A Terrifying Jump in Global Temperatures — December of 2015 at 1.4 C Above 1890

A monster El Nino firing off in the Pacific. A massive fossil fuel driven accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere pushing CO2 levels well above 400 parts per million. The contribution of other greenhouse gasses pushing the total global heat forcing into the range of 485 parts per million CO2e. Given this stark context, we knew the numbers were probably going to be bad. We just didn’t know how bad. And, looking at the initial measures coming in, we can definitely say that this is serious.

According to today’s report from Japan’s Meteorological Agency, global temperatures jumped by a ridiculous 0.36 degrees Celsius from the period of December 2014 — the previous hottest December in the global climate record — through December 2015 — the new hottest December by one heck of a long shot. To put such an amazing year-on-year monthly jump in global temperatures into context, the average decadal rate of global temperature increase has been in the range of 0.15 C every ten years for the past three and a half decades. It’s as if you lumped 20 years of human forced warming all into one 12 month differential.

December 2015 Global Temperature Record Hottest Month

(Japan’s Meteorological Agency shows a terrifyingly sharp jump in global temperatures for the month of December, 2015. Image Source: JMA.)

Taking a look at this amazing monthly jump in global temperatures in terms of longer timeframes, we find that December of 2015 came in at 1.05 C above the 20th Century Average and a terrifying (yes, no other word can describe) 1.42 C departure from average temperatures at the start of the record during 1890.

The world is now exploring monthly global temperature averages that are hitting very close to a dangerous 1.5 C above preindustrial levels. And though these numbers do not reflect yearly averages that will probably be much lower — in the range of 1 to 1.2 C above 1880 for 2015 and 2016 — we should be very clear that such high readings remain cause for serious concern. Concern for the potential that 2016 may also see continued new record hot annual temperatures on top of previous record hot years 2014 and and 2015. And concern that we may well be just one more strong El Nino away from breaking through or coming dangerously close to the 1.5 C annual average temperature threshold.

There is cause here for concern and there is certainly some cause for alarm. Alarm in the sense that the world really needs to be ever-more serious about reducing global fossil fuel emissions to near zero as rapidly as possible. Otherwise, we might well break 2 C — not before 2100, but before 2050.

Links:

Japan Meteorological Agency Global Temperature Analysis

(NASA and NOAA Analysis to soon follow)

 

Leave a comment

150 Comments

  1. Griffin

     /  January 14, 2016

    Thanks for this fantastic update Robert. I thought you might be interested in a fresh sea level rise graph. It looks amazingly similar to the temp gradient! Absolutely unbelievable things are we seeing lately. Terrifying is not an exaggeration at all.

    Reply
    • Cheers Griff.

      Yes, this is all ridiculous and crazy including the fact that NPR is hosting links to AMEG’s call for geo-engineering. I was worried about this some years back when the Economist wrote an article alluding to geo-engineering. Looks like there are a lot of powerful players trying to push that. To be very clear this is more a defense of the failed free market than anything else. The required response to reduce carbon emissions would have a serious impact on neo-liberalism and the current market system. So we may start to get more of this voodoo climate engineering stuff in the pipe.

      I don’t like it and I don’t support it. The only responsible thing right now is to push hard for rapidly lowering carbon emissions and getting whatever atmospheric capture regimes cobbled together that we can. That solar radiation management and ocean seeding AMEG is pushing is bad, bad news.

      Reply
      • – Much too hot.
        – “Geo engineering” our way out of this is not a realizable option for stopping this anthropogenic engineered carbon furnace.
        Prevention via a steep lowering of fossil fuels is the only option to at least slow the heating.
        Keep it in the ground or we go down –our children — all of us.
        Thanks for the straight talking post, Robert.

        Reply
      • Nicholas Swenson

         /  January 15, 2016

        You don’t think climate geo-engineering could be a stopgap while we implement other things? I feel we’re going to need all of it …

        And you’re right, free market has got to go.

        Reply
        • Look at the model studies… Solar radiation management generates droughts that adversely impact upwards of billions of people. Ocean seeding accelerates ocean death. All on the off chance that it might work and take out some of the warming or some of the excess carbon all while not doing a thing for other impacts like ocean acidification. I think anyone who looks at this as a time-buying measure isn’t really very well informed on the risks vs rewards here.

    • In any case, the curve is steepening. Jumps from 3.32 to 3.34 mm each year over just the past few months.

      Reply
    • Kevin Jones

       /  January 14, 2016

      From mid 2013 to end 2015 it looks about 7mm/yr. Thanks, Robert. Thanks Griffin. All others. Think I’ll go for a meditative stroll. (I’ll save the medicative one for later….)

      Reply
      • Yeah, and if you start before that dip in 2011, you get a 4.4 mm per year rise from 2010. Looks like that glacial melt is becoming a bigger factor.

        Reply
      • Colorado Bob

         /  January 15, 2016

        KJ –
        A salad of mixed metaphors:

        Several months back I saw a comment saying , “The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, doesn’t care what you believe”. That’s what get’s us down . It’s this giant cake we’ve baked.
        If it was just a matter of how many angels we think can dance on the head of pin, that’s one thing that can go on forever, but the physics doesn’t care either.
        I wish I could take walks as well. But as Steely Dan said, “Those days are gone forever , over along time ago.” So I’m stuck with U-tube to clear my head.

        It’s the best treat for my “black dog”, that and Old Milwaukee & guts .

        I’m in my second decade of this story. Some days it feels like chips of me are being knocked off like a calving glacier. It is the biggest story in the history of man . And it won’t go away because we find it so over powering. So. there is only one thing to do, Face It, and carry on.

        Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.

        Winston Churchill

        Reply
      • Mblanc

         /  January 15, 2016

        Hey everyone, back after a time out, gonna try and avoid going down the rabbit hole again.:-)

        Biggest story in the history of man is about right, and we are going to have ringside seats.

        Reply
    • So it looks like a similar jump in the GISS measure would be in the range of 1.2 C above than NASA baseline of 1950 to 1981. This puts us in line with about a 1.05 C to 1.1 C above 1880 but may imply as much as a +1.2 C above 1880 for 2016. It’s a new record range that we’ll explore the impact of at least until the next El Nino, considering the strength of the current one. But it implies that just one more strong El Nino could tip us into near the 1.5 C range.

      Reply
  2. – Seattle WA oil train blockade trial update:

    Tim DeChristopher ‏@dechristopher 30m30 minutes ago

    Court hearing arguments about whether all the expert testimony already heard is now inadmissible. #Delta5

    Tim DeChristopher ‏@dechristopher 22m22 minutes ago

    Judge rules all expert testimony is inadmissible. Jury will be instructed to forget everything they heard. #Delta5

    Reply
    • Enabling City ‏@enablingcity 7h7 hours ago

      Recent crude-by-rail accidents across America

      Reply
    • Tim DeChristopher ‏@dechristopher 4m4 minutes ago

      Judge now reading instructions to jury. Such instructions would train perfect Nazi soldiers. #Delta5

      Reply
  3. – earthjustice.org/features/map-crude-by-rail

    Crude-by-Rail Across America

    The oil industry has scrambled to transport crude oil from drill sites to the east and west coasts, where it can potentially be shipped overseas to more lucrative markets, as hydraulic fracturing and tar sands drilling has created a glut of oil.

    The increase in oil rail traffic, however, has not been matched with increased regulatory scrutiny.

    Oil trains are not subject to the same strict routing requirements placed on other hazardous materials; trains carrying explosive crude are permitted to pass directly through cities—with tragic results. In the absence of more protective regulations, communities across the country are beginning to take matters in their own hands.

    – The crude oil train explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Canada, killed 47 people.
    Photo courtesy of Sûreté du Québec

    Reply
  4. Not sure if you can or want to do anything about it, but something happened overnight and your blog name in my RSS feed isn’t showing any more, it is the headline of the first post today. Just an FYI.

    Best,

    D

    Reply
    • Sorry, but I can’t do too much about the internal RSS feed. You may have to subscribe and then unsubscribe. It may be a glitch or it may be something else. But nothing here on my end.

      Reply
  5. Griffin

     /  January 15, 2016

    The Keeling Curve just Tweeted this out a half-hour ago. The website does not have the daily reading and I don’t know how to copy the whole tweet but my goodness, that is a big jump!
    404.81 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in air 13-Jan-2016 https://t.co/5Q2FLaTtqZ

    Reply
    • This is an absolutely brutal jump. We’re already hitting the peak daily range for spring of 2015. And it’s just January! We may hit 407 to 408 by April at this rate.

      Reply
  6. DrTskoul

     /  January 15, 2016

    Daily Average CO2 > 404ppm

    Reply
    • Spike

       /  January 15, 2016

      Been watching it for a 403 breach – Nature springs a surprise! Won’t be the last one.

      Reply
  7. Jeremy in Wales

     /  January 15, 2016

    The only geo-engineering that I would like to see is the planting of trees, by the hundreds of millions and the re-instatement of bogs both of which take up and store carbon. The UK is currently losing millions of tree to disease.
    There are incredibly ancient yew trees in Wales, usually growing in next to old churches which themselves have been built to incorporate stone circles (Ysbyty Cynfyn, Ceridigion). The trees have witnessed such momentous change that it is hard to imagine, I just hope they can continue.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/10954261/The-ancient-sacred-regenerative-death-defying-yew-tree.html

    Reply
  8. J.R.

     /  January 15, 2016

    “And though these numbers do not reflect yearly averages that will probably be much lower — in the range of 1 to 1.2 C above 1880 for 2015 and 2016”

    What is this claimed being based upon?

    If winter is this warm – and we’re seeing startling changes in the Far North, then what will Spring thru Fall bring?

    And as an added question, isn’t the 1.2C estimate also far higher then what everyone has been expecting? This is a huge jump for even one year – and guesswork right now – since we won’t know for another year if this estimate is even true.

    If this huge jump is repeated next year (yearly average), then it won’t be 2050 before we see 2C.

    Reply
    • We are at the top of the natural variability scale for now and the next 2-3 months. As El Niño fades, the heat forcing blowing off the Equator will decline and global temperatures with it. But we will be entering a new high range, exploring new and fearsome climates.

      There’s the off chance that this El Niño hangs on and re-fires by next fall. If that happens, then we may see 4 back to back record hot years. But considering the intensity of this El Niño and the strength of the current heat spike, that’s somewhat less likely and we only have a hint of it in the models at this time.

      If we go by reasonable worst case emissions and climate sensitivity, we could hit 2 C by 2036. The other stuff is far less likely but worth watching in any case.

      Reply
      • This “El Nino heat” in the equatorial Pacific is eventually been reased into the atmosphere. If I have got this right, this heat is tranported towards the poles. This must have a great impact on the temperature in the coming melt season in the arctic, specialy as the temperature is already pretty hi. Svalbard has currintly 30 days average 9,7C above normal.

        Reply
        • Absolutely. That El Nino related heat spike will head poleward over the next 2 years — more vigorously if we go into La Nina. So we should see increased impacts in the Arctic during 2016 and 2017. We may get a stronger amplifying feedback signal — accelerated sea ice melt and potentially more clear signs that the carbon stores there are under increasing heat pressure to release.

          We should be clear that the carbon store release signal is starting to show up in some of the monitors. A signal that is now cause for much debate among scientists. Some believe the signal is not yet strong or clear enough to yet show a clear indication of feedback response. Others are afraid that this feedback response will be catastrophic soon (and seem afraid enough to recommend the application of Frankenstein geo-engineering). There’s a middle group that sees feedbacks ramping to 10-30 percent of the human emissions by end century.

          To be very clear, the signal in the Arctic is nowhere near 10 percent of the total human emission now. The potential 34 MT methane emission ongoing there now is less than 1 percent of the annual human addition to total global heat forcing. And a significant fraction of that emission has almost certainly been ongoing since the start of the Holocene. The CO2 response is also slowly building and troubling. But even combined, the human emission just dwarfs it.

          So we’re at the start of these troubling amplifying feedbacks that look like they will make our situation even worse. And as we push warmer we are more and more in the danger zone.

          To this point, we should be very clear on the fact that the human emission is amazingly destructive at this time. We are at least 6 times faster than the Permian at this time from human emissions alone and it is unlikely that even the absolute worst case carbon feedback will equate to any more than a fraction of the current human emission.

          In other words, we have the equivalent to a clathrate gun or two firing off right now. But it’s coming from tailpipes and smokestacks. I think that’s the message we need to be repeating. Nature just can’t match us when it comes to the speed and efficiency with which we are dumping hothouse extinction gasses into the atmosphere.

    • Spike

       /  January 15, 2016

      Remembered Michael Mann’s Scientific American article on reading this blog.

      “To my wonder, I found that for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now. When I considered the lower ECS value of 2.5 degrees C, the world would cross the threshold in 2046, just 10 years later”

      Looks like he may be right, not for the first time.

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/

      Reply
      • That’s exactly what I was alluding to. It seems to me we may be on or near enough to the pathways Mann charted. We wrench ourselves off it somewhat by bringing emissions to zero ASAP. But this isn’t something we should be holding off on. We should be going at it full bore.

        Reply
  9. pccp82

     /  January 15, 2016

    anyone have any juicy quotes of the folks suggesting that there wasn’t any warming in 17 years?

    Reply
    • Tsar Nicholas

       /  January 15, 2016

      I have noticed a bit of silence from deniers like Alex Jones at prisonplanet.

      Reply
      • They’ve moved on to trying to spin COP 21 in order to attack desperately needed emissions reductions. That, and spewing all kinds of smoke and other distractions pretty much everywhere.

        Reply
      • Mblanc

         /  January 16, 2016

        I’m really hoping that the tide is turning. This may be borne of desperation, but I have noticed a drop off in the UK since the record smashing floods.

        I had a good look at the comments on CC stories at the Daily Heil (Mail) and the Guardian a few days ago. It may only be a temporary thing , but I did detect a shift in the ratios of comments from either side.

        One day sooner or later, reality will hit home for the great majority. There can’t be many new deniers jumping on that rickety bandwagon at the moment, and there are going to be people going the other way, in the face of recent events.

        Reply
  10. redskylite

     /  January 15, 2016

    Thanks for the strong worded narrative on the latest JMA report, agree it is terrifying, amazingly in a heatwave in Sydney yesterday, companiese just turned their A/C’s up and people complained of the cold, and needed warming drinks.

    If there are any science communicators reading, please, PLEASE stop using the word “may” or “could”. It conveys a possible minuscule to a large likelihood and destroys any meaning at all, and is extremely lazy. People will just not care unless they know the true risk.

    Reply
    • Colorado Bob

       /  January 15, 2016

      the word “may” or “could”.

      I’m in the same camp . I hate this media phrasing . Like it will turn “cool” tomorrow.

      Reply
    • Hi RSL,

      “People will just not care unless they know the true risk.” – thats what I thought 10 years ago, when I started educate on risks of climate change. No I have grown up. People simply dont care no matter what. It is not communicators fault. We tried everythink.

      Alex

      Reply
      • redskylite

         /  January 15, 2016

        Hi Alexander,

        Firstly much kudos to you for educating people on the enormity of the impact burning fossil fuels for so long has had on Earth’s natural systems. Secondly I am “people”, I am not a scientist, just a very plain, ordinary and average person. Science reporting matters to me and I suspect many others who read this very same blog are just ordinary folk like me. I care so do others (Colorado Bob cares, I care). If the NOAA study example I attached in the next entry was titled, “Advanced Technology Projects Northwest Atlantic Ocean WILL Get Warmer, and Sooner”, it would have had a much greater impact on me.

        I read the latest Potsdam Institute narrative on the suppression of the next ice age, it is good, it is positive it will affect the way people think. There is no weak “MAY” in the title. It has had a great and shocking impact on me, it brought me to tears, and brought home the enormity of our actions.

        I visited a glacier in the South of my country (New Zealand) in the mid 1990’s, the glacier will no longer exist well before the end of the 21st century, my great grandchildren will not witness it’s beauty and wonders. I count myself truly privileged to have seen it.

        “Human-made climate change suppresses the next ice age” authors: Ganopolski, A., Winkelmann, R., Schellnhuber, H.J

        https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/human-made-climate-change-suppresses-the-next-ice-age

        Reply
      • climatehawk1

         /  January 18, 2016

        I’m with redskylite. If you’re going to take the time and trouble to try to communicate, word choice matters. I’m frankly partial–would like to see more selection in choice of stories. I try to only tweet the ones that I think will help move people to get involved–if they don’t (one recent example is the one about Antarctic icebergs helping reduce warming), I give them a pass.

        Reply
    • Spike

       /  January 15, 2016

      I’ve longed thought scientific reticence is not our friend. I get the sense people here in the UK hear the caution and think yeah, like they said we “could” have flying cars by 2020 or safe nuclear power too cheap to meter.

      Reply
      • redskylite

         /  January 15, 2016

        I agree 100% with Spike, it is exactly what Watts, Curry, Spencer, Christy and co prey upon, it’s kept true Science down for years. Hey Science guys please lose the reticence. If it’s above 50% chance, it’s going to happen. Flying cars, webbed feet, fantasy, no ice age fact, Earth science disrupted, purple sea and green skies here we come . . .

        Reply
      • What Spencer and Christy and Co do is actively misinform people by producing bad information. If the scientists have failed, it’s in the fact that they have not attacked these people’s credibility and just allowed themselves to be put on the same stage as quacks operating under a special interest’s agenda. For example, it’s not too hard to identify Spencer and Christy’s information sources and funding sources. I think those two things alone should disqualify them from being creditable in this debate.

        People say it’s impolite to target credibility. Well, that’s pretty silly. The first thing you do when you’re doing research is considering the source of the information and the past quality of material that source has provided. If Spencer and Christy, for example, aren’t credible because they’re using funny numbers to manipulate the satellite data, then that information should be held front and center. How many years has it taken us to talk about that? How many years has it taken for us to talk about Spencer and Christy’s links to fossil fuel funded think tanks?

        And you can’t lay this all at the scientists’ feet either. It is often the responsibility of media to accurately vet how issues are presented. So, in my view, the media bears far more blame than scientists. For example, if media keeps asking the question to the scientist — ‘can we prove that this storm came from global warming?’ Then the scientist would dutifully answer that no single storm can be completely attributed to global warming. The reason being that the clarity of science in most cases is not fine enough to prove that one storm came from global warming. It’s not really the scientist’s fault that he technically answered the question correctly even though he gave the wrong impression. We know now how to communicate this bit. We can say that global warming impacts all storms and that weather change is climate change and vice versa. We can say that global warming fundamentally changes weather, not just by temperature increases, but by adding 7% more water vapor to the atmosphere with each 1 C warming. By providing more latent heat that aids in the generation of storms, droughts, floods and fires. But the media, in asking this question, put the scientist on the worst ground possible to give a good, contextualized, answer about the impacts of human forced climate change. And the media should have known this from jump.

        These are examples of certainties that can be communicated truthfully and accuratedly.

        But this notion that we should communicate potentials as if they are a certainty is just barking up the wrong tree. A potential is a potential. A certainty is a certainty. Saying that one is the other is not telling the truth.

        Reply
    • That’s easy to say redsky and I understand your frustration. I like certainty too and I do my best to generate it along with as much clarity as possible while still remaining truthful.

      But the problem is that we are dealing with potentials here. We are forecasting things that have never been forecast before. If you expect one hundred percent certainty, then you expect godlike omniscience. Science is a good oracle, but it’s not a perfect one.

      So, when you identify risk, the phrasing is important. For example, when I say we may see 1.2 C above 1880s values in 2016, that’s a very real risk now that people need to be aware of. And it’s far more accurate than those people who are saying with fake certainty that the world will end in 15 years for human beings.

      Now there are some things we can say with a strong sense of certainty, because we have a strong support for them. Things like we’ve pushed ice ages back by 100,000 years even if we stopped emitting now (unless of course, emissions go net negative for long enough). Scientists have been saying this for the better part of one and one half decades now. Hansen, for example, indicated in the mid 2000s that just one coal plant continuously operating would be enough to prevent another ice age. And if you made a careful read of Storms of My Grandchildren you would have known this.

      But when you deal with many, many forecasts, you’re dealing with the likely vs the unlikely. You’re dealing with scenarios. And that’s why you need to listen very carefully to those of us who say ‘may’ and ‘could.’ Because they’re far more likely to be informative than those poor, ridiculously assertive souls who are so often very, very wrong.

      And it is absolutely, positively not reticence to identify an outlier risk in this context. The reason being that you need to look both at the worst case and at the least likely events. At the most likely and the least impactful. And at as many ranges in between as you can generate. If you don’t understand this kind of threat matrix, then you don’t understand risk or communicating risk. But I can say with every certainty that if I say we may have 1.2 C warming next year, then you’d better sit up and listen. That it does have meaning. And that you’d be pretty foolish to ignore it.

      To this point we should think very carefully about why science is such a useful tool. And that’s because science is constantly refining itself, questioning itself, vetting itself to come up with ever more accurate answers. Science is flawed because it is made up of flawed human beings in a flawed world in a universe that would not exist unless it was flawed. But without the painstaking care of science not to jump to the wrong conclusion, not to make the false assertion, we would never have known this.

      Reply
      • Spike

         /  January 16, 2016

        My tersity may have led to misinterpretation – there is no criticism of scientists or scientific method, but an observation that communication with the public has been poor, and yes we know spokes have been thrown in that wheel. Some scientists recognise the problem though:

        “As scientists, it’s a little humbling that we’ve kind of been saying this for 20 years now, and it’s not until people notice daffodils coming out in December that they start to say, ‘Maybe they’re right,’ ” said Myles R. Allen, a climate scientist at Oxford University in Britain.

        I spent a whole career explaining complex science to lay people and you had to be direct, short, and keep it simple, remembering that many in your audience had very little education and that even the well educated often had a huge blind spot where science is concerned.

        There is also the phenomenon of ESLD as explained by Sk Science.

        “A paper recently published in Global Environmental Change by Brysse et al. (2012) examined a number of past predictions made by climate scientists, and found that that they have tended to be too conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. The authors thus suggest that climate scientists are biased toward overly cautious estimates, erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions, which they call “erring on the side of least drama” (ESLD).”

        This is appropriate for most science but arguably is inappropriate for a time limited problem of existential nature for humanity, nature and infrastructure. We would not hold back on the directness and vigour of advice to someone who had had a few drinks and decided to walk across the motorway to go home – it’s unlikely we would wait to compute the precise nature of the risk based on traffic density, speed and light levels and say “we’ll get back to you”.

        Reply
  11. redskylite

     /  January 15, 2016

    “Northwest Atlantic Ocean May Get Warmer, Sooner”

    There’s that may word again, good research & article otherwise . . . .

    “A new study by NOAA researchers suggests future warming of ocean waters off the Northeastern U.S. may be greater and occur at an even faster rate than previously projected.

    Their findings, based on output from four global climate models of varying ocean and atmospheric resolution, indicate that ocean temperature in the U.S. Northeast Shelf is projected to warm twice as fast as previously projected and almost three times faster than the global average. The models were developed at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, New Jersey.”

    “We looked at four GFDL models and compared their output to ocean observations in the region. The highest resolution GFDL model, CM2.6, matched the Northwest Atlantic circulation and water mass distribution most accurately,” said Vincent Saba, a NOAA fisheries scientist and lead author of the study. “Prior climate change projections for the region may be far too conservative.”

    http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/pr2016/scispot/ss1601/

    Reply
    • Colorado Bob

       /  January 15, 2016

      See the new lady up thread that told us about sailing South against the Gulf Stream in November.

      Sorry dear , I forget your name but your post about the loop you used to ride South stuck.

      I’ll go look , but I’m up and have bit in my teeth tonight. So I’ll make it right soon .

      Yours was a great story. I grew up on a high pool table. I ran off to 10,800 feet . We did a winter there, This whole mountain man myth is why guys with guns took over a much lower piece of ground. The only thing that lives all winter long that high are Pine Martins. And they break into your cabin , and pee all over everything. And it stinks like you have never seen. They are in the weasel family their urine will take the top of your head off.

      Reply
    • Mark in New England

       /  January 15, 2016

      Good by to any remaining cod off of Cape Cod… and Maine lobsters eventually.

      Reply
    • It’s just one model forecast covering 80 years. Use of the word ‘may’ here is entirely appropriate given the fact that model resolution is far from perfect. You’ve got to understand that we are making predictions for complex, very complex systems here. The magnitude of the task is extraordinary. May, potential and likely are responsible uses here.

      Reply
  12. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    Moby Dick; Ishmael & Queequeg; Elijah prophecy

    Reply
  13. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    Sea Shanties in Moby Dick (1956)

    Reply
    • Sailing upon a doomed ship made from the carcasses of the dead. I can think of no better metaphor for a civilization that continues to burn fossil fuels. The dead being the already massacred, and the far worse massacre to come if we continue as we are.

      Reply
  14. Steven Blaisdell

     /  January 15, 2016

    Some thoughts about the graph. From 1890 to ~1984, while there’s a steady increase in average temps, the very low years (relative to the long term linear trend) are approximately evenly distributed in number and magnitude with the very high years. This says to me that while average temps were rising, global climate stabilizers – ocean, forest, ice – were stochastically counterbalancing rising surface temps. Then from ~1984 to present, the antipodal lows disappear. Completely. This is a thirty year trend, which means it’s the new normal.

    So from 1890 to ~1984 there’s a true linear trend; from 1984 to present, especially given 2015 and probably 2016, it’s no longer linear. It’s certain we’ll see cooler Decembers than 2015-16 again. It also appears highly likely we’ll never again see Decembers cool enough to counterbalance peak warm years.

    This reinforces climatologists’ warnings for years now that the really important temps to watch are the lows – the ongoing huge increase in record high lows and dearth of low lows. This matches my own observations here in Austin – my graphs of high lows show a non-linear increase in temps. So apart from the striking spike in 2015 global December temps and probable matching or higher 2016, it appears that global climate stabilizing systems are increasingly unable to counter AGW. (No surprise, given the state of Arctic and Greenland ice, deforestation, ocean warming, permafrost melting…) Further, this is December, when boreal winter is supposed to have settled in. That’s gone, not en toto but in effect.

    Which brings another point to mind. We may be overfocusing on overall global temps, when the important data may be hidden within the approbated discussions of “2C”. To my eye, while it’s only one month out of the year, this is a system fixing to shift into non-liner increase, and perhaps has already done so. First, if there’s no longer the “sea anchor” (so to speak) of cold winters to counter peak highs, this itself implicates system destabilization. Second, as everyone knows the coldness of Earth (in all its forms) has locked in it immense amounts of carbon. Combine these and you don’t get a reassuring picture.

    Once again, Hansen was (back in 1988, right when this shift began) relaying the most accurate narrative picture of the data. Also Robert, noting the “disappearance of winter.” What I think might be missing is a granular look at the data, and how this might be an important, even vital perspective currently overshadowed by a necessarily ‘global’ outlook.

    Reply
    • Colorado Bob

       /  January 15, 2016

      Steven Blaisdell what a crazy place. this is , you are doing expert thinking . and I’m trapped on the Pequod. leaving New Bedford.

      Reply
    • Griffin

       /  January 15, 2016

      Thanks for this Steven. You really explained your point well and sure have got me thinking.

      Reply
    • Abel Adamski

       /  January 15, 2016

      http://phys.org/news/2015-11-climate-evidence-global-shift-1980s.html#jCp

      Planet Earth experienced a global climate shift in the late 1980s on an unprecedented scale, fuelled by anthropogenic warming and a volcanic eruption, according to new research published this week.

      Scientists say that a major step change, or ‘regime shift’, in the Earth’s biophysical systems, from the upper atmosphere to the depths of the ocean and from the Arctic to Antarctica, was centred around 1987, and was sparked by the El Chichón volcanic eruption in Mexico five years earlier.

      Their study, published in Global Change Biology, documents a range of associated events caused by the shift, from a 60% increase in winter river flow into the Baltic Sea to a 400% increase in the average duration of wildfires in the Western United States. It also suggests that climate change is not a gradual process, but one subject to sudden increases, with the 1980s shift representing the largest in an estimated 1,000 years.

      Reply
  15. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    The kegs in this movie are 42 gallons. That’s what whale oil was shipped in . Today when you read about a barrel of oil it’s 42 gallons. The first oil workers at Col. Drake’s discovery were whalers.

    The theory at the time was that he had found shoals of whales buried in the flood from the Bible. You go to , Titusville, Pennsylvania. Or spent 3 years on a ship ?

    This was birth of the modern oil business.

    But this scene says it all . “Around the world !”

    Reply
    • Colorado Bob

       /  January 15, 2016

      And then there’s Orson Welles as Father Mapple

      John Huston was stone cold genius ,

      Reply
  16. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    Sorry folks –
    But this was our energy history. It made us rich. We lite the world, with the death of these great creatures. and no movie ever painted that time and place like this one.
    The story is much older and deeper . The whales used to come really close inshore, in the thousands.

    And like the bison , we killed everyone we saw. Then we elected Teddy Roosevelt. And the world changed.

    Reply
  17. Matt

     /  January 15, 2016

    Probably more appropriate for a few posts ago but….. from opening my share trading platform today… from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, “LVR reductions will apply to some Oil & Gas stocks from 15/1/16. Download the Approved Security LVR (loan to value ratio) List to view the changes.”
    It seems that the big banks (and the CBA is the biggest one here) are getting very concerned about lending against fossil fuel based investment.

    Reply
  18. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    Waylon Jennings – Are You Sure Hank Done It This Way

    Reply
    • Colorado Bob

       /  January 15, 2016

      Waylon Jennings traded his seat on the plane that killed everyone on Buddy Holly’s plane.

      Reply
  19. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    Waylon tells the story about the death of Buddy Holly

    Reply
  20. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    Waylon Jennings walks out on Tom Snyder

    Reply
  21. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    This is a song that will save everyone’s heart

    Waylon Jennings – I’m a Ramblin’ Man

    Reply
  22. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    Ted Cruz was born in Canada , I was born in Texas.

    Reply
    • Colorado Bob

       /  January 15, 2016

      His wife got a 2 million dollar loan so he could run for the senate .
      From Goldman Sachs, and Citibank.
      A truly a man of the people.

      Reply
      • J.R.

         /  January 15, 2016

        You have to wonder about a system that encourages people to go into a 2 million dollar debt to get a job that pays far, far less.

        Obviously, something is seriously, seriously wrong.

        Reply
  23. Andy in SD

     /  January 15, 2016

    Oh look, another mass die off.

    Mass deaths of Alaskan birds baffles scientists

    Tens of thousands of dead birds are washing up on the beaches of Alaska’s Prince William Sound, an unexplained mass die-off that some experts say may be related to the changing climate.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/news/environment/2016/01/15/Mysterious-mass-deaths-of-Alaskan-birds-baffles-scientists/stories/201601150178

    Reply
    • Andy in SD

       /  January 15, 2016

      Basically these are diving sea birds. Climate change has driven their food source away, thus they starve.

      Another example of extinction climbing the food chain.

      Reply
    • Andy in SD

       /  January 15, 2016

      It appears others are starting to connect these dots as well.

      In animal die-offs across the globe, climate change may be culprit

      http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2016/jan/13/animal-die-offs-across-globe-climate-change-may-be/

      Reply
    • Colorado Bob

       /  January 15, 2016

      AiSD – ( Not Picking on You )
      I posted the same story. Several days ago. except this die off is in Prince William Sound.
      Your article never says one thing about it. It has never recovered since the oil spill. and the crash of the of the small fish.

      If I read your story it’s a one off event . Not a system that has been punched in the gut.

      It’s amazing how poorly these people write articles. With zero memory. .

      AiSD –
      I think the person that wrote your article never heard of the Exxon Valdez.

      Reply
      • Colorado Bob

         /  January 15, 2016

        This is why old people refuse to die. Because young people have the wisdom of gerbils.

        Reply
      • Colorado Bob

         /  January 15, 2016

        But if we just clap our hands , to the same stupid beat for the last 20 tears. Another Honor will surly come our way.

        Reply
      • Colorado Bob

         /  January 15, 2016

        20 tears is not a typo , it’s a wish.

        Reply
      • Andy in SD

         /  January 15, 2016

        That is why we look beyond the headline or the one-off story. We are the ones who connect the dots.

        It makes sense that the Valdez weakened the locale making the food chain more vulnerable than other fjords. Prince William Sounds weakness is not just the Valdez, nor climate chain, rather it is both. It does serve as a canary in the coalmine for the rest of the coast in that region.

        Reply
    • Vic

       /  January 15, 2016

      Oh look, yet another mass die off.

      Thousands of squids washing up on the island of Santa Maria off the coast of Chile.

      Reply
      • Vic

         /  January 15, 2016

        “An investigation is underway to determine why so many more squid washed up on the shores this year. Experts say preliminary evidence suggests the squid died and washed up on shore due to an oceanographic phenomenon called “upwelling,” which is when dense, cooler and usually nutrient-rich water moves towards the ocean surface, replacing the warmer, usually nutrient-depleted surface water.”

        http://www.wbaltv.com/news/thousands-of-squid-wash-ashore-on-chile-beach/37438148

        Reply
      • Vic

         /  January 15, 2016

        I’m a non-expert. As I understand it “upwelling” in this region at this stage of ENSO typically leads to increased fish stocks.

        Reply
      • Terrible, heart wrenching. When you realize what we’re doing to the innocent creatures of our world it is a callous heart indeed that would recommend a continuation of this terrible burning. This ongoing dumping of a poisonous level of carbon into our atmospheres and oceans.

        The explanation doesn’t fit the event. The looks like many of the dead zone related events we’ve seen during recent years. I notice purple pigmentation on many of the squids washed up as well. For my part, I tend to think anoxia, possibly hydrogen sulfide production when I see something like this. If you’ve got an anoxic bottom zone that upwells, if the bottom zone is more anoxic than before, then you can have a pretty serious impact.

        Reply
    • Spike

       /  January 15, 2016

      We’ve already signed many cetacean death warrants. And these beautiful creatures are in big trouble.

      “The survey can’t say for certain what population miseries come from the high PCB concentrations. Previous research suggests that PCBs impair reproduction, and Jepson notes that that Scotland’s killer whale population looks as if it’s going extinct. Only eight known survivors remain and no calves have been reported in almost two decades.”

      https://www.sciencenews.org/article/pcb-levels-still-high-europes-killer-whales-smaller-dolphins

      Reply
      • Caroline

         /  January 15, 2016

        Sarcasm alert (even though I’m not a big fan of sarcasm!):

        Oh but Spike, don’t fret about the whales, murres, squid, dolphins, starfish etc. etc After this sixth extinction—- even if it means the death of all humans in addition to the cetaceans—– “the earth will be just fine without us!”

        Seriously—– that expression drives me crazy. I see it/hear it often. It feels (to me) like a flippant, almost robotic response to human induced mass extinctions. It smacks of a complete lack of compassion for all the creatures humans are knowingly killing through egocentric fueled short term thinking. To frame the death of life on earth in such simplistic terms, one must be devoid of empathy (like a meteor, for example) and have the ability to objectify the biosphere.
        Not only that—-I feel that humans ARE capable (tragically) of obliterating this planet. Courtesy of ACD we’ve already slowed the earth’s rotation: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-rotation-idUSKBN0TU2F720151212

        Thanks for the link Spike (and CB and others)—–although it is getting more and more difficult to process the level of suffering and the number of deaths caused by pollution, habitat destruction and AGW. Joanna Macy’s work helps . . . .

        Reply
        • I think what you say at the end here is very important. It is all too easy to withdraw into shock. We should be very truthful to ourselves here and do our best to see what is happening with eyes unclouded.

  24. Jeannie

     /  January 15, 2016

    Robert, you talked a bit ago about keeping this site positive.
    Nature Bats Last is where I first found out about the internet options for this catastrophe (Kuntsler’s “Long Emergency” was the actual wake-up call). I’ll admit, I bounce back and forth between resignation and “keep trying”. Like the starfish guy on the beach: “You can’t make any difference!” the naysayers cry; “I will for this one” as he chucks it back where it belongs. And while once I visited that site daily, it’s THIS site that is my daily stop for over a year, b/c the comments here have DATA, links to things I’d never have seen otherwise, to where if my internet goes down, I still slog through all the comments sections when I can, to see what I might have missed. Such as the officer in South America, fighting the illegal forest burnings, whose budget was GUTTED by political maneuvering at the very beginning of the year! But he’s still committed to chucking back those starfish. (http://www.esc16.net/users/0020/FACES/Starfish%20Story.pdf) (if you haven’t heard of that story)

    Robert, keep slugging away, it is appreciated muchly by all of us lurkers. And especially appreciated that you do the diligence to keep the trolls away.

    Reply
    • Honest insights and opinions are welcome. It’s people with an agenda that clouds the call to moral action that we’re supporting here that I tend to take down. Ironically, once they’re gone, the site tends to flip back to positive.

      Reply
    • Hi Jeannie,
      Just because I think you were reffering to one of my comments (thank you, BTW), I´d just like to clarify that I´m a woman, not a man:) .

      Reply
      • You’re an example to us all, really. The worst happened and you kept on going. That’s the kind of pluck we’re going to need to get through this.

        Reply
    • Caroline

       /  January 15, 2016

      Heartily agree with your post Jeannie. Thanks to Robert and all who post here.

      Reply
      • Mblanc

         /  January 16, 2016

        Hear, hear. I used to keep up on sites which took allcomers (RC), but when I go back now I just can’t believe how much wasted energy is involved arguing with (what are essentially) trolls.

        Although I had a bad (negative) few moments a week or two ago, and gave myself a needed time out (out of respect for all here), it made me think hard about this place.

        This place is a refuge from the horrendous noise, bitterness and bile of the ‘Climate Wars’ for so many of us

        Reply
  25. Colorado Bob

     /  January 15, 2016

    Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

    Winston Churchill

    Reply
  26. Griffin

     /  January 15, 2016

    If I know one thing about the ocean, it is that she keeps far more secrets than she ever gives up. If we have seen a truly staggering amount of die-offs from our vantage point, the true scope is likely far worse.

    Reply
    • J.R.

       /  January 15, 2016

      Haven’t we? That’s news I follow – and what I’ve seen is quite staggering already. It’s been attributed to starvation, toxic blooms, pathogens and ‘unknown’ mass mortality events.

      The oceans are dying right before our eyes.

      Reply
    • Caroline

       /  January 16, 2016

      Paul Watson: “If the ocean dies, we die” (http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/01/paul-watson-oceans/)
      “The ocean is the life support system for the planet, providing 50 percent of the oxygen we breathe and regulating climate. The ocean is also the pump that allows us to have fresh water. It is the driving force, along with the sun, of the global circulation system that transports water from the land to the sea to the atmosphere and back to the land again.”

      Reply
  27. Syd Bridges

     /  January 15, 2016

    I was gobsmacked by that graph, with such a large year-on-year increase. Although it was not the largest jump on record, it was from the previous record warm year rather than an unusually cold year. The 1.5 C “Paris limit” looks like it will be met before the end of the decade. Once again the laws of physics trump-sorry for using that word-the BS of denier politicians.

    Reply
    • OK. Let’s be very clear here. Though there’s an outside possibility that annual average temperatures hit the 1.5 C limit by the end of this decade, that’s less likely. More likely is that these average out into a number of years that range near or just above 1 C, with the peak year being around 1.2 C (which may well be 2015-2016). If PDO remains positive, then we would be in reasonable danger of hitting annual averages of 1.4 to 1.6 C by or just before the mid 2020s. Rapid emissions reductions could help to mitigate this potentially very rapid pace, and are the most reliable means of preventing ramping heating and ramping impacts from heat long-term.

      Reply
  28. Reblogged this on Move for Change and the Brooklyn Culture Jam and commented:
    This is a post from Robertscribbler, who has been writing authoritatively about climate warming for quite awhile. If you’re not up on the lingo, we’ve spiked from .85 degrees c above the baseline temperature (pre-Industrial revolution) to 1.4c in December. It might be temporary (due to El Niño), but this means we’re already about to hit the ‘preferred’ 1.5c limit on temperature rise recommended by COP21 Paris activists.

    Reply
    • So we should be very clear about this point. Hitting 1.4 C in a single month is pretty amazingly bad. But we are still probably in the range of 5-20 years to hitting near 1.5 C in the annual average. The reason is that though the human forcing is ridiculously strong, natural variability can still wag the tail a bit. And we are at the top end of a record El Niño in some measures. We’ve hit the crest of the natural variability wave and we’re doing it with CO2 in the range of 404 ppm and CO2e in the range of 485 ppm. Sadly, over the next decade, I fear we will start to begin to understand the true meaning of extreme events. Hitting solidly in the range of 1 to 1.5 C will start to bring some of the catastrophic impacts into line. It’s nothing like 2 or 3 or 4. But this is starting to get serious.

      Reply
      • Thank you for your correction. I understand that the 1.4 may be a one-off owing to El Nino, but the fact that there were people at Paris saying we should head off warming above 1.5 and then have the 1.4 number pop up so quickly, gave me quite a start. Thank you for your work.

        Reply
        • Sadly, Paris has turned into a bit of a political football. This is not a surprise owing to the previous responses to climate summits and to all the misinformation and confusion that tends to surround each new IPCC report.

          So it’s worth pointing out that even Paris noted that we will probably not be able to keep warming below 1.5 C. That we’ll probably pass that and have to try to immediately bring temps back below that range.

          This is a bit more responsible.

          However, my opinion is that we are looking at warming in the range of 2 C this Century even if we bring emissions to near zero soon. In my view, the only way to miss the 2 C target is to be net negative carbon emissions within a few decades.

          This, of course, is not a sudden switch that magically happens in some single year three decades from now. But a rapid move to reduce emissions to net negative starting immediately. Not in 2020.

          So I think this general understanding among many scientists including Hansen is what’s causing ire over COP 21. You can’t reach the stated goals with what’s been committed. And unless you start the rapid carbon reductions sooner than 2020, you’re looking at hitting 2 C warming relatively soon and probably still before 2050.

          If you look at the Mann climate sensitivity paper we are between 22 and 30 odd years away from hitting 2 C on the current path. I think the focus should be on getting off that path as rapidly as possible.

          COP 21 moves us off that path. But gradually. Too gradually. So the urgency now should be for strengthening those emissions reductions.

      • doug

         /  January 15, 2016

        Hi Robert,

        You wrote here that we are in the tail of end of a natural variability wave, and for El Nino that’s true, however Trenberth has said he believes there is about a 67% chance that the PDO has switched into a positive phase, and the positive phase I believe is expected to last about thirty years. So, we may be entering a time of accelerated warming just now.

        Reply
        • Absolutely. With the positive PDO, we’d tend to see more overall warming and likely more potent El Ninos. But even so, we’d tend to back off the peak of this El Niño for a bit and probably until the next El Niño. The jump from this El Niño is quite intense.

          Also, as I did mention before, we have a few rather disturbing models showing the current El Niño may recover again. That may be the PDO signal showing up. In any case, the Pacific heat signature now seems to indicate that Trenberth, as usual, is quite solid in his assessment. Looks like this one is settling in for the long haul.

          It’s worth noting that the last positive PDO cycle pushed one decade warming on the order of 0.3 C. With quite a bit more heat forcing in the atmosphere now, I wouldn’t be too surprise if we hit 0.4 or even 0.5, which does put us in the range of 1.5 C by the mid 2020s.

          I don’t want to see that. But there’s every indication it’s a distinct possibility.

  29. Kevin Jones

     /  January 15, 2016

    Not to be glib, Robert Callaghan, but I’m reminded of a great Richard Pryor performance where he keeps telling the great Jim Brown about his excuses for continuing his cocaine habit. Jim Brown calmly repeatedly responds, “But what you goin’ to do.”

    Reply
    • Yeah. What you going to do? I think some of the deniers are starting to flip into rage … I find it funny that the work I do, mostly for no income whatsoever, is attacked. Apparently any charitable effort to help others and the endangered creatures of this world is something that those like Callaghan equate to ‘evil government conspiracy.’ It really saddens me to see people whose minds have been shrunken in this way. To be reduced to maligning the very hand that reaches out to help. But, I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised, it’s the terminal near death response of heroine addicts everywhere to refuse help until it kills them.

      Reply
  30. climatehawk1

     /  January 15, 2016

    Tweeting.

    Reply
  31. Anyone looked at the 6 hurricanes around Antarctica?

    Reply
    • Hello Pretzel.

      Here’s your shot. But I’d like to let you know those storms raging around Antarctica are cold core systems — not hurricanes. They’re pretty amazingly strong though. Hurricane- strength at 930 mb, 960 mb, and 955 mb. And to see those kinds of storms during summer is pretty troubling.

      In layman’s terms, what we’re seeing is a pretty crazy battle between hot and cold going on down there. The warm air and warming oceans assault on Antarctica is underway. And it really generates some amazing storm potential energy.

      Reply
  32. You now have my e mail please let me post.

    Reply
  33. Goodness Thanks, I love you CBob!!! I love you too Mr. Scribbler, Redskylight Climatehawk Griffin andy in sd DT lange I cry as I post this, But know This!, you are all hero’s. Thank you!

    Reply
  34. – Seattle oil train blockade trial.

    Climate Verdict: Delta 5 Found Not Guilty of Obstructing an Oil Train, Guilty of Trespass
    Posted on January 15, 2016

    Today in Lynnwood, WA, five climate activists who blockaded an oil train in September 2014 were found “not guilty” of obstructing an oil train and “guilty” on a more minor trespass charge. The obstruction charge was the more serious charge and if found guilty the group would have been responsible for possible restitution from BNSF Railroad.

    Joined with some of the jurors for the sentencing, Judge Howard told the court he feared more criminal acts and gave the group “two years probation. 90 days in jail, 89 suspended.$1000 fine, 800 suspended + 125 in fees.”

    http://iheartanarchy.org/2016/01/15/climate-verdict-delta-5-found-not-guilty-of-obstructing-an-oil-train-guilty-of-trespass/?platform=hootsuite

    Reply
    • Bill McKibben ‏@billmckibben 1h1 hour ago

      .@dechristopher reports one juror in #delta5 trial just signed up for @ClimateDisobey Center. That’s good organizing!

      Reply
      • Likely the ‘ guilty’ Trespass charge \:

        Tim DeChristopher ‏@dechristopher 1h1 hour ago

        One juror tells @MarlaMarcum that they definitely would have acquitted if they had gotten necessity instructions. #Delta5

        Reply
      • Rising Tide Seattle ‏@RisingTideSEA 2h2 hours ago

        Juror in #delta5 case: ‘this trial opened my eyes, I used to be more casual… now that I know the facts I’m moved to do something more

        Reply
      • Rising Tide Seattle ‏@RisingTideSEA 2h2 hours ago

        #delta5 have moving talk with jurors after the verdict. ‘Welcome to the movement’ says Mike LaPointe

        Reply
    • That’s a pretty amazingly clear precedent. Necessity defense. We’ll be seeing more of this.

      Reply
  35. – Pretzel Logic.:)

    Reply
  36. – Middle East’s first climate change museum opens in vulnerable Egypt

    FAYOUM, EGYPT // The Middle East’s first climate change museum opened in Egypt on Thursday at the site of some of the most historically significant and visible signs of the phenomenon in its naturally occurring form.

    The museum is located in the Valley of the Whales, a desert area 150 kilometres south-west of Cairo, where whale fossils lie spread across what was once a seabed.

    “It’s incredible to be standing in a place that was once an ocean more than 40 million years ago…

    Reply
      • I hope that one day we’re not all some relic on display in a climate change museum. Eqypt is right there at the heart of this mess. The Nile… The rising of the Med into the Delta there…

        Reply
    • “Although a retreating sea leaving behind whales was an undeniably dramatic consequence of climate change, a more significant change in Egypt’s history took place 6,500 years ago, when the winter rains that usually batter the Mediterranean coast and the Nile Delta began moving farther inland.

      Within a few generations, nomads who had survived mostly by fishing on the shores of Lake Qaroun had received enough regular rainfall to start farming. When the rainfall pattern shifted again after 500 years, the fishermen-turned-farmers slowly migrated east to the Nile Valley, taking agriculture with them, and sowed the seeds of Pharaonic Egypt.”

      Reply
  37. Colorado Bob / January 15, 2016

    His wife got a 2 million dollar loan so he could run for the senate .
    From Goldman Sachs, and Citibank.
    ###
    – Cruz control:

    Goldman Sachs To Pay $5.1 Billion For Causing 2008 Financial Crisis

    On Thursday, Goldman Sachs announced it would pay a record $5.1 billion in civil penalties and consumer relief for its role in causing the 2008 financial crisis. According to a Goldman Sachs press release the Too Big To Fail and Jail bank will pay a $2.385 billion civil monetary penalty, make $875 million in cash payments and provide $1.8 billion in consumer relief.

    https://shadowproof.com/2016/01/15/goldman-sachs-to-pay-5-1-billion-for-causing-2008-financial-crisis/

    Reply
    • Finally… Now for the oil, gas and coal companies…

      It does make you wonder though if the damages come anywhere close to the impact of this agency. More to the point, when are they going to fine the legislators who repealed Glass Steagall and set the stage for this mess in the first place.

      Reply
  38. I am a burner, a musician, a lover. (burning man, rainbow) I have studied this (global warming) train wreck for 25 years. I think you guys might like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj6yXxVc21Y this music, it is part of the music of our youth these days and of our age, the last age of man… As we watch the hock stick become reality, know you are not alone. I too watch. I dont idle and my heat is low. I grow food, I share hope.❤

    Reply
  39. Eric Blake ‏@EricBlake12 55s56 seconds ago

    Bye-bye #Alex- now extratropical over the far North Atlantic- I get to write the tropical #cyclone report- fun!:)

    Reply
  40. izzy

     /  January 15, 2016

    If only the temperature and sea level charts in this thread got the same sort of attention as the holy DJA. “Inverted priorities” hardly begins to describe it.

    Reply
    • Amen to that. I can’t believe the number of shows dedicated to just tracking the market. More like dedicated to the notion of wish fulfillment, really.

      Reply
  41. Ryan in New England

     /  January 15, 2016

    Another great post, Robert. Good job staying on top of all of the recent unprecedented events occurring around the globe. It seems like things are spinning out of control, everything is happening so fast.

    Reply
  42. Ryan in New England

     /  January 15, 2016

    The accelerated destruction of the Amazon in recent decades, combined with climate change, is really taking its toll on the forest. Sadly, it appears that the deforestation will likely continue, with new laws making it easier to destroy one of the most beautiful places in the world.

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/climate_and_laws_fan_brazils_forest_fires_20160115

    Reply
  43. Ryan in New England

     /  January 15, 2016
    Reply
  44. dan combs

     /  January 16, 2016

    Robert – You do the best job on the web of describing the ongoing human-induced abrupt climate shift. This article being a case in point. It prompted me to do a search for a graph of total CO2e over time. We have CO2 and CH4 data going back several hundred thousand years, but I could not find a chart of CO2e similar to the ones we’re all familiar with of CO2 and CH4 going back millennia. If you (or any reader) knows of one, or could create and post one, I believe that would be another useful tool in demonstrating just how far we have kicked the climate out of whack. Much thanks in advance and for all of your efforts.

    Reply
  1. Salto Aterrorizante nas Temperaturas Globais de Dezembro

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,004 other followers

%d bloggers like this: