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.
Cross-posted at WeatherDem – the blog.








9 Comments

Thank you for these posts, WeatherDem.
DW
x2
Another excellent, informative and timely post. Rec’d, and more, please.
Oh, yes.
Recommended.
And, as CS says, more, please.
DW
Rachel @CraneStation
94 F, no rain, burn ban, dire situation for farmers, exceptional drought: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/product.php?site=PAH&product=DGT&issuedby=PAH … #Paducah #McCracken #Drought2012 #kywx
Expand
Reply Delete Favorite
See also http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175573/tomgram%3A_william_debuys%2C_the_west_in_flames/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=479c9a0494-TD_deBuys7_24_2012&utm_medium=email#more
Scary stuff, CS. The Drought Monitor should release their weekly update soon. Not looking forward to seeing the worsening conditions since just last week.
I want to sound a note of caution with regard to these conditions and their relation to climate change – and I say this as a person who lives in the Front Range of Colorado, so I was affected by the two large, destructive fires that occurred earlier this summer. I haven’t seen scientific studies linking climate change effects to the beetle epidemic or the incidence or size of wildfires. Is the West dry? Absolutely – but it was during the 20th century too. Is the beetle epidemic problematic? Yes, and of the phenomena listed, it’s probably the closest to climate change since winter nighttime temperatures aren’t reaching the minimums that they did a generation ago, which would kill more of the beetle larvae.
The development of large, destructive fires is more likely caused by ill-thought public policies, including the suppression of fires for the better part of a century, and the zoning of lands for residential development that probably shouldn’t have been zoned that way. Overgrown forests are the result of the former policy and higher numbers of very wealthy people (read: lots of stuff in houses) are the result of the latter policy. When the two are combined, disasters like High Park and Waldo Canyon are all but inevitable. But they’re not caused by climate change. They’re important issues, but I would urge readers to associate conditions with the correct cause and not blame climate change for everything.
Nobody is blaming climate change for everything. Climate change is a factor, not the factor in the western drought. You have to be blind not to see that. There is a huge public affairs campaign paid for by the fossil fuel companies to discredit global warming and ocean acidification. I believe scientists more than brought politicians. The next generation is going to pay a very stiff price for all this prideful ignorance.
From the piece you linked to:
“Evidence of the new normal”
“will soon be the new climatology”
“forests already show the effects of this transformation”
I want to point out that a new normal has not been realized in the American West: conditions today are not as severe as they were in the 1950s or 1930s (yet), to say nothing of the magnitude of the multi-decadal droughts that occurred within the previous millennium. The author wants to draw a relationship between climate change and fire conditions in the West that doesn’t exist.
And if a “new climatology” is around the corner, how can forests already show the effects of this transformation? What effects does the transition from pre-industrial climatology to today’s climatology are evident and that are distinctly different from the historical record. There aren’t any effects the author can point to today, but includes a passing reference to them with the hope that no one will question the basic assumption made.
Yes, climate change is a factor. But it is not a dominant or even significant factor to the problems encountered in the West today with regard to large fires that destroy human property.