2011: Earth's 11th warmest year; where is the climate headed?
The year 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said last week. NASA rated 2011 as the 9th warmest on record. Land temperatures were the 8th warmest on record, and ocean temperatures, the 11th warmest. For the Arctic, which has warmed about twice as much as the rest of the planet, 2011 was the warmest year on record (between 64°N and 90°N latitude.) The year 2011 was also the 2nd wettest year over land on record, as evidenced by some of the unprecedented flooding Earth witnessed. The wettest year over land was the previous year, 2010.
Figure 1. Departure of global temperature from average for 2011. The Arctic was the warmest region, relative to average. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.
How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?
The El Niño/La Niña cycle causes cyclical changes in global temperatures that average out to zero over the course of several decades. La Niña events bring a large amount of cold water to the surface in the equatorial Eastern Pacific, which cools global temperatures by up to 0.2°C. El Niño events have the opposite effect. The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. Global temperatures were 0.12°C (0.2°F) cooler than the record warmest year for the planet (2010), and would very likely have been the warmest on record had an El Niño event been present instead.
Figure 2. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1950 - 2011, classified by phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. ENSO is a natural episodic fluctuation in sea surface temperature (El Niño/La Niña) and the air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Over a period of months to a few years, ENSO fluctuates between warmer-than-average ocean surface waters (El Niño) and cooler-than-average ocean surface waters (La Niña) in that region. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.
Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution
We know that natural episodes of global warming or cooling in the distant past have been caused by changes in sunlight and volcanic dust. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 33 years we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010, took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 33 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.
Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2010, adjusted to remove natural variations due to fluctuations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in sunlight. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image credit Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010 by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.
Commentary: what do climate scientists think?
Some scientists have proposed that previously unknown natural causes could be responsible for global warming, such as a decrease in cloud-producing galactic cosmic rays. Others have proposed that the climate may be responding to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide by producing more clouds, which reflect away sunlight and offset the added heat-trapping gases. These theories have little support among actively publishing climate scientists. Despite public belief that climate scientists are divided about the human contribution to our changing climate, polling data show high agreement among climate scientists that humans are significantly affecting the climate. A 2008 poll of actively publishing climate scientists found that 97% said yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" In my personal experience interacting with climate scientists, I have found near-universal support for this position. For example, I am confident that all 23 climate scientists and meteorologists whom I am personally acquainted with at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science would agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you.
Where is the climate headed?
The 2007 United Nations-sponsored IPCC report predicted that global temperatures between 2007 and 2030 should rise by an average of 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. The observed warming over the past 30 years is 15 - 30% below that (but within the range of uncertainty given by the 2007 IPCC climate models.) Most of the increase in global temperatures during the past 30 years occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. The 2000s have seen relatively flat temperatures, despite increasing CO2 emissions by humans. The lower-than-expected warming may be partially due to a sharp decrease in stratospheric water vapor that began after 2000. The missing heat may also be going into the deep ocean waters below about 1,000 feet (300 meters), as part of a decades-long cycle that will bring extra heat to the surface years from now. Regardless, the laws of physics demand that the huge amount of heat-trapping gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere must be significantly altering the weather and climate, even if we are seeing a lower than predicted warming. As wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood said in a recent post,Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: "Given that greenhouse gases are well-known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it."
Our recent unusual weather has made me think about this a lot. The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have become significantly disrupted over the past few years. Many of Earth's major atmospheric circulation patterns have seen significant shifts and unprecedented behavior; new patterns that were unknown have emerged, and extreme weather events were incredibly intense and numerous during 2010 - 2011. It boggles my mind that in 2011, the U.S. saw 14 - 17 billion-dollar weather disasters, three of which matched or exceeded some of the most iconic and destructive weather events in U.S. history--the "Super" tornado outbreak of 1974, the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, and the great Mississippi River flood of 1927. I appeared on PBS News Hour on December 28 (video here) to argue that watching the weather over the past two years has been like watching a famous baseball hitter on steroids--an analogy used in the past by climate scientists Tony Broccoli and Jerry Meehl. We're used to seeing the slugger hit the ball out of the park, but not with the frequency he's hitting them now that he's on steroids. Moreover, some of the home runs now land way back in the seats where no one has ever been able to hit a home run before. We can't say that any particular home run would not have occurred without the steroids, but the increase in home runs and the unprecedented ultra-long balls are highly suspicious. Similarly, Earth's 0.6°C (1°F) warming and 4% increase in global water vapor since 1970 have created an atmosphere on steroids. A warmer atmosphere has more energy to power stronger storms, hotter heat waves, more intense droughts, and heavier flooding rains. Natural weather patterns could have caused some of the extreme events we witnessed during 2010 - 2011, and these years likely would have been naturally extreme years even without climate change. But it strains the bounds of credulity that all of the extreme weather events--some of them 1-in-1000-year type events--could have occurred without a significant change to the base climate state. Mother Nature is now able to hit the ball out of the park more often, and with much more power, thanks to the extra energy global warming has put into the atmosphere.
Extreme weather years like 2010 and 2011 are very likely to increase in frequency, since there is a delay of several decades between when we put heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere and when the climate fully responds. This is because Earth's oceans take so long to heat up when extra heat is added to the atmosphere (think about how long it takes it takes for a lake to heat up during summer.) Due to this lag, we are just now experiencing the full effect of CO2 emitted by the late 1980s; since CO2 has been increasing by 1 - 3% per year since then, there is a lot more climate change "in the pipeline" we cannot avoid. We've set in motion a dangerous boulder of climate change that is rolling downhill, and it is too late to avoid major damage when it hits full-force several decades from now. However, we can reduce the ultimate severity of the damage with strong and rapid action. A boulder rolling downhill can be deflected in its path more readily early in its course, before it gains too much momentum in its downward rush. For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that every dollar we invest in alternative energy before 2020 will save $4.30 later. There are many talented and dedicated people working very hard to deflect the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change--but they need a lot more help very soon.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index
It's not a crime to produce CO2, else they'd have to execute everyone.
You can't legislate away global warming by international law. Want to know why?
Because nobody would obey it anyway, and then if anyone tries to enforce it, they'll start World War 3.
Do you really tink anyone is going to cut their carbon production by 50% in advanced nations just to offset the improvements in world living standards in developing nations and 3rd world nations, and global population continues increasing above 10% per decade?
Not likely unless a complete revolution in energy occurs, AND Americans and Europeans get rid of the "NIMBY" attitude as it regards wind and solar systems.
You haven't seen anything yet, really.
The CO2 and methane curves lag about 16 to 20 years behind the population curve, because a person's individual contribution to pollution doesn't REALLY start to kick in until they start driving regularly, and get their first "real" job.
I'm not involved with any oil industry.
I'm just telling you the simple truth about a founding principle of this country.
You cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not a crime at the time the act was committed.
Link
Who are these so called 16 "scientists"?
The tempereratures are below freezing point since 4 days,so the water had not enough time for freeze :)
The younger generations can do a class action lawsuit against people who intentionally wrecked their world. It will be a big, big lawsuit and even if my kid only gets a million bucks, so will 7 billion other people. That's quite a bit of dough, don't you think?
LoL
By Lawrence Villamar | January 30, 2012 4:00 PM EST
Professor Carlos Duarte, a leading scientist from The University of Western Australia, says human kind is set to face dire consequences as the first signs of climate change manifest in the Arctic. He says the region is approaching “a series of ‘tipping points’” that could trigger a domino effect of climate change on Earth.
In a paper, the lead author Professor Duarte, who is also the Director of the University’s Oceans Institute, said the Arctic region contained arguably the greatest concentration of potential tipping elements for global climate change.
“If set in motion, they can generate profound climate change which places the Arctic not at the periphery but at the core of the Earth system,” Professor Carlos Duarte said. “There is evidence that these forces are starting to be set in motion.”
“This has major consequences for the future of human kind as climate change progresses.”
Professor Duarte said the loss of Arctic summer sea ice forecast over the next four decades was expected to have abrupt knock-on effects in northern mid-latitudes, including Beijing, Tokyo, London, Moscow, Berlin and New York.
Research showed that the Arctic was warming at three times the global average and the loss of sea ice, which had melted faster in summer than predicted, was linked tentatively to recent extreme cold winters in Europe.
Professor Duarte said the most dangerous aspect of Arctic climate change was the risk of passing critical “tipping points”.
Arctic records showed unambiguously that sea ice volume had declined dramatically over the past two decades, Professor Duarte said. In the next 10 years, summer sea ice could be largely confined to north of coastal Greenland and Ellesmere Island, and was likely to disappear entirely by mid-century.
“Some environmental and biological elements may be linked in a domino effect of tipping points that cascade rapidly once the summer sea ice is lost,” Professor Duarte said.
However, semantic confusion masquerading as scientific debate had delayed an urgent need to start managing the reality of dangerous climate change in the Arctic, Professor Duarte said.
A drop in Arctic ice had opened new shipping routes, expanded oil, gas and mineral exploitation, increased military and research use, and led to new harbours, houses, roads, airports, power stations and other support facilities
It had triggered a new gold rush to access these resources, with recent struggles by China, Brazil and India to join the Arctic Council where the split of these resources was being discussed.
But increased deposits of black carbon (soot) from coal-burning power stations and stoves on snow and ice had accelerated warming and ice melt.
Top predators such as polar bears were declining, more methane gas was entering the atmosphere as permafrosts and submarine methane hydrates thawed, freshwater discharge had increase 30 per cent recent years and the Arctic Sea was warming faster as the ice cap melted, trapping more solar heat instead of reflecting it back into space.
In the subarctic region, dieback of the boreal forest and desiccation of peat deposits leading to uncontrolled peat fires (such as those that affected Russia in the summer of 2010) would further enhance greenhouse gas emissions.
Professor Duarte said the rate of Arctic climate change was now faster than ecosystems and traditional Arctic societies could adapt to.
The Arctic was expected to stop being a carbon dioxide sink and become a source of greenhouse gases if seawater temperatures rose 4-5ºC.
“It represents a test of our capacity as scientists, and as societies to respond to abrupt climate change,” Professor Duarte said.
“We need to stop debating the existence of tipping points in the Arctic and start managing the reality of dangerous climate change.
“We argue that tipping points do not have to be points of no return.
“Several tipping points, such as the loss of summer sea ice, may be reversible in principle − although hard in practice.
“However, should these changes involve extinction of key species − such as polar bears, walruses, ice-dependent seals and more than 1000 species of ice algae − the changes could represent a point of no return.
“Confusion distracts attention from the urgent need to focus on developing early warning indicators of abrupt climate change, address its human causes and rebuild resilience in climate, ecosystems and communities.”
Duarte’s paper was published in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ journal AMBIO and a parallel commentary is available in Nature Climate Change.
Source: University of Western Australia
To contact the editor, e-mail: editor@ibtimes.com
Riight...
Because $7 Quadrillion really exists, and them oil companies really have that much money to pay out.
I think you've lost your mind.
Even if a class action lawsuit somehow did happen, you'd only get about a dollar per person.
A new blog entry is up, by the way.
Video Link
Jer featured this the other day.. They have descriptions of each at the end. Some have obvious ties degree wise to things like big Ag, tech, economy & oil. Others are disgruntled by the whole political scene, like the one that lost his climate job in AU. Interesting part is they don't deny it any longer..And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet..they just don't see the harm in a sudden climate shift to humans & animals. They don't address how CO2 is making the ocean suddenly acidic, effects of acid rain, sea rise or the environmental hazards.
Not necessarily. 2 of my 3 sons now in their later 20's with real jobs burn less fossil fuel than they did as teenagers in high school. Both now live in cities and bicycle where they can't get with public transit. Neither own a car and one has never even gotten a driver's license. As teenagers they lived in the country and drove or was driven somewhere everyday. Models for the future, I hope.
As far as NIMBY goes, I'd love to see big windmills all along the top of the Blue Ridge and all along the coast. Either we destroy the mountains of Virginia and West Virginia to get at the dirty coal or we look at windmills on top of the mountains. Bring those big ones (3 Megawatts and larger) to the mountains and the coastal waters. Finally, if you are a serious wind developer and are looking for a central VA location, let's talk. That's what I think of NIMBY.
we dont need no windmills on top of everything to ruin the scenery, now do we?
Laws of the USA apply when one is in the USA.
SO who all here are "employed" by the fossil fuel industry? In your own goofy opinion?
Well, they aren't the 200+ scientists who tried to submit the same type of editorial to the Wall Street Journal a in the last couple of years, only to have it denied. I'd be willing to wager that the 16 scientists have less climate science credentials than the 200+.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/scie ntists-challenging-climate-science-appear-to-flunk -climate-economics/?smid=tw-nytimesscience&seid=au to
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/29/413961/p anic-attack-murdoch-wall-street-journal-finds-16-s cientists-long-debunked-climate-lies/
http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008
Link
Oh....you mean since 1880.
Nice sample.
"...the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change..."
Is it any surprise that the public at large is skeptical of these scientists imploring us to "do something" (i.e. spend taxpayer money) in order to avoid an near-certain catastrophe?
Please.
First off, anyone who has taken Atmospheric & Oceanic Studies 101 knows that isolating a single, short time period and extrapolating that into the future is scientifically wrong. Especially when the measurements are not consistent and are refined on a regular basis.
Let's take the TWC-like emotion and hype out of the equation for a second: Should we all care about pollutants that are being put into our environment? Yes, certainly. Should we all do what we can to reduce these emissions? Absolutely. Are we in fact doing that? Well, according the US Energy Information Administration, cabon emmissions are at 20-year lows in the United States.
Climate scientists who jump up and down the most about global warming, using/finding data to "prove" a conclusion that they had already reached - have done the entire movement towards cleaning up the environment a huge disservice.
The last ice age ended about 14,000 years ago, and accounts for the stories of the "great flood" that exist in most older religions, that story being handed down verbally until we developed written language.
From a geological standpoint we are 14,000 years into a warming cycle that will continue for about another 20,000 years, then begin cooling until we are back in an ice age like what existed 14,000 years ago. This happens over and over, within a larger cycle that lasts millions of years.
Will we go back into an ice age? Absolutely. Why? Because we are not adding new carbon, just bringing carbon that was on the surface, then buried (oil, coal, etc.)back to the surface again. We will use it all up and then we will have none, and eventually coal and oil will form again. It will take millions of years for it to reform, but it will, if the planet survives.
Now, human contribution: humans have brought back to the surface, and to the atmosphere, large quantities of carbon that were on the surface when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Everything I am told says this will "hasten" global warming by as much as 100 years. This seems to say that instead of reaching our peak heating cycle in 20,000 years (give or take) we will reach it in 19,900 years!
The point in all of this is to say that the earth is normally (based on the number of years in a condition) either much warmer or much cooler than it is today. In fact, humanity did not flourish until this temperate phase came into being, as other times were so hot or so cold that we could only exist, and that barely.
Now that our society has flourished in a temperate time we, in our hubris, have decided to keep the world this way. Sorry, it will not work; we can reduce the effect and offset the rising temperatures by 100 years, but the world is still going to get much hotter in the next thousand years, the polar ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise, coastal communities will become submerged (archeologists can find them thousands of years from now and speculate on the artifacts they find), and species will be wiped out.
Realizing that most people on this blog that will read this will be steaming at this point, why did I bother to write it?
Simply put, we need to begin to focus on how our species will survive with the inevitable warming that will take place regardless of our impact! But, as is normal for humans, we are so focused on the 1 degree of man made global warming that we completely ignore preparing our societies for the 10 or 15 degrees of natural warming!
Unless, of course, a major volcano or asteroid cools us down...but we are not prepared for that either, are we?
Viewing: 801 - 832
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index