One Week After Frank, Arctic Sea Ice Hits New Record Lows

Extreme weather and climate change. The plight of human civilization facing loss of coastlines, stable climates, and predictable growing seasons. The plight of the polar bear. How are they all linked? Well, for one, it now appears that one of the most powerful storms to strike Iceland — an extraordinarily intense 928 mb low pressure system dubbed Frank by the UK Met Office — has played its hand in helping to drive Arctic sea ice to new daily record lows.

The storm, associated with a powerful high amplitude wave in the Jet Stream, aided in shoving some of the warmest temperatures ever recorded over the North Pole. Setting off a rare period of above freezing temperatures during polar night, this extreme weather event dumped an unprecedented amount of heat into the Arctic during what is typically its coldest season.

image

(Dr. Jeff Masters, chief meteorologist at Weather Underground, explains how extreme weather and weaknesses in the Jet Stream recently contributed to record warming and above freezing temperatures at the North Pole last week. Image source: Voice of America News Screenshot.)

It’s the kind of atmospheric heat engine whose climate and weather altering impacts I discussed with Dr. Jeff Masters, Dr Steven Amstrup, and the hosts of Voice of America’s news show #Hashtag — Michael Lipin and Andrew Palczewski — today. The kind of extreme events that become more and more common as the world warms up, dumping an inordinate amount of latent heat into storms as they form and intensify.

But this particular event’s far-ranging impact could also be seen in a warm temperature shift for the High Arctic during Winter. A shift that brought with it a flatlining of Arctic sea ice accumulation.

Typically, during December and on through mid-April, Arctic sea ice area and extent values continue to rise. The cold of polar night settles in over a broad area of water. Bereft of the heating rays of the sun and typically plunged into temperatures well below freezing, the ocean surface becomes covered in an expanding cap of ice. There it provides a stable environment for so many Arctic creatures that have made that place their home. But it has also helped to provide the stable climate of the Holocene — in which for more than 10,000 years human beings and our civilizations have been able to thrive.

chart

(Red flat line in the upper left shows that 2016 is starting off in the range of new record daily lows for Arctic sea ice. It’s one of the best barometers for climate change impact in the Northern Hemisphere and one that is still showing new declines, even in Winter. Image source: NSIDC.)

This year’s massive Arctic warm-up, in association with Frank, appears to have stranded that essential ice accumulation in dead stop. And as of January 4th, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic sea ice extent totals remained at 12.8 million square kilometers. That’s about 90,000 square kilometers below the previous record daily low set on the same day just five years ago during the Winter of 2011. It’s also an extent value fully 1 million square kilometers, an area the size of Texas and Montana combined, below the already depleted 1981 to 2010 average.

Cryosphere Today showed Arctic sea ice area also following that ominous flatline pattern — hitting 12.23 million square kilometers in coverage or the second lowest area on record for the day.

Extreme Arctic Warmth on January 5 2016

(Extreme Arctic warmth on January 5 of 2016 coincides with some extraordinary global heat in the above temperature anomaly map. It’s just one more day in a recent severe spate of Arctic warming that has helped to shove Arctic sea ice into new record low territory over recent days. Image source: Climate Reanalyzer.)

Continued warmer than normal temperatures in the Arctic in the range of 3 to 3.5 C above average for the region may well continue to drive this sea ice flat line over at least the next couple of days, pushing area measures into new record low readings even as extent continues to break records.

Failure to freeze during Winter is one of the driving factors of major Arctic sea ice declines during Summer (often called Winter power over at the Arctic Sea Ice Blog). So with sea ice hitting new lows for a, much warmer than normal cold season, we may need to watch out for potential new major losses come summer time. And that’s bad news for everyone — seals, walruses, polar bears, human beings and for many of the creatures below the Arctic Circle that rely on that frozen region for the maintenance of the climate they evolved and adapted to live in. Dr. Steven Amstrup, who has been a fearless advocate for the innocent creatures most likely to be impacted early by human-forced warming of the Arctic, I’m pretty sure, would agree.

Links:

Above Freezing Temperatures at North Pole During Winter

Voice of America News #El Nino, #North Pole, #Storm Frank

The National Snow and Ice Data Center

Cryosphere Today

The Arctic Sea Ice Blog

Polar Bears International

Weather Underground

Climate Reanalyzer

Scientific Hat Tip to Dr Steven Amstrup and Dr Jeff Masters

Hat Tip to Michael Lipin and Andrew Palczewski

Hat Tip to Kevin Jones for helping me keep my eye on the ball

 

Leave a comment

191 Comments

  1. Tsar Nicholas

     /  January 6, 2016

    On the subject of predictable growings seasons, a gardening slot on a mainstream daytime television show here in Britain on Tuesday had a gardener state that all his winter vegetables had failed to provide anything edible. Everything was growing – and much of it was early – but there was (aside from what was in his greenhouse) nothing to eat.

    This latest article of yours fills me with a sense of horror of what is coming upon our species.

    Reply
    • Andy in SD

       /  January 6, 2016

      It reaches much further than our species.

      The mass die offs in the East Pacific over the past decade, when listed and viewed is nothing less than a trip up the food chain. It began with plankton, went past shell fish, bottom feeders, seal etc… You can literally view the food chain represented in mass die offs over the space of roughly a decade.

      The same is occurring in many locales and regions. Entire food chain collapses within environments are becoming far too common.

      The biosphere is collapsing.

      Reply
      • What warming does to the ocean is quite extraordinary. It’s a very strong extinction pressure that eventually spills over to land. We’re definitely taking down the oceans’ ability to support life and we don’t want to keep heading down that path.

        Reply
      • Steven Blaisdell

         /  January 6, 2016

        “…view the food chain represented in mass die offs…”
        Never thought of it like that; brilliant way to connect all too easily atomized events into a powerful narrative. Plus we’re not just destroying the hydrosphere through warming and acidification; habitat destruction, pollution, and overfishing are driving ocean fauna to extinction:
        “Around 85% of global fish stocks are over-exploited, depleted, fully exploited or in recovery from exploitation….[l]arge areas of seabed in the Mediterranean and North Sea now resemble a desert – the seas have been expunged of fish…[a]ll West African fisheries are now over-exploited, coastal fisheries have declined 50% in the past 30 years, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation…[c]atches in the tropics are expected to decline a further 40% by 2050…[s]hark numbers, for example, have declined by 80% worldwide, with one-third of shark species now at risk of extinction…as many as 320,000 seabirds are being killed annually when they get caught in fishing lines, pushing populations of albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters to the edge of extinction…”
        http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish

        Jared Diamond outlined the multidimensional threat of human exploitation of Earth’s resources; any one of of his identified exploitive practices could precipitate system collapse (AGW, topsoil depletion, ocean collapse…). Each of these areas requires immediate, intensive attention and fundamental change that runs counter to 6m years of human species behavior. Nothing’s impossible, but to artificially limit the focus to the oceans is it realistic to expect humanity to fundamentally change and restrict fishing practices, reduce/eliminate pollution and habitat destruction, AND make the huge, global shift away from fossil fuels to renewables? Never mind reversing (not just stopping) deforestation and industrial farming, all while facing a 50% human population increase by 2050.

        Reply
        • It is absolutely multidimensional. We’ve taken so many things for granted and we are brazenly and callously turning our eyes from them as they die off or are removed.

      • Andy in SD

         /  January 6, 2016

        Steven,

        Well put. I would add ground water depletion to these guys (AGW, topsoil depletion, ocean collapse…). There are so many more.

        Humans yearly consumption of planetary renewable resources (ie: biomass) is currently running ~150% of annual planetary production.

        As Aldous Huxley so aptly stated in 1959 “forests precede civilization and deserts follow”

        Reply
      • Kevin Jones

         /  January 6, 2016

        Yeah, you all. Just finished The Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea by Callum Roberts Penguin 2012. Rich, readable, enormously informative. I strongly recommend it. Thanks, Robert and Team for all the good, great and ongoing efforts!

        Reply
        • It’s important to recognize that the major collapses due to warming occur in the ocean first. That’s not to say that you don’t have substantial and even extinction pressure disruptions on land as well. But it’s nothing like what’s happening in the great waters.

      • James Burton

         /  January 6, 2016

        It’s been my belief all along that while most people focus on air temperatures and shorter winters, longer summers, it is an ocean related event that will bring home to us a disaster too terrible to contemplate. The Oceans are earth’s heat sinks, they are soaking up most excess heat the green house effect causes. A collapse of one or more major ocean currents, and collapse of parts of the food chain. Maybe both at once.
        I just shudder to think how much more heat oceans can keep absorbing before unnatural events cause a major event.
        Last year Robert wrote often about the heat absorbed in the Pacific, including now in the deep waters. All that energy will be roaring to break out at some point. Energy doesn’t like to just keep building up, it wants to move, like this record El Nino.
        One day fish stocks will collapse in many places at once, as food chains just can’t take the acidic waters and heat. Not to mention non-stop over fishing.

        Reply
        • The North Atlantic overturning circulation is already starting to fade (Rahmstorf). We’re on the outskirts of some rather terrible ocean impacts now. Unfortunately, it appears that more Greenland melt is on the way to worsen that already rather bad situation.

          The deeper warming waters have already come back to haunt us in this El Niño event. The hot blob was also partially related to warmer deep waters in the Arctic. What we see now, also is deeper, warmer waters hitting the undersides of glaciers and warming up the hydrate and carbon rich sea beds. This is all a part of the start to a very dangerous change to the oceans. If it keeps going as it is, it’s an overwhelmingly terrible existential crisis for life in the oceans which eventually spills over to land.

    • Jeremy.

       /  January 6, 2016

      I heard that too Tsar.
      and it’s exactly what Guy McPherson has said would cause our early extinction – an environment unable to provide food.

      It’s a scenario almost impossible for a person to contemplate without loosing their mind – or at least sinking into depression😦

      Reply
      • So the environment doesn’t stop providing food entirely. You just get this ongoing degradation of natural wealth, wealth of life, and related options as you keep burning fossil fuels and dumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere. It’s just that it doesn’t support human agriculture the way it’s currently set up very well if you keep warming things up.

        The growing seasons become less predictable. You get these extreme droughts and floods that really wreck fragile cereal crops. You end up inundating the fertile river delta regions with sea level rise. You lose valuable and productive coastal land.

        This is a nation, region, and civilization collapse issue.

        For 1-2 C you’re probably looking at a 5-10 percent reduction in traditional crop yields for each degree of temp increase, but in a very disruptive fashion in which the reductions are lumped up into particular weather and climate events. On through 4 C you ramp up to around 40 percent. Between 5 and 6 C you have this compounding effect where your methods of growing and kinds of crops involved would have to be very different than what we use today if you’re going to sustain any kind of agricultural base. On top of all this you have a subsequent loss in ocean productivity and it’s worth noting that at this time the oceans feed about 1 billion people. We’re staring at ocean productivity losses as well, so that’s a pretty amazingly big issue.

        From the point of view of sustainability and resiliency indoor vertical farming in which water, fertilizer and wastes are recycled is a strong available solution. It reduces the deforestation impact and it adds to the resiliency of human systems. But when you look at the world as a whole, it’s questionable whether that sustainability tech can be implemented fast enough to keep pace with impacts. Shifts to vegetarian and vegan diets (with a few polyculture based innovations sprinkled in) can reduce total food demand by 50 percent or more. So that’s also another way to add resiliency while cutting total emissions (industrial meat farming).

        As for the level of extinction pressure — at first, this is more a civilization collapse and destabilization pressure than an extinction pressure. Because humans are omnivorous, mobile, able to coordinate group activity, use technology of all kinds — language, tools, etc (not just fossil fuel based tech), and are generally quite adaptable, total human extinction doesn’t become a possible issue until we get above 6 C and the oceans start becoming more involved. But downward pressure on global human populations does come into effect if food production and availability loss generates a cascade of civilization collapse events such that global international aid response is overwhelmed. That would require a pretty big hit.

        McPherson, generally, hasn’t thought through most of the details and leaps immediately to the worst case. It’s good to keep the worst case in mind. But staring into that abyss for too long will ruin your ability to think clearly, as appears to be what has happened with him.

        Reply
      • Jeremy.

         /  January 6, 2016

        Thanks RS!

        Reply
    • uilyam

       /  January 6, 2016

      @Steven Blaisdell “… all while facing a 50% human population increase by 2050.”

      I try to avoid ranting, but…

      A 50% human population increase by 2050 is not something we have to face. Nor need we face a continuation of BAU with its associated GHG emissions until 2100. I think we sailed past the point where a WWII-scale mobilization was necessary in order to avoid catastrophic change. Our best hope is to try to discover triage approaches to save what can yet serve as a basis for a long-term struggle to preserve a possibility of continued human existence.

      Reply
      • So the large scale effort will be needed to shore up civilization in the event that emissions reductions aren’t fast enough and massive, disruptive, impacts accumulate rapidly. Triage, itself, won’t be possible without advanced civilizations (or some functioning remnant thereof) to provide the support for that triage. I think it’s possible that we’ll realize how important the natural world is that we’re in the process of losing and that we’ll commit to sending teams out to stabilize island ecosystems, save key species, or preserve species artificially who have lost their ecosystems entirely. But I see this all as part of a much larger and growing response that would well combine adaptation and mitigation.

        Eventually, the debate will be over and we’ll just do these things because they’re necessary for civilization survival. Or we won’t and there won’t be a viable human civilization to speak of anymore. But the first goal now is taking down the fossil fuel interests who are doing everything they can to prevent any response at all.

        Reply
    • It’s tough to deal with these kinds of extremes of it’s your job to grow things out in these increasingly wrecked conditions. Farmer suicide is something you tend to hear about rather often these days, it’s a big indicator of severe strains in certain key regions.

      Reply
      • Studying agrarian communities, it is common to run into the phenomenon of ‘farmer suicide’, which appears to relate to a sense of futility – an inability to make do with what the farmer has, to provide the returns (crops) needed to keep the cycle going. In a normal system, the battle is waged by working hard against weather, insects and disease. With the rise of industrial communities, though, the same corporate greed that is shifting our weather patterns for the worse is more immediately shoving farmers worldwide into debt and poverty. Thus, in recent years, farmer-suicides have nearly always been associated with the futility of trying to farm with rising costs from greedy and destructive firms that provide patented seeds and sprays.

        Reply
        • That is likely a compounding issue. That said, farmer suicide rate spikes, are almost always coincident with severe drought events. So yes, you hit the farmers from all these angles and then you add in drought and it’s absolutely devastating. And human forced climate change is an extraordinary enabler of those kinds of extreme events.

      • John in NY

         /  January 7, 2016

        Robert, there are other points to ponder from my p.o.v as a biologist: The general public are so excited about all the advances in human genomics, precision medicine, anti-cancer drugs, immunotherapy, and so on and so on, that they’ve been talking about living to 120, or even 142 years–God knows where they came up with such a peculiar number–which glossed the cover of Time last Feb. Friends of mine asked me in multiple occasions about the “longevity gene”. As you can imagine, I could barely hold my rage since all the modern apes care about is to extend their wasteful lives on Earth, even for one more f*ing day for whatever cost. In the US we are spending ~18% of GDP on healthcare, or 3 trillion dollars every year! With the boomers now starting to enjoy their golden years en-mass, that number will only go up, way up, and will for sure eat into any budget for renewable energy deployment. That, my friend, coupled with the presumed increase in world population (mostly in regions being affected the worst by CC), diminishing output from agriculture and natural resources, and a biosphere stretched to the verge of collapsing, spells big trouble and millions of deaths in the coming years.

        [img]http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMzA1/z/UiAAAOSwBLlU36LI/$_1.JPG[/img]

        Reply
  2. John in NY

     /  January 6, 2016

    Congrats on the VOA appearance. We need more programs like that to wake up the masses. Here in Westchester, NY my poor trees are frozen with fresh young leaves and flower buds which appeared in the freakish warm winter, only to be killed by a sudden drop of temperature several days ago. It was -10 C this couple of days at night. I hope they can recover this Spring. Thanks for another great piece.

    Reply
    • Looks like the weather gets wrenched back to warm later this week. Winter is dying. But it’s death throes are in these flickerings. These switchings back and forth between extremes.

      Reply
  3. I’ve spent years trying to tell humans that starvation was coming. It’s done little good.

    Reply
  4. Great interview. How I wish that the three of you could have gone into more detail. One thing to read it, but listening to a good lecture by a decent public speaker is wonderful!

    Communication/public speaking is something the most of the presentations available via the AGU on demand videos from the 2015 meeting, could definitively stand to improve on. It was painful to listen to… and a damn shame because the papers/information being presented have merit. I enjoy listening to Michael Mann or Richard Alley or Jim White… and many, many more, yourself included.

    Side note, I am engineer (older than dirt), we would take “newbie” engineers and send them to “charm school” in an attempt to teach them “communication and social skills”. And if they failed at that, we kept them in the “closet”,,,,,, presentations were done by people thoroughly familiar with the work that had communication skills. If you don’t have communication skill it is very difficult to pass the knowledge on……

    Reply
    • I agree heartily… Robert, you did a great job speaking for the ‘planet’, and those of us concerned about where all of this is headed. All three on the panel were good to hear from, and hopefully this discussion will help in educating the mainstream population.

      Louise, given that there are many good minds reading this website, perhaps one or more of them would take the time to closely review any AGU video presentations you found particularly worth watching. Then, offer up the ‘charm school’ versions that might ensure the larger world population can benefit from their work. Sometimes it just comes down to connecting one person with time and tenacity to put the hours into really studying these videos, to compile transcript portions, screen caps, and key points into a good summary narrative. So, share links to the videos you think would be most helpful, please.

      Reply
    • I know it’s tough for TV. But an hour would have been great. We were really starting to get into the good stuff there right at the end with the question on COP 21 and related 2 C warming as well as Dr Amstrup’s very relevant and heart-wrenching additions. 2 C warming means 2/3 of habitat loss for polar bears and so many other Arctic creatures. You expand that away from the Arctic and you get a real global perspective of a planet that’s just been vastly, tragically, fundamentally changed. And the 2 C warming goal for this century, without somehow drawing down atmospheric carbon results in about 4 C warming long term.

      When people start to understand that we’re not even on track for the stated goal of 2 C and that its impacts are so massive and difficult, it really starts to sink in how fast we need to bring emissions to zero and how critical it is that we figure out a way to draw down this excess greenhouse gas. It could well be described as the greatest challenge in human history. But we must meet it, not only for human lives we would save, but for the countless innocent creatures of this world who are now at dire risk of falling victim to the greed and hubris of a few among us.

      Reply
  5. Apneaman

     /  January 6, 2016

    Current pace of environmental change is unprecedented in Earth’s history

    “Press release issued: 4 January 2016

    University of Bristol Cabot Institute researchers and their colleagues today published research that further documents the unprecedented rate of environmental change occurring today, compared to that which occurred during natural events in Earth’s history.”

    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2016/january/pace-environment-change.html

    Reply
    • To get anywhere close to what we’re doing now, we need to study the Permian. But even that catastrophic warming event was likely slower.

      Reply
  6. Greg

     /  January 6, 2016

    It occurs to me that visualization of the amount and rate of carbon (and other pollutants) we are putting into the atmosphere could be comprehended by the public at large if it were put in a “natural” context. What if it had all been volcanic in origin? What would that look like? A Vesuvius or Pinatubo on every continent constantly spewing for the last century?

    Reply
    • More like a massive Siberian flood basalt covering large sections of every continent. It would be like 20-30 Pinatubos constantly going off all the time.

      Reply
  7. Jeremy.

     /  January 6, 2016

    And now we can add “1” to our Hydrogen Bomb count.
    https://4hiroshimas.com

    Our N. Korean friends just tested their first Hydrogen Bomb!
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35240012

    What nonsense is this?

    Reply
  8. climatehawk1 Retweeted
    Bill McKibben ‏@billmckibben 12h12 hours ago

    Superb NASA images show just how swollen the Mississippi is right now

    Reply
    • – The above is BEFORE.
      – This is AFTER the atmospheric river caused the water to rise,
      climatehawk1 Retweeted
      Bill McKibben ‏@billmckibben 12h12 hours ago

      Superb NASA images show just how swollen the Mississippi is right now

      Reply
  9. NWS New Orleans ‏@NWSNewOrleans 5h5 hours ago

    With the recent heavy rains up basin and flooding, what’s the precipitation outlook for the rest of the winter?

    Reply
  10. Anthony Sagliani Retweeted
    Michael Charnick ‏@charnick_wx 5h5 hours ago

    Random and a month old, but cool/striking IMO. #Snow squall streaks around the Aral Sea in the Kazah/Uzbeck plains.

    Reply
  11. – AQMD = (SoCal) Air Quality Management District

    Sandra Steingraber Retweeted
    SavePorterRanch ‏@SavePorterRanch 6h6 hours ago

    .@Mitch_Englander @350 @CourageCampaign @CenterForBioDiv @DanBacher @AndreaLeon

    Reply
  12. Jeremy.

     /  January 6, 2016

    “British Airways says that it has been forced to shelve a groundbreaking £340m scheme to create 16m gallons of jet fuel from London’s rubbish every year, partly due to a lack of government support.

    The Green Sky project was due to open in 2017 at an ex-oil refinery in Thurrock, Essex, where it would have turned into gas 575,000 tonnes of household waste that would otherwise have been landfilled or incinerated.

    Enough green fuel would have been produced to power all BA’s yearly flights from London City airport twice over, with carbon savings equivalent to taking 150,000 cars off the road.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/06/ba-blames-uk-government-for-scrapping-of-340m-green-fuels-project

    (snip)

    RS — so waste gas, unfortunately, already happens. Using it to power air travel is far better than oil, for example. A better solution to keep planes in the air is 4th gen biofuels. Still potentially better is hydrogen or advanced lightweight batteries (but technical challenges abound). Where I agree with you is that if you can’t do it without net carbon emitting fossil fuel, then you shouldn’t do it at all. The rant, however, was rather off base.

    Reply
  13. Jeremy.

     /  January 6, 2016

    (Snip)

    “Climate change, the biggest threat to the planet, appears to be amplifying, as the “financialization of nature” through carbon markets resumes in earnest. The failure of the Kyoto Protocol’s emissions trading strategy in Europe may soon be forgotten once the emerging markets ramp up their investments, especially if carbon markets remain a central feature of a Paris COP21 agreement.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/04/climate-change-casino-carbon-trading-reborn-in-new-generation-mega-polluters/

    Just as during the years after (COP) 1-20, the years following (COP) 21 will see soaring CO2 emissions.
    And these emissions will be FINANCIALIZED – they will made PROFITABLE for our banking overlords. How cool is that?

    Hansen was right calling (snip) (BS) on FLOP21.

    Reply
    • There does seem to be a lot of angst over Paris. However, we need to recognize that the INDCs from countries at this point are the strongest emissions reductions commitments by far to date. We should view this as progress, but not a complete success.

      To break it down further …

      1. INDCs now commit the world to a middle path of carbon emissions
      2. This is not BAU in which we keep burning full bore and lock in the absolute worst impacts
      3. But this is not in any way a good final solution because we still see warming significantly beyond 2 C this century even if all the INDCs are implemented
      4. The treaty doesn’t specify how the countries generate these emissions reductions
      5. So, if a country or set of countries wishes to use carbon trading as its means, then that’s on them
      6. However, you’d be right to point out that carbon trading has met with failures in almost all the markets in which such trading has been implemented. More to the point, it has only worked to reduce emissions when strong regulatory measures were in place that specifically limited the amount of carbon credits and reduced that pool on a scaling basis. It may sound like base common sense, but carbon trading tends to fail because there’s tended to be this push by fossil fuel industry to allow more carbon. As such, the system appears to be pretty vulnerable to manipulation and gaming.

      I think it would be best to describe COP 21 as progress (and very late progress at that) but not as anywhere near enough to meet the own conference’s stated goals of avoiding 2 C warming this Century. And, in addition, even if it were on a path to hit 2 C or below (which is probably now a crap shoot even if emissions were to fall to zero over the next decade and a half), there’d still be some damage in the pipe. So in the context of someone who is focused on preventing bad impacts to the highest degree possible, what we should really be doing is hitting zero carbon emissions as fast as possible.

      COP 21 didn’t do that. And the current path, though not BAU, is still pretty amazingly bad. So clearly we need more than what was committed to there. And, it’s pretty amazingly clear that fossil fuel special interests have again been successful in reducing or delaying action.

      Finally, Jeremy, you need to moderate and inform your comments more. This cursing and ranting and making outrageous statements reduces the quality of our discussion here. By extension, you’re increasing the likelihood that lurkers and readers will be far less well informed. Final warning.

      Reply
      • You wrote above: “…(carbon trading) has only worked to reduce emissions when strong regulatory measures were in place that specifically limited the amount of carbon credits and reduced that pool on a scaling basis. It may sound like base common sense, but carbon trading tends to fail because there’s tended to be this push by fossil fuel industry to allow more carbon. As such, the system appears to be pretty vulnerable to manipulation and gaming.”

        I would suggest that, going a bit deeper, the failures are absolutely expected to continue. Effective regulation requires meaningful and active oversight by both regulatory agencies and elected officials with the capacity to compel action by agency officials. Lacking either and you have a stalemate, tipping the field in favor of the nominally ‘regulated’ industry.

        Our current track record is abysmal. In my personal area of expertise, aviation, I track failures and propaganda by the U.S. FAA (hand-in-hand with other members of the ‘aviation-government complex’). The regulatory capture of FAA is beyond total; add to that, nearly all U.S. elected officials are so hyper-focused on reelection, they do NOTHING that might cause industry players to fund a new opponent who is more agreeable to commerce.

        Reply
        • I’m not in any way defending carbon trading which I feel is one of the weakest and least reliable policy levers for reducing carbon emissions. But, in any case, it’s worth noting that any policy measure aimed at reducing carbon emission will require strong oversight and enforcement.

          As for your final statement, that is also over the top. We have a good number of elected officials that go against commencial special interests. The fact that money does influence politics doesn’t validate the blanket fallacy that it dominates it and that all politicians always support corporate interests. We have the Sanders and the Warrens who mostly oppose such interests and we have a range of different leaders on in between. And though I agree with you that supporting such interests now is a pretty amazingly bad idea. I don’t agree that all politicians are doing that. We have a very strong block of renewable energy supporters, for example, that consistently cut against the grain of fossil fuel corporate interests for example. And though they are in the minority now, we still keep getting policies out there that the fossil fuel industry doesn’t like. Policy making, sadly, is an ugly process that doesn’t always include everything that is most ideal. So you’ve got to keep beating the drum for your particular cause if you’re going to get it done.

          As for identifying our opponents, we should be very clear — there’s one set of politicians pushing the ridiculously destructive policies. And that, my friend, is the party of Trump.

    • I’d call this an excellent contribution by Dr Trenberth. To paraphrase — all the impacts of El Niño are compounded by global warming. Well said. And use of one of my favorite terms — human warming. Trenberth is on point with this one. Kudos for an excellent assessment of likely climate impacts. In a way, a continuation and an enrichment of yesterday’s discussion.

      Reply
  14. Kevin Jones

     /  January 6, 2016

    ESRL has December 2015 avg. CO2 at Mauna Loa an even 3.00 ppm above December 2014. Let us hope we do not multiply a number like this by 100 over the next century…..

    Reply
    • We passed the likely ‘safe’ line at 350 or lower. 400 is bad. 450 worse than bad. 550 worse than terrible. 700 unimaginable. Let’s not get there.

      Reply
      • Phil

         /  January 6, 2016

        Very interesting the focus on 400 ppm for C02 which I suppose represents the passing though of a particular threshold that is significant from the standpoint of history – e.g. at least 800000 years and could be closer to 5 million years since it was that high.

        However, we hear much less about the fact that C02e gas concentration is currently around 480 ppm. This suggests things are much more dire than a 400 ppm level would imply (which is bad itself). I remember earlier work where 2 degrees C (or was it 1.5 degree C?) warming use to be linked to not going above 450 C02e ppm value – we have passed that limit by a significant margin now.

        I suppose this is linked somewhat to the focused move to carbon budgets which can be compiled for different ppm levels for different assumptions about demography, economic growth and mitigation policies.

        Reply
        • IF you stop emitting carbon, and IF the natural system doesn’t respond relatively strongly, the majority of the 485 CO2e overburden above 400 ppm from the CO2 baseline (composed mainly of methane) falls out. As for the current CO2e overburden — I’ve written about it pretty extensively. CO2 being the lion’s share of that bit.

          But if you use Hansen’s sensitivity measures, which I think are probably still the most accurate, you get 2-3 C warming long term from a maintained level of 400 ppm CO2 (around 1.5 C this Century). For 485 CO2e, if maintained, you end up with about 1.9 C this Century and around 3.8 C long term (maybe 4 C).

          The CO2 base level is a critical issue because that’s a set of carbon with a very long residence time in the Earth atmosphere and due to the fact that it’s the majority of the current forcing load of ghg.

  15. Kevin Jones

     /  January 6, 2016

    Annual growth rate for 2015 at Mauna Loa by ESRL for CO2: 3.17ppm. 2014: 2.17ppm. Previous highest annual growth rate: 2.93ppm for 1998. Oh boy……… (preliminary, I suppose)

    Reply
    • El Nino amplifier effect; makes sense.

      Reply
    • Christina in Honolulu

       /  January 6, 2016

      I don’t understand how El Nino amplifies the CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. Unless El Nino results in loss of CO2 sinks in the ocean? Could someone more knowledgeable please clarify this?

      Reply
      • When you heat large sections of the ocean, its ability to draw down carbon dioxide is hampered. This loss increases the rate of atmospheric CO2 accumulation from other emissions sources. In addition, widespread global impacts from El Nino including drought, heavy rainfall events, and wildfires increase global biosphere and land-based carbon emissions.

        Reply
  16. Jeremy.

     /  January 6, 2016

    “The Scariest News Story of 2016”
    http://www.dailyimpact.net/?powerpress_pinw=3155-podcast

    Reply
  17. climatehawk1

     /  January 6, 2016

    Tweeted. Congrats on the VOA slot–that’s terrific!

    Reply
  18. Caroline

     /  January 6, 2016

    Nice panel on VOA—-nice job Robert. Glad to see Dr. Amstrup as part of the panel speaking on behalf of nonhuman lives.

    In the meantime . . . . die off of sea birds (most likely due to AGW/starvation?) continues: https://www.adn.com/article/20160105/massive-murre-die-lines-whittier-beaches-carcasses

    The flooding/ toxins in the floodwaters (courtesy of humans), toxins in the air (methane leak in Ca. as but one example), the blob, the droughts, the melting ice, ocean acidification—–land and ocean creatures burned,drowned, starved, poisoned . . . we must not forget them. Sadly, the coverage of these “unprecedented”, “historic” climate catastrophes predominantly focuses on humans.

    Somewhat OT—-is the blob going to dissipate? Predictions for water temps in Pacific post El Nino? The marine food web here (and throughout the world) seems irrevocably damaged if not destroyed. Thoughts anyone?

    Reply
    • These storms bombing out in the NE Pacific should take the edge off the blob for a little while. SSTs should return to closer to normal for a time. However, the polar warming effect and the related Greenland trough development would tend to push for a return to abnormal warming over NE PAC in the near future.

      I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts on Dr Amstrup and on the living creatures of this world who, often without us realizing it, have granted us the gift of a rich and vital life. We’re in this thing with the polar bears together. Their plight is our own. Their loss and tragedy, our loss. If we turn away from them, it’s like removing that most vital of human organs — our ability to feel compassion, to connect with the world around us.

      Reply
  19. Greg

     /  January 6, 2016

    Going forward it seems everything climate related is going to take on an epic narrative. The consequences and the solutions. China might very well determine much of the outcome. This video released by BYD, a rapidly growing player in the electric battery and vehicle arena shows how huge China plays. If technology is going to play a positive role going forward this is the scale:

    Reply
    • This is a big deal. If we rapidly expand electrified ground transport as we knock out fossil fuel based electricity generation, then the lion’s share of global carbon emissions gets taken out. You still have major work to do on air travel and energy systems for defense as well as agriculture, steel and cement but this kind of shift lays the groundwork. We should all be cheering this on in every sector. We absolutely need additional policies to reduce net energy consumption as well. But this is a key factor of a rapid energy switch.

      Reply
      • Right. Someone told me on Twitter not long ago that since wind and PV only generate electricity, they can’t touch 2/3 of our energy use. I told him we have an EV (transportation) and cold-weather heat pump (heating) and they both say he is wrong.

        Reply
        • Here we run all appliances and heat on electricity. Add in solar + EV and say goodbye to 2/3 + of your fossil fuel use😉. Vegan + garden takes out much of the rest.

      • Greg

         /  January 6, 2016

        One more part of the equation. Money. If one had bought stock in Vestas, the largest wind producer in the world, you would have more than doubled your money this past year. If you had invested in coal? You’d be a schmuck. And monetarily bankrupt too. Peabody (BPT ticker ) looks like a coal chute off a cliff.

        Reply
        • Pretty much all fossil fuels have taken an extreme beating in the markets this year. I guess it doesn’t pay to be amorally dirty after all?

      • Spike

         /  January 7, 2016

        The gardening idea is a good one – on my land I’ve planted a lot of trees and grassy meadow, and have been adding soil carbon like crazy for years with considerable effect. I would like a reasonably priced source of biochar. It’s small, but if all gardeners and growers did it it would have some impact on both mitigation and adaptation to flood and drought. Interestingly it has helped me with the UK floods this year – rain is currently lashing down (again!!) but my soil is hoovering it up around the house. Professor Pete Smith of the University of Aberdeen is a big influence in this area though he rightly points out its limitations and the need for GHG reductions.

        http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/FCRN_SoilCarbon_Smith.pdf

        I note the French are pushing a plan to try and increase soil carbon by 0.4% per annum. Would be good if others got on board.

        Reply
      • Spike

         /  January 7, 2016

        And a paper from Smith out this week:

        Results indicate that soil carbon sequestration and biochar have useful negative emission potential (each 0.7 GtCeq. yr−1) and that they potentially have lower impact on land, water use, nutrients, albedo, energy requirement and cost, so have fewer disadvantages than many NETs.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13178/abstract

        Reply
  20. – But over on the Atlantic side the weather remains rather active :
    NWS OPC ‏@NWSOPC 2h2 hours ago

    intense 950 hPa low generating expansive area of gales (yellow), storm force winds (dark brown Iceland to Greenland)

    Reply
    • Another massive rainmaker for England, coastal France, and Spain. And just look at that frontal system trailing from the Gulf of Mexico all the way to the North Atlantic east of Greenland. There are very far-ranging energy exchanges setting up with this thing.

      Reply
      • – That’s right — latitudinal wise, something to pay attention to:
        “There are very far-ranging energy exchanges setting up with this thing. “

        Reply
  21. Jeremy.

     /  January 6, 2016

    Calling Dr. Hansen!

    “The Paris Climate Change Conference failed Humanity and has locked in a catastrophic temperature rise of about plus 2.7 degrees C. All ordinary folk can do is to boycott the worst polluters. World Bank analysts have revised annual greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutions upwards by 50% to 64 billion tonnes CO2-e by properly accounting for land use for animal husbandry and the same approach has been used here to properly re-calculate annual per capita GHG pollution for all countries and hence the best targets for global Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) to save the planet.”

    http://www.countercurrents.org/polya060116.htm

    Reply
    • Absolutely. Anyone supporting fossil fuels would be a good target for divestment, including the fossil fuels industry itself, which is at the center of the problem. And yes, COP 21 didn’t go far enough, which UNDERLINES the need to keep pushing policy makers harder even as we keep up the boycott pressure.

      What I sense here is this frantic flailing about which is entirely counter productive. So you don’t need to page anyone Jeremy, just reduce your own panic attack here, do a gut check, and face this thing head on.

      Reply
      • LJR

         /  January 6, 2016

        I agree, Robert. This isn’t doomstead diner. Jeremy contributes some good stuff but overall I think he rants too much. Humanity (and multi cellular life in general) is in deep trouble. Everyone with half a brain who wants to open his eyes can see that. Ranting doesn’t help. I’m not sure what does but we need to keep our heads clear.

        Reply
        • We’re facing off against the thing that sends out the four horsemen. It’s fear inducing. Terrifying. Makes some people flat out insane. Drives them mad just looking at it. I get it. But if we’re going to have any chance at all of winning through this mess, we need to hold the line.

  22. Jeremy

     /  January 6, 2016

    Reply
    • Ryan in New England

       /  January 7, 2016

      That’s a disturbing trend, and judging it just by eye it appears to not be a linear trend. I can see a slight curve downward, indicating accelerating melt like we’ve been seeing with Arctic ice. Other studies seem to support this view.

      Reply
  23. Jeremy

     /  January 6, 2016

    Libya, earlier today.

    Reply
    • – For context, the above must relate to:

      ‘Five Oil Tanks On Fire at Libyan Ports After Clashes’
      Reuters January 06, 2016 2:07 PM
      BENGHAZI, LIBYA—

      Fires caused by fighting between Islamic State militants and guards near Libya’s biggest oil ports have spread to five oil storage tanks that were still burning on Wednesday, a guards spokesman said.

      Ali al-Hassi said the Petroleum Facilities Guards were in control of Es Sider and Ras Lanuf ports, but that clashes continued.

      At least nine guards were killed and more than 40 injured in fighting around the perimeter of the area on Monday and Tuesday.
      http://www.voanews.com/content/libyan-oil-tanks-fire-/3133793.html

      Reply
      • The Middle East appears to be heading down this dark spiral of continued destabilization. Meanwhile, a very real neo-fascism has come to America in the form of Donald Trump wrapped in a tattered, dirtied and bloodied upside-down flag.

        Reply
  24. Colorado Bob

     /  January 6, 2016

    El Niño blamed for growing number of forest fires in Brazil

    Rio de Janeiro, Jan 5 (EFE).- Brazil registered some 235,000 forest fires in 2015, a number 27.5 percent higher than in 2014, a blight that specialists attribute to the climate phenomenon known as El Niño.

    Last year saw the second most forest fires since they began to be recorded in 1999, only outdone by the 249,000 logged in 2010, according to figures released by the National Space Studies Institute, or INPE, which measures heat centers in vegetation with the help of satellite images.

    http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/3546072_el-nino-blamed-for-growing-number-of-forest-fires-in-brazil.html

    Reply
  25. Aldous

     /  January 6, 2016

    Interesting that a cone of silence exists around the Pentagons massive carbon footprint. This silence is preventing them from becoming part of climate change discourse.

    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986576/missing_from_the_paris_agreement_the_pentagons_monstrous_carbon_boot_print.html

    “… the demand for tar sands oil, which is costly to extract and refine … The Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products in the world, burning through 395,000 barrels of oil a day. Emissions from fighter jets and planes cause disproportionately high impacts on the climate because of the way they mix with atmospheric gasses at high altitudes. Much of this fuel comes from tar sands oil.”

    Reply
    • Pretty big deal here. The Pentagon has a huge R&D budget, some of which could certainly be aimed at a much needed rapid carbon emissions reduction plan.

      Reply
  26. Jeremy

     /  January 6, 2016

    “SolarCity said Wednesday it is eliminating more than 550 jobs in Nevada as it continues a campaign against new, government-mandated solar metering rates.

    Nevada’s public commission said late last month that solar-panel users would get paid for their energy at lower, wholesale rates instead of at the higher, retail rates they had previously received. The commission also ordered public utility NV Energy to increase the monthly service charge for solar-panel users.

    The San Mateo, Calif.-based company had previously said it was ending solar panel sales and installations in Nevada, and cutting jobs could potentially convince the commission to reverse course. SolarCity SCTY, -0.67% said in an email it would return to the state if the policy is changed.”

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/solarcity-to-eliminate-550-nevada-jobs-citing-new-rates-2016-01-06-151034135?link=MW_home_latest_news

    Reply
    • So this is why good policy is absolutely critical. Here you have a cabal of fossil-fuel and utility special interest types using their monopoly powers to dictate captive carbon consumption by energy consumers in Nevada. This is a prime market for solar development and it’s being squashed by dirty fuels.

      Reply
    • Jeremy, with regards to your latest bit of anti-renewables misinformation ( now taken down from this site) it comes from the Third-Way Group.

      About Third-Way:

      “William K. Black said that “Third Way is this group that pretends sometimes to be center-left but is actually completely a creation of Wall Street–it’s run by Wall Street for Wall Street with this false flag operation as if it were a center-left group. It’s nothing of the sort.””

      Considering Wall Street’s current ties to both the fossil fuel and the mining interests, this report is especially suspect. And what we’ve found is that, time and time again renewables detractors have been wrong. They’ve had to resort to authoritarian policy measures to stop rapid renewable energy adoption in a blithe attempt to prove, by the dictation of the legislative pen, that renewables aren’t viable. Such a blantant mis-application of law is both amoral and reprehensible. But, as for these fake reports. They tend to pop up now and again. And if you dig deep enough you almost always find some fossil fuel funding for it.

      Reply
  27. Colorado Bob

     /  January 6, 2016

    Current pace of environmental change is unprecedented in Earth’s history

    University of Bristol Cabot Institute researchers and their colleagues today published research that further documents the unprecedented rate of environmental change occurring today, compared to that which occurred during natural events in Earth’s history.

    The research, published online on 4 January in Nature Geosciences reconstructs the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (pCO2) during a global environmental change event that occurred about 120 Million years ago. New geochemical data provide evidence that pCO2 increased in response to volcanic outgassing and remained high for around 1.5-2 million years, until enhanced organic matter burial in an oxygen-poor ocean caused areturn to original levels.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-01-current-pace-environmental-unprecedented-earth.html#jCp

    Reply
    • They need to be looking at the Permian. Only event with anywhere close to this one’s potential scope or velocity. We can cut it off at the head by cessation of fossil fuel emissions. But if we really want to know what we’re in for if we keep on burning, look at the Permian and then cram it all into a few Centuries plus add other human impacts. If we stop burning soon it’ll be rather bad and disruptive. Just not that bad.

      Reply
  28. Colorado Bob

     /  January 6, 2016

    Scientists Warn Climate Change Affecting Greenland Ice Sheet More Than Previously Thought

    Another of the scientists, York University Professor William Colgan, said: “The study looked at very recent climate change on the ice sheet, how the last couple of years of melt have really altered the structure of the ice sheet firn and made it behave differently to future melt.”

    The scientists were shocked by what they found. They discovered that an extreme melt which occurred in 2012 caused a thick layer of ice to form on top of the firn layer. “In subsequent years, meltwater couldn’t penetrate vertically through the solid ice layer and instead drained along the ice sheet surface toward the ocean,” Colgan said.

    This phenomenon had never been seen before.

    https://ecowatch.com/2016/01/06/climate-change-greenland-ice-sheet/

    Reply
    • More geophysical changes. Makes sense, though. I think these are just the first of the alterations we’re going to start to see on the ice sheet. But it’s this issue of glacial melt runoff from the surface which has the potential to cause some very extreme problems. If you get this kind of layer a bit further down, then it’s possible that you end up with permanent or near permanent ice lakes on the ice sheet surface. And that, along with causing major albedo loss, is a severe glacial outburst flood hazard.

      Reply
    • Abel Adamski

       /  January 7, 2016

      From the videos I saw of 2015’s Greenland melt, most of the melt water was draining into moulins in steams and rivulets rather than being shed off the surface

      Reply
  29. – Bob, have you seen this? Laura Paskus is usually right on top of these things.

    Climate change
    Is the Rio Grande Headed for “Permanent Drought”?

    In the mad rush to get a jump on holiday vacation, readers probably missed the release of an important paper on water and climate change in the West. But don’t worry. Grab a cookie or some fruitcake, and I’ll lay out the water wonkery for you.

    In the paper, “Western water and climate change,” authors studied four major river basins—the Colorado River, the Rio Grande, the Klamath River and California’s Bay-Delta system—and looked at how each will be affected by climate change.

    Of the four, they found that the Rio Grande Basin (which includes the river itself and its tributaries) faces the greatest challenges.

    In fact, they cite the Rio Grande as the best example of how continued declines in water flow due to climate change might sink a major river system into “permanent drought.”
    http://nmindepth.com/2016/01/05/is-the-rio-grande-headed-for-permanent-drought/

    Reply
    • ESA Centennial Papers
      Western water and climate change
      http://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/15-0938.1

      Reply
      • – And something for CA & OR:

        ‘The Klamath is currently projected to face the more benign precipitation future, but fisheries and irrigation management may face dire straits due to warming air temperatures, rising irrigation demands, and warming waters in a basin already hobbled by tensions between endangered fisheries and agricultural demands. Finally, California’s Bay-Delta system is a remarkably localized and severe weakness at the heart of the region’s trillion-dollar economy.
        Finally, California’s Bay-Delta system is a remarkably localized and severe weakness at the heart of the region’s trillion-dollar economy. It is threatened by the full range of potential climate-change impacts expected across the West, along with major vulnerabilities to increased flooding and rising sea levels.’
        – ESA Centennial Papers
        Western water and climate change

        Reply
    • Add in the fact that large inland lakes are disappearing around the world and that rivers in general are losing their glacial melt outflows during summer time. Yes, climate change deniers, the glaciers are going away.

      Reply
    • Nice catch, I’ll be tweeting, thanks.

      Reply
  30. – Take notice:

    NWS OPC ‏@NWSOPC 59m59 minutes ago

    The 1800 UTC #Atlantic & #Pacific surface analyses show #hurricane force lows in both ocean basins!

    Reply
    • The North Atlantic one just stalls out and continues to vent its fury on the UK over the next four + days. The North Pacific bomb follows this freakish retrograde path across the Bering and into Kamchatka. Watching that forecast, I’ve got this kinda ‘this has probably never happened before feeling.’ You don’t usually see systems retrograding off the Aleutians and into Northeast Siberia. It’s pretty damn odd. But it’s probably due to the fact that the Bering is much warmer now than the Sea of Irkutsk so you get this odd temperature/pressure dynamic. That and the Jet Stream and storm generation paths are behaving rather oddly at the moment. You’ve got the big storm track running into the West Coast. But you’ve also got this parallel bomb zone going off in the Bering.

      Those two pockets — the North Atlantic and the Bering are just really acting as these odd, abnormal, strong storm generators. The Bering, probably due to its warmth. The North Atlantic, almost certainly due to the cool pool and its related facing very warm region off the US East Coast as well as the much warmer than normal Barents. The North Atlantic also appears to be feeding liberally on El Nino based heat and moisture.

      Climate Change + El Nino = very weird stuff going down on the global weather maps.

      But, man, does this beastly North Atlantic pattern just have no mercy on the poor UK.

      Reply
      • “I’ve got this kinda ‘this has probably never happened before feeling.’
        That’s my instinct or something close to it (the above),
        Thanks for fleshing it out.

        Reply
  31. Colorado Bob

     /  January 6, 2016

    U.S. benchmark crude sank $2, or 5.6%, to close at $33.97 a barrel in New York, its lowest price since December 2008. Brent crude, a benchmark for international oils, fell $2.19, or 6%, to close at $34.23 a barrel in London.

    Reply
    • Here come the fossil fuel bankruptcies. 41 drillers so far and counting. But even the majors can’t take this beating. So where, I wonder, is all the trumped up claims by republicans that drill-baby-drill was an epic boondoggle that dwarfs the scale of that tempest in a teapot Solyndra? I’m waiting…

      Reply
      • Phil

         /  January 7, 2016

        Apparently, the contract prices for LNG exports are also tied to international oil prices with a lag of a couple of months to six months. So even LNG based companies such as Santos and Origin Energy (in Australia) who are starting to or gearing up to commence exports of LNG into Asia will continue to take a hit.

        Reply
      • Leland Palmer

         /  January 8, 2016

        Hi Robert-

        I’m worried about the chilling effect of low gasoline prices on sales of electric or hybrid vehicles. I hope that people will think long term, and get off the fossil fuel roller coaster.

        A friend of ours has a Chevy Volt and solar cells on her roof, and is still producing more electricity than she consumes. She has long commutes and still has to buy some gas, but says that she’s getting over a hundred miles to the gallon, not counting the electricity. Net metering, solar cells, and plug in hybrids are a great combination.

        We need universal net metering. This is something that Congress and the President could do. Our net metering laws need to be universal, pay generously for electricity produced by homeowners, and have lifetimes at least as long as the current state of emergency – decades at least.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_metering#United_States

        Reply
        • It’s a great policy. Great way to democratize energy production and bring back the middle class all in one. Massive reduction in carbon emissions as bonus. Invest in the people, not corps.

      • Leland Palmer

         /  January 9, 2016

        I asked our friend again about the mileage she is getting with her Chevy Volt.

        She says lifetime mileage on her Volt is about 250 miles to the gallon, but that since her commute just greatly increased she is down to 60 miles to the gallon of gasoline right now, not counting the electricity she is getting from her solar cells. For most drivers, mileage would likely be above 100 miles to the gallon of gasoline, and may be close to her 250 mpg figure. If millions of people did what she is doing… it’s better than nothing. Billions of people doing what she is doing would be better, of course.

        Reply
  32. – Add this to the above Libyan oil tank fires:
    – theintercept
    One Map That Explains the Dangerous Saudi-Iranian Conflict

    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia executed Shiite Muslim cleric Nimr al-Nimr on Saturday. Hours later, Iranian protestors set fire to the Saudi embassy in Tehran. On Sunday, the Saudi government, which considers itself the guardian of Sunni Islam, cut diplomatic ties with Iran, which is a Shiite Muslim theocracy.

    But to the degree that the current crisis has anything to do with religion, it’s much less about whether Abu Bakr or Ali were Muhammad’s rightful successor and much more about who’s going to control something more concrete right now: oil.

    In fact, much of the conflict can be explained by a fascinating map created by M.R. Izady, a cartographer and adjunct master professor at the U.S. Air Force Special Operations School/Joint Special Operations University in Florida.

    What the map shows is that, due to a peculiar correlation of religious history and anaerobic decomposition of plankton, almost all the Persian Gulf’s fossil fuels are located underneath Shiites. This is true even in Sunni Saudi Arabia, where the major oil fields are in the Eastern Province, which has a majority Shiite population.

    As a result, one of the Saudi royal family’s deepest fears is that one day Saudi Shiites will secede, with their oil, and ally with Shiite Iran.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/06/one-map-that-explains-the-dangerous-saudi-iranian-conflict/

    Reply
    • We can’t even handle the geopolitical consequences of dependency on this fuel, much less the climatic ones. Dependency on this stuff just needs to go.

      From the zero sum game standpoint, what we’re seeing is probably a hint of the conflict coming as Iran’s oil starts to hit the markets this year. There’s already a glut. So anyone who produces oil is in for even more pain. Saudi could cut back on its pumping and related price war. But that would support the unconventionals in the US they were trying to take down.

      Reply
  33. – Sempra Energy Aliso Canyon methane blow out:

    Governor Brown Issues Order on Aliso Canyon Gas Leak

    1-6-2016

    SACRAMENTO – Given the prolonged and continuing duration of the Aliso Canyon gas leak and at the request of residents and local officials, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today issued a proclamation that declares the situation an emergency and details the administration’s ongoing efforts to help stop the leak. The order also directs further action to protect public health and safety, ensure accountability and strengthen oversight of gas storage facilities.
    https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19263

    Reply
  34. Andy in SD

     /  January 7, 2016

    Yep,

    El Nino is here. It took 20 minutes to get home from work, a total of 2.2 miles.

    Reply
    • Rough weather based congestion or flooding?

      Ah, tornado too. Now that’s really odd for SoCal. I don’t recall seeing reports of tornadoes from these other super El Ninos. This seems like another new aspect of El Niño + Climate Change based extreme weather to me.

      Reply
      • Andy in SD

         /  January 7, 2016

        Flash floods, lots of sudden down pours.

        Reply
      • Andy in SD

         /  January 7, 2016

        We also had a pretty good pelting of hail during the tornado warning so it was thinking about forming (the box is right over work & my house). There was a tornado yesterday in LA and a spout off the coast of Carlsbad around 3 pm ish.

        Reply
        • That’s a lot of change in potential storm energy to set off tornadoes for your region. Seems to me this El Niño related weather is behaving more like a tropical systems as it approaches the coast. Complete with wind energy delta velocity potentials. Very weird.

      • Andy in SD

         /  January 7, 2016

        San Diego river valley is back to a river atm. Apparently it should hit flood stage (~11 ft) early tomorrow. We have some roads and such washed out. Some storm drains are barfing up water.

        Reply
    • Andy in SD

       /  January 7, 2016

      yep, it spun up pretty fast.

      First rain was Monday, it was not significant at all. Yesterday was significant as was today. So it was really 2 days of heavy rain that set that in motion.

      Here is the alert:

      Issued by The National Weather Service
      San Diego, CA

      11:57am PST, Wed Jan 6

      THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN SAN DIEGO HAS ISSUED A

      * FLOOD WARNING FOR THE SAN DIEGO RIVER AT FASHION VALLEY. * AT 1115 AM WEDNESDAY THE STAGE WAS 6.9 FEET. * FLOOD STAGE IS 11.3 FEET AND EXPECTED TO BE REACHED AROUND 10 PM THIS EVENING. * THE CREST IS FORECAST TO BE 11.9 FEET AROUND 4 AM THURSDAY MORNING. * MINOR FLOODING IS EXPECTED. * AT 11.3 FEET, FLOOD STAGE. MINOR FLOOD. LOW WATER CROSSINGS OVER THE RIVER IN MISSION VALLEY ARE CLOSED AND UNDER WATER. ROADS IMPACTED INCLUDE… FASHION VALLEY ROAD, AVENIDA DEL RIO, CAMINO DEL ESTE, CAMINO DE LA REINA, AND MISSION CENTER ROAD. WATER FLOWS INTO FASHION VALLEY PARKING LOT.

      PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS…

      SAFETY MESSAGE…

      ACT NOW TO PROTECT YOUR LIFE AND PROPERTY. PREPARE FORFLOOD WATERS TO RISE ACROSS THE WARNED AREA. TURN AROUND… DON’T DROWN. DO NOT DRIVE VEHICLES THROUGH FLOODED ROADWAYS.

      Reply
      • The models show these things coming in one after another for at least the next two weeks.

        Reply
      • Andy in SD

         /  January 7, 2016

        Looking at windyty it looks like some high pressure popping up as well. Almost like a fist fight between El Nino and the Blob (RRR).

        Reply
        • They’re just little ridges ahead of these massive storm fronts sweeping in. Not even really a barrier given the speed with which these things are roaring in.

      • – Andy, what part of SD are you located?

        Reply
      • Andy in SD

         /  January 7, 2016

        dt,

        I’m in Mira Mesa.

        Reply
      • – Andy, in Mira Mesa.

        I kind of know the area and terrain from spending about a year (1955) of my childhood while my adoptive father was stationed at Miramar NAS now MCAS.
        I used to explore and track critters in the various arroyos with a Navajo friend. Their was lots of open space then.
        Take care,
        DT

        Reply
      • LJR

         /  January 7, 2016

        Less than an inch of rain and no winds over two days in Fallbrook. Precipitation variance is high over the Temecula, Murieta and Oceanside area. Wunderground predicting no new storms for ten days.

        Reply
        • Hmm it does look like a west coast ridge may be taking the edge off of some of these systems coming in off the Pacific, especially in the far south of California.

          Looking at this forecast we see rain for today, Saturday, Wednesday and Thursday:

          http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/l/Fallbrook+CA+92028:4:US

          Seems that some of the models can’t agree on how much rain actually reaches the coast or just fades out into clouds as these systems move over land. Seems the ghost of the RRR may still be having an influence. But considering the strength of these Pacific systems, I’d say these forecasts will probably be touch and go.

        • Very interesting. Now GFS has the big troughs recurving back toward Alaska in the five day. The ghost of the RRR indeed!

        • This is very bizarre. Almost like a summer storm pattern for the Aleutians with the added bit being that these storms are really very strong. 945 yesterday and regularly below 960.

        • And there it is on the Jet Stream maps. This weird kink directing upper level energy around the west coast. Some to the north, some to the south.

        • NOAA has coastal California precipitation values in the range of 1-3 inches over the next seven days (1-1.5 inches for the south with peaks around 3 inches this week for the north). That’s relatively decent rain. But, clearly, most of the energy in these big systems is now predicted to stay over the ocean or head north toward the Aleutians.

      • Leland Palmer

         /  January 8, 2016

        Well, we’re grateful for any rain we get, here in Santa Rosa, northern California. About 1.5 inches of rain so far, in the past few days. The reservoirs in California are starting to trend upward, but have a long way to go, just to get back to average, and further than that to approach capacity.

        http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action
        Click on the name of each reservoir to see individual graphs and more information.

        California farmers need to make long term structural changes to conserve and recycle water, I think. Flood irrigation has lots of benefits – but takes too much water, I think.

        At least one climate scientist actually predicted something very like the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge and its evil minion the Hot Blob, tied to the loss of Arctic sea ice. If this connection between Arctic sea ice and the Hot Blob is true, then at least in the near term California will probably be in a drought. The Blob, temporarily beaten down somewhat, will likely be back. Long term, perhaps the moisture from the south will trend upward, and save us from the Central Valley of California turning completely to desert.

        We can hope for a few quieter years after this El Nino, maybe. But maybe not this time. Will the El Nino cycle continue, or morph into something different? Will we be in a permanent state of El Nino? Will the amplitude of the El Nino cycles increase?

        Reply
  35. The top reasons societies collapse – http://survivalacres.com/blog/the-top-reasons-societies-collapse/

    The article is now a bit dated, but the basic points remain true. I would change the human deadline to 20150 – 2100, much loser then the 200 years mentioned in the article.

    Reply
  36. There are many references to Jared Diamond and the Collapse of Complex Societies on the blog. One of my favorite books, taught me a lot.

    Sorry for the typo above – I meant 2050 to 2100. Too many cascading dominoes are now making themselves very evident to sense that we will make it much longer then this.

    Reply
    • Diamond was a great reference for my book Growth Shock. I’d be careful with inevitability based thinking. Better to use scenarios that take different chains of actions and events into account. The pathway to future is dynamic, not static.

      Reply
  37. Apneaman

     /  January 7, 2016

    Climate change: Cereal harvests across the world ‘fall by 10% in 50 years’
    Impact of droughts and heatwaves stronger in recent decades, especially in developed countries

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-cereal-harvests-across-the-world-fall-by-10-in-50-years-a6799666.html

    Reply
  38. Andy in SD

     /  January 7, 2016

    Look at the Indian side of the Himalayas in the satellite image from today.

    No snow, does that have drought written all over it or what!

    http://www.arctic.io/explorer/24/2016-01-05/4-N29.83008-E81.73828

    Reply
  39. NWS OPC ‏@NWSOPC 5h5 hours ago

    Aleutian low seen via Himawari GeoColor; recently analyzed to 945 hPa, still generating #hurricane force winds

    Reply
  40. NWS OPC ‏@NWSOPC 13m13 minutes ago

    00Z IR image & OPC analysis w/948mb HF low SE of Greenland, AltiKa altimeter data w/phenomenal 50.14 ft wave heights

    Reply
  41. Floodwalls, sandbags hold back Mississippi River floodwaters
    Vicksburg under flood warning
    http://www.wapt.com/weather/floodwalls-sandbags-hold-back-mississippi-river-floodwaters/37298324

    Reply
  42. El Niño Storm Wallops Santa Barbara

    Reply
  43. – The insults which we inflict on nature and ourelves:

    27,000 Pink Plastic Detergent Bottles Wash Up on UK Beach

    MailOnline reported that the bright pink bottles have been “strewn across bubbly sand as far as the eye can see” and even more bottles are expected to wash up in the coming days, the National Trust (who owns the beach) said.

    Many of the bottles are full but some have leaked, a Cornwall council spokeswoman said. As you can see in the photos, the soapy content in the bottles have coated the shoreline with foam.
    – ecowatch.com/2016/01/05/pink-plastic-bottles/

    Newquay Beachcombing
    ‏@Newquaybeach

    White crests of waves turned pink with #plasticbottles yesterday. #marinedebris @Seasaver @mcsuk

    Reply
    • Ryan in New England

       /  January 7, 2016

      I am constantly sickened by our total lack of concern about how we are trashing this planet and making it uninhabitable to both our species and all other complex lifeforms.

      Reply
  44. redskylite

     /  January 7, 2016

    I recently read in a local newspaper that after a trade agreement by Pacific countries, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (namely between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam), that the agreement gives grounds to sue any member country who is trying to implement the COP21 accord, if it counters free trade. That is a wide, open to interpretation loophole that concerns and worries me.

    “Trade deal gives polluters power to sue governments who try to implement the Paris agreement”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=11567925

    Reply
    • redskylite

       /  January 7, 2016

      You would think that responsible countries and ethical companies, would not want to violate the COP21 accord, working for the common good and health of future generations, wouldn’t you ?

      After all fossil fuel extraction has caused and is causing a lot of headaches and misery, including the latest huge methane release (Porter Ranch) in California, recent major oil leaks (Deep-water horizon) in the Gulf of Mexico, many lives and health (black lung) of coal miners, it is not without pain continuing on the fossil fuel path. Not to even mention the danger is is putting every inhabitant under climate-wise.

      Yet TransCanada want to sue the U.S administration for cancelling the pipeline from the oil sands of Canada, using a similar trade agreement (The North American Free Trade Agreement). Is there no limit to greed at our planet’s expense. Don’t the companies have any form of morals, sense or decency. ? I just don’t want to think of the implications to Earth if they win.

      “The Obama administration decided in October to deny the Canadian company a permit to construct a key section of the pipeline across the US-Canada border, ruling it would harm the fight against climate change.”

      http://phys.org/news/2016-01-transcanada-sue-bn-keystone-xl.html

      Reply
      • The way these trade agreements are worded, you’d think they were the holy scriptures of neoliberalism. They only favor corporate interests and see the flow of goods and services as the only ideal to uphold. It doesn’t matter if individuals or even sovereign nations are trampled in the process of what is basically a mad, maniacal quest for profit at all costs.

        I’d also add that this probably the weakness of these trade deals. Countries will feel pressure to repeal them when their national interests are at stake. And this issue of reducing carbon emissions is pretty much a critical one. An existential one for some nations now and for many, many cities now. In the future, it will be an existential issue for most if not all nations. So perhaps this is where the trade deals start falling apart or being modified to apply some constraints to the corporate interests that now run roughshod over pretty much everyone.

        Reply
    • Ryan in New England

       /  January 7, 2016

      This is a big worry for many and a reason why the TPP is a corporate power grab. It gives corporations the ultimate power, able to overrule countries who try and resist corporate domination of their national policies. I personally think this will be the final nail in our coffin as a global civilization.

      Reply
  45. Ryan in New England

     /  January 7, 2016

    Robert, great job the other day with the interview! So glad to see you getting more exposure. You’re one of the best climate change educators out there, with a talent for making a difficult subject understandable and accessible to a very wide audience.

    On another note, this article discusses the toll AGW takes on farmers’ mental health, as related to our comments recently regarding farmer depression and suicide in India.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/04/3735800/climate-change-farmers-mental-health/

    Reply
    • Thanks Ryan! Means a lot to me to hear it from you! I think I hit some of the opportunities presented pretty well. But I kinda wish we had more time at the end there. Probably something many people on TV tend to feel.

      As for the impact to farmers — it’s just devastating. These guys already get hit from all sides due to this global dominance game Monsanto is playing. But you add in drought from climate change and it really seems hopeless to so many people. Corporate interests from fossil fuels to the seed peddlers are basically breaking the web of life here.

      Reply
  46. Abel Adamski

     /  January 7, 2016

    And the electric car becomes more real
    http://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1414252/motors-unveils-bolt-electric-car

    General Motors Co. Chairman and CEO Mary Barra introduces the new Chevy Bolt EV, an electric car with a battery range of 200 miles, priced at $30,000, and will be in production this year

    General Motors on Wednesday unveiled the production version of its Chevrolet Bolt electric car, on which the US auto giant is pinning its hopes for the emerging segment.

    The Bolt aims to appeal to consumers looking at a more affordable price tag than the luxury, market-leading Tesla.

    “It’s more than a car, it’s a platform that can be upgraded,” said GM chairman and chief executive Mary Barra, speaking at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

    “Who are our customers? Anyone who wants to save time, money and the environment in a car that is truly fun to drive.”

    The Bolt, set to go into production later this year, is designed to travel 320 kilometers (more than 200 miles) between charges.

    It also features some of the connected technology found on rival vehicles including a Wi-Fi hotspot offering access to apps and services.

    The price tag is expected to be in the range of $30,000 after government tax incentives, which is less than half the price of the current Tesla models on the market.

    “The Bolt EV is truly the first EV that cracks the code of long range and affordable price,” Barra said.

    Cats and Canaries

    Reply
    • Abel Adamski

       /  January 7, 2016

      Actually Bloomberg sees it as a means of scoring Carbon Credits to offset F/F car sales

      Reply
      • The Bolt is a good offering. Together with the Volt, it’s the start of a decent line up. I’d call this more than carbon credit offset strategy for Chevy. They’re hedging their bets to make sure Tesla doesn’t eat their lunch by revolutionizing the car market in their producing of EVs that both out-preform fossil fuel burning vehicles and produce zero emissions by use when connected to renewables. And that’s a very real danger for these legacy automakers who don’t have a substantial electrical vehicle offering.

        Reply
        • And actually, there’s an object lesson here for workers in threatened industries: make sure someone doesn’t eat your lunch by paying attention to what’s going on in the world and adjusting your career plans to fit.

  47. Abel Adamski

     /  January 7, 2016

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2015-12/15/c_134918897.htm

    Clean coal to keep emissions at bay, propel use of renewable energy
    English.news.cn 2015-12-15 14:21:23

    BEIJING, Dec. 15 (Xinhua) — Coal-fired power will continue to be the mainstay of China’s electricity supply and will see a 45 percent growth from the current levels by 2040, despite expectations that the country may gradually move away from the commodity, experts said.

    Reply
    • So this is the kind of thing we can’t be doing if we’re serious about carbon emissions — building new coal plants, planning to burn 45 percent more coal, talking about clean coal (there’s no such thing) and basically lying about where the emission comes from. This article reads like it was pinned directly from a coal industry marketing sheet. The industry itself has been trying to sell this notion of ‘clean coal’ for more than a century.

      If we’re honest, we’d be saying that building more efficient coal plants only effects net emissions at the margins — especially when you’re saying that you’re planning to burn 45 percent more coal!! So even if the new power plants do increase efficiency by 35 percent (somewhat doubtful, they may hit 20-30 instead), you’re still adding that 65 percent base emission with each new plant. And they’re not saying that they’re going to replace their older fleet of higher emitting plants with these lower emitting versions. Instead, they’re just adding more to the base emissions which right now are twice as bad as the Siberian flood basalts, but just for this one country.

      And blaming the emissions on the boiler is frankly ludicrous. The emission come from burning carbon. You can’t just lie and change that base fact. The boiler emits nothing. Hook the boiler up to a concentrated solar plant and the net carbon emissions go to zero. Now it’s honest to say that boilers are less efficient. But making coal more efficient and continuing to burn coal into the future in a way that increases your net coal burning is just, overall, making the problem worse. China, and everyone else in the world, shouldn’t have any plans to build new coal plants. We have viable renewable energy replacements now. This is a plan for devastation.

      Reply
  48. Abel Adamski

     /  January 7, 2016

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-01/07/c_134987127.htm

    HEFEI, Jan. 7 (Xinhua) — Chinese scientists have developed catalysts capable of efficiently converting carbon dioxide into methanoic acid, a liquid fuel.

    Converting carbon dioxide into other chemicals via electroreduction has the potential to producing useful chemicals while cutting the greenhouse gas emission, but existing strategies are often inefficient and require more energy than they save.

    According to a paper published in Nature, Sun Yongfu and colleagues at the University of Science and Technology of China have created two catalytic layers four atoms thick: one of pure cobalt and another of cobalt and cobalt oxide (Co3O4).

    Though cobalt is catalytically inactive for carbon dioxide, its catalytic activity can be improved with the correct arrangements of atoms and the presence of oxide, Sun told Xinhua.

    The study will help understanding of carbon dioxide conversion mechanisms and the pursuit of efficient, stable catalysts, Sun said.

    Reply
    • I’d be more interested if they could convert it into a material. CO2 converts into methanoic acid which, when burned, produces CO2. So you’re making a second carbon-based fuel as a bi-product but you’re not producing an overall emissions reduction. Another example of running to stand still.

      We have zero emitting energy sources now. We should deploying them to replace the carbon emitting sources as rapidly as possible.

      Reply
  49. Abel Adamski

     /  January 7, 2016

    This is an important focus to get us all on board. People need careers and income

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/after-fossil-fuels-what-happens-workers

    Reply
  50. Colorado Bob

     /  January 7, 2016

    dtlange / January 6, 2016

    – Bob, have you seen this?

    Thanks, an old saying :

    “Poor New Mexico, so far from heaven, so close to Texas”

    Reply
  51. Andy in SD

     /  January 7, 2016

    I’m certain Senator Snowball has this offset with a snippy comment and perhaps a prop.

    3 Quakes of Magnitude 4.0 or More Hit Northwest Oklahoma

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/quakes-recorded-northwestern-oklahoma-36139535

    Reply
    • Wharf Rat

       /  January 7, 2016

      An Oklahoma fracking company said Tuesday that it will not comply with a request to reduce the amount of water it discards into underground wells, setting up a legal battle.

      The state has been hit with a significant, unprecedented rise in earthquakes that has been tied to the increase in hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal. In an effort to address the issue, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which oversees oil and gas production in the state, has been regularly issuing directives to natural gas companies to reduce the volume of water injected into the ground. In December, a directive in the Medford, Oklahoma area directed SandRidge Energy to completely stop injecting water into four wells, and restricted volumes in nearly two dozen others.

      Now, the company is saying there isn’t sufficient evidence that wastewater injection wells are triggering earthquakes, and it will not comply with the voluntary measures.

      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/06/3736399/oklahoma-earthquake-challenge/

      Reply
      • Andy in SD

         /  January 7, 2016

        You mean the “science is not settled” schtick? If it works for oil on the subject of CO2, why not use it for everything else.

        Reply
  52. Wharf Rat

     /  January 7, 2016

    Rare January Depression in Central Pacific; Atlantic Subtropical Storm Next Week?
    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/rare-january-depression-in-central-pacific-atlantic-subtropical-storm

    Reply
  53. Greg

     /  January 7, 2016

    The solar “singularity” is nigh as we are almost 1% solar penetration in the States: “1 percent of the market is halfway to solar ubiquity because 1 percent is halfway between nothing and 100 percent in terms of doublings (seven doublings from .01 percent to 1 percent and seven more from 1 percent to reach 100 percent). The U.S. will reach the 1 percent solar milestone in 2016. We’re halfway there. Buckle your seatbelts.”

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-solar-singularity-is-getting-closer

    Reply
    • And for each doubling, the price of solar drops by another 20 percent. The future looks clean and inexpensive for energy. Too bad we’re still not doing the switch fast enough to stop catastrophic climate change. But we absolutely should be.

      Reply
  54. JPL

     /  January 7, 2016

    Some promising new solar tech being developed by Saudi and Taiwanese universities:

    “Solar cells that can face almost any direction and keep themselves clean

    The researchers developed a glass coating that incorporates ultrathin nanorods and honeycomb nanowalls that can help underlying solar cells harvest sunlight from multiple angles. The cell efficiency can be boosted by 5.2 to 27.7 percent, depending on the angle of the light, and the efficiency enhancement can be up to 46 percent during long-term use. The material also repelled dust and pollution that would otherwise block some rays from getting absorbed and converted to electricity. The new glass coating kept panels working outdoors at optimum levels for six weeks while the efficiency of panels with an unmodified coating dropped over the same period.”

    http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2015/acs-presspac-december-16-2015/multi-directional-solar-panels.html

    Yes please!

    John

    Reply
  55. David Sedlak: 4 ways we can avoid a catastrophic drought

    Reply
  56. flyingcuttlefish

     /  January 8, 2016

    Did Methane Tracker website go down (or just get hacked)?
    It would be good to use to look at Porter Ranch.

    Reply
    • That site has been down for a while, unfortunately. We need some kind of tool like that. It’s pretty important for taking into account what’s presently happening with both industry emissions and global carbon feedback related emissions.

      Reply
  1. Arctic Sea Ice Extent: Flat-lining in Mid-Winter? | Aviation Impact Reform

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: