Extreme Weather, Climate Change, and Public Reporting

If you have had any exposure to this subject, you probably already have your mind made up about my title. As I’ve gained exposure, via multiple disciplines, I’ve changed my mind. And that allows me to look at climate reporting in new ways.  Take this article and interview for instance. It’s meta-related, masked by the climate’s relationship to extreme weather. There are thousands of examples of conservatives ignoring science when it suits them. Doing so actually has more to do with conservatives operating from their value system. Are there similar examples of others ignoring science when it similarly suits them? I think it would be foolhardy to assume otherwise. Here is what I think about this article.

First, the mask: climate-extreme weather. There is no documented causal relationship between the two. In fact, the number of identified causal relationships between climate change and anything is still relatively small. There is a strong temperature signal. There is a growing ocean acidification signal. The sea level change signal is small but present and growing. How about precipitation? Nothing definitive. How about snowstorms? Nothing definitive.

But those signals are small against much stronger climate signals. Would something like drought or hurricanes or floods or tornadoes exhibit a stronger signal. In a word, no. There simply is not a detectable climate and extreme weather link today. That is not to say a future signal will not exist – there very well might be. But as of today, there is not. What science backs up that claim? The 2008 U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis Report for starters (p.42; 2.2.2.1):

When averaged across the entire United States (Figure 2.6), there is no clear tendency for a trend based on the PDSI. Similarly, long-term trends (1925-2003) of hydrologic droughts based on model derived soil moisture and runoff show that droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century (Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006).

So as of the early 21st century, U.S. droughts have become less severe, not more. The IPCC’s global analysis on extreme events concurred (p.171):

There is not enough evidence at present to suggest high confidence in observed trends in dryness due to lack of direct observations, some geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and some dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts (e.g., southern Europe, west Africa) but also opposite trends exist in other regions (e.g., central North America, northwestern Australia).

One big impediment to our extreme event trend ascertainment is our basic inability to monitor events in the first place. But based on the observations made, there is, in the IPCC’s own language, only medium confidence that droughts in some areas of the world are increasing in severity while decreasing in other places. Is climate change increasing extreme events? Not droughts – not yet.

What about storms like Sandy or Katrina (note: the former was a tropical system that changed to an extratropical system at landfall while the latter was a full-fledged hurricane at landfall)? There is at this time no global trend in hurricane frequency or intensity that demonstrates a clear causal relationship to climate change. There are indexes that a few scientists have developed to examine the data in different ways with differing results, but they require fairly complex methodologies to calculate. If I created my own index that demonstrated a relationship between the type of food I ate and climate change, does one cause the other? Certainly not directly. The hurricane-climate change relationship should exhibit a detectable signal in 50 more years or so. Until then, scientists cannot confidently say the data supports such a relationship. Extratropical storms increased in strength a little over the past century, although the locations of increase are limited. Their frequency has not increased.

Quickly, the same thing holds for floods and tornadoes. Datasets are simply too limited in space and time to currently identify a robust relationship.

As I wrote above, there are clear signals that we have already detected. The effects of those signals are mostly well-known, although some surprises are certainly in store for the planet. Extreme weather is not one of those signals. At least, not yet. If people are concerned about the level of inaction taken on climate change to date, it is folly to chase down or exaggerate signals that do not yet exist. If arguments based on signals detected are not enough to propel action, then we need to address their sets of values and how we communicate them. Fear-mongering and purposeful ignorance of science are not adequate substitutes.

Finally, I question the following from the article:

“I quote the climate skeptics or deniers — whatever term you prefer — when they’re relevant. So when I’m doing a piece about the science itself and what the latest scientific findings are, especially if that’s a short piece, I don’t necessarily feel obliged to quote the climate skeptics the same way that if you were doing a story about evolution, a New York Times reporter wouldn’t feel obliged to call up a creationist and ask them what they think. On the other hand, the climate skeptics are politically relevant at this point in American history [in a way that] the creationists are not, for example. So we have a fair chunk of the Congress … that sees political traction right now in questioning climate science or purporting not to believe it, so in a political story or in a longer story, I usually do give some amount of space to the climate skeptics.”

This quote comes from Justin Gillis, who writes about climate change for The New York Times. Does any of the above evidence make it into his interview with NPR? Here is my question: is Mr. Gillis a climate change writer or a politics writer? Scientific climate change writers should focus on the science. If Mr. Gillis wants to be a political climate change writer, he and the NYT owe it to their readers to make that distinction clear. Especially when double standards are applied to a different type of science writing. I would argue that creationists have a considerable amount of political traction right now also. I do not agree with their viewpoint, but if Mr. Gillis and the NYT want to write comparison pieces and not news pieces, I do not see why that effort should stop at climate change.

51.4% of the Contiguous United States in Moderate or Worse Drought – 12 Mar 2013

According to the Drought Monitor, drought conditions improved recently across some of the US. As of Mar. 12, 2013, 51.4% of the contiguous US is experiencing moderate or worse drought (D1-D4).  That is the lowest percentage in a number of months. The percentage area experiencing extreme to exceptional drought increased from 17.7% to 16.5% in the last month. Percentage areas experiencing drought across the West stayed mostly the same while snowpack generally increased. Drought across the Southwest decreased slightly and rain from storms improved drought conditions in the Southeast.

My previous post preceded a major winter storm that affected much of the US.  In some places in the High Plains and Midwest, 12″ or more of snow fell.  With relatively high liquid water equivalency, this snow represented ~1″ of water precipitation.  Unfortunately, these same areas required 2-4″ of rain to break their long-term drought.  In other words, while welcome, recent snows have not substantially reduced drought severity affecting the middle of the nation, as the following map shows.

Figure 1 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions as of the 12th of March.

If we focus in on the West, we can see recent shifts in drought categories:

Figure 2 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Western US as of the 12th of March.

Some small relief is evident in the past couple of weeks, including some changes in the mountains as storms recently dumped snow across the region.  Mountainous areas and river basins will have to wait until spring for snowmelt to significantly alleviate drought conditions.  As you can probably tell, this is a large area experiencing abnormally dry conditions for almost a year now.

Here are conditions for Colorado:

Figure 3 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Colorado as of the 12th of March.

Drought conditions improved somewhat across the southwestern portion of the state in the past couple of weeks.  The percentage area that is experiencing less than Severe drought conditions continues to track downward, which is a good sign.  Unfortunately, Exceptional drought conditions continued their hold over the eastern plains.

Here are conditions for the High Plains states:

Figure 4 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in the High Plains as of the 12th of March.

Again, even with large snowfalls in the past month, little drought relief is evident across this region.  What these states need are frequent soaking rains in the spring and summer to alleviate their long-term drought.  Agriculture certainly could use that relief this year.

And finally the area that experienced the most relief in the past month, the Southeast:

Figure 5 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in the Southeast as of the 12th of March.

The shifts in the numbers in the table tell a good story.  Frequent storms tracked over this region recently, which helped bust the worst conditions (Severe and worse).  Look at the ‘None’ category now versus three months ago: the percent area doubled!  Now the rains need to continue through the rest of the year.

US drought conditions are related to Pacific and Atlantic sea surface temperature conditions.  Different natural oscillation phases preferentially condition environments for drought.  Droughts in the West tend to occur during the cool phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, for instance.  Beyond that, drought controls remain a significant unknown.  Population growth in the West in the 21st century means scientists and policymakers need to better understand what conditions are likeliest to generate multidecadal droughts, as have occurred in the past.

As drought affects regions differentially, their policy responses vary.  A growing number of water utilities recognize the need to be proactive with respect to drought impacts.  The last thing they want is their reliability to suffer.  Americans are privileged in that clean, fresh water flows when they turn their tap.  Crops continue to show up at their local stores despite terrible conditions in many areas of their own nation.  Power utilities continue to provide hydroelectric-generated energy.

That last point will change in a warming and drying future.  Regulations that limit the temperature of water discharged by power plants exist.  Warmer conditions include warmer water today than what existed 30 years ago.  Warmer water into a plant either mean warmer water out or a longer time spent in the plant, which reduces the amount of energy the plant can produce.  We can continue to generate the same amount of power if we are willing to sacrifice ecosystems which depend on a very narrow range of water temperatures.  As with other facets of climate change, technological innovation can help increase plant efficiency.

February 2013 CO2 Concentrations: 396.80 ppm

During February 2013, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography measured an average of 396.80ppm CO2 concentration at their Mauna Loa, Hawai’i’s Observatory.

This value is a big deal.  Why?  Because not only is 396.80 ppm the largest CO2 concentration value for any February in recorded history, it is the largest CO2 concentration value in any month in recorded history.  More on that below.  This year’s February value is 3.37 ppm higher than February 2012′s!  Most month-to-month differences are between 1 and 2 ppm.  This jump of 3.37 ppm is very high.  Of course, the unending trend toward higher concentrations with time, no matter the month or specific year-over-year value, as seen in the graphs below, is more significant.

Let’s get back to that all-time high concentration value.  The yearly maximum monthly value normally occurs during May. Last year was no different: the 396.78ppm concentration in May 2012 was the highest value reported last year and, prior to this moth, in recorded history (neglecting proxy data).  We can expect March, April, and May of this year to produce new record values.  I wrote the following last month:

If we extrapolate last year’s maximum value out in time, it will only be 2 years until Scripps reports 400ppm average concentration for a singular month (likely May 2014; I expect May 2013′s value will be ~398ppm).  Note that I previously wrote that this wouldn’t occur until 2015 – this means CO2 concentrations are another climate variable that is increasing faster than experts predicted just a short couple of years ago.

For the most part, I stand by that prediction.  But actual concentration increases might prove  me wrong.  Here is why: the difference in CO2 concentration values between May 2012 and February 2012 was 3.13 ppm (396.78 – 393.65).  If we do the simplest thing and add that same difference to February’s value, we get 399.93 ppm.  That is awfully close to 400 ppm.  A more robust approach would be to add an average value – say the annual growth rate from the past 3, 5, or 10 years.  Over those time periods, the average differences are 2.31 ppm, 2.08 ppm, and 2.08 ppm.  So it’s probably safe to assume a growth of at least 2 ppm, which is what I did in my original prediction.  396.78 ppm + 2 ppm = 398.78 ppm (2013′s prediction).  398.78 ppm + 2 ppm = 400.78 ppm (2014′s prediction).  But if we use annual averages, we smooth out the large jumps in concentration values (like the 2013-2012 February difference).  There are other calculations that we could do to come up with a range of predictions, but I unfortunately don’t have the time to do them right now.  We will have to be content with waiting until early June to find out how fast concentrations are rising this year.

It is worth noting here that stations measured 400ppm CO2 concentration for the first time in the Arctic last year.  The Mauna Loa observations are usually closer to globally averaged values than other sites, such as in the Arctic.  That is why scientists and media reference the Mauna Loa observations most often.

Figure 1 – Time series of CO2 concentrations measured at Scripp’s Mauna Loa Observatory in February: from 1959 through 2012.

This time series chart shows concentrations for the month of January in the Scripps dataset going back to 1959. As I wrote above, concentrations are persistently and inexorably moving upward.  How do concentration measurements change in calendar years?  The following two graphs demonstrate this.

Figure 2 – Monthly CO2 concentration values from 2009 through 2013 (NOAA).  Note the yearly minimum observation is now in the past and we are two months removed from the yearly maximum value.  NOAA is likely to measure this year’s maximum value between 398ppm and 399ppm.

Figure 3 – 50 year time series of CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory.  The red curve represents the seasonal cycle based on monthly average values.  The black curve represents the data with the seasonal cycle removed to show the long-term trend.  This graph shows the recent and ongoing increase in CO2 concentrations.  Remember that as a greenhouse gas, CO2 increases the radiative forcing toward the Earth, which eventually increases tropospheric temperatures.

In previous posts on this topic, I show and discuss historical and projected concentrations at this part of the post.  I will skip this for now because there is something about this data that I think provides a different context of the same conversation.  The increase in average annual concentrations in 2012 generated quite a bit of buzz in media outlets this week.  I dismissed the first couple of reports I saw because I’ve spent so much time during the past year writing about the concentrations.  But more media outlets wrote and discussed the same topic as the week went on.  So I think it is a valid story, especially after I saw a graphic that I thought should have been the focus the entire time:

Figure 4 – CO2 concentration (top) and annual average growth rate (bottom). Source: Guardian

The top part of Figure 4 should look familiar – it’s the black line in Figure 3.  The bottom part is the annual change in CO2 concentrations.  If we fit a line to the data, the line would have a positive slope, which means annual changes are increasing with time.  So CO2 concentrations are increasing at an increasing rate – not a good trend with respect to minimizing future warming.  In the 1960s, concentrations increased at less than 1 ppm/year.  In the 2000s, concentrations increased at 2.07 ppm/year.

The greenhouse effect details how these concentrations will affect future temperatures.  The more GHGs in the atmosphere, all else equal, the more radiative forcing the GHGs cause.  More forcing means warmer temperatures as energy is re-radiated back toward the Earth’s surface.  Conditions higher in the atmosphere affects this relationship, which is what my volcano post addressed.  A number of medium-sized volcanoes injected SO2 into the stratosphere (which is above the troposphere – where we live and our weather occurs).  Those SO2 particles reflect incoming solar radiation.  So while we emitted more GHGs into the troposphere, less radiation entered the troposphere in the past 10 years than the previous 10 years.  With less incoming radiation, the GHGs re-emitted less energy toward the surface of the Earth.  This is likely part of the reason why the global temperature trend leveled off in the 2000s after its run-up in previous decades.

This situation is important for the following reason.  Once the SO2 falls out of the atmosphere, the additional incoming radiation will interact with higher GHG concentrations than was present in the late 1990s.  We will likely see a strong surface temperature response sometime in the future.

In my mind, the newsworthy detail is not that CO2 concentrations increased at the second fastest rate on record in 2012.  In climate, year-to-year differences matter less than long-term trends.  In my mind, the decadal concentration increase is what is noteworthy.  If concentrations rise by an average of >3 ppm/year in the 2010s or 2020s, a great deal of future warming and other climate change effects will occur.

It is my opinion that global temperature rise by 2100 will exceed 2C.  This target is primarily politically-driven.  Scientific research doesn’t exist that dictates 2C is “safe”.  Scientific research does exist that projects the likely temperature response to a range of CO2 concentration values.  If we do want to prevent >2C global temperature rise by 2100, we would have to immediately stop emitting CO2 and begin removing CO2 from the atmosphere.  We currently don’t have technologies to do either.

I have more to say about some details in the Guardian article from which I got Figure 4.  That will have to wait for another post.  The Science study the article mentions is worthy of discussion, as is the Guardian’s comment that concentrations continue to increase despite government action.  The article also links to a recent study of GHG reductions by 2020.  I will address these in an upcoming post.

NASA & NOAA: January 2013 Was 6th, 9th Warmest Globally On Record

According to data released by NASA and NOAA last week, January was the 6th and 9th warmest January’s (respectively) globally on record.  Here are the data for  NASA’s analysis; here are NOAA data and report.  The two agencies have slightly different analysis techniques, which in this case resulted in not only different temperature anomaly values but somewhat different rankings as well.  The two techniques provide a check on one another and confidence for us.

The details:

January’s global average temperatures were 0.61°C (1.098°F) above normal (1951-1980), according to NASA, as the following graphic shows.  The warmest regions on Earth coincide with the locations where climate models have been projecting the most warmth will occur: high latitudes (especially within the Arctic Circle).  The past three months have a +0.58°C temperature anomaly.  And the latest 12-month period (Feb 2012 – Jan 2013) had a +0.58°C temperature anomaly.  The time series graph in the lower-right quadrant shows NASA’s 12-month running mean temperature index.  The recent downturn (2010-2012) is largely due to the latest La Niña event (see below for more) that ended early last summer.  Since then, ENSO conditions returned to a neutral state (neither La Niña nor El Niñ0).  Therefore, as previous anomalously cool months fall off the back of the running mean, and barring another La Niña, the 12-month temperature trace should track upward again in 2013.

Figure 1. Global mean surface temperature anomaly maps and 12-month running mean time series through January 2013 from NASA.

According to NOAA, January’s global average temperatures were 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century mean of 14.0°C (57.2°F).  NOAA’s global temperature anomaly map for January (duplicated below) shows where conditions were warmer than average during the month.

Figure 2. Global temperature anomaly map for January 2013 from NOAA.

The two different analyses’ importance is also shown by the preceding two figures.  Despite differences in specific global temperature anomalies, both analyses picked up on the same temperature patterns and their relative strength.

The very warm conditions found over Greenland and Alaska are a concern.  These areas were warmer than average during more months in recent history than not.  Additionally, Australia was much warmer than usual.  Indeed, Australia’s January average temperature was the highest on record: +2.28°C (4.10°F!) above the 1961–1990 average, besting the previous record set in 1932 by 0.11°C (0.20°F).  In contrast to 2012, Siberian temperatures were cooler than normal.  This is likely a temporary, seasonal effect.  Long-term temperatures over northern Siberia continue to rise at among the fastest rate for any region on Earth.

These observations are also worrisome for the following reason: the globe came out of a moderate La Niña event in the first half of the year.  During the second half of the year, we remained in a ENSO-neutral state (neither El Niño nor La Niña):

Figure 3. Time series of weekly SST data from NCEP (NOAA).  The highest interest region for El Niño/La Niña is NINO 3.4 (2nd time series from top).

The last La Niña event hit its highest (most negative) magnitude more than once between November 2011 and February 2012.  Since then, tropical Pacific sea-surface temperatures peaked at +0.8 (y-axis) in September 2012.  You can see the effect on global temperatures that the last La Niña had via this NASA time series.  Both the sea surface temperature and land surface temperature time series decreased from 2010 (when the globe reached record warmth) to 2012.  So a natural, low-frequency climate oscillation affected the globe’s temperatures during the past couple of years.  Underlying that oscillation is the background warming caused by humans.  And yet temperatures were still in the top-10 warmest for a calendar year (2012) and individual months, including January 2013, in recorded history.

Skeptics have pointed out that warming has “stopped” or “slowed considerably” in recent years, which they hope will introduce confusion to the public on this topic.  What is likely going on is quite different: since an energy imbalance exists (less outgoing energy than incoming energy) and the surface temperature rise has seemingly stalled, the excess energy is going somewhere.  That somewhere is likely the oceans, and specifically the deep ocean.  Before we all cheer about this (since few people want surface temperatures to continue to rise quickly), consider the implications.  If you add heat to a material, it expands.  The ocean is no different; sea-levels are rising because of heat added to it in the past.  The heat that has entered in recent years won’t manifest as sea-level rise for some time, but it will happen.  Moreover, when the heated ocean comes back up to the surface, that heat will then be released to the atmosphere, which will raise surface temperatures as well as additional water vapor.  Thus, the immediate warming rate might have slowed down, but we have locked in future warming (higher future warming rate).

In a previous post on global temperatures, I pointed a few things out and asked some questions.  The Conference of Parties summit produced no meaningful climate action (November 2012).  Countries agreed to have something on paper by 2015 and enacted by 2020.  If everything goes as planned (a huge assumption given the lack of historical progress), significant carbon reductions wouldn’t occur until later in the 2020s – too late to ensure <2°C warming by 2100.  If, as is much more likely, everything doesn’t go as planned, reductions wouldn’t occur until later than the 2020s.  Additional meetings are scheduled for this year, but I maintain my expectation that nothing meaningful will come from them.  The international process is ill-equipped to handle all the legitimate interest groups in one fell swoop.

Instead, actions that start locally and grow with time are more likely to address emissions and eventual warming and other climate change effects.  People started small-scale activities in cities around the world in recent years.  There are also regional and international carbon markets.  While most markets were poorly designed, lessons learned from the first generation can be used to make future generation markets more effective.  As these small-scale efforts grow and their effects combine, larger bodies will need to address differences between them so that they work for larger populations and markets.

Paying for recovery from seemingly localized severe weather and climate events is and always will be more expensive than paying to increase resilience from those events.  As drought continues to impact US agriculture, as Arctic ice continues to melt to new record lows, as storms come ashore and impacts communities that are not prepared for today’s high-risk events (due mostly to poor zoning and destruction of natural protections), economic costs will accumulate in this and in future decades.  It is up to us how many costs we subject ourselves to.  As President Obama begins his second term with climate change “a priority”, he tosses aside the most effective tool available and most recommended by economists: a carbon tax.  Every other policy tool will be less effective than a Pigouvian tax at minimizing the actions that cause future economic harm.  It is up to the citizens of this country, and others, to take the lead on this topic.  We have to demand common sense actions that will actually make a difference.  But be forewarned: even if we take action today, we will still see more warmest La Niña years, more warmest El Niño years, more drought, higher sea levels, increased ocean acidification, more plant stress, and more ecosystem stress.  The biggest difference between efforts in the 1980s and 1990s to scrub sulfur and CFC emissions and future efforts to reduce CO2 emissions is this: the first two yielded an almost immediate result while it will take decades before CO2 emission reductions produce tangible results humans can see.

55.7% of the Contiguous United States in Moderate or Worse Drought – 12 Feb 2013

According to the Drought Monitor, drought conditions are relatively unchanged in the past two weeks. As of Feb. 12, 2013, 55.7% of the contiguous US is experiencing moderate or worse drought (D1-D4). The percentage area experiencing extreme to exceptional drought increased from 19.4% to 17.7% in the last two weeks. Percentage areas experiencing drought across the West stayed mostly the same while snowpack increased. Drought across the Southwest decreased slightly. Meanwhile, storms improved drought conditions in the Southeast.

This post precedes a significant snow event across the High and Great Plains.  The NWS expects up to a foot of snow in some areas of the Plains over the next couple of days, which will provide about 1″ of liquid water equivalent.  Since these areas currently suffer from a 2-4″ liquid water deficit, this storm will not break the short-term drought.  Moreover, long-term drought will only be broken by substantial spring and summer rainfall.  After one or two more Drought Monitor updates, we should see some welcome differences in these maps.

Figure 1 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions as of the 12th of February.

Figure 2 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Western US as of the 12th of February.  Some small relief is evident in the past week, including some changes in the mountains as storms recently dumped snow across the region.  Mountainous areas and river basins will have to wait until spring for snowmelt to significantly alleviate drought conditions.

Figure 3 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Colorado as of the 12th of February.  Drought conditions held mostly steady across the state in the past week.  For the first time in over a month, less than 100% of CO is experiencing Severe drought conditions.  This improvement occurred over the southwestern portion of the state due to mid-season snow storms.  Unfortunately, Exceptional drought conditions expanded over the northeastern plains.

Figure 4 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Southeast US as of the 12th of February.  As mentioned above, drought conditions contracted a little and grew less severe in the past couple of weeks.  The worst hit area, in central Georgia, has experienced the longest duration drought conditions on this map.

Cooler than normal sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) are present in the eastern Pacific, according to current MJO and ENSO data.  Additionally, eastern Pacific SSTs are cooler than the climatic average due to the current negative phase of the IPO.  This in turn is due in part to global warming, which is causing warmer western Pacific and Indian Ocean SSTs than usual.  The cool SSTs in the eastern Pacific initiate and reinforce air circulations that generally keep precipitation away from the Southwest and Midwest US.  This doesn’t mean that drought will be ever-present; only that we are potentially forcing the climate system toward more frequent drought conditions in these regions.  Some years will still be wet or normal; other years (increasing in number) will be dry.  This counters skeptics who claim that more CO2 and warmer temperatures are better for plants.  If there is no precipitation, plants cannot take advantage of longer growing seasons.  Moreover, we will experience years with increased food pressure.  These conditions’ extent in the future is up to us and our climate policy (or lack thereof).

While MJO, ENSO, and IPO are all in phases that tend to deflect storm systems from the Southwest, this week’s storm demonstrates that the conditions are not ever-present.  Weather variability still occurs with the dryer regime.  Put another way, weather is not climate.

January 2013 CO2 Concentrations: 395.55ppm

Up and up the value goes.  The Scripps Institution of Oceanography measured an average of 395.55ppm CO2 concentration at their Mauna Loa, Hawai’i’s Observatory during January 2013.

395.55ppm is the highest value for January concentrations in recorded history. Last year’s 393.14ppm was the previous highest value ever recorded.  This January’s reading is 2.41ppm higher than last year’s.  This increase is significant.  Of course, more significant is the unending trend toward higher concentrations with time, no matter the month or specific year-over-year value, as seen in the graphs below.

The yearly maximum monthly value normally occurs during May. Last year was no different: the 396.78ppm concentration in May 2012 was the highest value reported last year and in recorded history (neglecting proxy data).  Note that January’s value is only 1.23ppm less than May 2012′s.  If we extrapolate last year’s maximum value out in time, it will only be 2 years until Scripps reports 400ppm average concentration for a singular month (likely May 2014; I expect May 2013′s value will be ~398ppm).  Note that I previously wrote that this wouldn’t occur until 2015 – this means CO2 concentrations are another climate variable that is increasing faster than experts predicted just a short couple of years ago.

It is worth noting here that stations measured 400ppm CO2 concentration for the first time in the Arctic last year.  The Mauna Loa observations are usually closer to globally averaged values than other sites, such as in the Arctic.  That is why scientists and media reference the Mauna Loa observations most often.

Figure 1 – Time series of CO2 concentrations measured at Scripp’s Mauna Loa Observatory in January: from 1959 through 2012.

This time series chart shows concentrations for the month of January in the Scripps dataset going back to 1959. As I wrote above, concentrations are persistently and inexorably moving upward.  How do concentration measurements change in calendar years?  The following two graphs demonstrate this.

Figure 2 – Monthly CO2 concentration values from 2009 through 2013 (NOAA).  Note the yearly minimum observation is now in the past and we are three months removed from the yearly maximum value.  NOAA is likely to measure this year’s maximum value at ~398ppm.

Figure 3 – 50 year time series of CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory.  The red curve represents the seasonal cycle.  The black curve represents the data with the seasonal cycle removed to show the long-term trend.  This graph shows the recent and ongoing increase in CO2 concentrations.  Remember that as a greenhouse gas, CO2 increases the radiative forcing toward the Earth, which eventually increases lower tropospheric temperatures.

We could instead take a 10,000 year view of CO2 concentrations from ice cores and compare that to the recent Mauna Loa observations.  This allows us to determine how today’s concentrations compare to geologic conditions:

Figure 4 – Historical (10,000 year) CO2 concentrations from ice core proxies (blue and green curves) and direct observations made at Mauna Loa, Hawai’i (red curve) through the early 2000s.

Or we could take a really, really long view into the past:

Figure 5 – Historical record of CO2 concentrations from ice core proxy data, 2008 observed CO2 concentration value, and 2 potential future concentration values resulting from lower and higher emissions scenarios used in the IPCC’s AR4.

Note that this last graph includes values from the past 800,000 years, 2008 observed values (~8-10ppm less than this year’s average value will be) as well as the projected concentrations for 2100 derived from a lower emissions and higher emissions scenarios used by the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report from 2007.  Has CO2 varied naturally in this time period?  Of course it has.  But you can easily see that previous variations were between 180 and 280ppm and took thousands of years to move between the two.  In contrast, the concentration has, at no time during the past 800,000 years, risen to the level at which it currently exists; nor has the concentration changed so quickly (287ppm to 395ppm in less than two hundred years!).  That is important because of the additional radiative forcing that increased CO2 concentrations impart on our climate system.  You or I may not detect that warming on any particular day, but we are just starting to feel their long-term impacts.

Moreover, if our current emissions rate continues unabated, it looks like a tripling of average pre-industrial concentrations will be our reality by 2100 (278 *3 = 834).  Figure 5 clearly demonstrates how anomalous today’s CO2 concentration values are (much higher than the average, or even the maximum, recorded over the past 800,000 years).  It further shows how significant the projected emission pathways are.  I will point out that our actual emissions to date are greater than the higher emissions pathway shown above.  That means that if we continue to emit CO2 at an increasing rate, end-of-century concentration values would exceed the value shown in Figure 5 (~1100ppm instead of 800).  This reality will be partially addressed in the upcoming 5th Assessment Report (AR5), currently scheduled for public release in 2013-14.

Given our historical emissions to date and the likelihood that they will continue to grow at an increasing rate for at least the next 25 years, we will pass a number of “safe” thresholds – for all intents and purposes permanently as far as concerns our species. It is time to start seriously investigating and discussing what kind of world will exist after CO2 concentrations peak at 850 or 1200ppm. No knowledgeable body, including the IPCC, has done this to date. To remain relevant, I think institutions who want a credible seat at the climate science-policy table will have to do so moving forward.  The work leading up to AR5 will begin to fill in some of this knowledge gap.  I expect most of that work has recently started and will be available to the public around the same time as the AR5 release.  This could potentially cause some confusion in the public since the AR5 will tell one storyline while more recent research might tell a different storyline.

The fourth and fifth graphs imply that efforts to pin any future concentration goal to a number like 350ppm or even 450ppm will be incredibly difficult – 350ppm more so than 450ppm, obviously. Beyond an education tool, I don’t see the utility in using 350ppm – we simply will not achieve it, or anything close to it, given our history and likelihood that economic growth goals will trump any effort to address CO2 concentrations in the near future (as President Obama himself stated in 2012).  That is not to say that we should abandon hope or efforts to do something.  On the contrary, this series informs those who are most interested in action.  With a solid basis in the science, we become equipped to discuss policy options.  I join those who encourage efforts to tie emissions reductions to economic growth through scientific and technological research and innovation.  This path is the only credible one moving forward.

El Niño and La Niña Redefined

This is the week to publish lots of interesting events and articles apparently.  I have a number of things I would love to post about, but only so much time.  Here is one that relates directly to something I posted on earlier: warmest La Niña years.  Just a few short weeks after NOAA operations wrote that 2012′s La Niña was the warmest on records, NOAA researchers announced they recalculated historical La Niñas because of warming global temperatures.  NOAA confirmed something that occurred to me while I was writing that post: eventually, historical El Niños will be cooler than future La Niñas.  How then will we compare events across time as the climate evolves?  The answer is simple: redefine El Niño and La Niña.  Instead of one climate period of record, compare historical ENSO events to their contemporary climate.  In other words, “each five-year period in the historical record now has its own 30-year average centered on the first year in the period”: compare 1950-1955 to the 1936-1965 average climate; compare 1956-1960 to the 1941-1970 average.  This is different from the previous practice in which NOAA compared 1950-1955 to 1981-2010 and compared 2013 to 1981-2010.  The 1950-1955 period existed in a different enough climate that it cannot be equitably compared to the most recent climatological period.

Figure 1. “The average monthly temperatures in the central tropical Pacific have been increasing. This graph shows the new 30-year averages that NOAA is using to calculate the relative strength of historic El Niño and La Niña events.”

I want to point out something on this graph.  Is long-term warming evident in this graph?  Yes, there is.  But note they plot the breakdown by month.  The difference between 1936-1965 and 1981-2010 in October is >1°F.  Meanwhile, the same difference in May is ~0.5°F.

Here is the effect of NOAA’s change:

Figure 2.  3-month temperature anomalies in the Nino-3.4 region.   (Top) Characterization of ENSO using 1971-2000 data.  (Bottom) Same as top, but using 1981-2010 data.

NOAA’s updated methodology resulted in the identification of two new La Niñas: 2005-06 and 2008-09.  The reason is warmer temperatures in the most recent decade than the 1970s (it sounds obvious when you say it like that).  That warming masked La Niñas with the old methodology.  It also means that the 2012 La Niña is no longer the warmest La Niña, as I related from the National Climatic Data Center last month:

Figure 3. Anomalies of annual global temperature as measured by NOAA.  Blue bars represent La Niña years, red bars represent El Niño years, and gray bars represent ENSO-neutral years.

That record will now go down as a tie between 2006 and 2009, with 2012 coming in a close third.  This situation is analogous to the different methodologies that NOAA and NASA use to compute global temperatures and where they rank individual years.  Records might differ because of methodological differences, but the larger picture remains intact: the globe warmed in the 20th and so far in the 21st centuries.  That signal is apparent in many datasets.  Within the week, I’m sure we’ll hear from GW skeptics that La Niña years have been getting cooler since 2006.  Here is what is most important: 2000s La Niñas were warmer than 1990 Niñas, which were warmer than 1980 Niñas, etc.

57.7% of Contiguous US in Moderate or Worse Drought – 29 Jan 2013

According to the Drought Monitor, drought conditions are relatively unchanged in the past two weeks. As of Jan. 29, 2013, 57.7% of the contiguous US is experiencing moderate or worse drought (D0-D4). The percentage area experiencing extreme to exceptional drought increased from 19.3% to 19.4%. Percentage areas experiencing drought across the West stayed mostly the same at the end of January as they were at in the middle. Drought across the Southwest decreased slightly. Meanwhile, drought across the Southeast grew due to relative lack of precipitation.

Figure 1 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions as of the 29th of January.

Figure 2 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Western US as of the 29th of January.  Some small relief is evident in the past week, but note the lack of change of drought conditions across the regions, despite recent snows throughout the mountains.  Mountainous areas and river basins will have to wait until spring for snowmelt to help start to alleviate drought conditions.

Figure 3 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Colorado as of the 29th of January.  Drought conditions held steady across the state in the past week.  100% of Colorado experienced Severe or worse drought conditions for the past three weeks.

Figure 4 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Southeast US as of the 29th of January.  As mentioned above, drought conditions expanded and worsened in the past couple of weeks.  The worst hit area, in central Georgia, has experienced the longest duration drought conditions on this map.  Drought has expanded and contracted around this area during that time.

The latest seasonal (three-month) outlook from the National Weather Service predicts enhanced chances for above-average temperature and below-average precipitation for the central US.  This means that drought conditions are likely to continue for at least another three months and probably longer if prevailing conditions do not change.  One of the major weather stories of 2012 was drought; 2013 is shaping up to have the same story.

What is causing this?  A combination of factors: the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), the El-Nino and Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), and background climate warming.

As I discussed in my last drought post:

The lack of sea ice in the Arctic back in September is part of what caused the negative phase of the AO.  The Arctic Ocean absorbed solar radiation instead of reflecting it back to space.  The ocean then slowly released that heat to the atmosphere before new ice could form.  That extra heat in the atmosphere changed how and where the polar jet stream established this winter.  Instead of a tight loop near the Arctic Circle, the jet stream has grown in North-South amplitude, allowing cold air to pour to latitudes more southerly than usual and warm air to move over northern latitudes.  The large amplitude jet has kept the normal type of storms from moving over locations that used to see them regularly during the winter.

An active MJO is keeping trade winds stronger than they otherwise would be, which piles up warm ocean water in the western tropical Pacific Ocean.  This causes cool, deep ocean water to rise in the eastern Pacific, as seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Madden-Julian Oscillation conditions as of 2 Feb 2013 from NOAA-CPC.

Figure 6 – ENSO conditions as of 2 Feb 2013 from NOAA-CPC.

Cooler than normal sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) are present in the eastern Pacific due to the current MJO and ENSO data.  Additionally, eastern Pacific SSTs are cooler than the climatic average due to the current negative phase of the IPO.  This in turn is due in part to global warming, which is causing western Pacific and Indian Ocean SSTs warmer than usual.  The cool SSTs in the eastern Pacific initiate and reinforce air circulations that generally keep precipitation away from the Southwest and Midwest US.  This doesn’t mean that drought will be ever-present; only that we are potentially forcing the climate system toward more frequent drought conditions in these regions.  Some years will still be wet or normal; other years (increasing in number) will be dry.  This is a counter to skeptics who claim that more CO2 and warmer temperatures are necessarily better for plants.  If there is no precipitation, plants cannot take advantage of longer growing seasons.  Moreover, we will experience years with food pressure.  These conditions’ extent in the future is up to us and our climate policy (or lack thereof).

58.9% of Contiguous US in Moderate or Worse Drought – 15 Jan 2013

The storm systems that moved over the US in the past month alleviated some of the drought conditions across the US, according to the Drought Monitor. As of Jan 15, 2013, 58.9% of the contiguous US is experiencing moderate or worse drought (D0-D4). The percentage area experiencing extreme to exceptional drought decreased from 21.3% to 19.4%. Percentage areas experiencing drought across the West stayed mostly the same in the middle of January as they were at the end of December. Drought across the High Plains expanded slightly during the same period. Meanwhile, drought across the Southeast and Midwest shrank due to the aforementioned storm systems.

Figure 1 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions as of the 15th of January.

Figure 2 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Western US as of the 15th of January.  Note the lack of change of drought conditions across the regions, despite recent snows throughout the mountains.  Mountainous areas and river basins will have to wait until spring for snowmelt to help start to alleviate drought conditions.

Figure 3 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Midwest US as of the 15th of January.  This region also has not seen any meaningful shift in drought conditions recently.  The Plains will likely have to wait until spring and summer for drought relief.  This sector of the country does plant a significant amount of crops.  The winter wheat crop has already been devastated.

Figure 4 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Colorado as of the 15th of January.  Drought conditions worsened slightly across the state in the past week.  Now, 100% of Colorado is experiencing Severe or worse drought conditions.  The percentage area with Extreme drought conditions is 5% higher than last week.  There was no significant difference in Exceptional drought area since last week.

Figure 5 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Colorado as of July 31, 2012.  This figure shows how extensive the current drought is – both in space and time.  Severe or worse drought has afflicted close to 100% of the state for almost six months now.  While specific regions of the state have received some rain or snow, it hasn’t been enough to break the drought yet.  The percent area with Extreme or worse drought has decreased from 73.67% on July 24th to 65.35% on July 31st to 58.64% on January 15th.  The southeast part of the state has seen the worst of conditions, as Figure 5 and 6 demonstrate.

Figure 6 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions in Colorado as of June 14, 2011.  Eighteen months ago, more than half of Colorado was drought-free.  As you can see, the southeast part of the state has seen Severe or worse drought conditions for a long time now.

The US is not likely to see drought relief through March (drought predictions are accurate for ~3 months at a time) .  A negative Arctic Oscillation (AO; Figure 7) is challenging the return to ENSO-neutral conditions, which should allow normal precipitation to fall over the US.  The AO has been negative in previous winters and it has caused the severe winter storms that affected the northeastern US as well as UK (record wet year in 2012) and Scandinavia.

Figure 7 – Arctic Oscillation time series from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center.

The lack of sea ice in the Arctic back in September is part caused the negative phase of the AO.  The Arctic Ocean absorbed solar radiation instead of reflecting it back to space.  The ocean then slowly released that heat to the atmosphere before new ice could form.  That extra heat in the atmosphere changed how and where the polar jet stream established this winter.  Instead of a tight loop near the Arctic Circle, the jet stream has grown in N/S amplitude, allowing cold air to pour to latitudes more southerly than usual and warm air to move over northern latitudes.  The large amplitude jet has kept the normal type of storms from moving over locations that used to see them regularly during the winter.

Hence, the drought we see now over the US is causally linked to the Arctic Oscillation as well as the long-lasting, moderate La Niña (2010-2012).  Both of the natural variations exist on top of the background climate, which we are warming (this is why there was record low Arctic sea ice in 2012).  We will continue to see the climate modulate normal weather conditions until we stop emitting greenhouse gases.  As I’ve written, that isn’t likely to happen any decade soon.

NASA & NOAA: 2012 Was In Top-10 Warmest Years For Globe On Record

According to data released by NASA and NOAA this week, 2012 was the 9th and 10th warmest years (respectively) globally on record.  NASA’s analysis produced the 9th warmest year in its dataset; NOAA recorded the 10th warmest year in its dataset.  The two agencies have slightly different analysis techniques, which in this case resulted in not only different temperature anomaly values but somewhat different rankings as well.

The details:

2012’s global average temperature was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average (1951-1980), according to NASA, as the following graphic shows.  The warmest regions on Earth (by anomaly) were the Arctic and central North America.  The fall months have a +0.68°C temperature anomaly, which was the highest three-month anomaly in 2012 due to the absence of La Niña.  In contrast, Dec-Jan-Feb produced the lowest temperature anomaly of the year because of the preceding La Niña, which was moderate in strength.  And the latest 12-month period (Nov 2011 – Oct 2012) had a +0.53°C temperature anomaly.  This anomaly is likely to grow larger in the first part of 2013 as the early months of 2012 (influenced by La Niña) slide off.  The time series graph in the lower-right quadrant shows NASA’s 12-month running mean temperature index.  The recent downturn (2010 to 2012) shows the effect of the latest La Niña event (see below for more) that ended in early 2012.  During the summer of 2012, ENSO conditions returned to a neutral state.  Therefore, the temperature trace (12-mo running mean) should track upward again as we proceed through 2013.

Figure 1. Global mean surface temperature anomaly maps and 12-month running mean time series through December 2012 from NASA.

According to NOAA, 2012’s global average temperatures were 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century mean of 13.9°C (57.0°F).  NOAA’s global temperature anomaly map for 2012 (duplicated below) reinforces the message: high latitudes continue to warm at a faster rate than the mid- or low-latitudes.

Figure 2. Global temperature anomaly map for 2012 from NOAA.

The two different analyses’ importance is also shown by the preceding two figures.  Despite differences in specific global temperature anomalies, both analyses picked up on the same temperature patterns and their relative strength.

The continued anomalous warmth over Siberia is especially worrisome due to the vast methane reserves locked into the tundra and under the seabed near the region.  Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over short time-frames (<100y),which is the leading cause of the warmth we’re now witnessing. As I discussed in the comments in post this summer, the warming signal from methane likely hasn’t been captured yet since the yearly natural variability and the CO2-caused warming signals are much stronger.  It is likely that we will not detect the methane signal for many more years.

These observations are also worrisome for the following reason: the globe came out of a moderate La Niña event in the first half of the year.  During the second half of the year, we remained in a ENSO-neutral state (neither El Niño nor La Niña):

Figure 3. Time series of weekly SST data from NCEP (NOAA).  The highest interest region for El Niño/La Niña is NINO 3.4 (2nd time series from top).

As the second time series graph (labeled NINO3.4) shows, the last La Niña event hit its highest (most negative) magnitude more than once between November 2011 and February 2012.  Since then, SSTs peaked at +0.8 in September (y-axis).  You can see the effect on global temperatures that the last La Niña had via this NASA time series.  Both the sea surface temperature and land surface temperature time series decreased from 2010 (when the globe reached record warmth) to 2012.  So the globe’s temperatures were affected by a natural, low-frequency climate oscillation during the past couple of years.  And yet temperatures were still in the top-10 warmest for a calendar year in recorded history.

Indeed, this was the warmest La Niña year on record:

Figure 4. Anomalies of annual global temperature as measured by NOAA.  Blue bars represent La Niña years, red bars represent El Niño years, and gray bars represent ENSO-neutral years.

This figure shows that 2012 edged out 2011 as the warmest La Niña year on record (since 1950).  It also shows a clear trend seen in every temperature record of this length: La Niña years are getting warmer with time (note the difference between 2012 and 1956, for instance).  El Niño years are getting warmer with time (note the difference between 2010 and 1958).  ENSO-neutral years are getting warmer with time.  The globe got warmer throughout the 20th and into the 21st century.  Do not pay too much attention to any single year as “evidence” that global warming stopped.  As I stated above, natural low-frequency climate oscillations introduce a lot of noise into the temperature signal.  Climate is measured over decades and the decadal trend is obvious here: warmer with time.

Skeptics have pointed out that warming has “stopped” or “slowed considerably” in recent years, which they hope will introduce confusion to the public on this topic.  What is likely going on is quite different: if an energy imbalance exists (less outgoing energy than incoming) and the surface temperature rise has seemingly stalled, the excess energy has to be going somewhere.  That somewhere is likely to be the oceans, and specifically the deep ocean.  Before we all cheer about this (since few people want surface temperatures to continue to rise quickly), consider the implications.  If you add heat to a material, it expands.  The ocean is no different; sea-levels are rising because of heat added to it in the past.  The heat that has entered in recent years won’t manifest as sea-level rise for some time, but it will happen.  Moreover, when the heated ocean comes back up to the surface, that heat will then be released to the atmosphere, which will raise surface temperatures as well as additional water vapor.  Thus, the immediate warming might have slowed down, but we have locked in future warming.

In my previous post on global temperatures, I pointed a few things out and asked some questions.  The Conference of Parties summit produced no meaningful climate action.  Countries agreed to have something on paper by 2015 and enacted by 2020.  If everything goes as planned, significant carbon reductions wouldn’t occur until later in the 2020s – too late to ensure <2°C warming by 2100.  If, as is much more likely, everything doesn’t go as planned, reductions wouldn’t occur until later than the 2020s.  Additional meetings are scheduled for later this year, but I maintain my expectation that nothing meaningful will come from them.  The international process is ill-equipped to handle all the legitimate interest groups in one fell swoop.

The northeast continues to recover from Superstorm Sandy.  New York and New Jersey began to plan for infrastructure with increased resilience from the next storm, which will eventually hit the area.  Congress took way too long to approve relief money (months, instead of days as it did after Katrina).  $60 billion will go a long ways toward assisting the region, especially if people take seriously the threat of living next to the ocean, which has been uncharacteristically quiet for decades.

Paying for recovery is and always will be more expensive than paying to increase resilience from disasters.  As drought continues to impact US agriculture, as Arctic ice continues to melt to new record lows, as storms come ashore and impacts communities that are not prepared for today’s high-risk events (due mostly to poor zoning and destruction of natural protections), economic costs will accumulate in this and in future decades.  It is up to us how much grief we subject ourselves to.  As President Obama begins his second term and climate change “will be a priority in his second term”, he tosses aside the tool most recommended by economists: a carbon tax.  Every other policy tool will be less effective than a Pigouvian tax at minimizing the actions that cause future economic harm.  It is up to the citizens of this country, and others, to take the lead on this topic.  We have to demand common sense actions that will actually make a difference.  But be forewarned: even if we take action today, we will still see more warmest La Niña years, more warmest El Niño years, more ENSO-neutral years.