Web edition: August 5, 2012
Print edition: September 8, 2012; Vol.182 #5 (p. 10)
It’s not your imagination. Not only are extremely hot temperatures occurring more frequently across the globe, but those heat waves are getting more severe.
Back in the 1950s, temperatures on any given summer day were just as likely to be near average as they were to be unseasonably high or low. Climatologist James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City likens that scenario to rolling a die with two sides each corresponding to low, average and above-normal temperature.
Since the 1980s, that metaphorical die has increasingly become weighted toward delivering a warm day, Hansen and his coworkers report August 6 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, Hansen says, since 2000 it’s as though on any roll almost 4.5 sides will draw hotter than average summer heat.
Hansen says the study also suggests that a new level of extreme heat is emerging “that almost never occurred 50 years ago.” Formerly striking about 0.2 percent of the Northern Hemisphere in any given summer, this degree of anomalous warmth now strikes about 10 percent of the land area. Within a decade, his data suggest, these hot spells could reach 16.7 percent of the hemisphere's summer weather.
“We’re not showing that this is a consequence of an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,” Hansen says. In fact, his team’s analysis makes no attempt to attribute the underlying source of warming to any particular cause. He does volunteer, however, that there is “a strong consensus within the scientific community that the warming we’re seeing is primarily a response to an increase in greenhouse gases.”
Markus Donat and Lisa Alexander of the University of New South Wales in Sydney reported similar conclusions online July 31 in Geophysical Research Letters. Their group integrated daily temperature changes at monitoring stations across the globe to identify a shift toward warmer temperatures globally and year-round — with more days of extreme heat.
The Sydney researchers found that increases in daily minimum temperatures (which tend to occur at night) rose most strongly. Compared with the period from 1951 to 1980, daily minimum temperatures rose in the three decades ending in 2010 by 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit); the daily maximum increased in that second period by only 0.6 degrees Celsius.
What’s more, the new analysis shows, the temperature threshold exceeded on the hottest 5 percent of days in the first 30-year period was crossed 7 percent of the time in the more recent 30-year period, an increase of 40 percent.
John M. Wallace of the University of Washington in Seattle says he is not surprised to see this shift toward more extremely warm days — and hotter extremes within those periods. “Just as a rising tide lifts all ships,” he says, there is good reason to believe that growing global warming should elevate warming extremes. Computer projections of Earth’s changing climate call for such a pattern. “If a trend in that direction is detectable already,” Wallace says, “that would constitute an important finding.” But to be convinced, he’d like to see a longer track of temperatures broken down by region and covering both land and water (not just land temperature, as here).
The focus by both papers on temperature changes in recent decades — as opposed to all types of weather extremes, including floods, storms, droughts and more — constitutes “picking a relatively ‘easy target,” says Thomas Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. Still, he says, the new data are interesting and “underscore the substantial changes already underway in terms of surface temperatures and their extremes.”
Citations
J. Hansen, M. Sato and R. Ruedy. Perception of climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Posted online August 6, 2012. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205276109.
M.G. Donat and L.V. Alexander. The shifting probability distribution of global daytime and night-time temperatures. Geophysical Research Letters, published online July 31, 2011. doi: 10.1029/2012GL052459 [Go to]
Suggested Reading
D. Powell. Stronger storms may destroy ozone. Science News online. July 26, 2012. Available online: [Go to]
J. Raloff. Warming indicted for extreme weather. Science News. Vol. 182, August 11, 2012, p. 14. Available online: [Go to]
S. Perkins. Seeing the future hot spells. Science News, Vol. 175, April 11, 2009, p. 9. Available online: [Go to]
S. Perkins. From bad to worse: Earth's warming to accelerate. Science News, Vol. 171, February 10, 2007, p. 83. Available online: [Go to]
J. Raloff. Insurance payouts point to climate change. Science News Online, January 4, 2012. [Go to]
A. Witze. Climate’s effect on extreme weather is no game of chance. Science News Prime, October 31, 2011. Available online: [Go to]
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
The 1930s were a hot decade in the U.S., but not globally, and the 2000s were still warmer. If you cite your source someone might be able to give you a better answer.
John and David,
30-year periods are used to define climate normals. 1950-1980 (or 1951-1980) is being used now because the most recent normal is now 1981-2010. 60 years provides the most recent comparison. Part of the issue is that to resolve some of these changes in extreme events, a longer time period is counterproductive, much like looking at a smoker's health before they started smoking. Politics aside, the results are the results. Other scientists will certainly take a stab at this.
Most critical from the NYT where NOAA scientist Dr. Martin Hoerling is panning it. “This isn’t a serious science paper,” Dr. Hoerling said. “It’s mainly about perception, as indicated by the paper’s title. Perception is not a science.”
Please don't print _anything_ from James Hansen as gospel truth, especially if the only peer review is from low bar set by the PNAS.
Is there any effort to combine the buoys with GPS and Communications used for differing scientific research, such as for earthquake/tsunami monitoring, into geostationary platforms to monitor "everything" - temperature, humidity(on the ocean humidity is likely near 100%), CO2+methane+ozone content of the air and water?
If not, there seems to be a gaping hole in the capacity for mankind to collaborate effectively in gathering data to ultimately determine cause and effect.
On Hansen's paper:
Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best.
On PNAS:
As an aside, the journal that this article was published in...the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)...allows members of the National Academy (like Dr. Hansen) to publish articles with essentially no peer review. Until 2010 they could publish anything, with no peer review, and most recently the submission review is "supervised" by the submitting academy member WHO GETS TO SELECT THE REVIEWERS. Folks, this is really unfortunate for an entity that claims to be national journal of some reputation. The result has been a lot of very bad papers in PNAS that would never have been accepted in real journals,with a real peer review process. One could use stronger words, but this is a family blog.
The statistical analysis guiding all scientific studies requires some "cherry picking". It is very unfortunate that so many people think they are knowledgeable of the scientific process and like to throw stones at findings that disrupt their political points of view - usually people who profit from one of the industries negatively affected by the public perception of the research that contradicts their politics.
This study may be a very quick and dirty analysis of the high highs, the medium medians, and the low lows. Whoopie-doo. The facts collected by most science indicate that global temperatures are increasing. The article takes great pains not to attribute this trend to mankind's increased emission of gases that are known to trap infrared heat.
Facts such as ice cores where trapped CO2 coincide with past warming trends induced by such events as volcanic eruptions have occurred in Earth's geological past indicate mankind certainly could be influencing global temperatures.
Considering that mankind is so efficient at turning fuels stored in the belly of the Earth over billions of years to potentially global warming gases on a tiny fraction of that time scale - we presently consume and emit the equivalent of all the carbon in the Amazon rain forest in ten years of fossil fuel use - shy is it that so many of us want to move into the future with our eyes closed? Do they want to leave the debt of our activities today to their children and all future generations of man? Look at what happens to bacteria in a petri dish lacking any ability to regenerate their resources and excrete their waste outside their closed environment; why should these few people standing in the way of human action think that anything different will happen to all of mankind?
Regarding Ric's interpretation that "Perception is not a science.", I'd suspect that some scientists performing some pretty sophisticated science studying perception would disagree strongly.
It seems obvious that what people CAN't PERCEIVE is never science. Science requires perception, our five senses and whatever instrumentation and data gathering means available in order to collect the information required to perform the statistical analysis that support conclusions.
Even business news outlets are starting to understand and report on the manipulation by various industries to influence politics and pundits to disregard science's findings that those industries may do more harm than good. And an interesting phenomenon is that when business news doesn't tell the truth, people lose money and faith in what that business news reports.
What boosts Science News in my view (perception) is that they do report in very succinct terms science, controversial or not, that is current.
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.