2011: Earth's 11th warmest year; where is the climate headed?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:22 PM GMT on January 27, 2012

Share this Blog
44
+

The year 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said last week. NASA rated 2011 as the 9th warmest on record. Land temperatures were the 8th warmest on record, and ocean temperatures, the 11th warmest. For the Arctic, which has warmed about twice as much as the rest of the planet, 2011 was the warmest year on record (between 64°N and 90°N latitude.) The year 2011 was also the 2nd wettest year over land on record, as evidenced by some of the unprecedented flooding Earth witnessed. The wettest year over land was the previous year, 2010.


Figure 1. Departure of global temperature from average for 2011. The Arctic was the warmest region, relative to average. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.

How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?
The El Niño/La Niña cycle causes cyclical changes in global temperatures that average out to zero over the course of several decades. La Niña events bring a large amount of cold water to the surface in the equatorial Eastern Pacific, which cools global temperatures by up to 0.2°C. El Niño events have the opposite effect. The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. Global temperatures were 0.12°C (0.2°F) cooler than the record warmest year for the planet (2010), and would very likely have been the warmest on record had an El Niño event been present instead.


Figure 2. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1950 - 2011, classified by phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. ENSO is a natural episodic fluctuation in sea surface temperature (El Niño/La Niña) and the air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Over a period of months to a few years, ENSO fluctuates between warmer-than-average ocean surface waters (El Niño) and cooler-than-average ocean surface waters (La Niña) in that region. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution
We know that natural episodes of global warming or cooling in the distant past have been caused by changes in sunlight and volcanic dust. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 33 years we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010, took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 33 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.


Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2010, adjusted to remove natural variations due to fluctuations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in sunlight. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image credit Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010 by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Commentary: what do climate scientists think?
Some scientists have proposed that previously unknown natural causes could be responsible for global warming, such as a decrease in cloud-producing galactic cosmic rays. Others have proposed that the climate may be responding to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide by producing more clouds, which reflect away sunlight and offset the added heat-trapping gases. These theories have little support among actively publishing climate scientists. Despite public belief that climate scientists are divided about the human contribution to our changing climate, polling data show high agreement among climate scientists that humans are significantly affecting the climate. A 2008 poll of actively publishing climate scientists found that 97% said yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" In my personal experience interacting with climate scientists, I have found near-universal support for this position. For example, I am confident that all 23 climate scientists and meteorologists whom I am personally acquainted with at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science would agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you.

Where is the climate headed?
The 2007 United Nations-sponsored IPCC report predicted that global temperatures between 2007 and 2030 should rise by an average of 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. The observed warming over the past 30 years is 15 - 30% below that (but within the range of uncertainty given by the 2007 IPCC climate models.) Most of the increase in global temperatures during the past 30 years occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. The 2000s have seen relatively flat temperatures, despite increasing CO2 emissions by humans. The lower-than-expected warming may be partially due to a sharp decrease in stratospheric water vapor that began after 2000. The missing heat may also be going into the deep ocean waters below about 1,000 feet (300 meters), as part of a decades-long cycle that will bring extra heat to the surface years from now. Regardless, the laws of physics demand that the huge amount of heat-trapping gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere must be significantly altering the weather and climate, even if we are seeing a lower than predicted warming. As wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood said in a recent post,Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: "Given that greenhouse gases are well-known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it."

Our recent unusual weather has made me think about this a lot. The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have become significantly disrupted over the past few years. Many of Earth's major atmospheric circulation patterns have seen significant shifts and unprecedented behavior; new patterns that were unknown have emerged, and extreme weather events were incredibly intense and numerous during 2010 - 2011. It boggles my mind that in 2011, the U.S. saw 14 - 17 billion-dollar weather disasters, three of which matched or exceeded some of the most iconic and destructive weather events in U.S. history--the "Super" tornado outbreak of 1974, the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, and the great Mississippi River flood of 1927. I appeared on PBS News Hour on December 28 (video here) to argue that watching the weather over the past two years has been like watching a famous baseball hitter on steroids--an analogy used in the past by climate scientists Tony Broccoli and Jerry Meehl. We're used to seeing the slugger hit the ball out of the park, but not with the frequency he's hitting them now that he's on steroids. Moreover, some of the home runs now land way back in the seats where no one has ever been able to hit a home run before. We can't say that any particular home run would not have occurred without the steroids, but the increase in home runs and the unprecedented ultra-long balls are highly suspicious. Similarly, Earth's 0.6°C (1°F) warming and 4% increase in global water vapor since 1970 have created an atmosphere on steroids. A warmer atmosphere has more energy to power stronger storms, hotter heat waves, more intense droughts, and heavier flooding rains. Natural weather patterns could have caused some of the extreme events we witnessed during 2010 - 2011, and these years likely would have been naturally extreme years even without climate change. But it strains the bounds of credulity that all of the extreme weather events--some of them 1-in-1000-year type events--could have occurred without a significant change to the base climate state. Mother Nature is now able to hit the ball out of the park more often, and with much more power, thanks to the extra energy global warming has put into the atmosphere.

Extreme weather years like 2010 and 2011 are very likely to increase in frequency, since there is a delay of several decades between when we put heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere and when the climate fully responds. This is because Earth's oceans take so long to heat up when extra heat is added to the atmosphere (think about how long it takes it takes for a lake to heat up during summer.) Due to this lag, we are just now experiencing the full effect of CO2 emitted by the late 1980s; since CO2 has been increasing by 1 - 3% per year since then, there is a lot more climate change "in the pipeline" we cannot avoid. We've set in motion a dangerous boulder of climate change that is rolling downhill, and it is too late to avoid major damage when it hits full-force several decades from now. However, we can reduce the ultimate severity of the damage with strong and rapid action. A boulder rolling downhill can be deflected in its path more readily early in its course, before it gains too much momentum in its downward rush. For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that every dollar we invest in alternative energy before 2020 will save $4.30 later. There are many talented and dedicated people working very hard to deflect the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change--but they need a lot more help very soon.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 833 - 783

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

833. DoctorDave1
7:43 PM GMT on September 13, 2013
It is now 2013. Last 6 months SE U.S. has 4th coldest on record. No heat islands here! And, obviously no AGW. http://1.usa.gov/181PcDS
Member Since: August 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 116
832. vcastle61
6:28 PM GMT on March 04, 2013
Our world is warming up; this can not be denied or contested.

The last ice age ended about 14,000 years ago, and accounts for the stories of the "great flood" that exist in most older religions, that story being handed down verbally until we developed written language.

From a geological standpoint we are 14,000 years into a warming cycle that will continue for about another 20,000 years, then begin cooling until we are back in an ice age like what existed 14,000 years ago. This happens over and over, within a larger cycle that lasts millions of years.

Will we go back into an ice age? Absolutely. Why? Because we are not adding new carbon, just bringing carbon that was on the surface, then buried (oil, coal, etc.)back to the surface again. We will use it all up and then we will have none, and eventually coal and oil will form again. It will take millions of years for it to reform, but it will, if the planet survives.

Now, human contribution: humans have brought back to the surface, and to the atmosphere, large quantities of carbon that were on the surface when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Everything I am told says this will "hasten" global warming by as much as 100 years. This seems to say that instead of reaching our peak heating cycle in 20,000 years (give or take) we will reach it in 19,900 years!

The point in all of this is to say that the earth is normally (based on the number of years in a condition) either much warmer or much cooler than it is today. In fact, humanity did not flourish until this temperate phase came into being, as other times were so hot or so cold that we could only exist, and that barely.

Now that our society has flourished in a temperate time we, in our hubris, have decided to keep the world this way. Sorry, it will not work; we can reduce the effect and offset the rising temperatures by 100 years, but the world is still going to get much hotter in the next thousand years, the polar ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise, coastal communities will become submerged (archeologists can find them thousands of years from now and speculate on the artifacts they find), and species will be wiped out.

Realizing that most people on this blog that will read this will be steaming at this point, why did I bother to write it?

Simply put, we need to begin to focus on how our species will survive with the inevitable warming that will take place regardless of our impact! But, as is normal for humans, we are so focused on the 1 degree of man made global warming that we completely ignore preparing our societies for the 10 or 15 degrees of natural warming!

Unless, of course, a major volcano or asteroid cools us down...but we are not prepared for that either, are we?
Member Since: May 19, 2006 Posts: 7 Comments: 12
831. rdstoll
6:04 PM GMT on March 04, 2013
Could you possibly use any more hyperbole to describe this "climate change"?

"...the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change..."

Is it any surprise that the public at large is skeptical of these scientists imploring us to "do something" (i.e. spend taxpayer money) in order to avoid an near-certain catastrophe?

Please.

First off, anyone who has taken Atmospheric & Oceanic Studies 101 knows that isolating a single, short time period and extrapolating that into the future is scientifically wrong. Especially when the measurements are not consistent and are refined on a regular basis.

Let's take the TWC-like emotion and hype out of the equation for a second: Should we all care about pollutants that are being put into our environment? Yes, certainly. Should we all do what we can to reduce these emissions? Absolutely. Are we in fact doing that? Well, according the US Energy Information Administration, cabon emmissions are at 20-year lows in the United States.

Climate scientists who jump up and down the most about global warming, using/finding data to "prove" a conclusion that they had already reached - have done the entire movement towards cleaning up the environment a huge disservice.
Member Since: February 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 7
830. mckTXaws
7:53 PM GMT on January 14, 2013
This maybe my lack of knowledge or confusion, but I just don't see this as a big deal. I remember watching something a while back on National Geographic about the dinosaurs and prehistoric time frame they suggested the earth was far warmer back then than it is today. So global warming is a bad thing? Or is it better to live in a minature ice age? Okay I'm wrong. Hurricane Sandy, the droughts, and all the other weather occurences do lead me to believe that yes there are some bad side effects. I do believe in global warming but I don't really believe it's a bad thing if it's true that it has been happening through out history. It's hard to have a solid opinion about this when I hear two different stories.

Member Since: April 30, 2008 Posts: 36 Comments: 80
829. Spinalis
7:14 PM GMT on January 14, 2013
"...Earth's 11th warmest year..."

Oh....you mean since 1880.

Nice sample.
Member Since: May 4, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
828. LargoFl
2:25 PM GMT on February 06, 2012
Quoting Xandra:
Big Oil puts $1 into Congress and gets $59 out.

when are we going to demand that the extra dollar per gallon of gas that george Bush put on a gallon of gas..be repealed? and why arent people outraged at this, gas by my area is now $3.go a gallon and predictions are in 2013 for it to go to $5.oo a gallon
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 41001
827. Dragontide
7:28 PM GMT on February 04, 2012
How does this play out in "tornado" terms? If you add 1/2 to 3/4 degrees (F) to the global land & ocean surface temperature average, would that mean tornado outbreaks with hundreds or even thousands of tornadoes? Or just more outbreaks and more super cell tornadoes?
Member Since: February 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2
826. ColdInFL
10:30 AM GMT on January 31, 2012
Here we go again:

Link
Member Since: September 11, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 71
825. Neapolitan
7:07 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting SPLbeater:


we dont need no windmills on top of everything to ruin the scenery, now do we?
If home-schooling has imparted to you any critical thinking skills, here's a good time to use them: strictly from an eyesore point of view, which is worse? Installing a white 300-foot windmill atop a lush green mountain? Or stripping that mountain of all trees, flattening it, crushing it into powder, then dumping the remaining gravel and rocks into what used to be valleys and pastoral fields between what used to be mountains?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13613
824. Neapolitan
7:02 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting ScottLincoln:


Well, they aren't the 200 scientists who tried to submit the same type of editorial to the Wall Street Journal a in the last couple of years, only to have it denied. I'd be willing to wager that the 16 scientists have less climate science credentials than the 200 .
Very true. Just your typical bunch of aged oil company shills, conspiracy theorists, and non-climatologists prattling on about who-knows-what...

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/scie ntists-challenging-climate-science-appear-to-flunk -climate-economics/?smid=tw-nytimesscience&seid=au to

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/29/413961/p anic-attack-murdoch-wall-street-journal-finds-16-s cientists-long-debunked-climate-lies/

http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13613
823. ScottLincoln
6:51 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting 21Jake:
Anyone seen this?

Link

Who are these so called 16 "scientists"?


Well, they aren't the 200+ scientists who tried to submit the same type of editorial to the Wall Street Journal a in the last couple of years, only to have it denied. I'd be willing to wager that the 16 scientists have less climate science credentials than the 200+.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3237
822. WxGeekVA
6:49 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
NEW BLOG!
Member Since: September 3, 2011 Posts: 13 Comments: 3476
821. PensacolaDoug
6:30 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting wxmod:


ACTUALLY,
Crimes against humanity are a world court issue and laws of the good ol usa don't apply.


Laws of the USA apply when one is in the USA.
SO who all here are "employed" by the fossil fuel industry? In your own goofy opinion?
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 591
820. SPLbeater
6:25 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting percylives:


Not necessarily. 2 of my 3 sons now in their later 20's with real jobs burn less fossil fuel than they did as teenagers in high school. Both now live in cities and bicycle where they can't get with public transit. Neither own a car and one has never even gotten a driver's license. As teenagers they lived in the country and drove or was driven somewhere everyday. Models for the future, I hope.

As far as NIMBY goes, I'd love to see big windmills all along the top of the Blue Ridge and all along the coast. Either we destroy the mountains of Virginia and West Virginia to get at the dirty coal or we look at windmills on top of the mountains. Bring those big ones (3 Megawatts and larger) to the mountains and the coastal waters. Finally, if you are a serious wind developer and are looking for a central VA location, let's talk. That's what I think of NIMBY.


we dont need no windmills on top of everything to ruin the scenery, now do we?
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
819. percylives
5:40 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:


It's not a crime to produce CO2, else they'd have to execute everyone.

You can't legislate away global warming by international law. Want to know why?

Because nobody would obey it anyway, and then if anyone tries to enforce it, they'll start World War 3.

Do you really tink anyone is going to cut their carbon production by 50% in advanced nations just to offset the improvements in world living standards in developing nations and 3rd world nations, and global population continues increasing above 10% per decade?

Not likely unless a complete revolution in energy occurs, AND Americans and Europeans get rid of the "NIMBY" attitude as it regards wind and solar systems.

You haven't seen anything yet, really.

The CO2 and methane curves lag about 16 to 20 years behind the population curve, because a person's individual contribution to pollution doesn't REALLY start to kick in until they start driving regularly, and get their first "real" job.


Not necessarily. 2 of my 3 sons now in their later 20's with real jobs burn less fossil fuel than they did as teenagers in high school. Both now live in cities and bicycle where they can't get with public transit. Neither own a car and one has never even gotten a driver's license. As teenagers they lived in the country and drove or was driven somewhere everyday. Models for the future, I hope.

As far as NIMBY goes, I'd love to see big windmills all along the top of the Blue Ridge and all along the coast. Either we destroy the mountains of Virginia and West Virginia to get at the dirty coal or we look at windmills on top of the mountains. Bring those big ones (3 Megawatts and larger) to the mountains and the coastal waters. Finally, if you are a serious wind developer and are looking for a central VA location, let's talk. That's what I think of NIMBY.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
818. Skyepony (Mod)
5:35 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting 21Jake:
Anyone seen this?

Link

Who are these so called 16 "scientists"?


Jer featured this the other day.. They have descriptions of each at the end. Some have obvious ties degree wise to things like big Ag, tech, economy & oil. Others are disgruntled by the whole political scene, like the one that lost his climate job in AU. Interesting part is they don't deny it any longer..And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet..they just don't see the harm in a sudden climate shift to humans & animals. They don't address how CO2 is making the ocean suddenly acidic, effects of acid rain, sea rise or the environmental hazards.

Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 193 Comments: 38697
817. RevElvis
5:34 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Has The Earth Been Cooling?

Video Link
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
816. hydrus
5:32 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
The GFS is starting to show precip for the mid-section of the U.S.
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 21775
815. Neapolitan
5:21 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:


It's not a crime to produce CO2...
No, it's not. However, it is a crime to knowingly, willfully, and intentionally injure one's nation, or to harm its sovereignty. So it's already been argued that some courtroom some time in the future may very well see those accused of that crime brought before it and forced to defend their actions. And if/when that time comes, they'll have to come up with something better than, "It was just for profit, Your Honor".

A new blog entry is up, by the way.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13613
814. yqt1001
5:03 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Member Since: November 19, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 1286
813. RTSplayer
5:02 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting wxmod:


The younger generations can do a class action lawsuit against people who intentionally wrecked their world. It will be a big, big lawsuit and even if my kid only gets a million bucks, so will 7 billion other people. That's quite a bit of dough, don't you think?


Riight...

Because $7 Quadrillion really exists, and them oil companies really have that much money to pay out.

I think you've lost your mind.

Even if a class action lawsuit somehow did happen, you'd only get about a dollar per person.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
812. SPLbeater
4:55 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
i guess i will stay with the Fi 18" sub for awhile...lol. that was crazzzy!
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
811. Patrap
4:55 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Climate Change in Arctic could Trigger Domino Effect Around the World

By Lawrence Villamar | January 30, 2012 4:00 PM EST
Professor Carlos Duarte, a leading scientist from The University of Western Australia, says human kind is set to face dire consequences as the first signs of climate change manifest in the Arctic. He says the region is approaching “a series of ‘tipping points’” that could trigger a domino effect of climate change on Earth.

In a paper, the lead author Professor Duarte, who is also the Director of the University’s Oceans Institute, said the Arctic region contained arguably the greatest concentration of potential tipping elements for global climate change.

“If set in motion, they can generate profound climate change which places the Arctic not at the periphery but at the core of the Earth system,” Professor Carlos Duarte said. “There is evidence that these forces are starting to be set in motion.”

“This has major consequences for the future of human kind as climate change progresses.”

Professor Duarte said the loss of Arctic summer sea ice forecast over the next four decades was expected to have abrupt knock-on effects in northern mid-latitudes, including Beijing, Tokyo, London, Moscow, Berlin and New York.
Research showed that the Arctic was warming at three times the global average and the loss of sea ice, which had melted faster in summer than predicted, was linked tentatively to recent extreme cold winters in Europe.

Professor Duarte said the most dangerous aspect of Arctic climate change was the risk of passing critical “tipping points”.

Arctic records showed unambiguously that sea ice volume had declined dramatically over the past two decades, Professor Duarte said. In the next 10 years, summer sea ice could be largely confined to north of coastal Greenland and Ellesmere Island, and was likely to disappear entirely by mid-century.

“Some environmental and biological elements may be linked in a domino effect of tipping points that cascade rapidly once the summer sea ice is lost,” Professor Duarte said.

However, semantic confusion masquerading as scientific debate had delayed an urgent need to start managing the reality of dangerous climate change in the Arctic, Professor Duarte said.

A drop in Arctic ice had opened new shipping routes, expanded oil, gas and mineral exploitation, increased military and research use, and led to new harbours, houses, roads, airports, power stations and other support facilities

It had triggered a new gold rush to access these resources, with recent struggles by China, Brazil and India to join the Arctic Council where the split of these resources was being discussed.

But increased deposits of black carbon (soot) from coal-burning power stations and stoves on snow and ice had accelerated warming and ice melt.

Top predators such as polar bears were declining, more methane gas was entering the atmosphere as permafrosts and submarine methane hydrates thawed, freshwater discharge had increase 30 per cent recent years and the Arctic Sea was warming faster as the ice cap melted, trapping more solar heat instead of reflecting it back into space.

In the subarctic region, dieback of the boreal forest and desiccation of peat deposits leading to uncontrolled peat fires (such as those that affected Russia in the summer of 2010) would further enhance greenhouse gas emissions.

Professor Duarte said the rate of Arctic climate change was now faster than ecosystems and traditional Arctic societies could adapt to.

The Arctic was expected to stop being a carbon dioxide sink and become a source of greenhouse gases if seawater temperatures rose 4-5ºC.

“It represents a test of our capacity as scientists, and as societies to respond to abrupt climate change,” Professor Duarte said.

“We need to stop debating the existence of tipping points in the Arctic and start managing the reality of dangerous climate change.

“We argue that tipping points do not have to be points of no return.

“Several tipping points, such as the loss of summer sea ice, may be reversible in principle − although hard in practice.

“However, should these changes involve extinction of key species − such as polar bears, walruses, ice-dependent seals and more than 1000 species of ice algae − the changes could represent a point of no return.

“Confusion distracts attention from the urgent need to focus on developing early warning indicators of abrupt climate change, address its human causes and rebuild resilience in climate, ecosystems and communities.”

Duarte’s paper was published in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ journal AMBIO and a parallel commentary is available in Nature Climate Change.

Source: University of Western Australia

To contact the editor, e-mail: editor@ibtimes.com
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
810. SPLbeater
4:52 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
there it is. its changed to Tebow and i didnt change it. ?????
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
809. SPLbeater
4:51 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Why is it, that when i view my historical blogs from december n november...my profile changes? bt when i come back to my corrent one n here...its back to the SMD Subwoofer?
Member Since: August 4, 2011 Posts: 46 Comments: 4488
808. Patrap
4:48 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Must be a cleaning day over at da Bunker.

LoL
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
807. Xandra
4:47 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Big Oil puts $1 into Congress and gets $59 out.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
806. wxmod
4:46 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:


I'm not involved with any oil industry.

I'm just telling you the simple truth about a founding principle of this country.

You cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not a crime at the time the act was committed.


The younger generations can do a class action lawsuit against people who intentionally wrecked their world. It will be a big, big lawsuit and even if my kid only gets a million bucks, so will 7 billion other people. That's quite a bit of dough, don't you think?
Member Since: October 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1766
805. PolishHurrMaster
4:45 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting Skyepony:



Your temperatures has fallen.. That river just partially frozen?


The tempereratures are below freezing point since 4 days,so the water had not enough time for freeze :)
Member Since: May 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 358
804. 21Jake
4:44 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Anyone seen this?

Link

Who are these so called 16 "scientists"?
Member Since: March 29, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 14
803. MrBoujangles
4:41 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Bergeron is right, the Earth has been cooling for decades... Link
Member Since: May 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 20
802. RTSplayer
4:37 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting wxmod:


It will be no trouble to find out if you are employed by the oil industry.


I'm not involved with any oil industry.

I'm just telling you the simple truth about a founding principle of this country.

You cannot charge someone with a crime if it was not a crime at the time the act was committed.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
801. RTSplayer
4:35 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting wxmod:


ACTUALLY,
Crimes against humanity are a world court issue and laws of the good ol usa don't apply.


It's not a crime to produce CO2, else they'd have to execute everyone.

You can't legislate away global warming by international law. Want to know why?

Because nobody would obey it anyway, and then if anyone tries to enforce it, they'll start World War 3.

Do you really tink anyone is going to cut their carbon production by 50% in advanced nations just to offset the improvements in world living standards in developing nations and 3rd world nations, and global population continues increasing above 10% per decade?

Not likely unless a complete revolution in energy occurs, AND Americans and Europeans get rid of the "NIMBY" attitude as it regards wind and solar systems.

You haven't seen anything yet, really.

The CO2 and methane curves lag about 16 to 20 years behind the population curve, because a person's individual contribution to pollution doesn't REALLY start to kick in until they start driving regularly, and get their first "real" job.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
800. wxmod
4:32 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:
Take for example, the Casey Anthony trial.

Everyone knows that regardless of how the girl died, at least one person in that family was involved in wrongdoing. Even if it was an accident, it was wrong for them to have thrown her body away like trash.

But they didn't PROVE murder. At best they proved mistreatment of a corpse, failure to report a death, and several counts of purgery.

Unfortunately, failure to report a death and mistreatment of a corpse were not a crimes in the state of Florida. So now, even though they are passing the law to make this a crime, they cannot go back and file new charges against Casey Anthony, or for that matter, anyone else who had any involvement in the case.

They could, however, open a case against another suspect if evidence became available to prove someone else was involved in the death or coverup, BUT they could never charge anyone with breaking the new "failure to report a death" law, due to the Ex Post Facto rule.


It will be no trouble to find out if you are employed by the oil industry.
Member Since: October 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1766
799. RTSplayer
4:23 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Take for example, the Casey Anthony trial.

Everyone knows that regardless of how the girl died, at least one person in that family was involved in wrongdoing. Even if it was an accident, it was wrong for them to have thrown her body away like trash.

But they didn't PROVE murder. At best they proved mistreatment of a corpse, failure to report a death, and several counts of purgery.

Unfortunately, failure to report a death and mistreatment of a corpse were not a crimes in the state of Florida. So now, even though they are passing the law to make this a crime, they cannot go back and file new charges against Casey Anthony, or for that matter, anyone else who had any involvement in the case.

They could, however, open a case against another suspect if evidence became available to prove someone else was involved in the death or coverup, BUT they could never charge anyone with breaking the new "failure to report a death" law, due to the Ex Post Facto rule.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
798. hydrus
4:22 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting ILwthrfan:


I find it strange though that the 6-10 and 8-14 day forecast which is about the same time this potential storm will be tracking through the country, shows widespread below average precipitation. Whats up with that?

6-10 day


8-14 day
Like I was saying, the models are vague for now. I do believe when the pattern shifts, it will be rapid. Check out the NOGAPS for example,..Link it certainly is not the best model, but you can get an idea of how fast tha cold air quite literally "dumps" into the lower 48..
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 21775
797. wxmod
4:18 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:



Actually, you're wrong.

According to Kevin Trudeau, and I'm paraphrasing, "There is no law on the books forbidding false advertisement, just so long as it isn't true."

Essentially, you can make any claim you want about a product and it is not illegal, just as long as the claim is not true. That is literally the case in the drug industry.


What I'm getting at is that technically the oil companies have not committed a crime at all.

The constitution forbids the passage of an "Ex post facto" law, which means you cannot punish someone for an act which was not technically illegal before the law was passed, even if it was obviously immoral, and even if everyone knows it "should have been illegal."


ACTUALLY,
Crimes against humanity are a world court issue and laws of the good ol usa don't apply.
Member Since: October 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1766
796. RTSplayer
4:11 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting wxmod:
by James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Link

"The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions. This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science. But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position."

"Why is the public presented results of the scientific method and the talk-show method as if they deserved equal respect? A few decades ago that did not happen."

"The fossil fuel kingpins who profit from the public’s fossil fuel addiction, some of them multi-billionaires, are loosely knit, but with a well-understood common objective of maintaining the public’s addiction. These kingpins have the resources to be well aware of the scientific knowledge concerning the consequences of continued exploitation of fossil fuels. However, they choose not only to ignore those facts, but to support activities intended to keep the public ill- informed. These kingpins are guilty of high crimes against humanity and nature. It is little consolation that the world will eventually convict them in the court of public opinion or even, unlikely as it is, that they may be forced to stand trial in the future before an international court of justice."
END QUOTES

THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG WHO GET PAID BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY TO DISCREDIT SCIENTIFIC FACT. THEY WILL EVENTUALLY BE SUED FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. NOT ONLY WILL THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CLIMATE DISASTER THEY CAUSE, BUT THEY WILL ALSO LOOSE ALL THEIR MONEY AND FREEDOM.




Actually, you're wrong.

According to Kevin Trudeau, and I'm paraphrasing, "There is no law on the books forbidding false advertisement, just so long as it isn't true."

Essentially, you can make any claim you want about a product and it is not illegal, just as long as the claim is not true. That is literally the case in the drug industry.


What I'm getting at is that technically the oil companies have not committed a crime at all.

The constitution forbids the passage of an "Ex post facto" law, which means you cannot punish someone for an act which was not technically illegal before the law was passed, even if it was obviously immoral, and even if everyone knows it "should have been illegal."
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
795. VAbeachhurricanes
4:07 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Tell people in Eastern Europe its a year without a winter. Just because its abnormally warm here doesn't mean anything, as we were reminded over and over last year when it was abnormally cold here.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6670
794. wxmod
4:05 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
by James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Link

"The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions. This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science. But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position."

"Why is the public presented results of the scientific method and the talk-show method as if they deserved equal respect? A few decades ago that did not happen."

"The fossil fuel kingpins who profit from the public’s fossil fuel addiction, some of them multi-billionaires, are loosely knit, but with a well-understood common objective of maintaining the public’s addiction. These kingpins have the resources to be well aware of the scientific knowledge concerning the consequences of continued exploitation of fossil fuels. However, they choose not only to ignore those facts, but to support activities intended to keep the public ill- informed. These kingpins are guilty of high crimes against humanity and nature. It is little consolation that the world will eventually convict them in the court of public opinion or even, unlikely as it is, that they may be forced to stand trial in the future before an international court of justice."
END QUOTES

THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG WHO GET PAID BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY TO DISCREDIT SCIENTIFIC FACT. THEY WILL EVENTUALLY BE SUED FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. NOT ONLY WILL THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CLIMATE DISASTER THEY CAUSE, BUT THEY WILL ALSO LOOSE ALL THEIR MONEY AND FREEDOM.

Member Since: October 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1766
793. Bergeron
3:54 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Member Since: October 19, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 101
792. Patrap
3:53 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Even on a Science based entry as here, some still dont understand squat.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
791. Bergeron
3:52 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting RTSplayer:


The chart cherry-picks the peak of the most recent warm cycle and compares it to the trough of a natural cold cycle over an absurdly short time period, and uses the 30 year average as a metric when the 30 year average is now heavily weighted by the 15 warmest years on record.

How is that honest to point to one or two down anomalies, which are themselves far above the up anomalies from earlier in the century, but present the data as though it's an actual cooling trend?



Still...cooler than 09.
Member Since: October 19, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 101
790. ILwthrfan
3:52 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting hydrus:
Models are rather vague at at the moment. The GFS and the Euro seem to put something on the map by this weekend. By Wednesday, we should have a good idea what will transpire. The cold air near the Northern Territories has moved E-SE the past 24 hours.


I find it strange though that the 6-10 and 8-14 day forecast which is about the same time this potential storm will be tracking through the country, shows widespread below average precipitation. Whats up with that?

6-10 day


8-14 day
Member Since: February 2, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1535
789. Patrap
3:51 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
The owner is dee Climate, da Dog is da weather..


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
788. RTSplayer
3:48 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting Bergeron:


Does it matter? The chart doesn't lie...goes to show the globe warms and cools in response to the oceans. Lower temp anomalies, are lower temp anomalies.


The chart cherry-picks the peak of the most recent warm cycle and compares it to the trough of a natural cold cycle over an absurdly short time period, and uses the 30 year average as a metric when the 30 year average is now heavily weighted by the 15 warmest years on record.

How is that honest to point to one or two down anomalies, which are themselves far above the up anomalies from earlier in the century, but present the data as though it's an actual cooling trend?

Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
787. AussieStorm
3:48 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
786. Patrap
3:47 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Currently Active Tropical Cyclones

SH092012 - Tropical Cyclone (<64 kt) IGGY

SH912012 - INVEST
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
785. AussieStorm
3:45 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
I see we have a spinner just south of the Solomon Islands.





Also notice the tropical low that is forming in Eastern Gulf Of Carpenteria.

(click images for loops)
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15962
784. Patrap
3:43 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
It matters not what any one Human thinks, thats ego of the ignorant.

The truth is the truth, its above the din of Human Minds.


Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising


While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.



Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955. More information: BAMS State of the Climate in 2009.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
783. Bergeron
3:43 PM GMT on January 30, 2012
Quoting WxGeekVA:


Are you really using 3 La Nina years to disprove global warming?

Please try again.


Does it matter? The chart doesn't lie...goes to show the globe warms and cools in response to the oceans. Lower temp anomalies, are lower temp anomalies.
Member Since: October 19, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 101

Viewing: 833 - 783

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.