NASA’s James Hansen and a few of his colleagues released their assessment of 2011 global temperatures recently. In short, 2011 was the 9th warmest year in the GISS dataset.
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.




18 Comments

2011 has been and unusually mild winter, and a very early spring, Canadian prairies, with only a few days of normal temperatures. Otherwise, well above normal temperatures.
also, low snowfall, following last summers extensive drought, not looking good for crops.
and the growing season before that, was record flooding.
all things we have been told by scientists, which will become typical.
not looking good at all.
Yup. Crops need steady, predictable situations. Weather extremes aren’t it.
Charts prior to 1880 please.
For what?
The one I have on my desk, from Gaia and Human Economic Activity (Rust, B.W. and Crosby, F.J., 1990 in NIST Summary Reports of Activities Feb. 1990) shows it to be flat back from roughly 1900 to 1840 with a little blip downward at 1885. On the other hand, the CO2 levels show a pretty smooth exponential curve starting at ca. 1860 in the same document, with their first restraint after the pollution controls go in around 1980 — they don’t go far enough to see that blown out of the water by the newly industrializing nations.
Post. Thanks.
All them there charts with their squiggly lines and numbers are so confusing to the GOPers and deniers.m Facts and dogma do not get along well.
That anomalous spike in 1944 coincides with the Auschwitz ovens running 24/7 and the Allied fire bombings in Europe, such are coincidences.
Science is cool!
Great graphs; Thank you!
?
It’s hard copy. I got it from NIST back in 1990.
A La Nina year, indeed.
Here in Alaska, most of the state has encountered a lot of colder than normal weather. The coastal areas (La Nina) are encountering record precipitation, mostly as snowfall. Where I live, near Wasilla, the combination of cold, snow and wind is unprecedented.
To me, this indicates possible increasing local oscillation of weather patterns from global warming.
It could be Monsanto’s corn in Mexico and the breeze of only one Monarch butterfly’s wing.
Add more heat think of heat as steam from a pressure cooker valve next to a 20 pound block of ice the pressure cooker is still hot but the melting ice is still cold and spreads that cold around locally.
So expect more cold as long as you still have ice caps that is. The difference between hot and cold tries to balance out as faster/more wind and I suspect faster and more ocean currents this might be compensating for the oceans getting less salty which we think should slow ocean currents.
Any data on world wind speeds and ocean currents would be great but for how long have we been measuring wind speeds and ocean currents world wide?
Funny you should mention that. There’s a big crack in the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet. And since the continent is totally ice covered, and not a set of mountain glaciers with drainage to the sea like other continents, when it breaks off, there will be a lot of drainage and lakes dumping and under ice rivers outpouring and artesian outpouring as well. The chunk that breaks off will move to warmer water and break up and melt. Total change in sea level may be as big as 80 to 100 feet, within 1 year of the break.
Have a nice day.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2012/120125.htm
http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/
I moved to the South Shore of MA in 1984. From about 2000 to 2007 I slowly lost all my birch trees, which had been growing here at their southern limit. One or two at a year, and I think they were canary in the coalmine.
It’s more likely that the North Atlantic Oscillation – in combination with this year’s La Nina – explains Alaska’s cold, wet winter so far.
The NAO index set or were near record lows the past 2 winters, which was why the western 2/3 of the continental U.S. was warm and dry and the east coast saw all those incredible winter storms.
This winter, the NAO index was near a record high. What that means is the polar vortex is strengthened, so it keeps cold air closer to the Arctic Circle.
Additionally, moisture from the northern tropical Pacific was able to reach the west coast of northern North America – providing the moisture for the large snowstorms the area has seen.
The point to all these things is that there are many oscillations and components within the climate system. Some things – global average temperature anomalies – can be explained by large-scale shifts in the climate system. Other things – snowfall in Alaska this winter – are better explained by shifts in those oscillations. Scientists don’t know enough about the oscillations yet to pinpoint how global warming is affecting them. In other words, things are really complex and it will take more time before we can assign causality to the phenomena we experience.
Interesting point – the plant hardiness zones are shifting. The USDA released a new map this week and there are noticeable differences between this new one and the last one (made in 1990). Whether any of us or all of us collectively “believe” in global warming or not is irrelevant. Plant and animal characteristics are changing because they have to, not because someone likes the graphs I put in a diary or not.
For what purpose?
If you’re asking for them, you’ve likely already seen them. So what would reproducing them here accomplish? If a chart includes 1879 data, is that going to change how you view the charts above? If a charts includes data back 2,000 years, does that change what the charts above show? No, it wouldn’t.
If there is some aspect of a chart that shows data prior to 1880 that you’d like to discuss, please feel free to bring one here. I’m not going to waste any of my time to find and post a chart that you would prefer – what you see in the post is what you’re going to get.
Thanks!