Are you concerned that 2008 was the hottest La Nina year on record?

The long-term warming trend certainly concerns me. La Nina-influenced years, which tend to bring cooler short-term global temperatures, are indeed getting warmer over time.

temperature anomalies in various la Nina - influenced years (1951-1980 baseline):

1976: -0.16

1985: +0.05

1989: +0.20

1996: +0.30

2000: +0.33

2008: +0.44

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.tx...

Note that ENSO (la Nina or el Nino) varies in strength so the above is a general analysis.

Also note we're also in a longer-than-usual solar cycle minimum, although the effects on global temperature from solar fluctations aren't that large. You'd have to go back to 1976 to observe the same combination of conditions (the solar minimum is lower now but the la Nina of 2008 a bit weaker), yet global temperatures are roughly 0.6 C higher. So, while natural variation can temporarily flatten the warming trend, particularly while moving into la Nina conditions, the long-term warming trend from GHGs is unlikely to be affected.

One point of contention: el Nino is no guarantee in the near future. Models mostly predict ENSO neutral or el Nino developing later this year.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitori...

EDIT

Note to Jim Z,

"Dana tried to debunk it but frankly he isn't qualified and his link didn't provide jack."

If you pull your head out of the sand for a moment, you'll see that Dana referenced two sources: one to a clear critique of the non-peer-reviewed study in your link (hint: terrible spatial coverage is one fatal flaw), and parroted by Spencer. The sources of this critique are highly qualified published climate scientists. The 2nd link is to a recent peer-reviewed study that use multiple proxies (without tree rings) and has excellent coverage.

I guess this comes back to the Dunning-Kruger Effect and the know-it-all ignorance of the contrarian crowd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Straight question, here's my answer. I think it will be the hottest year on record. Looking at it like Jimmy the Greek. The hockey stick model seems to be holding, and it suggests year over year new records are inevitable. This summer so far in Maryland has been a scorcher -- a whamdoodler of a scorcher. The Media and Institutional bias favors the hottest year ever forecast. Lot's of new people doing measurements. The media has no story if it has no hype -- so everything is the biggest X ever! (whatever X is). Doctoral candidates can write better dissertations if they can report surprizing and dangerous data has been collected. Without any corruption, without any dishonesty, and with no fudging at all, I still think the media and institutional bias favors the forecast I've made. Whoever reports the news, shapes the news. If it's the second hottest year, that's not a real big story. But the all time record smasher, that's front page. I don't know what the effect of the oil slick is. I suspect it may be a warming effect for two reasons -- decreased albedo and decreased evaporation (which has a cooling effect on ocean waters). The albedo effect includes the beaches, the tidal marshes, and the open water. Also less evaporation might mean less snow this coming winter, maybe even a mild winter. Jimmy the Greek. He doesn't have to "prove" anything when he bets on a pony. Your question calls for Jimmy the Greek type speculative answers, and I've given you mine, but with reasons for it. Note to Dr.M -- It either is the hottest year on record or it is not the hottest year on record. Academics stumble over their immense logjam clog of "knowledge" until the most elementary aspect of logic escape them completely. I almost never use academics as "expert" witnesses because they are so confused, so upside down and backwards. The question is a straight question, to which I observe, you proffered no answer apart from your desultory wanderings into how complex it all is. Dana knows it's complex. He follows this fanatically from day to day, every article, every particle. So Doc, shut your gob. Thanks.

The implication in your question is that we are in for a hot spell in the next few years. Whilst I would agree with this, I wouldn't say I was particularly concerned!

As an optimist, I believe we will rise to the challenge and solve this one.

We're not the sort of species that ends up as a foot note on the pages of history! We're not the sort of species to sit back and let things happen, we're going to sort it!

... aren't we?

Yes, not only was it a strong La Nina year, but also a solar cycle minimum. Despite these 2 cooling effects, 2008 was still the 9th-hottest year on record, only surpassed by 1998 and 2001-2007.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...

NASA GISS has predicted that once ENSO switches to El Nino conditions, we'll break the previous global temperature record.

"Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

People who don't want to believe that humans are causing global warming are allowing themselves to be fooled by the brief recent lull in increasing global temperatures, which has been due to these 2 masking effects. But as you note, when you compare apples with apples, La Nina years with La Nina years, it becomes clear that man-made global warming hasn't gone away.

A debunking of the graph linked by jim z is available here, by the way: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...

And here is an accurate reconstruction:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

Not concerned in the slightest. It is amazing how good news always manages to get a negative spin from alarmists. First you suggest that La Nina's and El Ninos have been around for thousands years which is certainly true but our record of them isn't nearly that old. We have been generally warming for 300 years. If you don't believe me, then look at the global temperatures in the last 2000

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-backgro...

You notice there is an upward trend on that graph. I don't know if you can read a graph but common sense should tell that it is not shock that the recent La Nina is warmer than previous ones since we have been on an general upward trend for 300 years and it is certainly no cause for alarm unless of course you are an alarmist. Then everything is cause for alarm, apparently.

Note: Dana tried to debunk it but frankly he isn't qualified and his link didn't provide jack. Dr. Spencer is qualified. The data comes from non tree ring proxies. There is nothing magical about it. It isn't even disputable IMO. It fits with historic records. Using tree ring proxies is not reliable. One has to question those that wish to use proxies that have been shown to have very poor correlation to temperature. It can only be to use those proxies which advance their cause, not science. Mann used these as well as manipulation of numbers to come up with his hockey stick.

It certainly does concern me. It should concern everyone.

Well I wasn't until now, thank you very much for that.

Actually that little tidbit of information really never occured to me, but you're right.

So...... it was the warmest year but for a strong natural cooling factor..... which put it behind nine other years.

Right. Exactly. Natural factors are the key drivers.

Not even slightly concerned. I frankly find them to be completely incredible and it sounds like more of Hansen's incompetence or fabrications. I learned long ago that liars shouldn't be listened to.

Yep i am quite concerned thanks for sharing that with us :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.h...