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
Goodbye.
does this mean im famous when people start reffering to me lol xD
I wouldnt say something like that. I have no interest in ice.
Bye.
Does anyone know of a good severe weather alert app for the iPad?
Thanks in advance.
And goodbye:)
Posted on January 28, 2012
January 28, 2012 – MISSOURI – Washington’s emergency management director is encouraging individuals, businesses, schools and service groups to participate in a regional earthquake preparedness drill. The Great Central U.S. ShakeOut will take place Tuesday, Feb. 7, at 10:15 a.m. As of Friday, more than 1.6 million participants from the region have agreed to take part in the drill in some form. Of those, more than 366,000 are from Missouri so far. Those interested in taking part in the drill can sign up to register at http://shakeout.org/centralus. Bill Halmich, emergency management director, said the city of Washington has registered for the drill. Halmich provided city departments with information about the drill and said each department will participate in a manner that does not disrupt city services that day. A resolution to participate is expected to be brought before the city council Monday, Feb. 6, Halmich said. Unlike other natural disasters, earthquakes can be an unusual challenge to prepare for because there are no advance warnings, he said. Those who register can participate at different levels based on how much time they can allow for the exercise. “It can be as easy as providing information to your staff,” Halmich said, such as emailing employees tips on how to prepare for an earthquake at home and work or hanging banners and signs throughout organizations or workplaces. Another way to participate is hold post-drill discussions to hear what people learned and plan their next steps. Participants also can consider taking part in safety drills, discussing what to expect will happen during the drill and then holding a feedback session after the drill to identify strengths and weaknesses. Registered participants will be asked after the drill to provide information as to what they did to prepare. Then, those individuals or groups will receive a certificate of participation. Halmich is asking once participants receive their certificate to notify him so he can make a list of who in this area took part and how. On April 28, 2011, 486,238 organizations and individuals in Missouri took part in the first Great Central U.S. ShakeOut. –E Missourian
Scientists find new dangerous 200 km long fault off the coast of Japan
Posted on January 28, 2012
January 28, 2012 – JAPAN – An active fault around 200 km long that is believed to have been a source of huge quakes in the past has been found off Honshu’s Kii Peninsula, according to researchers at the University of Tokyo. If the fault on the Nankai Trough moves, it could trigger a magnitude 8.0 earthquake, the researchers said, adding they have found a seabed cliff several hundred meters high that was created by the fault’s past movements. “There is a high probability that fault shifts have caused great tsunami,” said Park Jin Oh, associate professor of marine geology. “We need to reformulate disaster countermeasures by taking into account an active fault on the seabed 200 km or longer.” Park analyzed sonar data on the seabed collected by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology and found a fault branching off from a boundary between two tectonic plates in an area west of the southern tip of the Kii Peninsula in Wakayama Prefecture. The fault was found to be connected to a similar fault to the east of the peninsula and to extend at least 200 km, the researchers said. While it remains unclear exactly when or how many times the fault has moved, the eastern and western parts are believed to have shifted often and at the same time, judging from the geographical characteristics of the area. Such movements may have caused the 8.6-magnitude Hoei earthquake in 1707, Park said. The eastern part of the fault is meanwhile believed to have caused a magnitude 7.9 quake and tsunami that struck in 1944. In addition, an extended area of the newly discovered western part overlaps the area where a magnitude 8.0 quake struck in 1946. It is therefore possible that the western part moved two years after the eastern part did, Park said. –Japan Times
Followed your link for the graph. Found this face book page with graphs
Link
One example:
I have been looking for a graph like this, thanks for the info
there!. :)
i figured you just did that so that everybody looks good on the 'filter' to admins
!emocleW ruoY
This is a historical event, him plusing a dozen comments. Better print this page out now and save it. Make it your computer background. this is bigger then the April 2011 tornado outbreak!
Sarcasm flag: flying high
lol? :P
I don't even... ಠ_ಠ
.nuf si ti esuaceb freN ekil I
?tahw neve t'noD
You must be really bored.
LOL yes I am!
!ma I sey LOL
I think I just invented my own language lol
That means you come in, and STAY in. :P
LOL. you noticed.
Maybe. lol.
Goodnight all!!
Yoru one of them:) never said anything negative to me since day 1 :D
Final, Goodnight all! talk 2 yal tomorrow!
Tropical Cyclone Advice #20
TROPICAL CYCLONE IGGY, CATEGORY TWO (11U)
12:00 PM WST January 29 2012
=================================
At 11:00 AM WST, Tropical Cyclone Iggy, Category Two (970 hPa) located at 20.1S 111.2E or 365 km northwest of Exmouth and 590 km north northwest of Carnarvon has 10 minute sustained winds of 55 knots with gusts of 75 knots. The cyclone is reported as nearly stationary.
Tropical Cyclone Iggy is expected to continue to move very slowly for the rest of today before taking a more southwesterly track on Monday.
During Sunday Tropical Cyclone Iggy may move close enough to cause gales on the coast between Onslow and Coral Bay though destructive winds are not expected on the coast. Gales may extend south to Carnarvon during Monday if Iggy tracks closer to the coast.
Tides will be higher than expected and there will continue to be large swells along the Pilbara and Kimberley coasts.
With the system expected to remain well off the coast, significant rainfall is unlikely over the northwest corner of the state.
FESA State Emergency Service (SES) advises of the following community alerts:
BLUE ALERT: People in or near coastal and island communities between Mardie and Coral Bay including the communities of Onslow, Exmouth and Coral Bay need to prepare for cyclonic weather and organise an emergency kit including first aid kit, torch, portable radio, spare batteries, food and water.
Communities between Onslow and Carnarvon should listen for the next advice.
Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
=================================
A Cyclone WARNING continues for coastal areas from Onslow to Coral Bay, including Exmouth.
A Cyclone WATCH continues for coastal areas from Coral Bay to Carnarvon.
The next tropical cyclone advice from Perth Tropical Cyclone Warning Center on TC IGGY will be issued at 7:30 AM UTC..
I GAVE YOU A PLUS
SULP A UOY EVAG I
.Tonight...Partly cloudy. Patchy fog. Lows 35 to 50 below.
Southwest winds 10 to 25 mph in brooks range passes. Wind chill to
75 below.
.Sunday...Mostly cloudy with flurries from the dalton highway
west...Otherwise partly cloudy. Patchy fog. Highs 30 to 40 below.
Variable winds less than 15 mph.
...if only we could divvy that up between the rest of the lower 48, then we'd actually have a decent winter.
Same here. the coldest ive ever been through was probably like 10 below... and ive probably never even felt that because i would have been inside... i just dont even know how to properly imagine -75. Nor do i really want to :/
You shouldn't get angry. That movie is 100% fact free. :)
If someone had asked me 5 or 10 years ago, I probably would have said the same thing. However, recent measurements of arctic ice thickness combined with declining ice extent has caused me to re-evaluate that position.
If the current status quo is maintained, I'd expect a practically ice free summer arctic no later than 2020.
Weather Station - report
AKDOT Richardson Hwy @ Thompson Pass MP 25.7, Valdez
Elevation
2900 ft
Station Select
Now
Clear
Clear
Temperature
-14 °F
Feels Like -49 °F
It's a little cold here :D
Kelley
If I'm not mistaken, after a certain point, temperature differences become negligible in terms of your skin's ability to feel them.
I meant more "I can't actually tell this is any colder", as opposed to its detrimental effects on your skin. I think the latter is quite clear.
that does make sense
Never mind....
Viewing: 401 - 451
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index