Meltdown continues: 2012 breaking Arctic records

Not too long ago (July 17, to be exact), I wrote here:

"'7. The Arctic Ocean is projected to become nearly ice-free in summer within this century, likely within the next thirty to forty years.' [It's not hard to find people on the Web, who know what they are talking about, who believe this will happen before 2020.  While 2012 is, at this writing, on a record pace for Arctic sea ice melt, it remains to be seen whether a new ultimate summer low will result.  What we can say, however, is that there has been no recovery from the 2007 summer low, which was sharply lower than the summer lows in previous years going back to 1979 (when measurements began). You can check out sea ice area through this wonderful interactive graphic, which provides data by day and year.  You can "erase" years by clicking on them at the right, and if you erase back to 2007, you will see that the summer low was roughly 3 million square kilometers, almost exactly a whopping 25% below the low of 4 million reached in 2006.]"

While all the results are not in yet, and won't be until the potential melting season ends next month, 2012 has now erased the 2007 lows for Arctic sea ice area.  As of today, the ice area reported in Cryosphere Today graphic linked to above stands at 2.65 million square kilometers, well below the '07 low of 2.92 million.  The Arctic Sea Ice blog, which appears in the blog list on the right side of this page, has very deep coverage of Cryosphere Today and the several other ongoing measurements of sea ice (extent, area, volume, etc.).  All of the groups measuring except one are now reporting new records.

What does this mean to us? Joe Romm explores the question in a blog at Climate Progress (otherwise known as the climate section of ThinkProgress): "In particular, a 2012 Geophysical Research Letters study, “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes,” finds that the loss of Arctic ice favors “extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.”

Emissions rise. Temperature projections too.

A couple of bad news items on the same day (May 24):

First, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that global carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 totaled 31.6 billion metric tons (tonnes), an all-time high and 1.0 billion tonnes (3.2%) above 2010: 

"Coal accounted for 45% of total energy-related CO2 emissions in 2011, followed by oil (35%) and natural gas (20%).

"The 450 Scenario of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011, which sets out an energy pathway consistent with a 50% chance of limiting the increase in the average global temperature to 2°C [3.6 degrees F], requires CO2 emissions to peak at 32.6 [billion tonnes] no later than 2017, i.e., just 1.0 [billion tonnes] above 2011 levels." 

Meanwhile, researchers with a German project called the Climate Action Tracker said their monitoring of countries' progress in meeting their greenhouse gas emission reductions pledges indicates that global warming cannot be contained to 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 Fahrenheit):

Marion Vieweg, a policy researcher with German firm Climate Analytics, told AFP the 3.5 C (6.3 F) estimate had been based on the assumption that all countries will meet their pledges, in themselves inadequate, to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

"New research has found this is not 'a realistic assumption,' she said, adding that right now 'we can't quantify yet how much above' 3.5 C (6.3 F) Earth will warm."  Climate Action Tracker is a joint effort of Climate Analytics, Ecofys, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.


Update - 25 May 2012: Climate Progress has a new blog that covers the IEA info in more detail, noting that IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol says the emissions data are "perfectly in line" with a temperature rise of 6 degrees C (11 F), which would be somewhere well beyond catastrophic.

Tropics widening, drought threat grows

A new study in the scientific journal Nature suggests that two human-caused pollutants, black carbon aerosols and tropospheric ozone, are causing the boundary of Earth's tropics to expand, a change which may worsen drought in the subtropics. According to Climate Progress: "Led by climatologist Robert J. Allen, an assistant professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Riverside, the research team notes that an unabated tropical belt expansion would impact large-scale atmospheric circulation, especially in the subtropics and mid-latitudes. "'If the tropics are moving poleward, then the subtropics will become even drier,' Allen said. 'If a poleward displacement of the mid-latitude storm tracks also occurs, this will shift mid-latitude precipitation poleward, impacting regional agriculture, economy, and society.'"

Justin Gillis on connecting the (climate change) dots

There's an excellent and very insightful Q&A interview with Justin Gillis, the New York Times reporter who recently won Columbia University's 2011 Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism, at the Columbia Journalism Review website.

Since I have complained previously about the Times' coverage of climate change (here, here, here, and probably other places as well), it's considerable comfort to know that Mr. Gillis has a largely similar view of what has been happening in the mainstream media on the issue. I'm really impressed with some of the things he has to say:

- "I started taking classes and the more I learned, the more I thought to myself, 'This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?'" (emphasis added)

- "One thing I’m seeing—and I see it in our own paper as well as many other news outlets—is that people are covering the crazy weather we’re having and, more often than not, dodging the subject of whether there’s any relationship to climate change. TV weathermen are dodging that subject. Print reporters are dodging the subject ... [I]t’s a bit of a scandal that there’s not enough connecting the dots for people." (emphasis added)

Hear, hear!

My enthusiasm is only tempered by a few things. First, Mr. Gillis essentially waves away a goof in one of his recent stories, which included a paragraph about "climate researchers who question the scientific consensus about global warming ..." and in the very next paragraph quoted Myron Ebell, who is described as a "climate skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute."  This unfortunate combination suggested that Mr. Ebell is a climate researcher, when in fact he is an economist--and an economist who works for a group that has run TV ads extolling the virtues of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas associated with global warming.

Mr. Gillis's comment on this? "I suppose that in retrospect, given how much complaint there was, I wish I had made clear that Ebell is not a scientist, but an economist. I had quoted him many times before and know who he is, what he does, and what perspective he represents." But, of course, it's not enough that Mr. Gillis knows who Mr. Ebell is--that's essential information, bearing directly on Mr. Ebell's credibility, that should be shared with readers.

I noticed this reference when I read the story and was disturbed (actually, pissed would be more accurate) by it.  Joe Romm noticed it also, and wrote a post at ClimateProgress titled False Balance Lives at the New York Times, which perhaps accounts for the second thing that bothered me--Mr. Gillis taking a swing at Romm a bit later on in the CJR interview: "I think some people, like Joe Romm, would like us to send a bugler in a coat of mail around with the paper every morning playing taps and proclaiming that climate change is a problem."

Well, gosh, Mr. Gillis, if the media isn't going to do that job for us, who will?  As you have correctly said, it's the biggest problem we have, and opinion polls make it clear that the public has no idea of its seriousness.  I for one am really grateful for Joe and the folks at Skeptical Science who are keeping those of us concerned about global warming up to speed and doing battle daily with the incessant river of lies and distortions from those in denial about climate change.

Finally, my enthusiasm is restrained by the fact that the Times and most other papers continue to write about America's new-found abundance of fossil fuels with barely a whisper about global warming. I'll have more to say about this soon.

All of that being said, let me end on an up note--I appreciate Mr. Gillis and his efforts to bring more of a focus on climate change and its likely impacts, to one of the leading newspapers in America, and I wish him every success.  The work he's been doing at the Times is critical, and God knows, we need all the help we can get.

'You may not be interested in climate change, but climate change is interested in you'

That's the best line in Tom Friedman's terrific column in today's New York Times, pointing out the climate-driven factors that have played an overlooked role in the political uprisings of the Arab Spring (food prices in Tunisia, water shortages in Yemen).  Friedman references Joe Romm's excellent Climate Progress blog as well (congrats, Joe!) and concludes:

[W]e should all remember that quote attributed to Leon Trotsky: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." Well, you may not be interested in climate change, but climate change is interested in you.

Folks, this is not a hoax. We and the Arabs need to figure out — and fast — more ways to partner to mitigate the environmental threats where we can and to build greater resiliency against those where we can’t. Twenty years from now, this could be all that we’re talking about. [emphasis added]

Connecting the dots: The Great March Heat Wave and ... climate

I had a brief conversation recently with a couple of friends, both committed, long-standing environmentalists. Both were hesitant to ascribe the extraordinary heat wave we are currently experiencing here in Vermont (and that is being felt as far west as the Dakotas) to global warming.

I told them there was no doubt in my mind about the connection.  For the record (as it were), here's why:

The temperatures have been extraordinary, far outside the realm of previous temperature ranges in our region.  Sunday's high here was 80 degrees F, breaking the old high record by 16 degrees.  Monday the temperature was 79, breaking the old record by 20 degrees.  Tuesday, 80, 13 degrees above the old record.  Wednesday 81, 10 degrees above the old record.  This is just a remarkable run of extreme temperatures. (Today, 84, 11 degrees above the old record--five straight days in which the previous high has been broken by double digits.)

The new high temperature records here and elsewhere across the U.S. dovetail with a pattern that has developed over the past four decades, in which the ratio of new highs to new lows is steadily increasing.  This pattern is detailed in two graphics, one from the blog Capital Climate and one from the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) that have been reproduced in two excellent articles at another blog, Climate Progress (see March Madness: This may be an unprecedented event since modern U.S. weather records began in the late 19th Century, March 22, 2012, and Record highs far outpace record lows across U.S., Feb. 11, 2010).  The articles are well worth reading and highly recommended for the detail they provide, but here is a quick summary:

Article 1, from February 2010, includes the UCAR graphic, which shows the ratio of new high records to new low records across the U.S.  If the climate were not changing, one would expect the ratio to vary around 1:1.  Instead, what is actually happening is that the ratio is increasing, and some really wild excursions are taking place.  According to the UCAR graphic, the ratios (new highs to new lows) for recent decades look like this:

1950s: 1.09 to 1
1960s: 0.77 to 1
1970s: 0.78 to 1
1980s: 1.14 to 1
1990s: 1.36 to 1
2000s: 2.04 to 1

Article 2, the "March Madness" article from today, includes the Capital Climate graphic, with the monthly ratios for 2011 and 2012: 22 to 1 for August 2011, 22 to 1 for January 2012, and 35 to 1 to date for March 2012.  That makes three extraordinary heat waves in the past eight months.




I wish I could say the news is going to get better, but I don't think it is--to me (non-scientist), it looks like we are disturbing a previously stable system and the oscillations will get larger as long as we keep increasing the main input that is the source of the disturbance--the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The "March Madness" article also includes a brief video from The Weather Channel, featuring Senior Meteorologist Stu Ostro.  Ostro, formerly skeptical of the findings of climate science, has become a convert in recent years as the weather has increasingly diverged from what's been normal in the past. In Ostro's words, "Something ain't right--it's not business as usual." Indeed.