperature is a 'random walk' around some (perhaps slowly changing) average, then the current trend would be VERY unlikely. This would tend to indicate that there is a distinct short-term trend towards increasing temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course statistics doesn't show causality, but IMHO that's already sufficiently established.
tharter, I must apologize. I seemed to vaguely remember your nick and from misreading your comment I then decided that it must have been that you were a denier. Your comment actually frightened me deeply. I believed that here was a for once intelligent AGW denier opening a new line of combat by showing that gambling odds could very well explain why there had been a highly improbable, but explainable string of warm years in a row, where another denier could then compare it to a run of bad luck, or a series of 25 reds at a roulette table, to "prove" that this warm weather run was only a natural folly that may end as soon as it started. Now, from having waded through all kinds of denier garbage and even threats over the years, the last thing I wanted was a new combat line. And I overreacted like someone who had been too long in a combatzone, shooting at every door banging in the wood, mistaking it for ennemy fire. Except that this time, I shot through the door and pulverized my own feet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo however appropriate your comment was, the very first thing that should have warned was that it was intelligent. Which is generally not the case with any AGW denier. Instead of overreacting I should have started thinking.
Another thing is that there are less and less deniers posting their usual stupidities so it may be from habit that I still counter-attack anything that even looks remotely like spitting in the face of the evidence. But maybe judging by the fastly decreasing numbers of denier comments they (some) finally came to reason or at least the new environmental evidence shuts them up. And I definitely need a time-out from figthing the dummies.
This is an attempt at explanation, it's not an excuse. I blundered, it was my fault, I believed my first impression to be the result of thinking, it was not, I did the idiotic thing and opened friendly fire. Believe me, I'm very sorry and do accept my deepest apology.
And kudos to sault, you stood up for tharter when my brain was still in self-destruct. Without your warning I'd still be putting holes in my own feet.
"shooting at every door banging in the wood"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisaiming at every bear shooting in the wood? another example of brain wild firing - should of course read banging in the wind
Nature may be out to cull the culprit species causing all this atmospheric dissonance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems pretty obvious by now.
"been waiting for the usual deniers' comments but nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswait, do I hear chicken sounds from their corner?"
Post anything about human evolution, Earth's origins, or Earth's climate and selective science deniers are sure to come out of the woodwork.
jctyler:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"millions of people starving to death from the direct and indirect consequences of man-made climate change and you joke about "
Baloney. US State Dept: stats...World per capita deaths due to stirms, drought, floods, famine, disease LOWEST in history...also lowest violence due to conflict over territory.
I'd just like to say...Statistics FAIL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGSA release: ...increase in carbon emissions over decade but decrease in global temperature. Have we been riding a wave of hysteria?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are going down the up escalator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html
JT
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe comment was NOT mine. I quoted James Hansen
Fully agree. Using stats, especially this way in the context is what triggered my reaction. Could it have been a subtle attempt at undermining AGW cred with the undecided?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill, regardless of how he meant it, it was simply too far away from reasonable application (an obvious dead-end) that I could/should have left it at that.
OTOH, thanks to tharter this is in whatever way and possibly preventively cleared up = stats don't apply, either way one looks at it.
global dimming (nothing personal)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissorry, yes, obviously, I wrote as if replying to Hansen himself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI need a break. Or am I acquiring bad habits from reading too much on the net?
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." - James Hansen et al.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, so? Sisko seems to think this means that there is something wrong with our understanding of why it is getting warmer; it doesn't mean that at all. A better way to look it is: There has been a double-dip La Nina and lower than average TSI over this period; why has there been no drop in temperature?
We have warmed a fraction of a degree. This makes us warm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, one must go back 16 - 17 years to find the warming pulse. Flatlined temperatures while CO2 increases by it's largest and fastest rise, breaks the seemingly false correlation. We are now warm but NOT warming, in so much, as the GMT indicates no significant increase for that time.
Jim Hansen, knows this despite his revolving door into prison. He is an activist/advocate, and as such, should not hold a senior governmental post. Still he knows the difference between being warm and NOT warming, unlike a few noisy characters here. GK