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
Because the system doesn't come out of the west like a regular low-pressure system this time of the year, it comes out of the tropics.
Not right now SPL,
just trying to finish out the 2011 recap! Gawd it takes forever to get done...
Anyone here think i should give up on it? I mean ive already made it to Maria, it's just gonna take me about a week and a half to finish the rest of it...
Just want to watch the currents, and not the past, especially with a potential Sub-tropical/hybrid low in the Gulf... it could get very interesting if it can tap into the 26/26.5 C waters in the Channel and the eddy.
PS: if u want me to stop the 2011 Recap, then i can write a current blog on CURRENT Tropical EVENTS...
That how Nor'Easters start, they form as a low in the gulf and explode as they hit the gulf stream and ride up the coast into Canada.
Not really, they usually come out of the west, dive southward into the Gulf of Mexico, and strengthen while moving up the Eastern seaboard.
you're scaring the children
I haven't seen anything that says thats where they usually start, too me it seems like a classic Nor'Easter set up. Though its 300 hours out so doubt itll happen haha
On the 9th and 10th of February, even the 10meter surface winds and precip shows a healthy wave, maybe attaining TD or TS strength, comes off the Yucatan through the Gulf.
1007mb low over the gulf.
1003mb low as it emerges off the east coast of Florida.
Might be legit
Of course, that is 12 days out.
Models only good to maybe 5 to 7 days anyway...
...and you ought to know.........
How about you continue to complete it. finish what you start:)
besides, you got 2/3 best ones to do...Ophelia, and Rina. I wouldnt stop.
WOuld love to read your posts in current tropical weather too though, so idk.
i remember watching TWC when i was younger. and seein them shoin a low come down throu the SW, then Texas, then the gulf coast, the start moving NE and 1/2 become noreaster
Tropical Disturbance Advisory #2
TROPICAL DEPRESSION 07F
12:00 PM FST January 30 2012
======================================
At 0:00 AM UTC, Tropical Depression 07F (999 hPa) located at 16.4S 166.3E has 10 minute sustained winds of 20 knots. The depression is reported as slowly moving. Position fair based on multisatellite infrared/visible imagery with animation and peripheral surface observations.
Organization has improved slightly in the past 12 hours. low level circulation center exposed with deep convection displaced to the east of the low level circulation center. System lies just east of an upper trough and under 250hpa diffluent region in a moderate to high sheared environment. Sea surface temperature is around 29-30C. System is being steered to the southeast by deep layer mean northwesterly into the region of decreasing shear.
Global models are gradually intensifying the system and move it southeast.
Potential for this system to develop into a tropical cyclone in the next 24 to 48 hours is moderate to high.
The next tropical cyclone advisory from Fiji Meteorological Services will be issued at 8:30 AM UTC..
Weather Current Events: Mid Feb-March
The pattern for the coming months-
The eastern US will be hit continuously by troughs diving down from Alaska/Canada and the Arctic... This will result in more Winter-like conditions, like Blizzards and Sub-zero temps...
On the other side of the US, Large High pressure systems will set up over the Western and South-western US, this will result in above average temps and below average rainfall... Which means the Drought will reign once more over the south at least for a month or two... Though break downs of the High will happen every once in a while, but the pattern should stay firm...
Tropics:
The tropics stand right now as they usually are around this time, but currently we are dealing with what some the hurricane models think is a possible Sub-tropical/Hybrid storm, that could potentially become Alberto, but the conditions have to stack up perfectly... I'd give the chances of this developing at 35%... Basically: 65% it will fall short of Storm status...
Big fat 985mb low just about sitting over Noumea, New Caledonia...
i mean otherwise the fact the low seem legit in the Gulf, it has some definate Frontal and Nor'Easter typer origon and development, so im gonna say a NO GO for both system the models pick up on, still interesting to see that the models are showing interest in our Basin already.
Give it 5 to 7 days before anyone takes this seriously.
If GFS is still hinting at it next week, then it might be worth watching.
It says rain on the map, but it is actually a snow squall, and I might pick up a dusting of snow tonight!!!!
Better you then me. Hear any thunder, send it down this way:) along with a thermometer reading 75 :D
lol
That would be completely weird...
Don't tarnish our hopes and dreams. :(
Yeah, that's almost exactly what the model is showing for Feb 9 and 10, except the model's storm appears to come from the Bay of Campeche or western side of the Yucatan.
I would never do that Kori. I think it would be awesome. But, not going to happen.
5" Jan 3-6, intermittent snow showers throughout
7" Jan 14-15
9" Jan 22-23
We also had 1 1/2" on Jan 11
Hope you're doing well Geoffrey and Shen.
When you come home, you will have to travel down to south Fla. so you, Grothar and myself can party. Of course, Gro's nurse will have to come also.
Does 'stan operate on Metric or English?
Posted by Mochizuki on January 29th, 2012 · No Comments
Following up this article ..Radiation emit has increased since January
Tepco estimated that the cesium emission of January is 70 million Bq/h, but it increased to be 72 million Bq/h even since 1/23, when they made the estimation. The radiation leakage is in the increasing trend.
From 1/22 ~ 1/28, emission of cesium per hour was 72 million Bq/h, Tepco announced. It increased from December by 12 million Bq/h. However, this is only the leakage amount from reactor 1,2 and 3. The leakage data from reactor 4 is not published.
Tepco explains it is because they started woking in reactor 2 and 3, more people walk about so the dust flies into the air. They add, it is really difficult to reduce the emission drastically.
Cold weather destroys water cooling system
Posted by Mochizuki on January 29th, 2012 · No Comments
Cold weather destroys water cooling system2
As exactly warned, water cooling system keeps having water leakage at various points.
On 1/29, Tepco announced they found water leakage at 14 points, 7800 L in total. That is because frozen water in pipes caused leakage at joint parts from the cold weather.
Tepco claims it’s the water after purification or plain water from dam, none of it has leaked to the sea.
At 9:35, heat exchanger stopped after 40 L of contaminated water leaked from the pipe.
At 9:50, Tepco employee found 600 L of contaminated water leaked around the flow monitor of emergency pomp. There was a water leakage even at reactor 6.
CBC on TMI: Reports of enormous increase in cancer deaths — Infant mortality rates doubled — Birds disappeared — Many mutations observed (VIDEO)
Published: January 29th, 2012 at 04:07 PM EDT
By Enenews Admin
Title: Counting the Costs: Three Mile Island
Source: Listener’s Choice from CBC Radio
Date: June 6th, 2008
Gwen Anderson was only twenty-three years old when she first heard “Counting the Costs: Three Mile Island” on CBC Radio. Now it’s twenty-three years later, and Gwen earns a living doing the same kind of work that the men at Three Mile Island did. She requested this Ideas documentary from Winnipeg. It originally aired on October 13th, 1986.
Transcript Summary
Reports we are getting say infant mortality rates doubled
More important is the enormous increase in cancer deaths in children in the four counties surrounding TMI compared to the numbers previous to the accident that the health department listed even on say leukemia
Animals and plants damaged substantially
We have done an in-depth report on plant life
We are seeing many mutations
We saw the leaves the first year
All the birds on the farm disappeared
The trees, it looked like winter
Not only did we see complete defoliation, we saw trees defoliated at different levels
The Tsar Bomba
October 30th 1961 - The Tsar Bomba, King of the Bombs, Царь-бомба or Big Ivan.
This footage is courtesy of the documentary "Trinity and Beyond", directed by Peter Kuran, and other footage is courtesy of the Discovery channel. The original footage was from declassified Soviet Archives. The music used is from The Planets Suite composed by Gustav Holst. The movement is 'Mars: the Bringer of War'
Before I get into the details of the test, I want to clear up something very important. The title of this video is "Tsar Bomba - King of the Bombs - 57,000,000 Tonnes of TNT". Understand now that this test wasn't the result of a detonation of 57,000,000 Tonnes of TNT, but rather the nuclear yield EQUIVALENT of a detonation of 57,000,000 Tonnes of Trinitrotoluene. The actual weight of the device was 27 tonnes. And coincidentally, one tonne is taken as a metric tonne, or 1000 kilograms - (2200lbs). All units used in physics are metric. The reason the yield equivalent system is used is because the energy released from the explosion of a set amount of TNT is a constant.
Second to that: I KNOW THE SCREENSHOTS AT THE END ARE OF THE CLOUD OVER THE GROUND. The reason I made a mistake was because when I made this video I was using a 6 year old CRT monitor with numerous problems, some of which with the shading. I greatly regret it butI cant be bothered removing/re-uploading the video again so Ill just live with it.
The bomb was designed as a 100 Megaton device, not a 50 Megaton device. This was due to its 3 stage design: fission-fusion-fusion. There is fission initiator that when detonated, begins a fusion reaction. Then there is a further fast-fission detonation (With neutrons from the second stage) of a Uranium-238 tamper which boosts the yield by 50 Megatons. For the test, the Tsar had its Uranium tamper replaced with lead to reduce the maximum yield by half (To 50 Megatons).
The blast yield was equal to that of a blast of 57,000,000 Tonnes of TNT....or to put that into context: The weight of 270 Empire State Buildings worth of TNT. This makes the Tsar the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated in history. Think of the destruction at Hiroshima. The Tsar was 3800 times more powerful than Hiroshima.
The bomb's weight was 27 tonnes, and its dimensions were: 8 meters (26ft) in length, and 2 meters (6.5ft) in diameter.
It was air-dropped, from a modified Tupolev Tu-95 Bear, and it used a nylon parachute to slow its decent to give the crew time to escape.
The bomb was dropped from an altitude of 34,500 feet AGL (10,500 meters), and it detonated a little over three minutes later at an altitude of 13,100 feet AGL (4,000 meters). In this time: The Tu-95, travelling at a ground speed of 480kts (552mph, 864kph), travelled into the safe zone (about 45km from ground zero) and was therefore 79km away from the blast.
When the bomb detonated, immediately the temperature directly below and surrounding the detonation would have risen to millions of degrees. The pressure below the blast was 300 pounds per square inch, ten times the pressure in a car tyre. The light energy released was so powerful that it was visible even at 1000km (621 miles), with cloudy skies. The shockwave was powerful enough to break windows at even up to 900 kilometres (560 miles) from the blast. The shockwave was recorded orbiting the earth 3 times. The mushroom cloud rose to an altitude of 64,000 meters (210,000 feet) before levelling out. The thermal energy from the blast was powerful that it could cause 3rd degree burns to a human standing 100 km (62 miles) away from the blast.
The radius of the fireball was 2.3 kilometres (1.4 miles). The blast radius (area in which total destruction ensured) was 13km (8 miles).
The most important thing to note is that this bomb was designed as a 100 Megaton device (Yield equivalent of 0.1 billion tonnes of TNT). If detonated, everything within a 48 kilometer (30 mile) diameter would be vaporised. Everything within a 195 kilometer (120 mile) diameter would be incinerated in a fireball. This would ensure total destruction of a large city like New York, Paris or London, as well as devastation on its outskirts.
A seir is about 600 feet.
A ghalva is about 720 feet.
A parasang is about 3 1/2 miles
A barid is 4 parasangs
A marhala is 8 parasangs
Afghani peasants may not know meters and kilometers well but they know their ghalvas and parasangs when talking distances or family land boundaries.
As you can see some are bigha than others.
But the most important new weapons are the ones that can devastate at a distance, without your adversary even noticing who is doing the dirty deed. Those are the weather weapons; the Earthquake weapons, the disease weapons. We've got em all. Nighty night.
Thanks for the vid. Makes me want to see the lights in person some day.
LOL
Viewing: 701 - 751
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index