Just as importantly, this situation occurred in the midst of a continuing La Niña event that is of moderate strength.  La Niña is characterized by a general cooling of the tropical Pacific waters near the surface; it is frequently referred to as being the opposite of El Niño.  As La Niñas progress, global temperatures tend to cool from their normal state.  This of course has implications as scientists work to differentiate the effects of natural climate processes and those brought about by humans.  If one year’s temperatures are cooler than the preceding year’s (or are warmer), does that mean that global warming has stopped (as skeptics like to say) or does that mean that there are competing forcings that affect the temperatures recorded?

It is the assessment of an overwhelming majority of climate scientists that global warming has not stopped.  Instead, the 2nd half of 2010 and all of 2011 were dominated by La Niña events.  What does this mean?  It means that if the La Niña events had not occurred (and if there were no El Niños either), in other words purely “normal” conditions, 2011 likely would have been warmer than was recorded.  This should become obvious in the next 6 months to 3 years as this La Niña dissipates and conditions across the globe respond accordingly.  It takes ~6 months for downstream effects to show up in observations after ENSO phases start and after they go away.

Here is Hansen et al.‘s updated figure showing global land-ocean temperatures using an index:

Figure 1.  Global surface air temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 base period for annual and 5-year running means. Green vertical bars are 2σ error estimates (Hansen et al., 2010). [Source for all graphs: Hansen]

The last black square on the right hand side of the graph is 2011′s temperature index value: +0.51°C.  You can clearly see where the 9th highest ranking comes from when viewing this graph.  You can further see that 2011 was warmer than 2001, 2004 and 2008 (simply comparing the past 10 years of values), as well as every year prior to 2000 save 1998, the year when the last century’s strongest El Niño occurred.

But I wrote above that large changes can occur year-to-year and this is evidenced by the jagged look to the yearly data in the graph above.  So what happens if the data is analyzed in such a way as to remove the yearly signal?  Furthermore, can the ENSO and solar cycle signals be quieted down to get a better idea of what the global temperatures are likely doing?  Yes they can, as the following graph demonstrates:

Figure 2. Global surface air temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 base period for (a) the 12-month running mean, and (b) the 60-month and 132-month running means.

The right panel of Figure 2 demonstrates the results of the removal of the ENSO signal (red line, 60-month running mean) and the solar cycle signal (blue line, 132-month running mean).  The addition of more months into the running mean helps to remove more and more noise (to a limited degree, of course).  What is left behind is increasingly the global warming signal in global temperature data.  A key takeaway is this: the same general result can be seen regardless of the specific temperature dataset employed.

To expand on this topic a little more, here is a graph comparing mean temperature anomalies and the Nino 3.4 index (and index used to characterize the ENSO signal as El Niño or La Niña):

Figure 3. Global monthly and 12-month running mean surface temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 base period, and 12-month running mean of the Nino 3.4 index.

Paired with the Nino 3.4 index data, it is very easy to pick out the ENSO influence on the temperature data.  Peaks in global temperature anomalies tend to occur during El Niños while troughs in anomalies tend to occur during La Niñas.  As you can see, claims that global warming has “stopped” in the past couple of years are not likely to be correct since a prolonged La Niña has occurred during that time frame.  One good indicator of whether or not global warming has stopped will be what the global temperature anomaly is ~6 months after the next El Niño peak occurs (likely sometime in the next 3 years).

Another good indicator of whether global warming has stopped or not will be what global temperature anomalies register as the upcoming solar maximum descends from its next peak.  As the following graph illustrates, the peak is likely to occur 3+ years from now:

Figure 4. Solar irradiance from composite satellite-based time series. Data sources: For 1976/01/05 to 2011/02/02 Physikalisch Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center and for 2011/02/03 to 2012/01/11 University of Colorado Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment. Data are concatenated using the 2010/02/03 to 2011/02/02 period.

It is important to note that the global temperature response to the solar cycle is delayed by ~18 months.  So in 4-5 years from now, we’ll have a much clearer idea of the effects of global warming in the 1st half of the 2010s were.  That time period will occur after the next solar cycle maximum and after the next El Niño.  It strains credulity to think that global temperatures will be lower after those two milestones than they are today.

My thoughts on this are easily understood: it is more likely that global temperature anomalies will continue to exhibit decadal-scale rises than falls in our future (21st century).  As I’ve stated many times before, it is also likelier that projected temperature increases are underestimated, not overestimated.  We are more likely to read about additional top-10 warmest year on record in our future.  That said, I’d be happy to be wrong about all of this.  The changing environment we’re living in demands changes to the way our societies function.  I don’t believe those changes will be equally catastrophic to everybody around the globe.  But all of us will be affected by this phenomenon in one way or another.  How we decide to handle those changes will be the key.

Arctic Ice

According to the NSIDC, weather conditions this fall were slightly less conducive for Arctic sea ice melt than was the case in 2007, the year that witnessed the record low extent.  As such, December 2011′s extent was the 3rd lowest on record.  Additionally, Arctic sea ice extent on December 31st measured just 13.25 million sq. km.  That was only 561,000 sq. km. more than the 2010 record low extent.  Because the dipole anomaly didn’t set up in the same way or with the same intensity as in 2007, Arctic sea ice extent has measured slightly higher than record minima in recent months.  We can’t count on these types of weather variations in the future, of course.  Another reason ice extent was low but didn’t set another record was the difference in ice motion: sea ice was likelier to remain in the Arctic in 2011 than in 2007 or 2010.

Since September’s record low, Arctic sea ice has refrozen rapidly.  December’s sea ice extent increased by 2.37 million sq. km. (vs. 1.86 million sq. km. average).  This situation mimics that of recent years after ice extent reaches low values in September and the sun sets for the winter.  The ocean released massive amounts of heat to the atmosphere, especially this fall since the AO index has been extremely positive.  This has caused cold air from the continents to be bottled up in a stronger vortex than normal and has drawn heat from the Arctic Ocean as it passes over the warmer fluid.

In terms of longer, climatological trends, Arctic sea ice extent in December has decreased by -3.5% per decade  These rates are more negative this year than the previous year (a trend that has continued).  These rates also use 1979-2000 as the climatological normal.  There is no reason to expect these rates to change significantly any time soon.  Additional low ice seasons will continue.  The specific value for any given month during any given year is, of course, influenced by local and temporary weather conditions.  But it has become clearer every year that the establishment of a new normal in the Arctic is occurring.  This new normal will continue to have far-reaching implications on the weather in the mid-latitudes, where most people live.

Arctic Pictures and Graphs

The following graphic is a satellite representation of Arctic ice as of December 12, 2011:

Figure 1 – UIUC Polar Research Group‘s Northern Hemispheric ice concentration from 20111212.

Compare this with January 7th’s satellite representation, also centered on the North Pole:

Figure 2 – UIUC Polar Research Group‘s Northern Hemispheric ice concentration from 20120107.

Hudson Bay finally froze over completely.  The sea ice in the Bering Sea formed normally.  What is missing is the sea ice north of Scandinavia.  This is the result of anomalously warm waters from the Gulf Stream being drawn further north than is normal.  This is due to the exceptionally positive AO index during the past couple of months.  As a side note, this phenomenon combined with the moderate La Nina in the Pacific Ocean has led to January being a warm and dry month for most of the U.S. so far.  The AO index is returning to more normal values now, so cold air outbreaks will become more likely in February.

Overall, the health of the remaining ice pack is not healthy, as the following graphsof Arctic ice volume from the end of December demonstrates:

Figure 3 – PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume time series through December 2011.

As the graph shows, volume hit a record minimum earlier in 2011 before returning to the -2 standard deviation envelope.  I know most folks don’t have a very good handle on statistics, but conditions between -1 and -2 standard deviations are rare and conditions outside the -2 standard deviation threshold (see the line below the shaded area on the graph above) are incredibly rare: the chances of 2 of them occurring in 2 subsequent years under normal conditions are very, very remote.  Hence the assessment that “normal” conditions in the Arctic are shifting from what they were in the past few centuries.

Switching back from volume to area, take a look at December’s areal extent time series data:

Figure 4 – NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent time series through early January 2012.

As you can see, the sea ice extent has spent all of the fall and early winter well outside of the -2 standard deviation region, just as it has for 5 winters in a row.  It cannot be stated otherwise: these conditions are not indicative of a healthy system.

Antarctic Pictures and Graphs

Here is a satellite representation of Antarctic sea ice conditions from December 12th:

Figure 5 – UIUC Polar Research Group‘s Southern Hemispheric ice concentration from 20111212.

Compare that graphic with the same view from January 7th:

Figure 6 – UIUC Polar Research Group‘s Southern Hemispheric ice concentration from 20120107.

Ice loss is easily visible around the continent.  High ice concentrations remain well into the austral spring east of the Antarctic Peninsula (the land mass that “points” to South America).  Conditions of Antarctic sea ice remain good this year.

Here is the Antarctic sea ice extent time series from December:

Figure 7 – NSIDC Antarctic sea ice extent time series through early January 2012.

After conditions caused a slowdown in melt in late November and early December, the remainder of December and January was marked by normal ice melt rates.  At this point, no news is good news.  The Arctic is providing more than enough excitement for the time being.

Errata

Here are my State of the Poles posts from December and August.

You can find NSIDC’s January report here.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

The crocodile tears shed for citizens sounds good until you think about which citizens have the most money: those already contributing to Super PACs.  I don’t have a single friend or activist acquaintance that has the financial ability to donate tens of thousands or millions of dollars to any campaign or issue of their choice.  Therein lies the problem with the argument: do super-corporations (especially those based over-seas) have more freedom of speech than a citizen of the United States?  Should they have more freedom than we do?  I don’t think so.  But “conservatives” today do.

Note further that “conservatives” wouldn’t be extolling the virtues of Citizens United if their elite-blessed candidates weren’t expected to be the primary beneficiaries of the decision.  Such is the reality in the hyper-partisan environment those same “conservatives” have spent 50 years creating.

And how much does this columnist actually believe in “free will” anyway?  If the belief was consistent, free will would extend to all personal choices, including what women decide to do with their own bodies.  That is the crux of the matter: too many partisans – on both sides of the aisle – are only willing to push for “rights” and “freedoms” when it’s convenient for them to do so.  Consistency is another casualty of today’s hyper-partisanship.

391.80 is the highest value for December concentrations in recorded history. Last year’s 389.68 was the previous highest value ever recorded.  This December’s reading is 2.12ppm higher than last year’s.  As I’ve written before, 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.

The yearly maximum monthly value normally occurs during May. Last year was no different: the 394.34 concentration is the highest value reported both last year and all time.  If we extrapolate last year’s value out in time, it will only be 3 years until Scripp’s reports 400ppm average concentration for a singular month (likely May 2015).

Judging by the year-over-year increases seen per month in the past 10 years, I predict 2012 will not see a monthly concentration below 390ppm.  I had earlier predicted that 2011′s minimum would be ~388ppm.  I overestimated the minimum somewhat since both September’s and October’s measured concentrations were just under 389ppm.

CO2Now has the following graph on their front page:

It shows concentrations in the Scripps dataset going back to 1958.  As I wrote above, concentrations are persistently moving upward.

Given our historical emissions to date and the likelihood that they will continue to grow at an increasing rate in 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 and 1100ppm.  I don’t believe the IPCC has done this to date.  To remain relevant, I think it will have to do so moving forward.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

By any common sense approach, it was an abject failure.  Sure the Senators intermingled for one evening.  Then the Republican Teabaggers threatened to filibuster a record number of bills, nominees for posts were needlessly held up for months on end before being overwhelmingly approved once they allowed votes to come up.  Oh, there was also a “little hiccup” in the economy when those same Teabaggers threatened to not allow a vote to increase the federal debt ceiling, which resultedin a downgrade of the US credit rating.  That’s correct: the same targets of Udall’s goodwill took our economy to the edge of disaster for purely political reasons: if the economy tanks, President Obama would be unlikely to win reelection this year.

So how does Sen. Bipartisanship respond?  By re-issuing his silly call for Senators to sit together again this year and show Americans they can get along.  The Republican Teabaggers want to shut down the government and the economy, Senator Udall.  What is it going to take for you to accept that basic truth?

Senator, if you want to prove to Americans you and your colleagues can do your jobs, pass a jobs bill; pass a federal budget on time; let the Bush tax cuts expire as designed; confirm or deny nominees but make the votes happen.  Somehow I think running a campaign ad that one of your accomplishments was calling for Senators to sit together during a speech while tens of millions of Americans remained underemployed, losing their households and savings and health care and hope for the future, won’t win over too many voters.  Do something tangible, Senator.  No more empty gestures.  No more searching for the Holy Bipartisanship Grail.

It’s a good thing we Americans have everything figured out already.  Otherwise, we would be trailing in installing technologies that we invented.  Oh wait, we are trailing.  The bottom line: feed-in tariffs work.

Here is the latest article, written from the Detroit Auto Show.  It brings together a couple of salient facts which aren’t explored in any depth.

Hybrid sales waned as gasoline prices ebbed in 2011, declining to 2.2 percent of the market from 2.4 percent a year earlier, according to the research firm LMC Automotive. Meanwhile, sales of the Nissan Leaf electric car and the Chevrolet Volt plug-in each fell short of expectations.

Analysts do not expect the segment to grow significantly this year: the combination of gas prices below $4 a gallon and higher upfront costs for the cars is not attracting consumers.

I understand the higher upfront costs, especially in the continued economic malaise that most Americans are experiencing.  The $4 per gallon of gas is an interesting factoid to throw in there though, don’t you think?  After all, we’ve only visually seen $4 gas once so far.  Gas prices in 2011 came close to $4, but the magic `4` never appeared on signs.

Which brings me to the following: demand in 2011, especially the 2nd half of 2011, was multiple percentage points below demand in 2010.  Yet gas prices rose to close to $4 anyway.  It’s all supply and demand, you might say, especially demand in other countries which would lead to higher fundamental prices.  Well, oil prices shot up in Feb-Apr from $84 to almost $114 per gallon, then fell back below $80 by Sep (when gas prices were highest, despite slack demand in the U.S.).  Oil is trading at more than $100 per gallon again now, yet gas prices continue to decline.

No, there are more variables than simply supply and demand at play.  $4 gas represents an important psychological barrier for traders just as it does for gasoline consumers.  There is incredible pressure to keep prices from rising above that threshold because too few people can think critically: when prices pass the threshold, one trader panics, then most everybody else panics.  Consumers are just as irrational, however.  More than anything, they sense that $4 gas represents some kind of significant threshold, even though too few consumers can analyze at which threshold gas represents a significant point at which their household budget is adversely affected.  Moreover, consumers have an irrational desire to recoup additional costs of a hybrid/electric vehicle inside of 1 year.  Where are their similar demands for products they’ve been buying their entire lives?  It really doesn’t exist.

In 2000, Toyota sold 5,600 Prii in the U.S. (the 1st year available).  In 2011, Nissan sold 9,700 Leafs in the U.S. (the 1st year available), or 73% more units than the Prius.  75% more sales of just 1 new hybrid/electric is a very significant number.  Imagine if there were 73% more sales of a new kind of cell phone than a different cell phone 10 years after the first was introduced.  That would be touted as a wild success story.  The poor treatment of the hybrid/electric vehicle segment is pitiful.  Is there a long path toward 1.5 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015?  Yes, there is.  But you might want to share with the rest of the car industry that having aggressive 2015 goals is a really bad idea.  I doubt you’ll receive much of an audience.

Energy Content

First, here are two views of the energy content in the climate system.  The first is from the IPCC’s WGI Technical Summary:

Source: IPCC AR4 Figure TS.15.  Energy content changes in different components of the Earth for two periods (1961-2003 (blue) and 1993-2003 (burgundy)).

This graph shows the distribution of extra energy that the climate system has accumulated due to the radiative imbalance created by the dramatic increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.  Note which component has stored the most energy: the oceans – far more than the continents or atmosphere.  The reason for this is simple: the heat capacity of water (see here and here) vs. the heat capacity of land or the atmosphere.  Water can absorb 1000 times the energy that the atmosphere can.  While land and near-surface temperatures have been increasing, that increase has been greatly moderated by the ability of water to absorb the energy as the atmosphere interacts with it.  Put another way, if water wasn’t so effective at absorbing energy, more heat would be present in the atmosphere today than it is.  This heat absorption has implications for our future, which I will come back to later.

This information can be viewed in another way:

Graph courtesy of Skeptical Science: “Total Earth Heat Content [anomaly]” from 1950 (Murphy et al. 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al. 2008.

Again, total ocean heating in the past 50 years exceeds by a large margin the heating that has taken place on land and in the atmosphere.  Globally averaged surface temperatures are 0.74C (+-0.18C) warmer as of 2005 than they were in 1906 (IPCC).  What the excess heat content in the ocean means is over the course of thousands of years into the future, global temperatures will continue to rise until the excess energy is re-radiated back to space.   The climate system will find a new stable state eventually, but as far as our species and today’s ecosystems are concerned, temperatures will continue to rise: the physics demand nothing else.

Anthropogenic Forcing

Next, let’s look at how the temperature observations can be explained:

Source: IPCC WGI Technical Summary Figure TS.23: (a) Global mean surface temperature anomalies relative to the period 1901 to 1950, as observed (black line) and as obtained from simulations with both anthropogenic and natural forcings. The thick red curve shows the multi-model ensemble mean and the thin lighter red curves show the individual simulations. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic events. (b) As in (a), except that the simulated global mean temperature anomalies are for natural forcings only. The thick blue curve shows the multi-model ensemble mean and the thin lighter blue curves show individual simulations. Each simulation was sampled so that coverage corresponds to that of the observations.

This graph (b – bottom portion) shows that natural forcings alone cannot explain the observed temperature trend since 1900.  Significant divergence starts to occur starting in the 1960s and gets more extreme with time.  If anthropogenic forcings (i.e. human causes) are included in simulations, the temperature record can be explained.  This provides solid evidence that our greenhouse gas pollution is having a demonstrable effect on the climate system.  That effect will not go away until our pollution and, as I’ll discuss in further detail in a future post, our land use changes stop.

Model Projections

A great deal of discussion in the global warming debate has centered around the ability of models to accurately project the state of future conditions.  So let’s take a quick look at how previous modeling efforts have performed with time:

Source: IPCC WGI Technical Summary Figure TS.26.

What does this graph so?  A number of things.  The three previous IPCC Assessment Reports’ trends and ranges are the first thing to notice (colored triangles).  The 2nd and 3rd AR underestimated the warming from 1995-2005 while the 1st AR captured the observed warming (black line) within its range.  Were any of them perfect?  No, but that’s not the point of the projections.  The projections are designed to give policymakers a sense of the range of future conditions that are expected. Next, note the trend lines projected by the different SRES scenarios to the right of the year 2000.  The commitment line (orange) is the projected response by the climate system to the greenhouse forcing already in place, based on the assumption that GHG and aerosol concentrations are held constant at their levels from 2000 forward (i.e., no future increase or decrease).  We already know that GHG and aerosol concentrations have changed since 2000.  Note that the effects on the climate system by aerosols continue to be examined by research scientists and currently constitute the largest uncertainty in the radiative forcing of the climate system.  It doesn’t make that much difference for the purposes of this graph, but the A1FI scenario-based projections (and a few others) isn’t indicated.  This makes sense from the following perspective: the difference between the A1FI scenario and those included in this graph aren’t very large until the 4th quarter of this century.  Despite this, the problem I have with the presentation of scenarios has to do with our current emissions path:

As this graph shows, actual emissions starting from 2000 was within the small range encompassed by the SRES scenarios.  By 2004 however, actual emissions were at the upper range of the SRES scenarios.  The dip in 2008-2009 was due solely to the economic collapse of those years – the most polluting and most costly activities were shut down first.  As economies around the world started to recover, those activities came right back online and emissions jumped by the highest year-over-year amount in history.  The end result is this: emissions are closer to the A2 or A1FI scenarios than they are the A1B or B1 scenarios in the previous graph.  As a follow-on to what I wrote above, the AR4 projections are holding up very well with time, as should be expected.  Back to the problem I have with the previous graph: given the actual emissions history, policymakers will be better served by work that concentrates on emissions scenarios closer in nature to the A2 and A1FI scenarios.

SRES Warming Projections

The models used to project future climate conditions overall have done fairly well and have gotten better with time, even though they’re missing critical feedback processes and some radiative forcing information.  With that knowledge in hand, what do the SRES warming projections look like?

Source: IPCC AR4 Technical Summary Figure TS.32.

The dark lines are the means of 20th-century simulation (black) and 4 IPCC scenarios (orange – commitment; blue – B1; green – A1B; red – A2).  The lighter colors surrounding the mean represent the +-1 standard deviation range of values about the respective means.  The zero-reference line is the 1980-1999 base period in this graph.  The number of models run per period are shown beneath the curves.  This has serious implications for evaluating climate post-2100 as the commitment and A2 scenario were not run past 2100 while the B1 and A1B scenarios were run out to 2300.  Both of the latter sets of simulations showed continually increasing temperatures even out to the year 2300 and likely beyond.  As discussed above, our historical emissions through 2010 are more closely characterized by the A2 scenario than the B1 or A1B scenarios.  As seen in the TS.32 graph, global temperatures rapidly warm through 2100 and would likely continue to do so well beyond 2100.  This is the most likely path that actual global temperatures will take given the lack of action to appropriately change our influence on the climate.  Moreover, I will once again take the opportunity to point out that these scenarios more likely underestimate the eventual warming and overestimate it due to the lack of inclusion of feedback processes in the model simulations.  Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have been written since the AR4 was produced that have demonstrated this to be the case.

For reasons I will discuss in future posts, we will be unable to reach the emissions reduction targets required by the B1 scenario – one of the better cases studied.  However, for purposes of context, let us assume that such an achievement can and will be made.  On top of the 0.74C warming over 1906 average temperatures already recorded, and additional 1.8C warming over 2000 temperatures are likely to occur under the B1 scenario. The unattainable B1 scenario means that the much-publicized target of no-more-than 2C warming is very unlikely to be met.  I will have more information on that in future posts as well.

That value is the highest value for October and November in recorded history. Last year’s 387.15 and 388.62 were the previous highest respective values ever recorded.  This year’s readings are 1.77ppm and 1.69ppm higher than last year’s.  While under 2ppm per year, these two increases are significant.  Of course, more significant is the unending trend toward higher concentrations with time, no matter the month.

The yearly maximum monthly value normally occurs during May. This year was no different: the 394.34 concentration (value updated since my last post) is the highest value reported both this year and all time.

I am more convinced than earlier this year that we will not witness CO2 concentrations below 390ppm during any calendar month. September and October were the only months this year which recorded concentrations below 390ppm.  Judging by the year-over-year increases seen per month in the past 10 years, I predict 2012 will not see a concentration below 390ppm.  I had earlier predicted that 2011′s minimum would be ~388ppm.  I overestimated the minimum somewhat since both September’s and October’s measured concentrations were just under 389ppm.

CO2Now has the following graph on their front page:

It shows concentrations in the Scripps dataset going back to 1958.  As I wrote above, concentrations are persistently moving upward.  For additional reference, here are two graphs showing historical CO2 emissions and historical CO2 concentrations dating back 10,000 years:

Courtesy of Skeptical Science

Courtesy of Skeptical Science

And while previous increases in CO2 concentrations occurred naturally (i.e., PETM), this event is decidedly unnatural.  Moreover, it is occurring over an incredibly short time-frame.  It is the speed at which concentrations are rising (see last figure above) that is likely to pressure ecosystems in the coming centuries.

400ppm will be a much-discussed threshold due to its psychological significance.  We will likely pass that threshold on an annual basis in 2015.  450ppm is another threshold thrown about in the global warming discussion.  We will likely pass that threshold in the late 2030s – or about 25 years from now.  Given our historical emissions to date and the likelihood that they will continue to grow at an increasing rate in 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 and 1100ppm.  I don’t believe the IPCC has done this to date.  To remain relevant, I think it will have to do so moving forward.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

Calculated Risk

As you can see, horrific job losses continue 4 years after the month of peak employment.  This is the longest such occurrence in modern history in the U.S.  If we extrapolate that trend, employment numbers last seen in 2007 will finally be achieved in 2015.  Meanwhile, population will increase and replacement jobs will continue to pay less than the originally held jobs.

At this point, it is worth pointing out that President Obama needs to start owning the economic conditions his policies have created.  He can’t keep pointing to Congress as if they’re exclusively the problem while he tries to play Mr. Nice Guy in Washington.  Americans don’t want Mr. Nice Guy and barely functional economic policies.  They want fully functional policies and politicians that can get them enacted.  Everything else is secondary.

In the larger scheme of things however, this graph shows one of the effects of Teabagger economic policy: longer and longer employment recoveries.  Make no mistake, this is exactly the type of situation that the 1% want to occur.  Will there be recoveries after the next couple of recessions?  I still think we’re witnessing a new normal condition of our economy.  How soon that theory is validated or refuted remains to be seen.