Our Planet’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone

Slate - Eric Holthaus

NASA has confirmed that our planet's temperature surged in February 2016—past a major milestone. NASA

March 12, 2016: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the warmest month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016. The new NASA data confirms unofficial data released earlier this month showing a dramatic and ongoing surge in the planet's temperature—if anything, that data, upon which the previous versions of this post were based, were an underestimate. On Twitter, Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which maintains the NASA temperature database, noted that February's temperature record was "special" and commented simply: "Wow." NASA's global temperature data is measured from a 1951-1980 baseline, about 0.3 degrees warmer than pre-industrial levels. That means February 2016 was the first month in history that global average temperatures passed the 1.5 degree Celsius mark. Also, since last month's warmth was concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere (2.76 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline) and the Arctic (5.36 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline), these regions of our planet were also record warm, likely the warmest they've been for at least thousands of years. As I said in the previous version of this post—even though this surge of warmth is likely only temporary, it is a major milestone moment for humanity and our relationship to our planet.

A daily analysis of global temperatures shows the Northern Hemisphere likely exceeded 2 degrees Celsius above "normal" around March 1, 2016, when measuring from pre-industrial levels.* Ryan Maue/Weatherbell Analytics

March 3, 2016: Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above "normal" mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago.* That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

Global temperatures hit a new all-time record high in February, shattering the old record set just last month amid a record-strong El Niño. Ryan Maue/Weatherbell Analytics

March 1, 2016: Our planet's preliminary February temperature data are in, and it's now abundantly clear: Global warming is going into overdrive. There are dozens of global temperature datasets, and usually I (and my climate journalist colleagues) wait until the official ones are released about the middle of the following month to announce a record-warm month at the global level. But this month's data is so extraordinary that there's no need to wait: February obliterated the all-time global temperature record set just last month.
Using unofficial data and adjusting for different base-line temperatures, it appears that February 2016 was likely somewhere between 1.15 and 1.4 degrees warmer than the long-term average, and about 0.2 degrees above last month—good enough for the most above-average month ever measured. (Since the globe had already warmed by about +0.45 degrees above pre-industrial levels during the 1981-2010 base-line meteorologists commonly use, that amount has been added to the data released today.)
Keep in mind that it took from the dawn of the industrial age until last October to reach the first 1.0 degree Celsius, and we've come as much as an extra 0.4 degrees further in just the last five months. Even accounting for the margin of error associated with these preliminary datasets, that means it's virtually certain that February handily beat the record set just last month for the most anomalously warm month ever recorded. That's stunning.
It also means that for many parts of the planet, there basically wasn't a winter. Parts of the Arctic were more than 16 degrees Celsius (29 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than "normal" for the month of February, bringing them a few degrees above freezing, on par with typical June levels, in what is typically the coldest month of the year. In the United States, the winter was record-warm in cities coast to coast. In Europe and Asia, dozens of countries set or tied their all-time temperature records for February. In the tropics, the record-warmth is prolonging the longest-lasting coral bleaching episode ever seen.
The northernmost permanent settlement, Norway's Svalbard archipelago, has averaged 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal this winter, with temperatures rising above the freezing mark on nearly two dozen days since Dec. 1. That kind of extremely unusual weather has prompted a record-setting low maximum in Arctic sea ice, especially in the Barents Sea area north of Europe.
The data for February is so overwhelming that even prominent climate change skeptics have already embraced the new record. Writing on his blog, former NASA scientist Roy Spencer said that according to satellite records—the dataset of choice by climate skeptics for a variety of reasons—February 2016 featured "whopping" temperature anomalies especially in the Arctic. Spurred by disbelief, Spencer also checked his data with others released today and said the overlap is "about as good as it gets." Speaking with the Washington Post, Spencer said the February data proves "there has been warming. The question is how much warming there's been."
Of course, all this is happening in the context of a record-setting El Niño, which tends to boost global temperatures for as much as six or eight months beyond its wintertime peak—mainly because it takes that long for excess heat to filter its way across the planet from the tropical Pacific Ocean. But El Niño isn't entirely responsible for the absurd numbers we're seeing. El Niño's influence on the Arctic still isn't well-known and is likely small. In fact, El Niño's influence on global temperatures as a whole is likely small—on the order of 0.1 degree Celsius or so.
So what's actually happening now is the liberation of nearly two decades' worth of global warming energy that's been stored in the oceans since the last major El Niño in 1998.
Numbers like this amount to a step-change in our planet's climate system. Peter Gleick, a climate scientist at the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, said it's difficult to compare the current temperature spike: "The old assumptions about what was normal are being tossed out the window … The old normal is gone."
Almost overnight, the world has moved within arm's reach of the climate goals negotiated just last December in Paris. There, small island nations on the front line of climate change set a temperature target of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius rise by the year 2100 as a line in the sand, and that limit was embraced by the global community of nations. On this pace, we may reach that level for the first time—though briefly—later this year. In fact, at the daily level, we're probably already there. We could now be right in the heart of a decade or more surge in global warming that could kick off a series of tipping points with far-reaching implications on our species and the countless others we share the planet with.

Climate Chief Expects 80-100 Signatures on Landmark Treaty

New York Times - Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS — The official in charge of global climate negotiations says between 80 and 100 countries are expected to sign the landmark agreement to tackle climate change reached in Paris in December at a ceremony at U.N. headquarters on April 22.

Segolene Royal, French environment minister and newly-appointed president of U.N.-led climate negotiations, said Friday that more than 30 heads of state and government have already said they will attend signing event. She said invitations signed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, French President Francois Hollande, and herself are also being sent again to all world leaders.

"I will, of course, work very hard so that we get these 80 to 100," Royal told reporters after meeting Ban. "We might have more which would be fantastic."

Royal said every country has developed a plan to fight climate change and on April 22 they will be explaining what they have done so far.

The Paris Agreement must be ratified by at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions to enter into force.

It sets a collective goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The pact requires all countries to submit plans for climate action and to update them every five years, though such plans are not legally binding.

Royal said the signing ceremony is one of a series of events designed to keep up the momentum created in Paris when the agreement was reached.

U.S. President Barack Obama was a key figure, along with China's president, in spurring support for the climate deal.

Royal sidestepped a question asking whether she was concerned that the United States might pull out of the agreement if one of the Republicans who oppose the accord makes it to the White House.

She said support from the Obama administration and U.S. involvement has been very important.

Greenhouse Gas 'Bookkeeping' Turned On Its Head

ScienceDaily

For the first time scientists have looked at the net balance of the three major greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide -- for every region of Earth's landmasses. They found surprisingly, that human-induced emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from ecosystems overwhelmingly surpass the ability of the land to soak up carbon dioxide emissions, which makes the terrestrial biosphere a contributor to climate change.

"Typically we think of land as a net 'sink' of carbon dioxide. But we found that the sign of the human-induced impact is reversed if we also take into account methane and nitrous oxide," one of the authors remarked. Credit: © vvoe / Fotolia

For the first time scientists have looked at the net balance of the three major greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide--for every region of Earth's landmasses.
They found surprisingly, that human-induced emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from ecosystems overwhelmingly surpass the ability of the land to soak up carbon dioxide emissions, which makes the terrestrial biosphere a contributor to climate change.
The results published in the March 10, 2016, Nature, revises our understanding of how human activity contributes to global warming.
 Co-author Anna Michalak of Carnegie's Department of Global Ecology remarked, "Typically we think of land as a net 'sink' of carbon dioxide. But we found that the sign of the human-induced impact is reversed if we also take into account methane and nitrous oxide."
The scientists looked at the so-called biogenic fluxes or flow of the three greenhouse gases on land that were caused by human activities over the last three decades and subtracted out emissions that existed "naturally" during pre-industrial times.
Biogenic sources include gas emissions from plants, animals, microbes, and the like. They were interested in finding out how human activities have changed the biogenic fluxes of these gases. Historically, such emissions have included methane emissions from wetlands and nitrous oxide emissions from soil.
 Human activity and human-caused climate change have changed the magnitude of these fluxes, however, as well as added new categories of biogenic fluxes such as those resulting from sewage, cattle, and fertilizer use.
The scientists first added up all biogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, then subtracted out those that occurred naturally prior to human intervention to get to the net amount. The study did not include non-biogenic gas emissions from activities like fossil fuel burning or natural gas production.
The team discovered that the human impact on biogenic methane and nitrous oxide emissions far outweighed the human impact on the terrestrial uptake of carbon dioxide, meaning that humans have caused the terrestrial biosphere to further contribute to warming.
In other words, the terrestrial biosphere, through human action, is now contributing to climate change rather than mitigating climate change.
 This runs counter to conventional thinking based on previous studies, which had focused only on carbon dioxide and had emphasized the climate change mitigating effect of human impacts terrestrial carbon uptake.
The scientists found that greenhouse gas emissions vary considerably by region. Interestingly, the human-induced emissions of the gases in Southern Asia, including China and India, had a larger net warming effect compared to other areas.
Southern Asia contains some 90% of the world's rice fields and more than 60% of the world's nitrogen fertilizer use. Thus, methane emissions in this region are largely from rice cultivation and livestock, while human-made fertilizers are a major source of nitrous oxide.
Lead author of the study, Hanqin Tain director of the International Center for Climate and Global Change Research, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University said, "This finding reveals for the first time that human activities have transformed the land biosphere to a contributor to climate change."
"This study should serve as a wake-up call to governments, policymakers, and individuals around the world," said Michalak. "We must expand our focus and devise strategies that target the biogenic emissions of these other greenhouse gases if we are to change the course of climate change."

Grim Prospects: The Shake-Up Of Australia's Climate Science

Fairfax - Peter Hannam

The fate of the 'sentinel of the southern hemisphere' is a pointer to how Australia's climate research will fare in a funding world that has lately turned more hostile.

Cape Grim: The future of climate science in Australia hangs in the balance. Photo: John Woudstra

Forty years ago next month Paul Fraser and three other CSIRO scientists towed a hardy NASA-built caravan chock with sensitive detecting equipment to Cape Grim on the pristine windswept tip of north-west Tasmania.
The make-shift facility quickly made its mark, detecting ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere as they blew past in the stiff Roaring Forties. Over the decades since, the site also tracked the relentless rise of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.
Researchers shed the caravan in 1981, replacing it with more permanent structures. The site is now "the sentinel of the southern hemisphere" and one of the top three in the world, says Mary Voice, president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.

Cape Grim in the early days: men in a van. Photo: CSIRO

If the gas collection and analysis were to cease, the emergence of new, ozone-eating or other harmful chemicals "might be missed" – let alone the tracking of gases that are heating up the planet, she says.
That Cape Grim's fate – and much of Australia's climate research – hangs in the balance surprises many just months after the country signed up to a global effort in Paris to limit global warming to 1.5-2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

It also comes amid a record-breaking heat wave acoss south-eastern Australia and international reports that January and February smashed global heat records for those months.

Stocking 40 years of gas samples from Cape Grim, at CSIRO's Aspendale centre. Photo: Supplied

The wrangling has been prompted by CSIRO's decision five weeks ago to cull as many as 100 scientists from its Oceans & Atmosphere division as part of 350 job cuts.
"Australia turns it back on climate science," was the New York Times editors' take a week ago.
CSIRO wants to steer resources to limiting and adapting to climate change, while cutting staff involved in monitoring and modelling by half.

CSIRO's GASLab at Aspendale, on Melbourne's sandbelt. Photo: Supplied

CSIRO says the university sector could take up the slack, but their funding is typically short-term. For instance, the seven-year funds for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science - which takes in five universities including UNSW and Monash - run out at the end of 2017.
While CSIRO chiefs have pledged to spare Cape Grim, Fraser said in a submission to a Senate committee examining the cuts that the modelling and measuring capabilities of gases would "be unable survive the proposed 50-100 per cent" cuts.
Relations with 25 leading global research institutions were also at risk if the Tasmanian site and its supporting CSIRO labs in Aspendale on Melbourne's south-east were to go. Under threat include "the world's most important archive" of background atmosphere, and one of CSIRO's most-decorated research teams, Fraser – now an honorary CSIRO fellow – wrote.
CSIRO's climate funds were already facing a squeeze. The Australian Climate Change Science Program, axed by the Abbott government, was worth $5 million to CSIRO and $2.5 million a year to the Bureau of Meteorology.
Its replacement program, due to kick in from July, delivers an annual $3 million and $1.2 million, respectively, with $800,000 earmarked to universities. 
CSIRO has already slashed its contribution this year to Cape Grim by four-fifths to $230,000 after months of bickering with its bureau partners over contracts.
Sources tell Fairfax Media the two agencies are now discussing the transfer of key CSIRO modelling staff and some of the Cape Grim-related roles to the bureau. Questions remain over whether funding will accompany the scientists – and how many will be retained.
Alarmed by the potential disintegration of Australia's climate research talent, leading scientists have been brainstorming more radical alternatives. One is the creation of a new standalone national research institute to provide long-term funding for climate prediction.
CSIRO, itself, doesn't rule out supporting such a centre, which might take the form of the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre.
"This is an option CSIRO is working through with various parties, both internal and external, to ensure important climate research and modelling is continuing and to maintain strong linkages to the adaptation and mitigation work that CSIRO wants to increase its focus on in future," a spokesman said.
The bureau's official line is that it "is one of a number of parties with an interest in climate science and we are engaging positively to support Australia's climate science capability".
One senior bureau scientist, though, is wary about his agency becoming the main home for climate research. "If it lives in BoM, the knives will come out again for the bureau," the scientist says, referring to attacks during the Abbott government.
While a long-shot, creating a separate centre and basing it in Hobart – home to Australia's antarctic science and support operations – could be a shrewd political move, the scientist says.
A senior government official agrees the creation of a new centre is unlikely at this point, with efforts concentrated instead on a smooth transition of resources to the bureau.
Fraser frets, though, about carving out CSIRO's climate units. Remaining related work, such as aerosols and reactive gas monitoring, "would end up with sub-critical mass and be very vulnerable" to future cuts, he tells Fairfax Media.
On the other hand, public-good science – which is of value even if customers aren't readily available – has been a dwindling proportion of CSIRO's work for years.
"Perhaps the only way out is to completely divest CSIRO [of the climate work] and give it to someone else," he says.

Links

• Scorching start to autumn smashed national heat records, Bureau of Meteorology says
• Global temperatures could rise 1.5 degrees by 2020, researchers say
• Scientists trace human influence on extreme weather events back to 1937
• Arachnopolis Now: 'Perfect conditions' prompt a boom in Sydney redbacks, huntsmen and golden orbs