NASA & NOAA: March 2013 9th, 10th Warmest Globally On Record

According to data released by NOAA, March was the 10th warmest globally on record.  Here are the NOAA data and report.  NASA also released their suite of graphics, but their surface temperature data page is down today, so I cannot relay how NASA’s March temperature compares to historical Marches.  Once their site is back up, I will update this post.  [Update: NASA's analysis resulted in their 9th warmest March on record.  Here are the data for  NASA’s analysis.] 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:

March’s global average temperatures were 0.59°C (1.062°F) above normal (1951-1980), according to NASA, as the following graphic shows.  The past three months have a +0.57°C temperature anomaly.  And the latest 12-month period (Apr 2012 – Mar 2013) had a +0.60°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) was 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 throughout 2013.

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

According to NOAA, March’s global average temperatures were 0.58°C (1.044°F) above the 20th century mean of 12.7°C (54.9°F).  NOAA’s global temperature anomaly map for March (duplicated below) shows where conditions were warmer than average during the month.

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

The two different analyses’ importance is also shown by the preceding two figures.  Despite small 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 are a concern.  Greenland was warmer than average during more months in recent history than not.  In contrast to 2012, northern Eurasian temperatures were much cooler than normal.  This is likely a temporary, seasonal effect.  Long-term temperatures over much of this region continue to rise at among the fastest rate for any region on Earth.

The NASA and NOAA surface temperature maps correlate well with the 500-mb height pressure anomalies, as seen in this graph:

Figure 3. 500-mb heights (white contours) and anomalies (m; color contours) during March 2013.

Note the correspondence between the height map and the NASA & NOAA surface temperature maps: lower heights (negative height anomalies) present over the North Atlantic and northern Eurasia overlay the cold surface temperature anomalies at the surface.  Similarly, warm surface temperature anomalies are located under the positive 500-mb height anomalies.

These temperature observations are of interest for the following reason: the globe came out of a moderate La Niña event in the first half of last year.  During the second half of the 2012 and the first part of 2013, we remained in a ENSO-neutral state (neither El Niño nor La Niña):

Figure 4. 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 March 2013, in recorded history.

Skeptics have pointed out that warming has “stopped” in recent years (by comparing recent temperatures to the 1998 maximum which was heavily influenced by a strong El Niño even), which they hope will introduce confusion to the public on this topic.  What is likely going on is quite different: a global annual energy imbalance exists (less outgoing energy than incoming energy).  If the surface temperature rise has seemingly stalled, the excess energy is going somewhere.  That somewhere is likely the oceans, and specifically the deep ocean (see the figures below).  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 in part 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 introduce additional water vapor.  Thus, the short-term warming rate might have slowed down, but we have locked in future warming (higher future warming rate) as well as future climate effects.

Figure 5. Total global heat content anomaly from 1950-2004. An overwhelming majority of energy went to the global oceans.

Figure 6. New research that shows anomalous ocean heat energy location since the late 1950s.  The purple lines in the graph show how the heat content of the whole ocean has changed over the past five decades. The blue lines represent only the top 700 m and the grey lines are just the top 300 m.  Source: Balmaseda et al., (2013)

Balmaseda et al.’s work demonstrates the transport of anomalous energy through the depth of the global oceans.  Note that the grey lines’ lack of significant change from 2004-2008 (upper 300m).  Observations of surface temperature include the very top part of this 300m layer.  Since the layer hasn’t changed much, neither have surface temperature readings.  Note the rapid increase in heat content within the top 700m.  Given the lack of increase in the top 300m, the 300-700m layer heat content must have increased.  By the same logic, the rapid growth in heat content throughout the depth of the ocean, which did not stall post-2004, provides evidence for anomalous heat location.  You can also see the impact of major volcanic eruptions on ocean heat content: less incoming solar radiation means less absorbed heat.

A significant question for climate scientists is this: are climate models capable of picking up this heat anomaly signal and do they show a similar trend?  If they aren’t, then their projections of surface temperature change is likely to be incorrect since the heat is warming the abyssal ocean and not the land and atmosphere in the 2000s and 2010s.  If they aren’t, climate policy is also impacted.  Instead of warmer surface temperatures (and effects on drought, agriculture, and health to name just a few), anomalous ocean heat content will impact coastal communities more than previously thought.  Consider the implications of that in addition to the AR4′s lack of consideration of land-based ice melt: sea level projections could be too conservative.

That said, it is also a fair question to ask whether today’s climate policies are sufficient for today’s climate.  In many cases, I would say  they aren’t sufficient.  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 began 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.

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.

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.

NASA & NOAA: October 2012 Was 2nd, 4th Warmest On Record

According to data released by NASA and NOAA this week, October 2012 was the 2nd and 4th warmest October’s (respectively) globally on record.  NASA’s analysis produced the 2nd warmest October in its dataset; NOAA recorded the 4th warmest October 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:

October’s global average temperatures were 0.69°C (1.24°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 to occur for years: high latitudes (especially within the Arctic Circle in July 2012).  The past three months have a +0.63°C temperature anomaly.  And the latest 12-month period (Nov 2011 – Oct 2012) had a +0.51°C temperature anomaly.  The time series graph in the lower-right quadrant shows NASA’s 12-month running mean temperature index.  The recent downturn (post-2010) is largely due to the latest La Niña event (see below for more) that recently ended.  ENSO conditions returned to a neutral state.  Therefore, the temperature trace (12-mo running mean) should track upward again, especially as cooler months fall off the running mean.

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

According to NOAA, October’s global average temperatures were 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century mean of 14.0°C (57.2°F).  NOAA’s global temperature anomaly map for October (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 October 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.

Of additional concern are the very warm conditions found over Greenland.  Indeed, record warmth was observed at a 3200m altitude station in early July.  3.6°C may not sound that warm in July, but the station’s location at 10,500ft altitude is of interest.  In contrast, continued warmth over portions of Greenland that have not witnessed such warmth did result in rapid melting during 2012.  There was recent news that described how much faster melt has occurred over Greenland (see associated picture) than expected in the IPCC AR4.  While the record-setting sea ice melt across the Arctic Ocean this year is important in some respects, at least melting sea ice doesn’t contribute to sea level rise.  The opposite is true for Greenland melt: every drop that makes it to the ocean raises the level.  When the melt is happening 3X faster than just 20 years ago, it’s time to pay attention (note: not panic!).

These observations are also worrisome for the following reason: the globe is experiencing ENSO-neutral conditions:

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 2009 to 2011.  Note that the darker lines (running means) started to increase at the end of 2011, following the higher frequency monthly data.  ENSO-nuetral conditions are expected to continue through the next 3-6 months, after which a new El Niño event might begin.

As the globe returns to ENSO-neutral conditions this winter, how will global temperatures respond?  Remember that global temperatures typically trail ENSO conditions by 3-6 months: the recent tropical Pacific warming trend should therefore help boost global temperatures back to their most natural state (i.e., without an ENSO (La Niña) signal on top of it, although other important signals might also occur at any particular point in time).

So what do we do?  I hope most readers are aware that the 18th Conference of Parties (COP-18) meeting is currently underway in Doha, Qatar.  I’ve stated my opinion before that I don’t think putting every country in the world around the table to negotiate a climate treaty is the most appropriate approach.  Canada, Russia, and Japan removed themselves from the Kyoto Protocol recently, which means that the only large emitters left are from the European Union.  I actually think that’s more appropriate: I prefer regional and bilateral agreements – countries should have pursued them more aggressively in the past 30 years.

More to the point, we should focus on  bottom-up approaches.  There are smaller groups of people who, if provided the right type of expertise and resources when needed, could probably enact changes that will result in decreasing emissions as well as successful adaptation policies.  The developed world is decarbonizing, but not fast enough yet.  I also recommend you watch China.  They invested very large sums of money in renewable energy and other green efforts.  That money will bear fruit in the future.  The rub, of course, is we cannot accurately predict when and how today.  It will also be interesting to see how the northeast U.S. reacts to Hurricane Sandy.  They have to rebuild infrastructure.  Will they include adaptive measures while they’re at it or will they kick the can down the road?

NASA & NOAA: July 2012 Was 12th, 4th Warmest On Record

According to data released by NASA and NOAA this week, July 2012 was the 12th and 4th warmest July (respectively) globally on record.  NASA’s analysis produced the 12th warmest July in its dataset; NOAA recorded the 4th warmest July in its dataset.  The two agencies have slightly different analysis techniques, which in this case resulted in not only different temperature anomaly values but rather different rankings as well.

The details:

July’s global average temperatures were 0.47°C (0.85°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 to occur for years: high latitudes (especially within the Arctic Circle in July 2012).  The past three months have a +0.56°C temperature anomaly.  And the latest 12-month period (Aug 2011 – Jul 2012) had a +0.50°C temperature anomaly.  The time series graph in the lower-right quadrant shows NASA’s 12-month running mean temperature index.  The recent downturn (post-2010) is largely due to the latest La Niña event (see below for more) that recently ended.  As ENSO conditions return to neutral or even El Niño-like, the temperature trace should track upward again.

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

According to NOAA, July’s global average temperatures were 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century mean of 15.2°C (1.12°F).  NOAA’s global temperature anomaly map for July (duplicated below) reinforces the message: high latitudes continue to warm at a faster rate than the mid- or low-latitudes.  Unfortunately in July 2012, almost the entire Northern Hemisphere was warmer than normal.

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

These figures show just how extreme (intensity & spatial extent) the heat wave over most of the US was during July 2012.  As many people saw during the preceding two-and-a-half weeks, England was cooler than usual.  The same was true for northwestern Europe, most of Australia, and a good portion of South America (Argentina, Bolivia, etc.)  Additional anomalous warmth occurred over Greenland, Russia, eastern Europe, and into central Asia and the Middle East.  The two different analyses’ importance is also shown by these 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 a recent post, 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.  Of additional concern are the very warm conditions found over Greenland.  Indeed, record warmth was observed at a 3200m altitude station in early July.  3.6°C may not sound that warm in July, but the station’s location at 10,500ft altitude is of interest.  I want to post more on this later, but the early July melt occurred over a very short time period, which did not result in a great deal of runoff.  In contrast, continued warmth over portions of Greenland that have not witnessed such warmth did result in rapid melting during 2012 (note: the melt season isn’t over yet either).

These observations are also worrisome for the following reason: the globe is still returning to ENSO-neutral conditions:

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 have slowly warmed back above a +0.5°C-1.0°C anomaly (y-axis).  La Niña is a cooling event of the tropical Pacific Ocean that has time-delayed effects across the globe.  It is therefore significant that the past handful of months’ global temperatures continued to rank in or near the top-5 warmest in the modern era.  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 2009 to 2011.  Note that the darker lines (running means) started to increase at the end of 2011, following the higher frequency monthly data.

As the globe returns to ENSO-neutral conditions this summer and early fall, how will global temperatures respond?  Remember that global temperatures typically trail ENSO conditions by 3-6 months: the recent tropical Pacific warming trend should therefore help boost global temperatures back to their most natural state (i.e., without an ENSO signal on top of it, although other important signals might also occur at any particular point in time).  Looking further into the future, what will next year’s temperatures be as the next El Niño develops, as predicted by a number of methods (see figure below)?

Figure 5. Set of mid-July predictions of ENSO conditions by various models (dynamical and statistical).  To be considered an El Niño event, 3-month average temperature anomalies must be measured above +0.5°C for 5 consecutive months (so the earliest an El Niño event is likely to be announced is sometime this fall).  Approximately 1/2 of the models are predicting a new El Niño event by the end of this year.  The other models predict ENSO-neutral conditions through next spring.

From the above, I hope it is clear that the US’s recent record heat wave and historic drought are associated with the most recent La Niña event.  This is typical for the US, given dominant wind patterns that La Niña establishes.  While El Niño would add additional anomalous warmth on top of the slowly evolving climate change signal, it usually also heralds above-average precipitation over most of the US.  That would be a welcome event, given the reach and severity of the drought currently underway.

NASA & NOAA: June 2012 Was 4th Warmest On Record

According to data released by NASA and NOAA this week, June 2012 was the 4th warmest June globally on record.  NASA’s analysis produced the 4th warmest June in its dataset; NOAA recorded the 4th warmest May in its dataset.  The two agencies have slightly different analysis techniques, which actually helps to reinforce the results from each other.

The details:

June’s global average temperatures were 0.56°C (1.01°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 to occur for years: high latitudes (especially within the Arctic Circle in June 2012).  The past three months have a +0.59°C temperature anomaly.  And the latest 12-month period (Jul 2011 – Jun 2012) had a +0.52°C temperature anomaly.  The time series graph in the lower-right quadrant shows NASA’s 12-month running mean temperature index.  The recent downturn (post-2010) is largely due to the latest La Niña event (see below for more) that recently ended.  As ENSO conditions return to normal, the temperature trace should track upward again.

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

According to NOAA, June’s global average temperatures were 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century mean of 15.5°C (59.9°F).  NOAA’s global temperature anomaly map for June (duplicated below) reinforces the message: high latitudes continue to warm at a faster rate than the mid- or low-latitudes.  Unfortunately in June 2012, almost the entire Northern Hemisphere was warmer than normal.

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

The extreme 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 a recent post, 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.  Of additional concern are the very warm conditions found over Greenland.  Indeed, record warmth was observed at a 3200m altitude station earlier this month.  3.6°C may not sound that warm in July, but look at the station’s location:

Figure 3. Location of Summit Camp, Greenland.

The station is in the middle of the massive Greenland ice sheet at ~10,500ft elevation.  It is difficult to warm this area enough to register above freezing temperatures.  Multiple stations on the top of the ice sheet similarly observed record warm temperatures recently.  What happens when air temperatures are above freezing with the mid-summer sun shining down for most of the day?  Record flooding occurs.

These observations are also worrisome for the following reason: the globe is still exiting the latest La Niña event:

Figure 4. 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 have slowly warmed back toward a +0.5°C anomaly (y-axis).  La Niña is a cooling event of the tropical Pacific Ocean that has effects across the globe.  It is therefore significant that the past handful of months’ global temperatures continued to rank in or near the top-5 warmest in the modern era.  You can see the effect on global temperatures that this last La Niña had via this NASA time series.

As the globe returns to ENSO-neutral conditions this summer and early fall, how will global temperatures respond?  Remember that global temperatures typically trail ENSO conditions by 3-6 months: the recent tropical Pacific warming trend should therefore help boost global temperatures back to their most natural state (i.e., without an ENSO signal on top of it, although other important signals might also occur at any particular point in time).  Looking further into the future, what will next year’s temperatures be as the next El Niño develops (as predicted by a number of methods, see figure below)?

Figure 5. Set of predictions of ENSO conditions by various models (dynamical and statistical).  To be considered an El Niño event, 3-month temperature anomalies must be measured above +0.5°C for 5 consecutive months.  Approximately 1/2 of the models are predicting a new El Niño event by the end of this year.  The other models predict ENSO-neutral conditions through next spring.

Short Arctic Sea Ice Update – 20120723

Here, in a sneak peak of my monthly `State of the Poles` post, I wanted to mark a significant event: the area of Arctic sea ice has fallen below the climatological minimum.  This occurs with ~6 weeks left in the Arctic melt season.  In similar fashion as in other recent years, UIUC data show Arctic sea ice area values at a stunning -2 million sq. km. below the average value for this date in time.  Instead of 6.5 million sq. km., today’s value is 4.5 million sq. km., the record lowest for this calendar day.  Conditions on the Pacific side of the Arctic sea ice pack (another graphic here) are starting to deteriorate, so rapid melt of additional hundreds of thousands of sq. km. of sea ice could occur in the next month or so.  The recorded history yearly minimum sea ice area is ~2.91 million sq. km.  Stay tuned for this year’s minimum, which will likely occur in early September.

Research: Sea-Level Rise in Response to Warming Climate

From the top, I want to include important context for the research results I am presenting.  This research is based on peak warming of only either 1.5°C or 2°C.  It is my educated opinion that such goals are unrealistic.  Prevention of warming past 2°C is no longer a viable option based on the globe’s history of burning carbon-intensive fossil fuels as well as the medium- to long-term future, which doesn’t promise much of a difference.  Furthermore, as I have stated numerous times in the past year, policy discussion would be better served if scientists would conduct research on developments that are much likelier to occur and not the world they want to see (i.e., higher vs. lower emissions scenarios).  That said, this research fulfills an important role in the overall discussion because I think some of the results can be used as a “floor” – conditions are likely to reach higher magnitudes than those found in this and similar papers.

Michiel Schaeffer, William Hare, Stefan Rahmstorf & Martin Vermeer’s Nature paper was published on June 24, 2012.  They examined sea-level rise in response to warming scenarios using a semi-empirical model.  By 2100, global sea-level rise would be ~60cm above the 2000 level if global GHG emissions were zeroed by 2016.  This is an obvious fantasy world, but it provides a useful benchmark for other scenarios the scientists examined.  The reason sea-level rise would continue through the 21st century even if we haled emissions completely in the next 3-4 years is the response of the climate system to the anthropogenic forcing imparted on it through the 20th and early 21st centuries.  If 1.5°C or 2°C warming is not exceeded, global sea-level rise would be 75-80cm above the 2000 level.  The authors also report that unmitigated emissions could result in 100cm rise above 2000 levels.  It is important to note that 20th century sea level rise has been estimated to be ~20cm.  It doesn’t require much thought to realize that the rate of sea-level rise has increased throughout the 20th century and continues to do so in the 21st.  Moreover, it is clear that since we will most likely warm beyond 2°C, the 75-100cm projection can be viewed as a reasonable estimate for a “floor”: actual sea-level rise could be greater than this.

2012: U.S.’s Warmest Year-To-Date; Records Continue to be Broken

The 2012 U.S. heat wave has made considerable news.  So none of this should come as any particular shock, perhaps just a little extra shock to what most of us in the U.S. have experienced so far this year.  The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during June was 71.2°F, which is 2.0°F above the 20th century average, which placed June 2012 as the 12th warmest June on record, as the NCDC announced Monday.  June 1933 was the warmest June for the U.S. on record due to Dust Bowl conditions.  It was also the tenth driest June on record, even with record precipitation in Florida as a result of Tropical Storm Debby.  As I wrote earlier, my state of Colorado experienced its warmest June on record.  Seven nearby states experienced top-ten warmest Junes.

The Jan-Jun 2012 period is the warmest such period in U.S. history, as the following graphic displays:

Figure 1. The five warmest years for the contiguous U.S. compared to 2012 as of the end of June 2012.

You can see that the first three months of the year were much warmer than average, but it was March that really pushed conditions to an extreme level: +6F.  Since then, the year-to-date average anomaly has edged back down to “just” +4.5F.  1998 was the warmest year on record, largely due to the strong 1997-1998 El Nino event.  Note that 2006 also makes this list – and that was without the aid of a strong El Nino.  2012 is clearly much more anomalous than any other year to date.  The only way it won’t finish as the warmest year on record is if much cooler than normal conditions blanket most of the country for the remainder of the year.  It’s not impossible, but conditions would need to be quite different from what we’ve experienced so far this year.

Meteorologists and climatologists look at other time periods that aren’t calendar years.  For instance, the past 12 months (Jul 2011 – Jun 2012) just set a new record for the warmest 12-month period on record in the U.S., squeaking past the record that the end of May (Jun 2011 – May 2012) set, as the following graphic shows:

Figure 2. The set of warmest 12-month periods for the contiguous U.S. in the modern-era.

The past 12 months were 3.23F warmer than the long-term average, which is only slightly higher than the 3.18F anomaly for the preceding 12-month period.  These two values are both higher than the 2.83F anomaly for the preceding 12-month period (May 2011-April 2012) and the 2.61F anomaly for April 2011-March 2012.    Thus, out of the 12 warmest 12 consecutive month periods in contiguous U.S. history, 1/3 of them have occurred in just over the past year.  The odds of this occurring randomly is just 1 in 1,594,323.  Thus, until 124,652 AD, we should only see one more 13-month period so warm, and that assumes the climate is staying the same as it did during the past 118 years.  Needless to say, such an assumption looks incredibly weak.

Looking further at the graph, you can see that 21st century periods dominate the top-12.  That is one important difference from the previous graph which showed 1934 and 1921 and the 3rd and 5th warmest years on record.  Those years had stretches of time that were shorter than 12 consecutive months over the entire country that were anomalously warm.  The heat that is occurring now is spread over a larger area than previous heat waves.  Specific heat values for a location or during just one month might not hit record highs, but overall conditions are warmer now than during previous warm periods in the U.S.  In other words, the background climate is warmer than it was in 1921 or 1934, enough so that heat records and long stretches of very warm conditions are a little likelier each year to occur.

Another kind of graph might help the reader visualize this:

Figure 3.  U.S. Climate Extremes Index for the January-June period from 1910 to 2012.

The CEI: “summariz[es] and present[s] a complex set of multivariate and multidimensional climate changes in the United States so that the results could be easily understood and used in policy decisions made by nonspecialists in the field.”  It shows the percentage area of the U.S. with top 10% extremes.  Obviously, January-June 2012 set a new record at 44%.

If the planet continues to warm throughout the 21st century, which is more likely to occur the longer we continue emitting heat-trapping greenhouse gases, months, seasons, and years of time that break records today could be considered cool by comparison to conditions at the end of the century.  The implications are wide-ranging and profound for human societies and ecosystems.  The world won’t end, but it certainly won’t be the same as today either.

8th Day of 100F+ Heat In Denver, CO

This is just a short update to my post yesterday about the early-summer heat wave affecting Denver, CO.

With the 101F maximum temperature yesterday (a new daily record), Denver has hit at least 100F 8 days already in 2012.  That might not sound like much to folks in Arizona or Texas, but 100F days are rare in Denver due to both our latitude and altitude.

As the 2nd link is kind enough to describe, the 8 days now exceeds 2005, which saw 7 such days.  One big difference between 2005 and 2012 is that in 2005, the 7 days of 100F+ heat occurred near the end of July, not prior to July 4th.  Put simply, not only is this heat wave anomalous in and of itself, but the timing of the heat wave is especially anomalous.  As I wrote in the post yesterday, June 2012 was the warmest June on record for Denver by a significant margin: +7.6F.  June 2012 beat out the previous record average June temperature by 1.5F (1994).  That is a significant margin of heat over an entire month.  It also follows an anomalously warm May and April.

There is good news: the string of consecutive 90F+ days might end this weekend.  Any temperature relief may not be accompanied by precipitation relief, which is also desperately needed.