Tweet
According to data released by NASA and NOAA this week, 2012 was the 9th or 10th warmest year (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.
27 Comments
From my previous post, shebs wrote back:
I tried to address shebs’ ice-free Arctic point in this post. We are starting to see the effect of a partially ice-free Arctic and the effects are eye-opening already. I will also note that these effects weren’t well projected prior to the recent record low areas of Arctic sea ice. I think there are effects to be witnessed that will continue to surprise us all (scientists included). That isn’t meant to scare anybody, but to prepare us for future breaking news stories. We can always know a little bit more about complex systems such as our climate.
It’s the sun.
As usual, nice post. BTW the American Meteorological Society is unequivable about climate change. They have a nice information statement on the matter written last fall that succintly captures discussion on the major points. See this link:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
Recommend taking a look, its concise and clearly written.
No, it is not the sun. If it was the sun, the night time temperatures would not be going up but they are. Clearly the atmosphere is warming and staying warmer after sunset.
Piers Corbyn.
Not much credibility.
~
The AMS statement was a good one: pretty complete and accurate. The only quibble I had was that it took until 2012 for it to be released. It should have been issued a long time ago. Thanks for linking to it.
I’ll assume you meant to link to the Colbert Report.
Obviously the solution to the mounting costs of climate change is the implementation of chained CPI for Social Security.
No, it’s tax breaks for millionaires!
And guns, lots of guns…
WeatherDem, have you heard of the proposal to spray salt sea mist into the Arctic atmosphere this summer in order to artificially cloud the Artic Region? This is a safe way to reflect the sun’s beams and to halt perennial sea ice and permafrost melt. This proposal sounds doable and very important, considering the planetary emergency we’re facing.
Another proposal is to feed areas with iron oxide where phytoplankton bloom. Phytoplankton are essential for supplying the earth’s atmosphere and oceans with oxygen.
Will you, or anyone with knowledge of these proposals please comment? I know there are detractors of these ideas, and if so, I’d like to hear their solutions. Perhaps this has been discussed in depth before.
The sun has been cooling lately, not warming.
Yes, the sun is cooling and that is why there has been no global warming for the last sixteen years.
Lefttown, you bring up a really good question.
Yes, I’ve heard of this and other proposals. In the climate world, we speak of mitigation (reducing GHGs), adaptation (sea walls, water law), and more recently geoengineering. Geoengineering technologies come in two flavors, for which you provide examples: Solar Radiation Management (reflective particles or surfaces) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (iron dumping and other technologies).
I wrote a paper for a class last year dealing with a subtopic: governance of geoengineering; specifically the current lack of governance. By analogy, medical researchers have a very specific framework in place that prevents them from doing certain things while allowing them to push their frontiers. If they had no framework and were allowed to do research on anything they wanted in any way they wanted, then their situation would be similar to atmospheric scientists’ situation right now.
The majority of geoengineering research to date has been theoretical or numerical model-dependent. Tiny real-world experiments have taken place. Slightly larger experiments have been proposed and attempted, but many have been stopped at the last moment by the public, who generally were not addressed in the experiment planning phase.
Spraying water in the air would act to reflect some of the incoming solar radiation, which would reduce the heating experienced by the surface (water, land, or ice). This is similar in nature as what volcanoes do: inject reflective particles into the stratosphere that last for a length of time dependent on the strength and volume of the ejection. Some geoengineering proposals call for man-made stratospheric sulfur injection.
There are many ethical considerations that we need to consider prior to large-scale deployment of any technology. If we inject particles or bloom phytoplankton, what will the long-term effects be and who or what will be affected? For instance, if China were to increase cloud reflectivity over African countries, but could reflectivity decreased over the US and severe drought continued for years, what should our response be? If Australia releases tons of iron into the ocean and causes a fish population explosion off their coast, but anoxic zones moved off the west coast of the Americas and fisheries collapsed, what then? What unintended consequences would result that we don’t even know about? An example: we drive our cars and buy our stuff, but wintertime temperatures in the Rocky Mountains are high enough that pine beetles can reproduce twice per year instead of once, resulting in tens of millions of acres of dead trees. Did we intend to kill the trees when we drove? Of course not, but it still contributed to the problem.
One primary problem with geoengineering that I’ve heard raised is we would have to continue with the exercise for decades to centuries without stopping. The reason for this is the underlying problem isn’t addressed: GHGs would continue to rise for decades. If the exercise stopped, the temperature rise as a result of GHG concentrations would be even faster than it has been in recent decades. This would also be, of course, very expensive. Who would decide that we should pay (and should it be developed or developing countries)? Why should we spend money on this on not other things?
I think geoengineering is an interesting idea. It might be something that we try if enough people decide that an emergency situation is occurring (note I don’t think that’s the case now). What I argued in my paper is reasonable governance needs to be implemented before someone (non-state actor) or some group (research team) deploys a large-scale geoengineering technology.
Thanks so much for your reply. You wrote that you don’t think an emergency situation is occurring. I hope you’re right. There are, as you know, many scientists who disagree with you, such as AMEG (Arctic Methane Emergency Group), who disagree with you:
http://a-m-e-g.blogspot.com/2012/12/ameg-strategic-plan.html
I don’t claim to know one way or another, and you’re certainly so much more knowledgeable about the subject. I think, though, sometimes we have to risk long-term consequences in order to mitigate short-term catastrophe. AMEG asserts:
I very much hope you’re right.
This says it all. Thanks for keeping us up to date on these developments, or sadly, lack thereof.
Thanks for reading a long reply!
I am definitely aware that there are scientists who would characterize the situation as an emergency. I respect their opinion, but as I’ve expanded from strictly atmospheric science into the social sciences, I’ve seen evidence (in the peer-reviewed social science literature) that such a characterization isn’t helpful in securing broad support across ideological boundaries for climate action. I think if natural scientists are serious about wanting people to respect their results in their peer-reviewed literature, they should be open to accepting expertise outside of their comfort zone. That mostly doesn’t exist, for various reasons. But crying “emergency” when millions of us live high-wealth, comfortable lives doesn’t resonate. Furthermore, crying “emergency” paralyzes too many people and that’s the opposite of what we need.
Here’s my opinion: we’re already beyond 2C global warming by the end of the century. But 2C is an arbitrary threshold that the IPCC chose as important. No science supports such a threshold as “safe” vs “dangerous”, despite what you hear from scientists’ press releases. Will the world change beyond 2C warming? Absolutely. Will human systems and ecosystems adapt? Yes, because we can and have done so in the past. Indeed, we’ll have no other choice as we begin and maintain mitigation strategies to simultaneously begin and maintain adaptation strategies. If we didn’t want to adapt to a shifted world, we should have mitigated decades ago. I definitely don’t think adaptation will be impossible. We’re simply too technologically advanced and committed to further technological innovation. There will be winners and losers in the coming decades. I think more effort should be directed toward minimizing the losses given the physical and political realities that are present.
I do hope that President Obama is serious about addressing climate change. As I said, we’re decades late already. How much warming and related effects occur remains in our hands. The task however is much larger than most people think. Moreover, in our complex society, there are simply too many pressing matters demanding attention. Our top priority is others’ 20th top priority. So long as that’s the case, we’ll have to ensure whatever actions are implemented are as strong as we can make them, because they will be relatively small in number and effect for the time being.
Thanks for reading & replying.
The lack of progress has convinced me that past approaches should either be abandoned or overhauled. We can’t expect grand results when so few results have been achieved thus far.
Ah, I had glanced at this diary when it first came out, but missed this paragraph. I’ll probably write a diary, in response.
Basically, I will argue that the oceans are indeed gaining heat, but the trend is linear (inferring from sea level rise – lubos motls recently had an article on tide gauge reading in NYC harbor), going back to well before the explosion in human CO2 production. Since sea level changes do indeed give an accurate proxy for the thermal expansion of the oceans on a short time scale, there is no reason (that I can see) why it would not serve as a good temperature proxy over 100+ years.
See The oceans as a calorimeter by Nir Shaviv, also a recent talk by him here, where he also discusses why the IPCC models have been off so much, as well as his own model, which has “half the residual error” compared to IPCC models.
Thanks again for replying. The 2C threshold used by the IPCC is arbitrary, but here is what stumps me (again, it’s from AMEG’s website, and it’s a press release–sorry!):
What I’m extrapolating from that is the 2C threshold was too conservative. Am I wrong? From AMEG:
Weatherdem, I don’t think we can depend on Obama to do much more than give lip service to climate change. He hasn’t outright rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, and he’s expanded his wars, which are catastrophic to the environment. Just my opinion.
Thanks, vagreen and metamars, too, for stepping into the discussion. This has taken on an urgency for me that’s probably out of all proportion.
Another informative post WD, one part of this story that is missed is that there are powerful Capitalist forces that see GW as an opportunity and consider anything humans do Natural. The bonanza that will come from remediation, oil extraction and mining in Greenland is pure Disaster Capitalism.
There will be losers but under our current economic Regime losers are just losers and the winners will profit handsomely.
The political attempt to stop GW was cleverly and quite easily defeated with very little cost since Capital controls the political system and manipulates the MSM. The scientific community was outgunned from the beginning and will now be used to engineer massive profits for whatever remedies the PTB decide are appropriate.
This is a win-win situstion for Capital because it opens the Artic to exploitation and only they have the financial and engineering megacorps able to build the Terraforming infrastructure needed to control runaway GW.
Since the hubris of the Disaster Capitalists is so great i fear they will fail in their attempts to control GW and be forced to use Nuclear Winter as the final tool to attempt to tame the monster they created.
You’re welcome, but do note that Shaviv does not believe in catastrophic AGW, and his conclusion, which you can see a visual for at 36:00 into the his talk, is that climate sensitivity to CO2 is quite low ~ 1 degree C per CO2 doubling.
He in no way expects us to burn enough fossil fuels that we double CO2, in this century. I agree, though if it was left to Western elites, I wouldn’t doubt it.
If you’ll allow me to put on my Connections thinking cap: the reason that we will never double CO2 production is because Chinese babies in Beijing are going to be suffering from asthma, if the Chinese keep on with their mad dash for coal fired power plants. I worked in Jinan, which was a working class city, and quite polluted. Beijing was much cleaner, including the air.
The national government, however, is based out of Beijing, and that is where the top priorities are set. They are affluent enough, in Beijing, to care more about whether their own babies* are choking, than whether their next car is a GM (made in China, of course), or an imported Mercedes Benz. They also have the political power, there, and their government is forward looking – not in human rights, but in terms of science and technology.
They’re sending astronauts into outer space, for crying out loud. Can’t a society that sends astronauts into outer space develop fusion?
I have no evidence for that train of thought – I haven’t worked in China for over 10 years – but this is what I expect to be the case.
Well, better for us to buy carbon free fusion plants from China, than to stick with fossil fuels. I prefer not to think about the scenario of Western elites forbidding Chinese made fusion power plants, as they force us to stick with fossil fuels with a dollop of solar and wind, thrown into the mix. Too painful.
* Chinese babies in Jinan may be too far off for them to empathize with; even mafiosi empathize with their own babies.
From Beijing air pollution soars to hazard level
(emphasis mine)
The 2C warming probably was too conservative an estimate. This estimate was based on climate scientists’ poor assumption that policymakers wouldn’t allow the globe to warm 2°C above the pre-industrial average due to the consequences that would follow. More technically, scientists focused on the SRES B1 scenario instead of the A1B, A2, or A1FI scenarios, which I discussed in an post series dedicated to the basics. The post also shows our actual emissions compared to simulated emissions through 2010. We continue to hug or exceed the top of the range (above A2 and occasionally A1FI).
That’s why the range of 21st century warming sounds so large (on the order of 1.1-6.4°C; 1.98-11.5°F): the range encompasses the low to high emission scenario results. Note that 2°C is approximately in the middle of the range of B1 results.
I’ve argued for a couple of years now that 2°C warming is unattainable given our historical and likely emissions over the next couple of decades. So what is plausible? I think we need to focus our attention on the A2 or A1FI SRES scenarios from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report or the 8.5 Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP8.5) from the upcoming Fifth Assessment Report. A2 projected 2-5.4°C warming of annual global temperatures by 2100; A1FI projected 2.4-6.4°C warming. Note that AR4 models were missing important feedback processes (including Arctic ice loss and heat transfer to deep oceans). Note further that AR5 models are still missing some of them, but not all. That tells me that their projections are likely to be on the conservative side.
Again, I don’t think anyone should panic over these statements. That won’t do us any good. Be aware of what the projections show and what assumptions went into them so you can judge their results.
I think you’re right: Obama won’t reject Keystone. The reason is simple: there is a market for the product and whether the product is transported across the US or Canada, it will be extracted and burned. The economics will “win out” over the environmental concerns.
The oceanic sea surface height change is non-linear over the past half-century or so (period with reliable records). The same can be said for land-based ice-sheet mass loss, near-surface temperatures, …
Thanks for reading & commenting wayoutwest.
Suffice to say that our economic system isn’t the most efficient at balancing multiple goals at the same time. Unfortunately, we don’t have anything else as a viable option.
You bring up an interesting point: the difference in measured air quality values by the Chinese versus Americans. The American embassy has received a lot of heat for publishing their particulate readings without Chinese approval. As you point out, the measurements quite often differ substantially. If the average Chinese person had access to American information and knew what the health standards are, they would understandably object to the situation. Of course, the Chinese argue that American recordings are biased. Since I haven’t taken the recordings and monitored the status of the network myself, I cannot speak to their authenticity. But I suspect, given the information I’ve seen, they’re probably correct.
The good news is rising living standards allows people to spend time thinking about the quality of their air, etc. I expect to see more pressure put on Chinese officials to clean up places where people live. That said, Chinese investment in green technologies in recent years is quite impressive. We will see the effects of this soon I imagine.
To follow up on emission/concentration pathways, you should look into the best-case RCP scenario. It’s ludicrous (makes the B2 scenario look extremely polluting) but was still used as a scenario in recent climate modeling efforts. In short, negative carbon emissions supposedly take place later this century. Anyone want to explain to me how that’s supposed to happen?