How would you react if 2010 is the warmest year?

It would surprise me if it really were a weak/moderate El Nino. But from what I read, it is not. It is shaping up to be a strong El Nino.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/november-20...

So despite the fact we are in a strong El Nino, and greenhouse gases continue to raise we have not broken any records. Historically, whenever we have had a strong El Nino event, temperatures have always fallen the following year. When temperatures fall next year, what is your excuse going to be?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. In fact, 5 months ago I also put it at 50/50 odds that either 2009 or 2010 would break the record.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200907...

2009 started off too cool to break it, but I think the odds are at at least 50/50 that 2010 will break it, despite the longest solar cycle minimum in a century and only moderate El Nino. The reason is that the anthropogenic warming signal has now added about 0.2°C to the global temperature since 1998. That should probably compensate for the weaker El Nino and solar cycle minimum.

However, there's a chance the El Nino cycle will subside in mid-2010, in which case cooler temperatures toward the end of the year could prevent it from breaking the Hadley/NASA GISS record. There's a pretty strong chance it will break the satellite record though, since there's about a 6 month lag before ENSO is reflected in atmospheric temperature data.

Considering that they have projected the current El Nino to be as strong as the 1998 El Nino if not stronger then we should see another peak World average caused by a NATURAL event. How often is the man made climate change crowd going to use NATURAL events to "proof" man made climate change? Also, considering that all of our temperature data is from the end of a Little Ice age to today you would expect the Earth to continue warming from a global minimum to the next global maximum.

It appears that liberal minds have yet to comprehend that the worlds temperature and climate depend on the output level of the sun. But as liberalism is a religion mot science that I guess is to be expected and the liberals in general will be the last of all as usual to get the simple basic fact that as loon as the sun is inactive the planets that Surround it cool, when the sun is active the planets warm up. But simple basic science is apparently beyond the mental capabilities of even the brightest liberal minds so as the world cools off with a quiescent sun providing insufficient heat to maintain a comfortable climate they keep complaining the world is overheating. Religious fever can really blind people to scientific reality can it not..

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it. And as well how many years, centuries or millennia it might be before the world warms up again from the coming ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_200...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.h...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmosphe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

They flipped a coin and got heads.

I mean come on 'more likely than not' 2010 will be the warmest but then they immediately follow up by saying it is 'not a certainty.' Great job at covering their butts. I thought their computer models were infallible. So the MET is telling us they cannot really predict what the climate will be like in one year's time yet they can predict what it will be like in 90 years?

That seems similar to the pronouncements that there was a 50/50 chance that the Arctic would be ice free in 2008.

People are beginning to understand the difference between crying wolf and science.

I don't think that 2010 is going to be the warmest year. It is going to be warmer but this is not sure, it depends on many factor.

The earth is slowly but defenatly increasing his temperature. We have to adapt, to drink more water to create more alternative sources of energy to cover our summer energy consumption. It's true that the climate it's changing, and we don't have the power to stop this.

As a conclusion we can only adapt and start to use the alternative and bio power sources to this planet.

Enjoy! have a good day.

It would mean I'd have to listen to people like you say that although 10 years of flat temperature is not significant, 1 year of warming is.

Tell me, did the model that is predicting a hot 2010 predict the decade of flat temperatures. If not, why do you consider it reliable?

Spend more time on the beach and spend a little more on sunscreen.

There is already a 50/50 chance, the choices are it will be the warmest or it won't. Love it when someone is so committed to there religion.

you're speaking of AGW of path ... surely, CO2 has to take up and emit particular wavelengths of LW radiation, we could desire to be increasing the quantity of CO2 interior the ambience and the steadiness of feedback's desires to be valuable. =================== on the factors you boost; -CO2 has a protracted atmospheric place of abode time (X years?)- no longer a call for; this is the finished interior the ambience no longer the A.R.T. of guy or woman CO2 molecules. -warming leads to bigger evaporation which finally leads to greater desirable water vapor (severe climate sensitivity)- a genuine looking assumption, and definite, in all danger needed for top climate sensitivity. -relative humidity keeps to be consistent- returned, a genuine looking assumption, yet no longer a call for. -the sunlight has a minimum impact (quantify?)- definite, the sunlight does have a minimum impact, yet returned, it truly is not a call for. -maximum CO2 boost is by technique of burning fossil fuels- no longer inevitably for the theory, yet factually definite. -recent temperature ameliorations are unparalleled- returned, no longer a call for. ================= could no longer inform you proper to the 'hotspot', or what could take place if RH wasn't consistent; Jeff and gcnp have given greater valuable solutions than i could desire to on those information.