by Dana Nuccitelli, via Skeptical Science.

Cherrypicking global surface air temperatures is one of the most common errors associated with global warming. In reality, a very small percentage of overall global warming goes into heating surface air temperatures, while approxiately 90 percent is absorbed by the world’s oceans (in totality, at all depths). Because many other factors influence surface air temperatures on short timescales, the data are noisy, and as a result it’s easy to cherrypick temporary flat periods to wrongly claim that global warming has stopped.

Here’s the average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green), with linear trends applied to the timeframes January 1970 – October 1977, April 1977 – December 1986, September 1987 – November 1996, June 1997 – December 2002, and November 2002 – November 2012:

However, climate contrarians are now more frequently shifting their cherrypicks to the relatively shallow layer of the oceans (the upper 700 meters). The average depth of the world’s ocean is nearly 4,000 meters, but the deeper the ocean layer, the more difficult it is to measure its temperature and heat accumulation.

Fortunately most ocean heat accumulation occurs close to the surface, but accounting for less of the deep ocean layers also means missing more global warming. The best ocean heat measurements are for the 0–700 meter layer, which accounts for over 60 percent of overall global warming. However, only considering ocean heat accumulation to 700 meters also means neglecting 30 to 40 percent of overall global warming.

Similar to surface air temperatures, the warming of the 0–700 meter oceans has slowed in recent years (since about 2003), which has made them a ripe candidate for cherrypicking. This was one of the key findings of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), in which we noted that while heat accumulation in the 0–700 meter oceans has slowed in recent years, at the same time it has accelerated in the 700–2,000 meter oceans.

Overall, there is no sign that the warming of the 0-2,000 meter oceans has slowed. In fact, they have accumulated more heat in the past 15 years than during the previous 15 years. Here’s data from the National Oceanographic Data Center, comparing ocean heat in the 0–700 meter layer and the 0-2,000 meter layers:

It should be no surprise that climate contrarians constantly ignore the accelerated warming of the 700–2,000 meter oceans, pretending that they simply don’t exist. In one recent example, a denialist blog disputed the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012) by showing the data below (also discussed in this post by Tamino at the Open Mind blog). It shows 0-700 meter ocean heat accumulation from NOAA PMEL using the methodology described in Lyman et al. (2010), with an arbitrary yellow line drawn in an effort to indicate slowed ocean warming:

The ocean heat content data used in Nuccitelli et al. (2012) and the previous graph are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) using the methodology described by Levitus et al. (2012), whereas the data in the graph immediately above are from the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) using the methodology described in Lyman et al. (2010).

The Levitus methodology fills data gaps with the averaged value of the available data, which has the tendency to underestimate any anomalies. The Lyman methodology infills the data gaps with anomalies from nearby grids. The end result is that Levitus is likely to underestimate any warming trend, as discussed in Lyman (2008). As a result, the data plotted on the denialist blog actually shows more 0-700 meter ocean warming than the data plotted in Nuccitelli et al. (2012). This is illustrated below, with 0-700 meter ocean heat content data from NOAA NODC (Levitus) and NOAA PMEL (Lyman) using the same baseline. The yellow arbitrary denialist line is shown, followed by the linear trends for 2003–2012 and 1993–2012 in red. Standard error bars are also shown:

Despite showing a larger ocean warming trend than Levitus, climate contrarians likely prefer the Lyman data because it does not include the ocean layers below 700 meters. However, even if we cherrypick this shallow ocean data and cherrypick 2003 as the starting point, the 0–700 meter ocean heat accumulation for 2003–2012 in the Lyman PMEL data is equivalent to 1.2 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past decade. For 1993–2012, this rate increases to the equivalent of 3.7 detonations per second, and when including global heat accumulation in Nuccitelli et al. (2012) including the 0–2,000 meter oceans, the Earth has accumulated the equivalent of 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past decade.

When we consider all the available data, it becomes quite clear that ocean and global warming continue unabated at a rapid rate. Cherrypicking cannot change that reality.

– This piece was originally published at Skeptical Science and was reprinted with permission.

Cross-posted from National Geographic

One of the most important and threatening risks of climate change is sea-level rise (SLR). The mechanisms are well understood, and the direction of changes in sea-level is highly certain – it is rising and the rate of rise will accelerate. There remain plenty of uncertainties (i.e., a range of possible outcomes) about the timing and rate of rise that have to do with how fast we continue to put greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the responses of (especially) ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, and the sensitivity of the climate.

Even little changes can have big consequences. As we saw with Superstorm Sandy, where extremely severe weather was combined with a very high tide, on top of sea levels that have risen six to nine inches over the past century, even a little bit of sea-level rise around the world has the potential to cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damages and the displacement of millions of people.

The Pacific Institute, among many other organizations, has been working to understand and evaluate the nature of the threat of sea-level rise and the risks posed to coastal populations, property, and ecosystems. In 1990, a colleague and I published the first detailed mapping and economic assessment of the risks of sea-level rise to the San Francisco Bay Area, looking at populations at risk, the value of property in new flood zones, and the costs of building some kinds of coastal protection (“adaptation”) to protect higher valued assets. That early report can be found here.

Then, in 2009 and 2010, the Pacific Institute, with funding from the State of California, conducted a detailed, high-resolution mapping analysis of the entire coast from Oregon to Mexico. We analyzed a set of sea-level rise scenarios developed by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and worked with the California Energy Commission, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US Geological Survey, FEMA, and others to evaluate the risks to people, property, transportation infrastructure, ecosystems, power plants, wastewater treatment plants, and more, should those scenarios of sea-level rise happen. The full peer-reviewed report, the high resolution maps, specialty maps, and all open source GIS data can be publicly downloaded here. (A peer-reviewed journal article was also published.) That analysis suggests coastal regions are highly vulnerable to even modest sea-level rises with hundreds of thousands of people and more than a hundred billion dollars of infrastructure already in zones at risk of future flooding.
Read more

By Bill Becker

As debate heats up again over the Keystone XL pipeline, each side will drop cluster bombs of data on why President Obama should or should not allow the project to proceed. The conventional arguments can be summarized in two words: jobs and carbon.

There are much bigger issues to consider, however. They include Obama’s credibility in the fight against climate disruption, the United States’ credibility in international climate negotiations, and whether the President’s “all of the above” energy policy will destroy any chance we have to prevent catastrophic changes in the world’s climate.

Before considering those issues, let’s touch on jobs and carbon.

Jobs: Proponents claim the project will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the United States, plus 100,000 indirect and “induced” jobs. In its latest environmental impact analysis, the State Department puts the number at 5,000 to 6,000 direct jobs during the two years it takes to build the pipeline.

The Global Labor Institute at Cornell University estimates Keystone will create no more than 2,500 to 4,650 jobs, depending on where TransCanada buys its materials, but only a fraction of the jobs will go to local workers and only for the two years while the pipeline is being constructed. Estimates of permanent jobs created by the pipeline range from 20 to a few hundred.

Carbon: The State Department says that once the pipeline is operating, it will result in annual carbon emissions equivalent to 626,000 passenger vehicles and 398,000 homes operating for one year.

On the other hand, an analysis last year by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that the pipeline project would produce greenhouse gas emissions (a different unit of measure) equivalent to as many as 4 million passenger vehicles and 1.8 million homes.

Proponents say that tar sands oil will allow the United States to reduce the petroleum it’s importing from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. But there is a carbon consequence. Citing data from the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, CRS concluded that oil sands crude will drive up the carbon emissions of oil production by 102 percent compared to Middle Eastern oil and 92 percent compared to Venezuelan crudes. The life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil will be 19 percent higher than Middle Eastern oil and 18 percent higher than conventional crude oil from Venezuela, according to CRS.

Read more

Ever since Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) first took over as chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, the climate denier and Koch Industries beneficiary has planned a hearing to “review” climate science. But on Wednesday, a major snowstorm in Washington, D.C. put the hearing, which was stacked with climate deniers, on hold.

Wednesday’s event planned to “examine the current understanding of key areas of climate science,” and yet two of the three witnesses invited to testify hardly represent the scientific consensus on combatting global warming.

One of those two witnesses, Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology, is a conspiracy theorist who defends climate deniers like Anthony Watts and the Heartland Institute as being more credible than climate science advocates. The second witness, President of Copenhagen Consensus Center Bjørn Lomborg was a “friend” and “expert” of Heartland, until Lomborg left the discredited think tank over its unabomber billboard campaign. Lomborg has argued that inaction is the best course, despite the threat of climate change. So unless another well-timed storm strikes, expect ignorance on display at the rescheduled hearing.

While Washington’s “snowquester” may fall short of the forecasted snowfall, the city’s winter has mostly followed the climate change “less snow, more blizzards” pattern characteristic of the past 30 years.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere underwent one of its biggest single-year jumps ever in 2012, according to researchers at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Between the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2013, carbon dioxide levels increased by 2.67 parts per million — a rise topped only by the spike in 1998.

By comparison, global carbon levels averaged a yearly rise of just under 2 parts per million from 2000 to 2010, and increased by less than 1 part per million in the 1960s. The 2012 rise makes it that much more unlikely that global warming can be limited to the 2 degree Celsius threshold most scientist agree is the bare minimum necessary to avoid truly catastrophic levels of climate change. The Associated Press has the report:

Carbon dioxide levels jumped by 2.67 parts per million since 2011 to total just under 395 parts per million, says Pieter Tans, who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That’s the second highest rise in carbon emissions since record-keeping began in 1959. The measurements are taken from air samples captured away from civilization near a volcano in Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

More coal-burning power plants, especially in the developing world, are the main reason emissions keep going up – even as they have declined in the U.S. and other places, in part through conservation and cleaner energy.

At the same time, plants and the world’s oceans which normally absorb some carbon dioxide, last year took in less than they do on average, says John Reilly, co-director of Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Plant and ocean absorption of carbon varies naturally year to year.

There is a limited “budget” of carbon the world can dump into the atmosphere while still maintaining a reasonable chance of staying under the 2 degree limit: 565 gigatons by 2050 to keep our chances at 75 percent, to be precise. At our current trends — and as 2012′s jump can attest — we’re set to burn through that budget in 16 years, rendering our chances of staying under 2 degrees of warming alarmingly thin. Getting back on track will require keeping the overwhelming majority of the fossil fuel available to us in the ground.

Otherwise, we face destructively high sea level rise, water supplies for hundreds of millions of people threatened by climate shifts, global crop declines, bleached coral reefs around the world, a rise in ocean acidification threatening marine ecosystems, and a host of other crises.

By Jessica Goad

The United States is in the midst of an energy boom, seen for example in the rise of U.S. oil production to its highest level in 20 years. But this hasn’t stopped the oil and gas industry from clamoring for more access to public lands for drilling, and from criticizing the Obama administration for “[putting] in place more obstacles” and setting public lands “off-limits” to development.

For example, Senator David Vitter (R-LA), Ranking Member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, even went so far as to state, “There’s no disputing the fact that our nation’s domestic energy production on federal lands has been stymied by this administration.”

But a new report released today by the Denver-based Center for Western Priorities called “Follow the Oil” shows that putting the blame on the president and his administration is nothing more than conservative messaging.  Much of today’s boom in oil and natural gas is from unconventional shale “plays,” areas that have only recently been opened through new technology.  And, as the report notes:

Nationwide, 90 percent of all current shale gas plays exist on nonfederal lands, with only 10 percent located on federal lands. Even starker, almost all shale oil resources exist on non-federal lands. Only 7 percent of current shale oil and mixed plays are found on federally-owned lands with the remaining 93 percent on nonfederal lands.

This map shows what those findings look like across the country, and where the industry is “following the oil”:

Additionally, economics are playing a role in driving drilling from public lands to nonfederal lands.  As the report states, “rapid development increased the supply of natural gas, driving down prices, and sending companies searching for other drilling locations and revenue sources.”

In other words, the oil and gas industry has met the enemy, and it is itself.

The release of this report comes at a very opportune time, considering that Sally Jewell, nominee to be the next Secretary of the Interior, will have her confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week

And as expected, key members of the committee are preparing to ask her questions about how the administration is stifling drilling on public lands. For example, Energy and Environment Daily reports that Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) will ask Jewell “where she stands on domestic energy development, job creation and federal regulations.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Ranking Member on the committee, said she told Jewell in a meeting last week about “resource potential in Alaska, off-shore and in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the limitations to access.”

And Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) released a statement after Jewell’s nomination announcement that “The [Interior Department’s] approach has hurt our economy, killed jobs, and prevented states like Utah from generating critical revenue,” so questions about energy on public lands are also likely to come from him.

The report released today shows that, despite all of the questions Jewell may get on drilling on public lands, the industry in the end is “following the oil” to nonfederal lands.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

by Brad Johnson

According to John Kerry’s State Department, the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be safe from the climate impacts to which it will contribute.

The department’s contractor-written Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement estimates, and then dismisses, the pipeline’s massive carbon footprint. But the statement also determines that the global warming the pipeline’s dirty crude will cause will not affect the pipeline itself because it “will be buried deep enough”:

During the operations period, climate change projections suggest the following changes:

• Warmer winter temperatures;
• A shorter cool season;
• A longer duration of frost-free periods;
• More freeze-thaw cycles per year (which could lead to an increased number of episodes of soil contraction and expansion);
• Warmer summer temperatures;
• Increased number of hot days and consecutive hot days; and
• Longer summers (which could lead to impacts associated with heat stress and wildfire risks).

The pipeline would be buried deep enough to avoid surface impacts of climate changes (freeze-thaw cycles, fires, and temperature extremes).

As Secretary of State John Kerry said six years ago, “we’re on an urgent clock” to confront fossil-fueled climate change. He compared it to the threat of nuclear weaponry as a “man-made” and “uncontrolled” weapon with “the ability to change life as we know it on this Earth.” Kerry’s recognition of the scientific necessity to keep global concentrations of carbon dioxide below 450 ppm should preclude the possibility of building a pipeline designed to pump 7 gigatons of carbon dioxide worth of tar sands crude over decades. In one of his first speeches as Secretary of State, Kerry said that the United States is in “this moment of urgency to lead on the climate concerns that we share with our global neighbors.”

Why then, does the State Department’s draft impact statement ignore Kerry’s clear understanding of the threat posed by the Keystone XL pipeline? Perhaps it’s because the statement is literally bought and paid for by Keystone XL’s maker, the foreign tar sands company TransCanada.

The impact statement was written by a TransCanada contractor, not by State Department officials. The “sustainability consultancy” Environmental Resources Management was paid an undisclosed amount under contract to TransCanada to write the statement, which is now an official government document.

The impact statement did not take into account the predicted political instability that is already starting to occur because of global warming, however. As Kerry said in 2009, “catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and — yes — even to American national security.” As economist Sir Nicholas Stern said, “the cost of inaction” on climate change is a “serious risk of global war.”

One might expect that threats to global stability might have an impact on the continued operation of the Keystone XL pipeline, no matter how deep it is buried.

Brad Johnson is the campaign manager of Forecast the Facts.

The incoming D.C. snowstorm — already dubbed “snowquester” by the Washington Post and the blogosphere — has shut down nearly all of the federal government offices in Washington, and poses numerous hazards across the country. [Climate Central]

The storm was expected to dump up to a foot of snow in Chicago on Tuesday, which would be the Windy City’s largest snowstorm of the year. Snow was also falling on Tuesday in parts of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and will move into West Virginia by Tuesday evening.

From the Midwest, the storm will slide southeast and eventually coalesce into a powerful coastal storm to the east of the Virginia and Delaware coastlines by Wednesday. Computer-model projections show the coastal storm will rapidly intensify as it meanders to the east-northeast, blasting the vulnerable Delaware and New Jersey shorelines with high winds and battering waves, while dumping as much as 30 inches of snow in the higher elevations to the southwest and west of the nation’s capital.

In Washington, D.C., a city known for all but shutting down when snow is merely mentioned by weather forecasters, projections call for about 6-to-10 inches of snow, possibly more, depending on precipitation rates and surface temperatures.

The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, by 2.67 parts per million to a final total of just under 395 parts per million, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees as many global leaders have hoped. [Huffington Post]

The Obama Administration has sent documents to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee showing the president’s pick to head the Department of the Interior, REI CEO Sally Jewell, has owned stock in major oil companies. [WSJ]

Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela who was often been a thorn in the side of the United States — particularly when it came to heating oil and President George W. Bush — died at the age of 58 on Tuesday, after a bout with cancer. [CNN]

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department actually have a broad range of options for tackling climate change through executive authority alone. [WaPo]

As the Arctic warms, its sea ice is decreasing, leading to more and stronger storm surges in Canada’s Northwest Territories, among other things. [Climate Central]

BNSF Railway Co. is planning to test a switch to natural gas for powering its locomotives this year. The railroad company is the largest in the U.S., and until now has also been one of the country’s biggest diesel fuel consumers. [WSJ]

China will wait until after this year to introduce a tax on carbon, deferring to concerns that the policy could hurt economic growth, a government researcher said yesterday. [Bloomberg]