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
That is some serious lack of snow cover.
Yes it is. The warm and sunny that we have been having just adds to the abnormality.
PRECIPITATION (IN)
TODAY 0.11 0.71 1995 0.10 0.01 T
MONTH TO DATE 2.65 3.49 -84 2.64
SINCE DEC 1 10.84 8.51 2.33 10.11
SINCE JAN 1 2.65 3.49 -0.84 2.64
Link
Good evening.
It probably has a ways to go but the ice extent is staying solidly below the -2 standard deviation line. I think it's a safe bet that arctic sea ice extent will remain below that line for the rest of the winter.
It will be interesting to see what the next update to this graph looks like.
Link
.......Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone............
just when i got to enjoy this nice sunny warmth lol..
I was still in Baltimore when I created my profile.
InAccuWeather has us getting snow next Tuesday or so. Not this coming up one, but the next one.
A link to the weather in OZ
Not the hatred for the Bible in my case, not at all.
I'm just looking for the real truth, and the whole truth.
The Bible claims to be that, but it clearly is not.
I once heard a Christian pastor say something stupid like, "The bible contains everything a believer needs to know."
I was like, "Oh really? I'm pretty sure I need to know lots of things that aren't in the Bible. You can't learn to type by reading the Bible. You can't learn to do your job, or drive a car, etc."
There are a lot of Truths contained in the Bible, and quite a few things that are pretty obvious from a certain metaphysical point of view, but as far as being absolute and infallible truth, it simply is not what it claims to be.
I wish there were such a thing.
Short of an actual face-to-face encounter with an omnipotent Being claiming to be God, nothing else will ever quite suffice the insatiable need to know the truth and dot every "i" and cross every "t," because any form of messenger or mediation will alwasy be under scrutiny and suspicion, as well as failure and fallacy of us all.
Feelings, doctrine, "Gee I sure hope my beliefs are the right ones," and, "Gee, I sure hope my life is what God expects of me, based on this arcane book and what some pastor says..." Those things are not enough for me, and they should not be enough for anyone.
If my soul hangs in the balance, why am I trusting the alleged witness of human authors of a book that practically opens by claiming all humans are evil and untrustworthy?
Holy books aren't good enough, because every religion has one, and by and large, the number one reason anyone today believes the one they believe is because that's what they parents believed.
Well they are all very, ver different, so clearly most (maybe all) of them must be wrong, so simply believing the words of an ancient text is effectively playing hte lottery.
Only when you play the lottery and lose, you just lose a dollar.
If you play the holy book lottery and lose (which apparently most people will no matter what,) then according to most of them, whoever is right goes to the happy place, and everyone else goes to hell forever, or whatever they call it.
Clearly, believing your family or nation's favorite holy book onlygives you like a 1 in 10 chance of being right, assuming any of them are correct, and nevermind thinking about all the people who died before the "right" one was ever written...
That's not fair, and certainly not benevolent. It's insane.
So yeah, Like I said, hope God has a better plan than the Bible, and a heck of a lot better plan than Revelation. That's a nightmare. Wes Craven or Stephen King couldn't have come up with something more sickening and inhuman. In fact, they actually stole much of their material from Revelation, believe it or not...
Welcome! Eventually I'll do more in my blog series.
What amount of remaining ice extent would meet your definition of 'ice free'?
the clue is to watch the old ice once thats gone there will be nothing but first year ice thats slop ice or slush you may pefer melts fast returns quick
Edit: reminds me of a heart beating. Old sea ice is pumped out during winter along the east coast of Greenland. Too bad it does not go back further than 1982.
Yes, extrapolations of both Volume and Area suggest that September and maybe even October will zero out in about 5 or 6 years.
In fact, extrapolations suggest that the 5 year running average September volume minimum would be zero in 6 years if you are allowed to use "negative" ice along the extrapolated curve.
"Negative" ice would simply represent additional heating, perhaps increasing the melt rate of the Greenland ice cap.
It is perhaps more useful to add up the Sea Ice and Greenland ice cap, treating them as a single unit, and then extrapolate when the total will disappear according to the exponential trend, seeing as how the net melting rate of Greenland is also doubling every 5 years.
Hello
Joe Romm has posted on that before. If we were to believe that the rapidly declining volume will continue as suggested by the plots... we could have at least 1 month of near zero ice volume within the decade.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/19/208088/a rctic-sea-ice-volume-death-spiral/
Personally, as an environmental scientist, this is one the most frightening graphics regarding our changing climate. Estimates of ice volume are much trickier than extent - and have more uncertainty - but by every measure the volume is dropping in a radical way. The amount of heat required to melt that amount of ice is almost unimaginable, and easily can explain a lack of acceleration in lower tropospheric warming.
oh boy, InAccuweather...man i really trust them...reeeealy trust them....lol.
When you say us do you refer to both of us? or just me, or just you?
Been snoopin around Walmart.com for another nerf gun lol
I think arctic ice sea extent will shrink more slowly than that. My guess is a million square km for the summer minimum broken in 15-20 years. Roughly 2030.
Hello.
Careful. That graphic reminds me of this.
;)
Not familiar with that though 115's avatar is Cure Sunshine, aka Myoudouin Itsuki.
Hello.
I wonder why I stared at that thing for 20 minutes. How you doing Brian?
I could put up the youtube clip. But the flashing lights in the episode caused seizures serious enough to send 700 Japanese kids to the hospital. Probably best not to.
Goodbye.
Viewing: 351 - 401
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index