After a brief hiatus (10 graduate school credits & TA-ing leaves no time for blogging), I’m back posting on FDL. I expect to post much more regularly in 2013 as school activities ramp down. More of my writing will also include a policy angle. I want to do more to bridge the science and policy worlds in my blogging as well as in my future career.
It’s official: 2012 was indeed the hottest year in 100+ years of record keeping for the contiguous U.S. (lower 48 states). The record-breaking heat in March certainly set the table for the record and the heat just kept coming through the summer. The previous record holder is very noteworthy. 2012 broke 1998′s record by more than 1°F! Does that sound small? Let’s put in perspective: that’s the average temperature for thousands of weather stations across a country over 3,000,000 sq. mi. in area for an entire year. Previously to 2012, temperature records were broken by tenths of a degree or so. Additionally, 1998 was the year that a high magnitude El Niño occurred. This El Niño event caused global temperatures to spike to then-record values. The latest La Niña event, by contrast, wrapped up during 2012. La Niñas typically keep global temperatures cooler than they otherwise would be. So this new record is truly astounding!
The official national annual mean temperature: 55.3°F, which was 3.3°F above the 20th century mean value of 52°F.

Figure 1 – NOAA Graph showing year-to-date average US temperatures from 1895-2012.
This first graph shows that January and February started out warmer than usual (top-5), but it was March that separated 2012 from any other year on record. The heat of July also caused the year-to-date average temperature to further separate 2012 from other years. Note the separation between 2012 and the previous five-warmest years on record from March through December. Note further that four of the six warmest years on record occurred since 1999. Only 1921 and 1934 made the top-five before 2012 and now 1921 will drop off that list.

Figure 2 – Contiguous US map showing state-based ranks of 2012 average temperature.
Nineteen states set all-time annual average temperature records. This makes sense since dozens of individual stations set all-time monthly and annual temperature records. Another nine states witnessed their 2nd warmest year on record. Nine more states had top-five warmest years. Only one state (Washington) wasn’t classified as “Much Above Normal” for the entire year. The 2012 heat wave was extensive in space and severe in magnitude.
Usually, dryness tends to accompany La Niña events for the western and central US. This condition was present again in 2012, as the next figure shows:

Figure 3 – Contiguous US map showing state-based ranks of 2012 average precipitation.
As usual, precipitation patterns were more complex than were temperature patterns. Record dryness occurred in Nebraska and Wyoming. Colorado and New Mexico saw bottom-five precipitation years. Severely dry conditions spread across the Midwest all the way to the mid-Atlantic and Georgia continued to experience dryness. Washington and Oregon were wetter than normal as a result of the northerly position of the mean jet stream in 2012. Louisiana and Mississippi saw wetter than normal conditions, largely as a result of Hurricane Isaac.

Figure 4 – Contiguous US map showing state-based average actual precipitation.
I always find it useful to know the magnitude of measurements as well as how they stack up comparatively. Figure 4 provides the former while Figure 3 provides the latter. “Normal” precipitation varies widely across the country and even between neighboring states. How much precipitation fell to allow NE and WY to record driest years on record? 13.04 and 8.03″, respectively. Another useful map would be state-based difference from “normal”.
So the brutal heat that most Americans experienced was one for the record books. As the jet stream remained in a more northerly than usual position, heat across the country dominated. More heat and fewer storm systems in 2012 meant widespread and severe drought expanded across the country. That drought tended to reinforce both the temperatures recorded (drying soils meant incoming solar radiation was more easily converted directly to sensible heat) and the lack of precipitation (dry soils required extra moisture to return to normal conditions).
Thankfully, record-setting temperatures didn’t occur all over the globe in 2012 (although Australia is having their own problems now in 2013). I therefore don’t expect 2012 will be the warmest year on record globally, but a top-10 finish certainly is not out of the question. Again, this is significant because of the extended La Niña event that ended in mid-2012. Without the influence of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, 2012 probably would have been cooler than will be recorded. The background climate is warming and so La Niñas today are warmer than El Niños of yesterday.
These warming and drying conditions have massive implications for our society. The drought that afflicted the Midwest in 2012 helped push up commodity prices as crops failed. If that trend continues into 2013, prices will rise further, which will pinch all of our finances. Drought in the Southwest and Midwest impacted flows in rivers (Colorado & Mississippi, among others). The former could mean imposed restrictions in 2013 while the latter could mean reduced river transportation, which puts further pressure on goods sold in the US. Conditions aren’t the worst recorded yet, but it is imperative that we examine resource management policies. Are policies robust enough to handle the variability of today’s climate? If not, they probably aren’t equipped to address future variability or change either. What systems are critical to today’s society? If the Southwest remains dry, does agriculture (largest user of CO river water) reduce its use or do urban users? What sets of values guide these and other decision-making processes?
Cross-posted at WeatherDem’s Blog.



38 Comments

Welcome Back! and congratulations on the grad work
Indeed, it’s very good to have you back.
Thanks for the good information. Is anyone listening to the melting?
It’s the sun.
Always appreciate your well-researched and knowledgeable posts, WeatherDem.
You’ve been missed.
DW
It’s not just a conspiracy — it’s a METACONSPIRACY!!!
Thanks so much, was wondering just the other day about you and hoping you’d be back!
Recommended, btw.
DW
There you go again. It’s always the kids’ fault.
It’s NOT the sun.
And (not) coincidentally, there’s this:
Australian Heat Wave Sears New Colors onto Maps
and this:
Heatwave: Australia’s New Weather Demands a New Politics
As an interesting corollary to the epic heat/drought, and the northerly jet stream – we also had a surprisingly low tornado count this year, as the storm tracks were shifted north into Canada this summer. Always look on the bright side, I guess. unless you’re a Canadian…
I think some of those tornadoes also affected Wisconsin and MN more than in prior years. So it was good for Kansas and places in the traditional tornado alley, but not so good for other places.
Hey, welcome back.
I’ve been holding the fort down, while you’ve been gone. I’ve discovered that I have quite some talent as a climate dilettante. Perhaps I made the wrong career decision, oh so long ago?
Amongst the legions of my newfound, adoring fans, one of them made this comment to me, in my instant classic diary,
World Temperature Records in 2012 and the Green Veal Pen
It’s enough to make me want to start selling swag – you know, T-Shirts and bumper stickers!
I’ve seen those reports. Obviously, not good news for Australians, who have suffered under extreme heat and low precipitation conditions for a decade or more now.
Yes, 2012′s tornado season started out stronger than normal before falling well below normal. Without storm systems mixing it up over the US, a decided lack of tornadic activity followed. As you said, “good” for us, “bad” for Canadians.
Interesting stuff. Of course you’ll never convince those legions of your viewpoint anymore than they’ll convince you of theirs. That said, the personal stuff isn’t useful in a discussion.
Elliott, Kit, DW, and C-S
Thanks for the reads and re-welcomes!
Interesting story on npr on how drought conditions are interfering with shipping on the northern Mississippi. It’s possible than in a month, all shipping in that part of the river will stop completely – from Iowa northwards.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926985/mississippi-river-level-disrupts-supply-chain
Grain shipments are being held up and customers are shifting to overseas suppliers. This is the kind of unforeseen consequence of climate change that will hit a lot of businesses in the wallet.
It will be interesting to see, going forward, what will happen when a lot of business interests that might have previously seen a vigorous response to global warming as against their conservative outlook begin to lose money.
Bad choice of words IMO.
Climate change/global warming aren’t “veiwpoints” they’re F.A.C.T.s. Backed by science.
It’s the reality deniers who want to try and make it seem as though it’s just one “veiwpoint” or opinion versus another when that’s not the case.
Just as a few hundred years ago when there was a battle being waged about whether the earth was flat or round, it wasn’t two viewpoints, it was one veiwpoint and one observation of reality.
D
I notice you don’t bother to refute any of the observations.
But do tell us, what measurable conditions will cause you to change your mind on the “alleged” looming global climate change catastrophe? Be specific. For example, “when ___ measures the ___ and it is above/below ___, then I will renounce my climate denialism.”
The SUN, heretofore ignored, has emitted its cyclic increased sunspot activity for most of 2012, cooking our planet… so global warming has to be prefaced by the sun for all of 2012…
… what rankles me is the utter denial that chemical cocktails and oceanic dead zones will get us long before florida sinks…
From the preposterous doublespeak “climate change denialism”, down to “climate denialism”? I’ve neither denied that climate changes, nor (even worse) that climate exists.
I’m glad to see WeatherDem back, partly because he’s civil, but also partly because he’s rational and articulate.
Having said that, I don’t think he’s ever given a definition of “climate change denialism”, either.
So, you again refuse to answer a direct question about what you will consider to be proof that the “climate catastrophists,” as you call them, are essentially correct in their analysis.
WeatherDem:
I don’t know if you do requests, or not, but one thing I’d like to know more about is on what rational basis the Medieval Warming Period (when CO2 was lower) is assumed to have been limited to Europe? This website has references to research on the MWP, studied in all parts of the globe, which contradict this point of view. There are papers showing a MWP warmer than now, some with quantitative estimates.
For that matter, I’ve seen graphs of temperature that show higher temperatures during the Minoan and Roman optimums. Not sure why these are generally less mentioned than the MWP, though. Do you know why?
Also, do you understand Hurst Kolmogorov dynamics? I don’t; but what I can grok of the results by Koutsoyiannis and Markonis suggests that it’s very promising. If you understand this paper, please write a simplified account of it. The authors’ parent organization website also has a link to the interaction with peer reviewers. It was rejected by 2 mainstream climate journals, before finally getting published in a hydrology journal.
If you are looking to make a career in climate science, then I would suggest you ignore the following request. Most of the public seems to have no idea how groupthink-ish and corrupt science can be. Climate science is, I believe, one of the worst areas, because of strong political pressure, which translate, on some levels, into strong financial pressure. (The medical research area seems even worse, BTW, with big name researchers being ‘compensated’ for putting their names on research that they had little to do with.) Even in areas where there’s no interest or concern by potential donors with mega-bucks, like particle physics and superstring theory, we can find seriously unethical behavior (see ‘Not Even Wrong’ and ‘The Trouble with Physics’; mention is made of a “string theory mafia”).
So, the request is to critique the scientific ethics of a) the climate science ecosystem b) scientific bodies who have endorsed alarmist climate claims, whose members’ core expertise has little or nothing to do with climate science.
I’m not interested in a canned answers, such as “Well, Michael Mann’s work was reviewed 5 times and found to be hunky dory”. This is a political blog, and most readers know about the fine art of the coverup – even if they can’t believe that such things occur in science. Rather, what do you have to say about varous lines of evidence of corruption and groupthink? As just one example, of many, consider this from a paper by Lindzen,:
For many examples of data fudging and distorted presentation, see Monckton’s enumeration, here.
Regarding b), Lindzen has claimed that one such endorsement was actually not of what the IPCC had claimed, but rather what exaggerators of the IPCC were claiming. IOW, a smoking gun, of sorts, that the ‘scientific’ body had not studied anything; or at least not enough to know that they weren’t being snookered into a groupthink endorsement that was actually betraying their superficiality and/or lack of expertise.
Even by their own (the modelers’) standards, in at least 2 cases, the models are failing. See
Is This Any Way to Model a Catastrophe? IPCC Methane Projections Are As Exaggerated As Temperature Projections
Even if we turned a blind eye to all the evidence and reports of fudged data and analysis, it’s questionable that any model, at this point, can be taken too seriously. My understanding is that none of them can predict the PDO. Hell, the PDO was only discovered in the 90′s – after Hansen began his jihad. It’s only recently that UV variations have started getting incorporated into any of the climate models.
Also, their gross inadequacies, in terms of biological factors, were pointed out by Dyson decades ago. It’s not clear to me why anybody should seriously have expected them to have passed any serious test of falsifiability. That, to me, makes as much sense as saying “Hey, I have a cosmological model, that’s 2 dimensional, and ignores the existence of Helium. However, I can make it fit certain small subsets of data, over relatively tiny time domains.” Yeah, well, so what? You model has zero chance of working in an extended time domain, even with infinite tweaking, because you left out Helium. No helium, no fusion. No fusion, no stars….
Maybe a better example is that of cosmological models that, at best, say that there’s such a thing as dark matter. Yippee, you may have solved the problem of the high rotational speed of galaxies, but you basically don’t know anything else about DM. Did it precede normal matter? Can it carry a charge? What, quantitatively, can you say about the rate of it’s interaction with other matter? Maybe in a hundred years we’ll know the answer to these questions. To pretend we know, already, doesn’t make any sense.
As per Lomborg, I don’t accept that even the middling IPCC scenarios are catastrophic. As per Lindzen, Choi, Spencer, etc., I believe the most likely scenarios are about 1 degree C per CO2 doubling. I.e., only about 1/3 the IPCC middling scenario.
So, the climate catastrophists are wrong both about CO2′s magical powers, and wrong about implying that even the IPCC’s middling scenarios would be catastrophic, on a world-wide basis.
The worst of the climate catastrophists – including those who point to the IPCC as their reference – are divorced even from the IPCC, itself, if Lindzen is to be believed! So, the climate catastrophist onion has 3 layers, at least. I suppose that makes it somewhat understandable why the hoi polloi cannot give a definition of “climate change denier” – even aside from the obvious fact (obvious if you bother to think about it) that so-called “climate change deniers” don’t deny that climate changes, hence the term is doublespeak. If the hoi polloi were to get tired of the doublespeak, and ask their gurus, “well, what exactly are we saying, here, that is being rejected by thousands of scientists?” they would also be more inclined to peer into the catastrophist ‘onion’. It’s hard to generalize, but my impression is that there’s no real interest in looking into the intellectual foundations of their climate belief system. Nor into the well studied phenomenon of groupthink amongst scientists. Nor into the question of systemic corruption. Even on a poitical blog, where it’s generally accepted that big bucks have corrupted both major political parties, there’s awfully little interest in looking into corruption in science – which also runs on bucks, that ultimately come from government (generally captured by plutcratic forces – remember?) or from industry.
The hypothesized positive feedback for CO2 GHG effect appears to actually be zero, and the climate system is very stable (thankfully). I think it’s Lindzen who has pointed out that the imagined positive feedback for CO2 does not even pass the test of consistency. It’d be much warmer, now, already, than it actually is, if there was anything like the positive feedback for CO2 that the catastrophists claim.
In all that blather I didn’t see you admit that any fact — any fact at all — could or would change your mind. In other words, your analysis is completely immune to any new facts. That’s not very, how shall I say it, scientific, but I think we all understood that about you a long while ago.
From Jeff Master’s blog today:
A record 199 days without a tornado death
Yes, the Army Corps of Engineers is currently dredging parts of the Mississippi River in an effort to keep the water flowing so that barge traffic can traverse it. I wrote a little more about the CO river in the post b/c it’s closer to home. If the Mississippi shuts down, even for a few days or a couple of weeks, the economic impacts will be significant. As usual for people, attention is drawn only when impacts are personalized.
OFG-
I appreciate your input on this. I respectfully disagree with your statement and chose my words with care. As part of my graduate studies, I’ve read peer-reviewed social science literature on the language used in the climate debate. Once terms like “deniers” and facts are thrown about, 1/3 or more of your potential audience is automatically tuned out to whatever you have to say, however it is backed up. We all have belief systems that are rooted in biology. That’s fact too. The key to the climate debate, IMO, is to spend more time listening to what skeptics have to say and addressing their concerns, not vilifying and insulting them. That said, I won’t waste my time engaging with skeptics who vilify and insult me. I know where my knowledge base stands and what it took to achieve it. Where we choose to acknowledge expertise is part of this issue. You and I acknowledge scientific peer-review. Other people might acknowledge faith leaders or someone on TV. We each appear equally “wrong” to the other. In the end though, anthropogenic climate change will only be mitigated when we stop excluding significant portions of the population.
I could also spend quite a bit of time discussing what makes up reality, but it boils down to: again, it depends on the person. There isn’t a correct reality and incorrect realities. Who was real: Newton or Einstein? Will scientists discover additional physics that disproves Newton again and Einstein in new ways? Almost certainly. Does that make Einstein a denier? No, he constructed a reality based on his worldview.
Cheers.
SS-
Are you talking about solar irradiance?
Solar irradiance is up less than 1W/m^2 since its 2008 minimum, with solar forcing up less than 0.125W/m^2. Moreover, the solar irradiance cycle has not been repeated by Earth’s or the US’s temperature trend. Instead, temperatures in the past 10 years are higher than they were the 10 years prior, which were higher than they 10 years prior, etc. La Nina had more of an influence on global temperatures in 2012 than the change in solar irradiance did. But again, the US recorded its warmest calendar year on record – by a very large margin. While 2012 likely won’t set a global temperature record, it will be warmer than most years preceding it.
Oceanic dead zones are indeed another problem that is not being handled.
I won’t provide a definition for “climate change denialism” because it’s not a useful term. To the contrary, it’s a term that wrecks discussion instead of facilitating it.
I prefer anthropogenic climate change skeptics, which I usually shorthand with climate skeptics. It’s still a blanket term which doesn’t address a lot of nuance across the spectrum of folks who have different reasons for challenging AGW arguments, but it’s better than most terms, IMO.
I’ll actually take up the latter and think about the former since that’s not something I’ve spent time reading.
I’ll say this: science in general isn’t quite the paragon of virtue that most people think it is. After spending part of two classes on scientific ethics, I came away less jaded than I was before. But I think the reason for that is I was prepared to take an outsider’s view on the topic and most scientists aren’t. The peer review process isn’t perfect. That said, it is what it is and the chances of changing it soon aren’t high. Among its problems is the propensity to pass along papers written by authors who have been published before. This cements a “good-ol-boy” framework and I don’t think it’s to science’s benefit that it exists. A reasonable recommendation that has been pointedly ignored in the past: double-blind reviews. If you don’t attach names to papers, reviewers have to judge the quality of the work by itself. This play into, as I wrote back to OFG, worldviews and who we view as legitimate experts. It also deals with something we’re all familiar with criticizing: power structures. Today’s top-dogs don’t want the system to change because they might lose power and influence. The problem is, whoever is at the top of the power scheme will always feel that way and resist change.
I don’t think climate science is any more prone to corruption than other sciences, non-social or social. I read about things in the medical field that churned by stomach. But I also read about mathematics papers that were accepted by journals that didn’t even include any math. The incidence of falsification and plagiarism is much wider than many are willing to acknowledge. But it’s in every field. The main difference about climate science is that it was politicized, so we hear and read more about it. I think the corruption in fields like economics and finance probably touches on more of our lives than is accepted, but it’s hardly ever discussed. How many economists and finance experts are consistently and easily proven absolutely wrong? How many remain experts because of their grip at the top of their power structure? Their models are “more wrong” if that’s possible than climate models due to some of the same problems: they’re models and therefore imperfect representations of reality. But it’s all we’ve got to work with for now.
The placement of science on a pedestal was viewed as necessary post-WWII in America. It was a way to rally citizens around a field that offered improved living standards with investment. I still believe that science offers that and more (gets into truth claims which are way stickier than corruption). Is it a perfect enterprise? I’ll state now it’s less perfect than I thought it was. But I think it is an enterprise that works, despite all its warts. We should absolutely work to improve it every chance we get. That’s not easy or quick, but it has to be done regardless.
Sorry, I guess we’ll just have to disagree.
I just couldn’t disagree more on this “there is no reality, only perception” thing as IMO it’s one of the reasons for many of our problems, not just climate change.
The world IS round. And if folks choose to believe in a fantasy that it’s flat, they are WRONG, and in DENIAL.
Likewise, global warming IS real. And the folks that choose to believe that it isn’t are WRONG.
There are things that are universally true, and the only hope we have of solving our problems or to even have a conversation about a solution is if we begin with agreement on reality. And those that profit from fossil fuels INTENTIONALLY try to change/confuse reality. I simply cannot and will not support that.
Wow, are you a breath of fresh air, or what? I may end up buying your swag. :-)
I guess you mean you’ll take up Koutsoyiannis and Markonis. That’s cool. I think that, scientifically, it’s the most interesting thing I’ve seen, regarding climate, like ever. However, I’m embarrassed to say that I don’t understand it, and my opinion is based on what I’ve grokked from the abstracts and what other, more knowledgeable people have said about it.
BTW, I discovered yesterday that KM benefitted from “pal review”, when it came to getting accepted. Their research group is basically civil engineers, many with interests in hydrology.
Duly noted.
I don’t want to belabor the point too far so I’ll ask a quick question: how many skeptics have been meaningfully engaged on AGW by calling them names, calling them stupid, etc.? Doing so shuts down conversation and limits understanding, exactly the opposite of what I think should be done.
I definitely don’t think there are things that are universally true. If they were universally true, why isn’t everybody an adherent to that truth? We might want everybody else to believe exactly as we do individually, but that’s never going to happen. Instead, we have to engage other people within frameworks from which they operate. If metamars, for example, called me a climate catastrophist, I wouldn’t feel very inclined to read anything else they said with an open mind.
In the end, I respect your viewpoint also. I appreciate your reading and commenting on this topic. Hopefully we “see” each other again.
Ha – that’s great!
Here’s to fruitful future discussions. :)