2 C Coming On Faster Than We Feared — Atmospheric Methane Spikes to Record 3096 Parts Per Billion

It’s essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming. If they don’t, I suspect that down the road we’ll all be looking at the 2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror.Robert Max Holmes

****

Unraveling the global warming puzzle is simple at its face, complex when you pierce the surface.

We know that burning fossil fuels, that the activity of mining coal, fracking for gas, and drilling for oil all result in dangerous greenhouse gas emissions. We know that the vast majority of these warming gasses are coming from fossil fuel based sources. We know that, now, the burning and mining and fracking and drilling have pushed atmospheric CO2 above 405 parts per million and the global concentration of all CO2 equivalent gasses to an amazing 485 parts per million CO2e (levels not seen in at least 15 million years). And we know that the heat re-radiated by these gasses has warmed the world by about 1 C above 1880s levels — forcing weather patterns to change, seas to rise, ocean health to decline, and setting off a wave of die offs in the animal world while increasing the near-term risk of hunger, spreading tropical disease, and mass displacement in the human world.

Radiative Forcing

(Heat added to the Earth’s atmosphere by fossil fuel emitted gasses like CO2 and Methane are measured in watts per meter squared. A yardstick known as radiative forcing [RF]. In the above graph by IPCC, we can see the estimated levels of radiative forcing from each greenhouse gas and total net human heat forcing upon the Earth atmosphere as of 2011. It’s a measure that may also need to start adding in the RF of feedback greenhouse gasses as the 21st Century progresses. Image source: RealClimate.)

We know many of the names of these other gasses — methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbon. And some of the others — like sulfur hexaflouride — many of us haven’t yet heard of. But the big name, the primary warming agent, is carbon dioxide — responsible on its own for the majority of the overall heat forcing currently. A gas so important to long term warming that NASA has called it ‘the thermostat that controls Earth’s temperature.’

All this is pretty simple and straightforward. But it’s when we start looking at what are called amplifying feedbacks — the Earth System Sensitivity responses to human forced warming — that things really start to get dicey. And wrapped up in the Earth System Sensitivity equation is methane — a greenhouse gas with the ability to strongly influence global temperatures over rather short time-frames.

Methane Spikes to Over 3,000 parts per Billion

On February 20th, for about 12 hours, the NOAA METOP measure recorded a major atmospheric methane spike in the range of 3,096 parts per billion at 20,000 feet in altitude. This was the first time that any measure had recorded such a high methane spike and the first time any measure had exceeded the 3,000 parts per billion threshold. For context, just two years ago, a methane spike in the range of 2,660 parts per billion would have been significant. Now, we’re getting peak readings that are more than 400 parts per billion higher than that previous maximum threshold.

Metop methane

(METOP showed a record 3,096 parts per billion atmospheric methane spike on February 20 of 2016. Thus far, this was the largest such spike ever recorded in the NOAA measure. One that far exceeded a global atmospheric average of around 1830 parts per billion. Image source: NOAA/METOP.)

It’s a pretty ominous signal — especially when you consider the fact that global atmospheric methane averages are in the range of 1830 parts per billion. The recent major spike was about 1170 parts per billion higher. In other words — a pretty extraordinary excession. It’s evidence that the methane sources of the world are growing more vigorous in their output. And when you consider the fact that methane — on a molecule-by-molecule comparison to CO2 — traps about 80 times more heat over the decadal timescale, large additions of methane on top of an already dangerous CO2 forcing is certainly cause for some concern. An issue that may further speed the already rapid pace of human-forced warming such that we become at risk of hitting the 1.5 C and 2 C thresholds sooner than expected. Outcomes we should urgently be working to avoid — by cutting the human-based emission as rapidly as possible at this time.

The Usual Suspects — Fossil Fuel Based Activity

Perhaps still more concerning is the fact that we really don’t know exactly where this significant methane spike is coming from.

We do, however, have a long list of usual suspects. The first, of course, would be from any number of very large and dangerous fossil fuel emission sources. China, with its massive methane belching coal mines, gas infrastructure, and dirty coal burning facilities would be a prime suspect. Mongolia, where equally sprawling coal and gas facilities operate is another likely hot spot. Russia — with its vast and leaky oil and gas fields. The Middle East — which is choked with fossil fuel infrastructure. Europe — where many of Russia’s pipelines terminate and where many nations burn a high-methane brown coal. And the United States — where the geologically destructive practice of fracking has now also recently and greatly increased methane emissions.

Unusual Suspects — Permafrost and Clathrate Warmed by Fossil Fuel Emissions

Looking at the very low resolution METOP graphic above, we find a number of methane hot spots around the globe. And many of these hot spots do coincide with our usual suspects list. But others are well outside the range we would typically expect. Far up in the north. Over the tundra and the Arctic Ocean where few major fossil fuel burning or extraction facilities now exist. There, somewhat ironically, great piles of permafrost spreading over millions of square miles and sometimes mounding up as thick as two miles are thawing due a greenhouse gas heat forcing from fossil fuel burning often happening hundreds or thousands of miles away. This thawing permafrost is filled with organic material. And when freed of its icy prison it is exposed to the world’s elements and microbes. These forces then go to work turning the organic carbon in that permafrost into carbon dioxide and methane.

This is rather bad news. In total, more than 1,300 billion tons of carbon are locked away in the permafrost soils. And carbon emissions from permafrost make an already bad heat forcing coming from fossil fuel burning even worse.

Barrow methane

(Atmospheric methane levels as recorded by various reporting stations and global monitors have been rising more rapidly during recent years. In the Arctic, atmospheric readings have tended to remain above the global average — an indication that local emissions are generating an overburden for the region. Image source: NOAA ESRL.)

But if all the human emissions and potential permafrost emissions weren’t bad enough, we have one more major carbon source in the Arctic to consider — methane hydrate. A controversial potential methane release source to be certain. But a very large one that we would be remiss to ignore. Due to the fact that the Arctic has remained very cold overall for the past 3 million years of long ice ages and brief interglacials, this massive store of carbon has been given the opportunity to build up within the relatively shallow and now swiftly warming Arctic Ocean waters and even beneath large sections of now-thawing permafrost. Much of this carbon is in the form of the frozen ice-methane called hydrate. And as the Arctic Ocean warms and sea ice recedes to expose blue ocean to the heating of the sun’s rays for the first time in hundreds of thousands of years, there is concern among some scientists that a not insignificant amount of that submerged frozen methane will release, pass the ocean-atmosphere or thawing permafrost boundary, and add more heat forcing to the world’s atmosphere. The shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf has been identified by some to contain as much as 500 billion tons of carbon in the form of frozen methane. And a fossil fueled heating of the Earth may be just now risking amplifying feedback level releases from this large clathrate store along with a number of other very large stores scattered all across the Arctic Ocean basin and on throughout the global ocean system.

A Clearer Picture? Or One Far More Complex?

So who among all the various suspects — usual and unusual — may be responsible for the record methane spike now showing up in the METOP measure?

Before we attempt to answer this question, let’s pull in another methane graphic — this one from the Copernicus Observatory:

Global Surface Methane Readings Copernicus

(The February 25 Copenicus methane graphic tracking surface methane readings gives a higher resolution indication of surface methane readings than the NOAA METOP measure. This second measure provides some confirmation of an Arctic methane overburden even as spike sources from human emissions become more readily apparent. Omnious spikes also apparently come from wildfires in the tropics and from regions in the Arctic near Yamal, Russia, Northern Scandinavia, the Barents and Kara seas. Image source: The Copernicus Observatory.)

Here we can see the range of surface methane readings according to Copernicus. A higher resolution image that may provide us with a better idea of the point-source location for daily global methane spikes. Here we see that the major methane sources are predominantly China, Russia, the Middle East, Europe, the United States, India, Indonesia, Fires in Africa and the Amazon, and, finally, the Arctic.

Though the Copernicus measure doesn’t show the same level of Arctic overburden as what has tended to show up in the METOP measure, it’s a confirmation that something in the near Arctic environment is generating local spikes in above 1940 parts per billion for large regions of this sensitive zone.

The Copernicus measure, as noted above, also shows that the human spikes are quite intense, remaining the dominant source of methane emissions globally despite a continued disturbing overburden in the Arctic. Spikes in Africa, the Amazon, and Indonesia also indicate that declining rain forests and related fires in these tropical zones are also probably providing an amplifying feedback to the overall human emission.

Given this month’s spikes and the overall disposition of surface methane readings around the globe, it does appear that the large human base methane emission is being enhanced by feedbacks from local emissions from carbon stores both in the tropics and in the Arctic. This enhancement signal, though somewhat smaller than the fossil fuel related signal in some measures, is concerning and hints that Robert Max Holmes’ warning at the top may be all-too-relevant. For Earth System feedbacks to massive and irresponsible fossil fuel emissions appear to already be starting to complicate our picture of a warming Earth.

Links:

CO2: The Thermostat That Controls Earth’s Temperature

Ominous Arctic Methane Spike Continues

Huge Methane Spike Coming from US Fracking

Methane Release From Frozen Permafrost Could Trigger Dangerous Global Warming

Concern over Catastrophic Methane Release

A4R Global Methane Tracking

The Copernicus Observatory

NOAA ESRL

RealClimate

NOAA/METOP

Hat Tip to Griffin

Leave a comment

200 Comments

  1. – Outstanding Methane Alert, Robert.
    Very comprehensive.
    Am spreading it around.

    – Glad to aerosols and precursors listed in the radiative forcing graph from RealClimate. Many are quite visible in the atmosphere from my perspective.

    OUT

    Reply
    • Cheers, DT and thanks for the kind words. It’s timely. But it seems like there aren’t too many people willing to talk about this anymore. I’m concerned about the shroud of silence that’s fallen over the issue.

      Reply
      • An excellent video from Climatologist Paul Beckwith
        *Risk From Abrupt Climate Change is Enormous.*

        Keep fighting
        Jack

        Reply
      • Abel Adamski

         /  February 27, 2016

        R.S
        Just wondering, Methane is usually quoted and I assume is incorporated in the CO2e as the CO2 equivalent as you mentioned over the 20 year dissipation effective rate.
        This I would see as valid for long term trend analysis especially if that level followed the logarithmic dissipation rate.

        However what we are seeing is spiking AND a steady increase in average levels over the 1800’s

        Would that consistent average level not be best considered at the instantaneous CO2 equivalent rather than the longer term decaying rate when it is not decaying per se.

        It is the little incremental spikes that compound over time and add to ice melt etc at the time they are present.

        Just musing from the calculus sum of infinitely small segments perspective

        Reply
        • So the current human based methane emission is about 400 megatons per year. A shift away from fossil fuels would substaintially cut this portion. And just to maintain current atmospheric levels, the current human emission would have to continue for 500 years to reach the current short term GWP of 105 times CO2. Natural sources would have to about double to equal the current natural emission + human emission. We have some indication that natural sources are increasing. However, it’s nowhere near a strong enough signal at this time to indicate an increase equal to the human emission.

          To put it another way, you have to add between 150 and 200 GT methane over 500 years to get to that full 105 GWP. So you need to fill that gap somehow if you’re going to make those numbers.

          Rising atmospheric methane levels are likely now primarily due to increases in human activity such as fracking combining with what appears to be a growing feedback from the Earth System. But since the majority emission is likely coming from human sources, this still provides an opportunity — albeit what may well be a closing window — for substantial reductions in total atmospheric methane levels if we shut down the human based emissions sources.

      • Cate

         /  February 27, 2016

        Robert, what do you think is the reason for the shroud of silence on methane?

        Reply
        • Well, a few biggies include —

          1. If people were more clearly aware of this risk, then the push away from fossil fuel burning would be massive.
          2. The fossil fuel industry wants to use these deposits as an energy source — which is quite frankly insane.
          3. Sadly, some of the hydrate research facilities and scientists were the recipients of fossil fuel based funding. This was due to the fact that original identification of hydrates was for the purpose of future extraction (see the note about quite frankly insane above). Note the potential moral hazard implied by this relationship.
          4. The subject is very uncertain. We know less about hydrate release than we know about glacial destabilization.
          5. Established sciences left large Earth System feedbacks out of the global warming equation for this Century, which generates a degree of confirmation bias.
          6. Some agencies are using the risk of methane release to peddle likely lucrative, but very hazardous solar radiation management and other hazardous (snake oil) geo-engineering schemes.
          7. The issue has been further polluted by doomers and misanthropes using it to support their inevitable human extinction theories.
          8. In the sciences, the issue got ugly. Lots of attacks went back and forth between scientists supporting a dominant view that any response from methane stores would be very slow and those highlighting the potential for catastrophic release.
          9. Those actively researching methane in the Arctic have had projects canceled and funding cut. This is probably due to fossil fuel interest suppression of research efforts along these lines.
          10. The issue is difficult to manage as a media story. It’s an out of context problem, and anyone talking about has tended to suffer from negative labeling. Part of this is probably due to active suppression.

    • Cate

       /  February 28, 2016

      Thanks for that, Robert. Suppression for all the reasons you mentioned seems plausible, but can it get any more dire, that even facing something that potentially and strangely threatening, it’s situation normal, heads in sand or up ar$es.

      Meanwhile, somewhere in Siberia, mysterious craters keep appearing…..it’s those Russians, always up to something, always those pesky Russians.

      Reply
    • International trade organizations like WTO need to figure out how to support home-grown solar otherwise there probably won’t be much global trade to speak of in the not too distant future.

      Reply
    • Mulga Mumblebrain

       /  May 17, 2016

      Çate, don’t forget to mention that this insanely wicked WTO ‘decision’ was brought down at the behest of good old Uncle Sam. Those responsible are precisely those people who MUST face trials, one day, for crimes against Life on Earth for actions such as these.

      Reply
  2. – Off topic but possibly future news worthy:

    Reply
  3. climatehawk1

     /  February 26, 2016

    Tweeted.

    Reply
  4. Those who have been peddling abrupt climate chahge for a couple of years now and their sycophants think that ol’ Wile E. Coyote is already off the cliff, and has been feeling around with his toes for some solid ground, before looking down.

    And there are others determined to rectify the situation.

    Sent from my iPad 🙏🏻

    >

    Reply
    • Mulga Mumblebrain

       /  May 17, 2016

      robindatta, I’m all for ‘rectifying the situation’. How do you propose to achieve that worthy end?

      Reply
  5. I’m probably adding nothing, but I felt it noting there are two other thermal mechanisms besides the sun warming freshly ice free waters potentially capable of destabilising shallow submarine clathrate deposits.

    One of these is warmer water run off from earlier melting ice on nearby land (often overlooked with all thet focus on sea ice, is the significant land ice effect – for both albedo and contribution to water warming locally).

    The other is deeper ocean currents, though I’m not sure that applies quite so much in the Arctic (where deep water formation occurs normally, to help drive ocean circulation in general).

    Regardless, losing the sea ice cover in the Arctic with the attendant recession of ice on land is pretty unhelpful and we’re left hoping the fears expressed by Shakhova don’t come to pass (though that seems rather vain a hope with what we know now – ie the camp that beliefs clathrates will release gradually is rather disproven by accumulating evidence of rapid releases).

    All bets are off in coming years, is the bottom line. We’re mostly just spectators now as far as the climate is concerned – though we still get to decide what sort of species we want to be and how serious we are about the long term for ourselves and the environment we depend upon.

    Reply
  6. Mark from OZ

     /  February 26, 2016

    Seems to me that all of Earth’s natural ‘system’s that are there to reconcile the inevitable ( but completely natural) imbalances, adequately broadcast that change is forthcoming. Beyond our visual and auditory assessments that have served the animal kingdom well as a forewarning, we now have very sophisticated gear to measure ‘rates’ of change and these help in forecasting what may occur or is occurring.

    However, the reconciliation ‘part’, which can be witnessed with lighting, earthquakes, volcanos, tornados and bush fire, can occur with a speed that we typically interpret as a frenzy. We tend to ‘see’ time as an unhurried and constant rotation of clock hands but in the chemical and physical world, ‘change’ tends to prefer and value getting the task done as soon as possible.

    Heat ‘flowing’ to cold is spontaneous and revealed in the 2d law of thermodynamics. The ‘pace’ at which the Earth’s ice is melting is occurring at the ‘right’ speed given the current data inputs. Inviting Ch4 to the party now ( like times in the past) suggests that the system is interested in achieving equilibrium ( where cooler systems warm and warmer systems cool) as soon as possible.

    Reply
  7. redskylite

     /  February 27, 2016

    Many many thanks Robert for another very excellent, detailed and understandable narration, on the situation that we are not reacting to seriously enough, and frighteningly our future seems to largely depend on voting outcomes and electing people who see the dangers and will act, although many cities are trying their best to reduce our footprint independently to national politics.

    On the topic of methane from the Smithsonian today . . . shortcomings of industry and carelessness about the environment in favour of maximum profit.

    There are hundreds of natural gas storage facilities like this one around the country, and there’s nothing in place to monitor these facilities for leaks or respond to them quickly.

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/size-california-methane-leak-isnt-scariest-part-story-180958234/?no-ist

    Reply
    • Griffin

       /  February 27, 2016

      Redskylite if you have not had the chance to see the movie “Gasland ll”, it is highly recommended. By taking a look at a lot of smaller operations that leak, you really get an idea of just how vast the problem of poking holes in the USA is.

      Reply
      • Ryan in New England

         /  February 27, 2016

        I agree with Griffin, I would highly recommend Gasland II (and the first film if you haven’t seen it). It really illustrates he fact that fracking is completely nuts, and dangerous. It destroys communities it expands into, and permanently poisons the water that is essential for all life.

        Reply
  8. Andy in SD

     /  February 27, 2016

    NORTH SHORE, OAHU (HawaiiNewsNow) –

    Monday’s swell, which brought wave faces up to 70 feet, was one of the strongest surf events in Hawaii in 50 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    70 foot waves, tough to wrap ones imagination around.

    http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31299131/noaa-mondays-historic-swell-strongest-in-50-years

    Reply
  9. redskylite

     /  February 27, 2016

    Understandably there is much news and concern regarding the Arctic, although the Southern Hemisphere lacks the great land mass of the North, I am sure in a few years the Antarctic will be causing similar concern and alarm, to altered weather patterns, currents and jetstreams.

    The Antarctic treaty is due to expire in a few decades and I’m sure some have their beady eyes on exploitation of the wealth below the ice.

    Arctic warming: Rapidly increasing temperatures are ‘possibly catastrophic’ for planet, climate scientist warns

    “Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute in California, said there was a growing body of “pretty scary” evidence that higher temperatures in the Arctic were driving the creation of dangerous storms in parts of the northern hemisphere.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-warming-rapidly-increasing-temperatures-are-possibly-catastrophic-for-planet-climate-a6896671.html

    Reply
  10. Reblogged this on Move for Change and the Brooklyn Culture Jam and commented:
    From the esteemed Robert Scribbler blog. What you need to know here (even if you can’t grok all of the science) is that Methane (which is 100 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than C02) has spiked to over 3000 ppb. Historical levels are in the 700 PPB range. Events in the saddle and ride mankind…

    Reply
    • To clarify — 3096 ppb was the peak atmospheric value or spike. The atmospheric average was 1830 ppb. We’ve never seen a spike so large.

      Reply
      • Thanks for the clarification. My understanding is that the methane proportion prior to use of fossil fuels at scale was around 700 PPB. Is that consistent with your numbers?

        Reply
  11. foodnstuff

     /  February 27, 2016

    Reblogged this on Foodnstuff and commented:
    I used to think I’d be pushing up daisies well before climate change got really nasty. Now I’m not so sure.

    Maybe it’s time to start stocking up on the Peaceful Pill?

    Reply
  12. Reply
  13. Andy in SD

     /  February 27, 2016

    Mass Die Offs Continue

    Hundreds of sea lions wash up dead in Chile

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/americas/dead-sea-lions-chile/index.html

    Reply
    • “Most of the dead sea lions that are washing up along northern Chile are newborn pups”

      Reply
    • redskylite

       /  February 27, 2016

      An article from Vice on Sea Lions on California shores this year which I found particularly sad and depressing, not too much cheerful news in the realm of the terrible realism of the world we have created.

      Fewer Sea Lion Pups Are Stranded This Year in California — Because So Many Died Last Year

      Sea lion pup strandings are down significantly from this time last year — but that’s actually bad news. The pups aren’t striking out on their own to wash up hungry, cold, and disoriented along California shores in great numbers yet this year because most of them are already dead, according to scientists who study the animals.

      https://news.vice.com/article/fewer-sea-lion-pups-are-stranded-this-year-in-california-because-so-many-died-last-year

      Reply
  14. Cate

     /  February 27, 2016

    I just feel incredibly lucky, privileged, and blessed to be living in the age when Clapton jams with Marsalis.

    Reply
  15. I was listening to Peter Ward on Radio Ecoshock
    http://www.ecoshock.info/2016/02/science-of-catastrophe.html
    He talked about the US Supreme court decision on Climate Change
    I have to say that the US Supreme court is endangering Life on this planet.
    Then I came across this news : http://climatenewsnetwork.net/us-blocks-indias-solar-power-plan/
    This picture is worth 1 00 000 words; it’s a protest staged in Australia that represents the attitude of the government on the issue of Climate Change of course
    http://www.ryot.org/photos-australia-head-in-sand-protest/867941
    But that can be said of a majority of Western governments….

    Jack

    Reply
  16. When we look at these methane spikes which have benn happening for some time we need to look at what MIGHT happen should we be looking at a blue sea event (or close to it) this Arctic summer. It is not just a question of loss of libido but also of latent heat. A lot of energy goes into the melting of ice with very little increase in water termperature.

    When the ice goes as illustrated in the video the temperature rises very quickly.

    I can imagine that in that case the 50GT burp of methane hypothesises by Dr. Natalia Skhova and Igor Semiletocv might become a distinct possibility, in which case we are in a totally different ballgame.

    BTW. I don’t think that positive feedbacks are a “possibility” – they are there and increasing since about 2012.

    Reply
  17. – OT In the interest of accuracy I had to speak out re Trump’s wild debate statements via Twitter.

    Reply
    • Good points, DT.

      Reply
    • Thanks for doing this, David. Looks like those of us in U.S. will have to take a stand against Mr. Trump: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/politics/donald-trump.html Excerpt:

      “Cheri Jacobus, a Republican political strategist, did not think she had done anything out of the ordinary: On a cable television show, she criticized Donald J. Trump for skipping a debate in Iowa in late January and described him as a ‘bad debater.’

      ?But then Mr. Trump took to Twitter, repeatedly branding Ms. Jacobus as a disappointed job seeker who had begged to work for his campaign and had been rejected. ‘We said no and she went hostile,’ he wrote. ‘A real dummy!’ Mr. Trump’s campaign manager told the same story on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe.’

      “Mr. Trump’s Twitter followers, who number about six million, piled on. For days, they replied to his posts with demeaning, often sexually charged insults aimed at Ms. Jacobus, including several with altered, vulgar photographs of her face.

      “’Cheri is a nutcase,’ wrote @LegendaryTrump. Another Twitter user, @stockedwood, wrote, ‘How the hell does a woman like her get on the air???’

      “With his enormous online platform, Mr. Trump has badgered and humiliated those who have dared to cross him during the presidential race. He has latched onto their vulnerabilities, mocking their physical characteristics, personality quirks and, sometimes, their professional setbacks. He has made statements, like his claims about Ms. Jacobus, that have later been exposed as false or deceptive — only after they have ricocheted across the Internet.

      “Many recipients of Mr. Trump’s hectoring are fellow politicians, with paid staff members to help them defend themselves. But for others, the experience of being targeted by Mr. Trump is nightmarish and a form of public degradation that they believe is intended to scare off adversaries by making an example of them. … “

      Reply
      • Ryan in New England

         /  February 28, 2016

        The success that Trump is having, and the fact that he seems to be growing supporters somehow, is nothing short of terrifying. “Mainstream” Republicans are beginning to accept the inevitability of Trump being the party’s nominee. Chris Christie endorsing him is one glaring example. Just the fact that Trump has made it this far is alarming. When you realize he has support from a very substantial percentage of the Republican base, it becomes clear that a large portion of America would gladly support outrageous policies, such as banning Muslims from America. What’s the difference between targeting Muslims for removal from America and eliminating the “Jewish problem” in Germany? Mexicans are viewed with disgust the same way Germans viewed the Polish. Trump has said we need to flat out close off our borders…which to anybody familiar with 21st century trade/travel is just batsh*t crazy. Trump insists all the problems with America are the fault of Latino immigrants, so we need to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. You could write a series of books about how incorrect that view is. Just like Hitler, Trump is taking advantage of a struggling middle class who is frustrated and angry, telling them he will “make this country great again”. He lays blame with immigrants and minorities who are a drain on the system, a system that should be benefiting all the white, Christian males out there. You know, the whole “just make me the President and I’ll fix your problems” pitch. The amount of fear and hatred I see in Trump’s supporters is truly worrying. During the early parts of Hitler’s rise to power there were often political cartoons mocking him, and many didn’t seriously believe he would be able to get the support he needed. And we see the same thing with Donald Trump. The intellectuals and serious pundits are aware of how delusional and unrealistic Trump’s claims are, so they dismiss him becoming President as an impossibility. But his campaign has become a juggernaut, and nothing seems able to slow it down, much less stop it.

        One more fun fact, Trump admitted that he slept with a copy of “My New Order”, the sequel to Mein Kampf, on his nightstand.

        Reply
  18. Andy in SD

     /  February 27, 2016

    Ice is breaking up in the Beaufort, you don’t see this detail in the roll up cartoon images elsewhere. Previous years have similar events so this is not a red flag on it’s own. It is a continuation of a multi decade red flag.

    The fracturing is more intense than the last few years, but I’m sure nobody is surprised after what we’ve seen this winter.

    If you scroll over to Hudson Bay you can see the action there as well.

    Scroll further to Greenland and you can see the front end of Jakobshavn glacier clearing up for this years shedding.

    http://www.arctic.io/explorer/8/2016-02-26/8-N72.8962-W129.49744

    Reply
  19. mlparrish

     /  February 27, 2016

    On Google Scholar I have found 3 references from the SWERUS-C3 expedition which must have important methane figures. The second (C Miller) has measurements in the abstract which are said to be not particularly worrisome. The other two are subscription protected and the abstracts present no figures. Would anyone know them?

    New atmospheric methane observations in the Kara, Laptev, and East Siberian Seas during SWERUS-C3. BF Thornton, PM Crill… – AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 2014 – adsabs.harvard.edu

    Low Methane Concentrations in Sediment along the Siberian Slope: Inference from Pore
    C Miller – GCAGS – searchanddiscovery.com

    Recent geological–geomorphological processes on the east Arctic shelf: Results of the expedition of the icebreaker Oden in 2014. LI Lobkovsky, SL Nikiforov, RA Ananiev, AV Khortov… – Oceanology, 2015 – Springer.

    Reply
  20. redskylite

     /  February 27, 2016

    It’s difficult to say, but academia and decent media is saying it over and over again, and if I’m viewed as an alarmist for just inserting regular news links so be it.

    Yes sea level rise will displace folks and cause mayhem, death and misery, yes heatstroke will occur more frequently. Yes there will be food and water shortages also causing death and misery. There will be storms and wetaher violence increases. But most of all the threat of disease and deadly virus will arise, this is the least predicted result of our
    industrial revolution. It needs amplification it is a real danger. . . .

    “Even more worrying is the fact that with changing trends in human and animal migration, increasing urbanisation, the density of mega cities, the rise in antimicrobial resistance and climate change, such threats could become increasingly more common. ”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35614569

    Reply
    • Cate

       /  February 27, 2016

      Alarmist? I can so relate I’ve devoted my FB feed to good solid climate change info—RS and many of the links I find here. My friends think I’m as crazy as a bag of hammers. One or two have taken an interest and are sharing and tweeting onwards. That’s as much as I can expect.

      I think people’s minds must glaze over when they read about it. I don’t think any of the implications sink in—or if they do, folks think, That won’t happen here. They look outdoors and see this great mind winter and joke—only a little more uneasily than they used to—, “Bring it on!”

      Reply
      • Cate

         /  February 27, 2016

        ….”mild” winter, although this winter has provide huge food for thought…..

        Reply
      • Cate

         /  February 27, 2016

        ….”provided”…..Sigh. Too early. Posting before coffee.😉

        Reply
      • wili

         /  February 27, 2016

        That’s about the reaction I get on fb. Except it’s really only one fbf who regularly ‘likes’ this stuff.

        Reply
      • Good for you, Cate. That is the true value of social media IMHO–not to share totally trivial stuff about one’s own precious, unique life. If you’d like to connect on FB, e-mail me at gmail. I admit I post a broader array of material, but it’s all activism.

        Reply
      • Steven Blaisdell

         /  February 28, 2016

        “…devoted my FB feed to good solid climate change info…”
        Ditto. Hadn’t been on FB for years until I started posting evidence based climate change links last year (thanks to Team Scribbler for the inspiration, posts, comments, and links). Now everyone on my FB feed has to scroll past a half dozen AGW posts almost daily. I like to comment on others’ posts of funny cat videos, if only to show interest and possibly increase openness and receptivity to my relentless, obsessive, borderline nutjob focus on all things climate change. In my defense, AGW is the biggest, most important story ever told (by humans anyways). And I maintain that at some point Earth will, regardless of how humans handle this go-round of man vs. nature, externally force the primacy of this story on human consciousness. How this happens, of course, is the question.

        Reply
      • Ryan in New England

         /  February 28, 2016

        I too have experienced the frustration of posting climate change news on my FB page only to have it receive zero likes, two at most, despite having hundreds of friends. It’s so discouraging. You try and alert people to the reality that their kids will face a very different world than the one they’re born into, with very serious consequences from our current behavior. Nobody cares. Yet if you post a cat video it’ll get thousands of likes and go viral.

        There’s just too many people who flat out don’t give a shit. And the ones in power, or trying to gain power, care even less. I was running yesterday with someone who’s a good friend. I started talking about the current issues being discussed here, and the ramifications likely to be experienced down the road. The response I get is,”Oh you can’t worry about that stuff.” This coming from someone who is getting married soon and will likely have children. I just don’t get it. Because of the things I have learned about climate change, population, energy, geopolitics, etc I have made a very conscious decision to never have children. It’s the biggest decision of someone’s life, and to do it with no clue about what environment you are creating a child in just seems crazy to me. Maybe I’ll adopt someday, but I can’t create a human being knowing one day they will likely face enormous hardship and suffering, and I’ll have to explain to them that I decided to have them because I wanted kids, or it’s what people do, or it’s human nature, or whatever other reason people have for procreating.

        I’ve been called selfish for not wanting children. But if you think about it, it’s the least selfish thing I could think of. I am resisting my biological urge to pass on my genes to the next generation. I’m thinking of the unborn child who will join the other 7.3+ billion all looking to get their “share” of the world’s resources, likely resulting in further conflict in the future. That’s one less person who needs food, water and shelter. I’m foregoing my own desire for children, in order to prevent one more person from growing up to be thrust into a struggle that they didn’t ask for, and that we created. When I think of all the problems we already face, and the fact that things are only getting worse, I simply can’t justify creating one more person on this already over-crowded planet.

        Sorry for the rant. And please, anybody who has children or wants children, don’t take offense or misunderstand…I certainly am not against having children, and don’t judge anybody for having kids (except the Duggards and their 20 kids, that’s bullshit in the 21st century). I just personally feel that I should refrain from procreation.

        Reply
    • Cate

       /  February 28, 2016

      Ryan, I have a feeling I may be old enough to be your mother, and as a mother who will never myself become a grandmother, I congratulate you on your decision to avoid bringing new life into the world. It is a very brave and selfless choice you have made–it is a sacrifice of huge import, in fact. And in my opinion, you have made it for all the right reasons. Because I am a parent with grown children who have decided, like you, not to have children, I am—yes, very selfishly— glad for their decision, because it means that the coming climate crisis probably will not affect me or my children very much at all. We all have our ways of coping with this unimaginable challenge. Yours is fine and honourable.

      Reply
  21. Up to four-fifths of wetlands worldwide could be at risk from sea level rise

    They found that even in the event of ‘low’ global sea level rise (around 30 centimetres), much of the world’s wetlands, particularly on ‘micro-tidal’ coasts, are vulnerable. Around 70 percent of the world’s wetlands are found on micro-tidal coasts, where the range between high spring tide and low spring tide is less than two metres, such as in the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Mexico.

    The Wetland Global Extent Index, published in 2014, estimates that between 1970 and 2008, natural coastal wetlands declined by nearly 50 percent. A main reason for the high vulnerability of coastal wetlands to sea level rise is coastal ‘squeeze’, a consequence of long-term coastal protection strategies, such as dikes. While dikes provide flood defence to coastal populations and infrastructure, they prevent wetlands from moving landwards and upwards: dikes leave them with nowhere to go.

    They found that if global sea levels rise by 100 centimetres combined with maximum dike construction, global wetland losses may reach 78 percent. For a rise of 50 centimetres, between 46 and 59 percent of coastal wetlands could be lost. For sea level rise around 30 centimetres, wetlands in micro-tidal regions are the most vulnerable.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-02-four-fifths-wetlands-worldwide-sea.html#jCp

    Reply
  22. Spike

     /  February 27, 2016

    I see NCAR pointing out that inertia means we are close to 1.5C.

    http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/19348/just-half-degree-separation

    If we factor in the loss of aerosol cooling if and when we clean up our act and add in some Earth system feedbacks I assume this means we are pretty close to 2C, or is my thinking wrong on this?

    Reply
    • John McCormick

       /  February 28, 2016

      Spike, you are right on point. Likely .5 degrees C from aerosols and particularly from China, India and massive peat bog and forest fires. Ye, 2 degrees is ours to shape with cleaner air. What a world we have created fofr our children.

      Reply
      • So with aerosols added in, we’re at about 430 ppm CO2e forcing right now. Take that out and you get the brunt of the 485 ppm CO2e. On the flip side, if you rapidly scale back coal mining and gas use/extraction, then a significant fraction of the methane portion falls out rather rapidly so long as you don’t have substantial feedbacks from the Earth System.

        The total 485/490 ppm CO2e at this time is enough to warm the world by 2 C this Century if maintained through the full 100 years. A pretty clear call to action for carbon emission reduction and renewable energy adoption if I’ve ever heard one.

        Reply
  23. Cate

     /  February 27, 2016

    Does absence/loss of snow cover get included under the heading loss of albedo? Most of central and eastern Newfoundland should be well-blanketed in white this time of year, with February and March snows adding to the early winter snowcover to keep everything nice and wintry to about the middle of April or so. I have no idea if other parts of Canada are similar, but we have bare ground everywhere—it’s unheard of. In the boreal forests, where the snow usually lasts under the thick tree cover until May, you can walk in sneakers—a lot of dark, bare ground there. Ponds and lakes that normally carry lots of skidoo traffic have darkened to slush, and rivers and brooks that should be locked up in ice are in full spate—plenty of blue water showing everywhere in the landscape. My little local mountailn peak, normally white from November through May, is bare rock. “Never seen anything like it” is the refrain.

    Reply
    • entropicman

       /  February 27, 2016

      I notice that ice cover on the Gulf of St Lawrence is lighter than usual.. A very mild Winter by your standards.

      Reply
      • Cate

         /  February 27, 2016

        What’s interesting as well is how this is coming on the heels of two of the coldest, snowiest winters on record throughout eastern Canada. Last year the Great Lakes broke all kinds of ice-cover records, and the Gulf of St Lawrence is routinely choked with drift ice (that, is, ice that comes down through the Strait of Belle Isle) enough to disrupt the Newfoundland ferry schedules for days on end in March and April. This could still happen, of course…..winter ain’t over here till it’s over😀

        Reply
      • Cate

         /  February 27, 2016

        http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS27ECT/20160226180000_WIS27ECT_0008733484.pdf

        This is the weather deal-breaker for the next few months in Newfoundland: how much pack ice is coming down from Labrador. The pdf shows lots of 9-10/10 coverage—all that red, argh!—- that’s close-packed ice and will need wind to be broken up. This is the whelping ground for harp seals, btw, and prime predation area for polar bears. The pack ice on the “Front”, that is, the NE coast (between St John’s and St Anthony) determines how cold, damp, and late our spring will be. Lots of NE wind will keep it close to shore, so we pray for lots of south-westerlies this time of year! Also to keep the polar bears away.😀

        Reply
  24. dnem

     /  February 27, 2016

    First, this amazingly clueless piece in the NYT:
    Japan Lost Nearly a Million People in 5 Years, Census Says
    TOKYO — Japan’s population shrank by nearly a million during the last half-decade, official census figures confirmed on Friday, an unprecedented drop for a society not ravaged by war or other deadly crisis, and one that helps explain the country’s persistent economic woes.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/world/asia/japan-confirms-a-decline-in-population.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&viewport=desktop&module=more-stories&region=top-stories-below&contentIndexValue=2&subIndexValue=0&feedIndexValue=10&summary=true&_r=0

    We need to reach peak everything, including population, everywhere, as soon as humanly possible, or we’re cooked. And one, small, fully built-out country doesn’t have the imagination to see that it must embrace the transition NOW?! No, we hear the usual blather about not enough workers to support an aging population, etc. The global economy, and its masters, simply do not have a plan other than “grow it”. Methinks the global economy will have a very tough time peaking and beginning to recede, as it MUST. The entire finance circle of investment, debt and interest payments is structurally dependent on growth and is highly unstable without it.

    Reply
  25. Griffin

     /  February 27, 2016

    Very honored for the hat tip Robert!
    Here is a link to one of the tweets from Dr. Peter Gleick regarding feedbacks.

    Reply
  26. Griffin

     /  February 27, 2016

    Here was the other tweet that caught my eye. This was from the USGS and while quite true, it just surprised me to see such blunt wording from them!

    Reply
  27. dnem

     /  February 27, 2016

    Which leads me to my second point, following on on Harquebus’s comment above. Ok, EROEIs might be between 10 and 20 for PV and wind, but that is because they have very long life spans. Today, if we build a factory to make PVs, and ship materials to that factory, power it, ship the products out and install them, essentially all that activity will be fossil fueled, and it will take time for the balance of carbon accounts to emerge into positive territory. Like YEARS. Years I fear we don’t have. It IS a bootstrap problem.

    To me, we need a frank realization that the path to saving our climate is NOT building out a brand new, renewable energy system of the same gargantuan global scale as the fossil fuel one, powering an essentially indistinguishable massive, global, consumption-based, wasteful economy. That is not going to work. It’s just not going to, and all the Stamford Solutions Projects in the world aren’t going to change that.

    Without economic de-growth and a new finance economics that is stable without growth, it looks like a very, very bumpy ride to me.

    Reply
    • wili

       /  February 27, 2016

      +1

      Reply
    • The calculus goes like this —

      You can burn more fossil fuels to keep searching for more fossil fuels, or you can burn less and less fossil fuels as larger portions of the system become more efficient and renewables take up a greater portion of that system.

      De growth should be re-imagined as austerity for the wealthy, help for the poor. The best way to do this is to increase taxes on carbon consumption and to provide a dividend or incentive for those without means to transition to non carbon consumption lifestyles.

      The broader framing of the issue as a growth issue fails to take into account structural inequalities that are now contributing to the problem.

      To quantify the issue better —

      Under a pure rapid transition to renewables and changes in land management, additions of atmospheric carbon capture approach (land use change, BCCS, changes to agriculture, bio char etc), we can probably limit atmospheric CO2 to between 450 and 500 ppm this Century. That’s not enough to miss 2C. However, it’s a far, far more desirable path than BAU, or even the midrange path we now appear to be struggling to achieve. If you add in the transitional targeted carbon taxes and/or tax and dividend, you can both rapidly reduce emissions from the top of the economic scale (people who fly frequently, people who own 5 houses or their own jet airplane, people who individually own and drive a single fossil fuel automobile, people who eat food flown and trucked and shipped across the world by a fossil fuel powered set of machines). If such policies were rapidly put in place you could conceivably limit end peak CO2 from human sources to between 435 and 470 ppm.

      That would be ideal.

      Qualifying the problem as one of consumption and not of population actually enables you to put together policies that push for a more rapid set of solutions. In addition, breaking out the all-too-vague and misunderstood term of growth to consumption enables a better understanding of the situation among policy makers and the public at large.

      The focus now should be to push the scale of potential future harm down as rapidly as possible and that means policies specifically aimed at fossil fuel consumption and consumption related to carbon emissions. Population restraint policies help over longer terms and timescales and should not be ignored. However the center of gravity for dealing with warming is in reducing carbon-emission based consumption to zero.

      Reply
      • dnem

         /  February 27, 2016

        I mostly agree Robert. But I still see most people without even a clue of the predicament we’re in. And for many who do (recent Gates media blitz for one) it’s often this “we can have it all, just powered by renewables” BS. We can’t. But if I could do ONE thing, it would surely be a significant and rising carbon tax with dividend. It’s the only chance.

        Reply
        • Absolutely agree here. It’s the consumption side of growth that really hurts us here. We should be very clear that there are no magical solutions and that we need some serious belt tightening at the top of economic spectrums to make this work while at the same time doing all we can to care for the least fortunate who will be hit first and hardest by climate change.

      • wili

         /  February 27, 2016

        “De growth should be re-imagined as austerity for the wealthy, help for the poor.”

        Nicely put.

        Reply
  28. mlparrish

     /  February 27, 2016

    California blowout led to largest U.S. methane release ever
    February 25, 2016 – University of California, Davis
    Summary:
    The Aliso Canyon natural gas well blowout, first reported on Oct. 23, 2015, released over 100,000 tons of the powerful greenhouse gas methane before the well was sealed on Feb. 11, according to the first study of the accident published. The results confirm that Aliso Canyon is the largest methane leak in U.S. history.

    Reply
      • mlparrish

         /  February 27, 2016

        One more comment and I will retire from the field, but all these figures scare me and I don’t see a break in logic, though I may be all wet:

        The radiative forcings in Figure 1 are from 2011, but let’s plug in current CO2 as 402 and assume the other ratios are more or less equivalent.
        If 402 CO2 gives a radiative forcing of 1.68, then that of 2.29 is a CO2e of 548.

        Done another way with current measurements:
        CO2………………………………………………………… 402
        Methane mean 1830 ppb, using GWP values and lifetimes from 2013 IPCC AR5 p714, methane of 86 @ 20 yr. (since mean levels are not decreasing, this figure should be operative) and minus 700 ppb baseline…………. 97 (note less than equivalent Fig.1)
        At this point CO2e is 499, then add:
        Other short lived gases using the +0.68 ratio in Fig. 1 (keeping in mind that the GWP of HFC, CFC, CF4 range from 1500 to 5340)…… 163
        Total………………….. 662 COe

        Such variation would drive a physicist to distraction, but nonetheless the figures are in range and very high. Given that an ice age ended with an approximate 63% increase CO2e (CO2 + methane), these figures are way out of any known values. They suggest we are already at or beyond a doubling from preindustrial values. Arrhenius’s calculation was a 5-6C increase for CO2 doubling (why did he chose doubling?), close to some current models.

        Reply
        • Sorry to say that this is pretty amazingly inaccurate. There’s some double counting going on here due to the fact that methane is a short lived gas. GWP of methane is 20 times CO2 over the 500 year timescale. Meaningful total forcing would be 1/3 peak due to shorter lifespan (warming lag vs response). IPCC actually counts a bit higher at 40 GWP. And your math on the other greenhouse gasses is completely fuzzy. The current CO2e now in the range of 485 ppm is an established baseline we have a source and solid science for (we will cross the 490 ppm threshold come April).

      • Kevin Jones

         /  February 27, 2016

        Re: “…drive a physicist to distraction…”. Sometimes I return to the 800,000 year ice core data from Dome C and realize that the AVERAGE past 800,000 year global surface temperature (1/2 of Antarctica’s difference) has been about 3C cooler than pre-industrial. CO2 has AVERAGED 220ppm. Methane (CH4) has AVERAGED 500ppb. Today we find ourselves at +4C (and climbing) 400+ppm CO2 (and climbing) and 1,800+ (and climbing) ppb CH4. No idea if this helps. It does give a different perspective, however……Oh yeah, and sea level has averaged some 75 meters BELOW present. amazing…

        Reply
      • mlparrish

         /  February 27, 2016

        I see. The conflict is primarily over methane.
        Thanks for the explanation.

        Reply
        • There’s not much in the way of conflict within the established sciences over methane on the issue of GWP. But it’s a tough gas for laymen to understand due to a high initial RF, a very short atmospheric lifespan, and low competition along its absorption band. To get the full GWP of 105 you have to maintain the current atmospheric concentration for 500 years, but you need an extra 150 to 200 gigatons of methane to do that. Even so you’d only be multiplying the current GWP of methane under IPCC by 2.25.

        • It’s worth noting the IPCC’s shifting of methane GWP from 20 or 25 to 40 is an acknowledgement of its overall impact on short term climate sensitivity due to the fact that a larger portion of its warming related impact tends to be front loaded.

      • mlparrish

         /  February 27, 2016

        Got it, that fits.
        Thanks again.

        Reply
      • mlparrish

         /  February 27, 2016

        Kevin,
        I went back and looked at the Dome C data. That was helpful.
        Thanks.
        M.

        Reply
  29. Griffin

     /  February 27, 2016

    Robert, this is really a great post. It would be good to see this picked up by a major publication. It is very informative and balanced. Not to mention that it is just incredibly relevant to our continued existence!

    Reply
  30. Tina

     /  February 27, 2016

    Thank you, Robert.

    Reply
  31. Cate

     /  February 27, 2016

    Both of the national broadcasters in Canada, the public CBC and the private CTV, have put this story on their Science pages, perhaps because the implications of pollinator extinction for the food supply are not spelled out in the article, but merely hinted at in the last paragraph.

    What is the journalist’s purpose here? In Canadian MSM generally, it’s almost as if climate-related stories are framed and targeted to keep them out of mainstream news, and buried in the business or science pages. It will be interesting to see if the more general “food supply” angle of this story comes out over the next few days.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/pollinators-on-decline-un-report-warns-1.2793688

    Reply
  32. Spike

     /  February 27, 2016

    Emerging 3rd Amazon drought in a decade by my reckoning

    Reply
  33. Jacque

     /  February 27, 2016

    UTAH moving backwards: Gov. Gary Herbert announced Thursday morning that he has suspended the development of Utah’s clean-power implementation plan — a sudden reversal of the state’s previous strategy.

    Utah is one of 27 mostly conservative-led states to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which would limit emissions from power plants, especially coal-fired power plants, and is seen as key to making President Barack Obama’s promises to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint a reality…In a statement, the governor said moving ahead with planning during such uncertainty would not be a judicious use of state resources.

    The Supreme Court stay put on hold the Clean Power Plan’s September 2016 deadline for the first drafts of state implementation plans, removing the need for Utah to prepare to meet that deadline, Stewart said.

    http://www.sltrib.com/news/3582547-155/citing-national-uncertainty-utah-guv-suspends

    I miss Edward Abbey.

    Reply
    • Thanks, another #GOPknew Twitter item. Scheduled.

      Reply
    • – Present tense active: #GOPknows #GOPlies #GOPendangers etc.

      Reply
      • Nice. As a communications guy, though, with respect, I prefer sticking to a) one hashtag instead of many and b) the one (#GOPknew) that plays off an existing moderately popular one (#ExxonKnew). I believe those considerations are likely to magnify the impact, though of course I could be all wet.

        Anyway, since the subject has come up, let me note that in searching for the hashtag #GOPknew, I discovered that another exceptionally talented climate and energy blogger, David Roberts (formerly of Grist, now with Vox), got there before me, about three months ago. I shouldn’t be surprised–he is the guy who proposed the monicker “climate hawk” for people concerned about climate change. I thought that was a great idea.:)

        Reply
  34. Alan

     /  February 27, 2016

    I am glad you are highlighting some of the less known aspects of global warming, would be interested to know based on your findings what your projections of warming might be.

    Reply
  35. – Evidence of methane spikes?

    Dozens of new craters suspected in northern Russia
    By Anna Liesowska
    23 February 2015

    Satellites show giant hole ringed by 20 ‘baby craters’.

    Two of the newly-discovered large craters – also known as funnels to scientists – have turned into lakes, revealed Professor Bogoyavlensky, deputy director of the Moscow-based Oil and Gas Research Institute, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    Examination using satellite images has helped Russian experts understand that the craters are more widespread than was first realised, with one large hole surrounded by as many as 20 mini-craters, The Siberian Times can reveal.

    – Four arctic craters: B1 – famous Yamal hole in 30 kilometres from Bovanenkovo, B2 – recently detected crater in 10 kilometres to the south from Bovanenkovo, B3 – crater located in 90 kilometres from Antipayuta village, B4 – crater located near Nosok village, on the north of Krasnoyarsk region, near Taimyr Peninsula. Picture: Vasily Bogoyavlensky

    Reply
  36. Reply
  37. – Meanwhile — Whether the Weather?

    Reply
  38. We are more than scientists.
    It will take more than science.
    It will take us all, working together, for a better future.

    Reply
  39. utoutback

     /  February 27, 2016

    Just a statement of a practicality from the world of everyday life. While remodeling a town building in UT we decided to switch from propane heat to electric in the form of a heat pump system. When we pulled the old propane tank we found a rusted area with a pin hole from which the gas had been leaking for ?who knows how long?.
    When we moved to OR and were in the process of remodeling this house built in 1972 that has a natural gas line, my wife kept reporting she was smelling a gas odor out the back door. We called the gas company. When their service representative came by he found that a outdoor gas grill hookup was indeed leaking and shut it off.

    I’m pointing these out because they are representative of a system of distributing gas through a pipeline or tank system throughout our country. It’s not just fracking, drilling, mining, etc. that is releasing methane into our atmosphere, but the whole system.

    I keep hearing about how natural gas is so much better than other FFs, but just multiply my experience by a factor of n.

    Also, a (tongue in cheek) comment on population. Every time I exhale I am releasing CO2 into the environment. Now multiply that by 7.2 billion. I think it would help to just stop breathing.

    Reply
    • Greg

       /  February 27, 2016

      Good systems thinking on natural gas. It must be phased out like coal and other fossil fuels. Breathing is part of the existing carbon cycle. Fossil fuels are adding net carbon to the system.

      Reply
    • Steven Blaisdell

       /  February 28, 2016

      Or: we could sequester exhaled CO2 – connect indoor heating/cooling systems to inactive salt mines and pump all that carbon into the ground, use active osmosis to re-oxygenate the return air (!!!) Or: International Stop Breathing Day. Make it a competition.
      Seriously, though – if humans insist on living in hermetically sealed boxes, push the carbon rich air through indoor farms – use the CO2 to grow food, then return the oxygenated air.

      Reply
    • Excellent points, UT.

      Reply
  40. Oldhippie

     /  February 27, 2016

    This should be threaded with the de-growth conversation above but either me or this device is too primitive to find the reply button. Please, people, we could live with a great deal less stuff. Although stuff is not the one-syllable s-word I am thinking of. I just discovered that the city fathers here consider that I live in micro-housing. I did not know that. I thought I lived in splendor. I am sitting here in my 1885 kitchen looking out the bay window at a 50ft. side yard, looking out the other large window at the children playing in the park and supposedly this is poverty. I am wearing bespoke English and Italian clothing that I buy, often unworn, for less than a penny on the dollar. I have a cup of Ethiopian coffee going next to me that the local Mennonite congregation sells to me for what other people pay for Folgers. My electric bill is on the table here, the two of us in this household did not go through 100 kwh last month. By American standards we are poor people. The city is interested in doing something to help us with our plight. We lack nothing. We are overwhelmingly comfortable. We even use incandescent bulbs exclusively, because our aging eyes like the light, because our aging light fixtures blow the new stuff quickly. I will assume most on this forum are not extravagant consumers. Now try to consume less. If you can’t yet sell your car, leave it parked more often. We don’t need massive infrastructure for brand new electric cars nearly so much as we need to walk more. You don’t need solar panels if you turn off the tv and go to bed with the sun. In fact you don’t need a tv at all, you’ll be happier without. And without a lot of other possessions you drag around. Austerity has come to mean kicking poor people in the teeth. How about simplicity? Simplicity would terminate a lot of ridiculous social and economic structures quickly. Then we could talk about how we might continue to exist.

    Reply
    • Great post Old Hippie! Very timely for me this weekend as I am selling my house, donating much of my “stuff” and on a path to living with much less. Thank you.

      The Dalai Lama. “If one’s life is simple, contentment has to come. Simplicity is extremely important for happiness. Having few desires, feeling satisfied with what you have, is very vital: satisfaction with just enough food, clothing, and shelter to protect yourself from the elements.” The Dalai Lama

      Socrates: “The secret of happiness, you see, is not found in seeking more, but in developing the capacity to enjoy less.”

      Reply
      • rustj2015

         /  February 28, 2016

        Or a jaunt into prajna

        “…Mumford’s sense of the contradictions inherent in the mass market and the active desires of people revealed his tremendous faith in the creative needs of humanity …
        ‘Creative life, in all its manifestations, is necessarily a social product … To treat such activity as egoistic enjoyment or as property is merely to brand it as trivial: for the fact is that creative activity is finally the only important business of mankind, the chief justification and the most durable fruit of its sojourn on the planet. The essential task of all sound economic activity is to produce a state in which creation will be a common fact in all experience.’ “
        Lewis Mumford Technics and Civilization

        Reply
      • – Thanks for that, Caroline.

        Reply
    • Steven Blaisdell

       /  February 28, 2016

      I remember a mailer I received from the University of Texas Alumni Association 7-8 years ago, in which the lead article discussed recycling. Not unusual, even for Texas, except the author pointedly and repeatedly cited the well known adage “Reuse, Recycle.” Conspicuously missing, of course, was the all important, primary imperative “Reduce”; in fact the article, if I remember correctly, touched on how recycling in no way meant UT alumni should have to or be expected to restrict their acquisition of stuff. The mailer was, of course, a plea for money which needless to say they didn’t get, nor will they ever (not that the UT Alumni Association needs my contribution).

      More to the point – how entrenched endless consumption is in this society, deeply ingrained into every aspect of typical American experience. Almost every minute of almost every waking hour has now been effectively commodified, especially now with almost every American directly connected to and tracked by some kind of marketing force, all day, every day, captured by images flickering across a screen as butterflies once fluttered across our knowing.

      But we don’t know this anymore. What we know – I mean, what a ‘typical’ American knows – is less and less about butterflies, and more and more about…..nothing, nothing that can’t be bought, sold, traded, or capitalized; nothing that has intrinsic value; nothing that means anything outside material profit. “Reduce” consumption? You might as well say “Stop breathing!” Same meaning, same end. The arc of American style materialism and consumption is clear: when life, culture, history, the fabric of a society rest almost entirely – no, entirely – in an ideology of buying and selling (“The business of America is business”), when every aspect of mainstream life impressing the vast majority of a population has been consumed by the possession, pursuit, desiring of and imprisonment to materialist means and ends, then regardless of any necessity, even existential, for a change to significantly reduced consumption…I hope for the best, but have to be ready for the worst.

      More precisely, Americans will not give up either their McDonald’s or McLear jets without a fight, which has just been warming up the past thirty years. It will take considerable external forcing – either climatic, governmental, legal, or cultural, and watching Trump resonate so strongly with so many, in such a classically authoritarian way, coupled with Republican states’ knee jerk rejection of Obama’s climate measures and the remarkably hostile Republican rejectionist stance towards any Democratic attempts at governance or lawmaking, makes me wonder how effective even an environmentally friendly Supreme Court and White House would be as long as Republicans control Congress.

      One thing’s for sure – something of significant, deep worth and meaning will have to be promulgated to replace the core American value of consumption. I personally like the answers Sanders has to this problem; I suspect, however, that the way into a typical American’s consciousness is through the very fog that must be superceded. This will not happen easily or quickly, unless there’s a much more immediate and tangible threat than AGW. But expecting America and Americans to reduce consumption and shift away from a materialist Weltanschauung out of some moral or civic sense of duty, or from a reasonable or practical sense of necessity, in the face of a diffuse threat like AGW is not realistic. At least not in a timely manner, and one thing we don’t have….is time.

      Reply
      • Cate

         /  February 28, 2016

        It all goes back to capitalism, in my view. “Reduce” got deleted because no-one could figure out how to make money from buying less stuff. Reusing—repurposing—can bring in a bit of money, but nothing in comparison to the gigantic cash cow, recycling. And don’t get me started on what a travesty that is here in my neck of the Great Unwhite North.

        Reply
    • Hippie, these are good thoughts. But my thoughts also bend to the captive consumer. When you turn on that light, it should be wind or solar or something that doesn’t emit carbon sending the power. When you get in that car, it shouldn’t be dumping the crap into the air. When you eat that food, it shouldn’t have gotten to you in a way that put out a hundred pounds of methane or CO2. The game changer is to free the captive. To liberate the consumer from fossil fuel emissions entirely.

      Reply
  41. rustj2015

     /  February 28, 2016

    I am the guardian of life
    and death
    all my children come back to me
    I call you
    conjure you
    hide you in my breast
    you nourish me with your bones
    and live again.
    I am your Mother Earth
    your dark Mother Earth.
    If you insist on destroying me
    you will destroy yourselves.
    Wake up
    my children
    listen to my cry.

    — Claribel Alegría, “Gaia’s Cry”

    Reply
  42. redskylite

     /  February 28, 2016

    I remember reading of a yearly dividend, financed indirectly from oil revenues, paid by the state government to every citizen who lives in Alaska, and seeing photos of happy smiling faces by grateful young citizens on receiving the benefit.

    Maybe I thought that blinds them to some of the changes happening in Alaska, that should be apparent to all who dwell there.

    I was relieved to see that Climate Change is not going completely unnoticed and is worthy of the local media.

    Newsminer – the voice of interior Alaska . . .

    “we have gotten much better at measuring those changes. We people and our scientific instruments have now occupied the top of the globe for long enough to record what has happened during the last few decades. Long-term data sets have some punch.”

    http://www.newsminer.com/features/sundays/alaska_science_forum/the-many-signs-of-climate-change-in-the-far-north/article_be3f0724-dcfe-11e5-a8d1-cb88757431aa.html

    Reply
  43. wili

     /  February 28, 2016

    Is there an ignore button somewhere, so that we can all not waste any more time on harq…’s idiocy?

    Reply
  44. – More energetic weather for Pac.

    Reply
  45. “Climate change is not a far-off threat for tomorrow’s generals. It is here to be dealt with today”
    Michael Thomas, retired Australian Army major

    Taking aim at climate change: Australia’s military sees rising challenges

    When Cyclone Winston barrelled into Fiji last week, Australia’s first response was to dispatch RAAF Globemaster cargo planes with urgent aid and defence personnel to help the battered Pacific populace.

    The amphibious vessel HMAS Canberra is also expected to make landfall on Tuesday, bringing more assistance to a nation hit by the strongest tempest – with sustained winds of 287km/h – ever recorded in the southern hemisphere.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/taking-aim-at-climate-change-australias-military-sees-rising-challenges-20160226-gn48wg.html

    Reply
  46. – Dear Harquebus (historical — noun: harquebus an early type of portable gun supported on a tripod or a forked rest.),

    You say, “Growth, both economic and population, is the cancer that is killing us.”

    While there is truth to this, it ignores the fact that it is mostly the lifestyle choices made by individuals that present the greatest threat.
    The main choice, and driver of the current economy, is the extraction, and burning, of fossil fuels.

    To my mind, this is our greatest challenge as well.
    OUT

    Reply
    • Well, I just looked at the incoming email address for Harquebus and guess what?

      It’s this —

      tony.abbot.mp@aph.gov.au

      Someone has got to be taking a piss here.

      Reply
      • “Harquebus an early type of portable gun supported on a tripod or a forked rest.”

        – A supported roving ‘sniper’ (troll) by anther name.
        It got my attention — am always thinking security. Wherever I am.
        OUT

        Reply
        • Taking down all related threads. There’s nothing that angers me more than these cynical and ill informed attempts by AEI and the like to turn environmentalists against renewables. There’s no way out of this mess if they succeed in taking down this essential set of replacement energy sources.

      • 0lj0

         /  February 29, 2016

        Just fyi on aussie slang – its “taking the piss”, not “taking a piss”. And I wouldn’t assume harq. isn’t Tony Abbott himself, he’s a megalomaniac suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.

        Love your work, y’all are inspiring.

        Reply
        • Thanks for the clairification on Aussie slang, 0l. Will keep it in mind if we have further ‘Abbott’ issues. And if that is the case, I find it to be pretty humorous and silly. If he wants to waste his time shoveling sand, then have at.

    • I’m going to sleep. If Harquebus or his supporter Jeremy gets back through the filter before I wake, you guys are free to bring your complaints to ‘Mr Abbott’ for his absolutely amoral and reprehensible role in attempting to kill off Australia’s renewable energy industry.

      Scribbler out …

      Reply
  47. Abel Adamski

     /  February 28, 2016

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment

    Speaking at a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday, shortly after accepting an endorsement from New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Trump pledged if elected president to “open up our libel laws so when [newspapers] write purposely negative stories … we can sue them and make lots of money”.

    This move, he said, would mean that “when the New York Times or the Washington Post writes a hit piece, we can sue them”.

    Welcome to 1984 and the Ministry of Truth

    Reply
    • Walter

       /  February 28, 2016

      Defamation laws in the US are defined at the state level. There are no federal “libel laws” for the Donald to “open up” and the president has no power to alter state laws. It’s also not the prerogative of the president to alter standing case law and Supreme Court decisions.

      This is among the many, many basic things Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand about how government in the United States works. (At the most recent Republican debate, Trump went on and on about how his sister, a federal judge, shouldn’t be criticized for “signing a bill” because Supreme Court justice Alito “also signed that bill” — FFS even Sarah Palin knows that judges don’t sign bills.)

      Reply
  48. Bill H

     /  February 28, 2016

    Harq,

    If you really were “trying to help” you wouldn’t immediately assume censorship. WordPress will delete contributions containing multiple links – many contributors here have fallen vicitm to this phenomenon. As an apparently seasoned blogosphere debater yourself, I’m very surprised you haven’t come across that. The fact that you have successfully posted two comments, despite the abuse of Robert that they contain, does rather undermine your thesis, doesn’t it? Or maybe you are “invincible in debate” despite being unable to recognise logical flaws in your own arguments.

    That would indeed be a remarkable achievement.

    Reply
    • He’s not trying to help. He’s spreading bad information, agitation, and despair. He’s baiting posters and resorting to personal attacks. The very definition of a bad actor. My policy is to not support misinformation and attacks against those supporting rational solutions in the forum. My policy is not to support fossil fuel industry messaging which is now rabidly, desperately anti-renewables. My policy here is to promote a forum that is solutions and action focused.

      If those coming to the forum can’t make a positive contribution, then they are not welcome. This is not an open forum. It’s a forum designed to support experts and those promoting positive action. If one can’t promote nuclear energy, for example, without using fossil fuel company misinformation to attack renewables, then one is not acting honestly in forum. If one cannot promote conservation without attacking renewable energy in forum, then this is also unhelpful. If one baits those who are actively promoting valid, viable, and far-reaching solutions that are now rapidly moving forward then one is not a part of the solution, one is part of the problem.

      The censorship argument is moot, because the ground rules from jump were that we wouldn’t give equal time to the dishonest and the deluded. It’s not about having a debate here. You can find the ugly and dumbed down debate pretty much anywhere you go. The time for debate is over and the time for action — swift and decisive is upon us. We are here to reduce harm. What H pushes here would multiply it.

      Renewable energy denial is alive and active and promoted by the fossil fuel industry who knows renewable energy is a threat to their investments and infrastructure. Investments that will result in extraction and burning and emissions on and on into the future. Infrastructure that is now already inflicting so much in the way of harm. Renewable energy now is resulting in more and more fossil fuel being kept in the ground. It is reducing the power base of those who support harmful emissions. And it is eroding the economic structures upon which the polluting energy giants depend. Increasingly, individuals now have access to energy choice because of renewable energy. They are now empowered to switch rather than wait for foot dragging utilities to install the next wind farm or solar farm or nuclear power station. People, with renewables, can make the choice to reduce harm themselves and to switch on an individual basis. And in a world that is growing increasingly dangerous because of the very fossil fuel emissions they would replace, they are increasingly incentivized to make that choice.

      This is an essential freedom of our age. One some actors, like H here, are trying to deny and to remove. It is just as destructive as climate change denial. And H is the face of it. And it is for this reason, that we here fight to free a consumer who has been captive for so long to all the terrible and the bad and the harmful and destructive energy sources, that we will fight for energy choice, that we will put this choice into the hands of the people, that we will not allow our children to be captive to the cynical and the powerful and the spiritually compromised. We will not go quietly. We will not give in to the falsehoods. We will act and we will support renewables because it is the right and moral and just and effective thing to do.

      And H … Well he can go spread his lies and untruths elsewhere.

      Reply
  49. dnem

     /  February 28, 2016

    I hope I’m not treading on thin ice here (and there is plenty of that in the latest arctic sea ice data!). I have not seen the bulk of Harq’s posts, as they have been “moderated”. But I will say this, I too am very concerned about the inherent physical limitations of a “renewables economy” and especially the bootstrap problem of the buildout. The rare earths problem will also likely loom large. Robert’s key mantra of “get off fossil fuels now!” is, of course, undeniably correct. That is job one, and we have excellent renewables on the shelf that can replace a large part of the energy demand, today. Not getting on with that is not just stupid, it’s suicide. BUUUUUT, the road to running this planet of 7.3 and growing billion souls on renewables looks incredibly fraught to me. I think we ALL need a big dose of Old Hippy in our lives, not just the 1 %. Of course the 2 billion poorest need a boost, but the global middle class on up needs a major, MAJOR, attitude adjustment.

    Have y’all read through any of Tom Murphy’s Do The Math blog: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/ I highly recommend it. Great, clear thinking on many of the issues confronting the “transition” by a guy who walks the walk.

    Reply
    • utoutback

       /  February 28, 2016

      One of the most significant methods of getting off FF without a significant increase in renewables or new technology is conservation. When the economy went in the tank in 2008-9 and we had a massive government spending and tax cut plan, we missed a huge opportunity on this front. We could have rehabilitated our public buildings and homes with insulation, energy efficient windows, led lighting, etc. We could have upgraded and expanded our public transportation (think electric light rail). Instead we bailed out banks and spent a significant portion of the $$ on tax cuts.
      These opportunities are still available.
      Also, a carbon tax with the money being directly invested in alternatives to burning FF would go a long way to financing a large and rapid shift.

      Reply
      • Actually, though helpful, conservation can’t generate the kind of transition we need without zero carbon sources such as renewables. I find the implication that renewables may not be desirable to be nonsensical at this time. They’re a huge help. I’d say we can’t save civilization without them.

        Reply
      • dnem

         /  February 28, 2016

        I hope you don’t interpret my comments as saying renewables aren’t “desirable”!! I have a 6.11 kw array on my house that I installed in 2010. Put my money where my mouth is. Only saying it will be very tough to power our current consumption-based economy entirely on renewables, much less a vastly more power hungry one in the future. A big part of the puzzle means significant rentrenchment across the socio-economic spectrum. Smaller houses, less travel, less meat, less globalized consumer crap, etc. My family and I try and live a fairly low-impact life but I still feel like a gross, over-consumptive pig.

        Reply
        • Dnem, there’s a difference between an honest concern and someone who’s obviously trying to drop wedge issues into an otherwise positive forum. I hear your very honest concerns. We might not agree on all the schemantics, but we’re headed in similar directions.

          RE is definitely a class one energy source. It absolutely could support a consumer type society with high material throughput and dangerous externalities outside of fossil fuels — but over longer time-scales than the climate crisis. The benefit of renewable energy now is its ability to substantially abate and, perhaps if we act fast enough, turn back what looks like a developing hothouse extinction. It is for that reason that I find its rapid development and implementation essential for dealing with the risks we now face.

          Of course, the swiftest and most likely to succeed mitigation response is one where human beings draw down their materials consumption while at the same time adding in renewables and increasing related efficiencies. Note this is an inclusive set, not relying on a single response, but on synergistic responses. In any crisis situation, synergistic response is most likely to succeed. But when you knock out one pillar, the response falls apart. Which is why all these various (fossil fuel industry incited) attacks on renewables are really very dangerous to those of us fighting to save lives and prevent harm.

          In any case, I thought this might cheer you up, so I’m posting it below:

          http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/26/bicycling-triples-in-london-while-driving-halves/

          Bicycling in London has tripled while driving has been cut in half. Would be fantastic if we could do this for all the major cities in the US.

  50. Abel Adamski

     /  February 28, 2016

    Strange perspective, meanwhile in the real world

    http://climatecrocks.com/2016/02/27/could-oil-crash-sooner-than-you-thought/

    It’s time for oil investors to start taking electric cars seriously.

    In the next two years, Tesla and Chevy plan to start selling electric cars with a range of more than 200 miles priced in the $30,000 range. Ford is investing billions, Volkswagen is investing billions, and Nissan and BMW are investing billions. Nearly every major carmaker—as well as Apple and Google—is working on the next generation of plug-in cars.

    This is a problem for oil markets. OPEC still contends that electric vehicles will make up just 1 percent of global car sales in 2040. Exxon’s forecast is similarly dismissive.

    The oil price crash that started in 2014 was caused by a glut of unwanted oil, as producers started cranking out about 2 million barrels a day more than the market supported. Nobody saw it coming, despite the massively expanding oil fields across North America. The question is: How soon could electric vehicles trigger a similar oil glut by reducing demand by the same 2 million barrels?

    Those who claimed low oil prices would crash renewables (other than biofuels) were wrong. The reason is simple. Wind and solar power make electricity. Oil makes less than four percent of world and under one percent of U.S. electricity, so oil has almost nothing to do with electricity. Thus in 2015, as oil prices kept skidding, global additions of renewable power set a new record, adding about 121 GW of wind and solar power alone. Renewables’ $329 billion investment was up 4% from 2014, says Bloomberg New Energy Finance (which tracks each transaction), but it added 30 percent more capacity because renewables got much cheaper. Solar power is booming even in the Persian Gulf, where it beats $20 oil.

    Natural gas does compete with solar and windpower, and its price tends to move with oil’s, but cheaper gas doesn’t much affect renewable power either. That’s because new wind and solar power often beat even the operating costs of the most efficient gas-fired power plants anyway, even without counting the market value of gas’s price volatility.

    Reply
  51. Mike

     /  February 28, 2016

    Anyone have any idea what is going on with these carbon monoxide readings today?

    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-124.31,34.67,2189/loc=-124.038,40.355

    Reply
  52. Reply
  53. WS Fairbanks ‏@NWSFairbanks 3h3 hours ago

    There has only been one other winter where Fairbanks didn’t hit -30°F by 2/28. The winter of 1976-77 Fairbanks didn’t hit -30 at all. #akwx

    Reply
  54. Reply
  55. – 0228 Arctic +6.46 C Temp. Anomaly

    Reply
  56. Jay M

     /  February 29, 2016

    I think the decision is to go all in on the renewable path and dedicate fossil fuel consumption to replacement, even though these replacement mechanisms may be time delimited themselves. The argument is that we have virtually infinite intelligence, let’s try.

    Reply
  57. mlparrish

     /  February 29, 2016

    That location is about Eureka, near the end of the Cascadia Subduction Zone where it abuts the Mendocino Fracture Zone.

    Reply
  58. Syd Bridges

     /  February 29, 2016

    At last there’s been a bigger drop in the Nino 3.4 index this week down to 2.1 deg C from 2.4 last week. I guess they will publish the DJF ONI next week. Now to look at NSIDC and CT…..

    Reply
  59. OceanicEstate

     /  February 29, 2016

    Melting Ice Sheets Can Cause Earthquakes, Study Finds
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080314-warming-quakes.html

    Reply
  60. I came to this conclusion years ago after reading a couple of studies that basically explained the Natural Cycle worked like this

    First came the rise in Temperature which in turn caused a thawing which released Carbon/CO2 into the atmosphere which caused more warming which caused more thawing and Carbon releases …lather rinse repeat

    However in the Unnatural Cycle of today it’s the CO2 that is leading and causing the temperature to increase, the exact opposite of the Natural Cycle. However the Natural Cycle’s dynamic of thawing releasing even more Carbon/CO2 is still very much in play and once we hit that tipping point, and we may well have already judging by the increased rate of change in both heat and CO2 increases in the last 2 years and likely this one also, then all Hades is going to break loose ,,,,

    Reply
  61. The location of this spike is not confirmed to have occurred in the Arctic. We should be more responsible in our reporting.

    Reply
  1. links | keep resisting!
  2. 2 C Coming On Faster Than We Feared — Atmospheric Methane Spikes to Record 3096 Parts Per Billion | The Shorts Magazine.Com
  3. DEI MINSTE | FORFATTERNES KLIMAAKSJON §112 - NORWEGIAN WRITER'S CLIMATE CAMPAIGN §112
  4. Os 2 C Aproximam-se Mais Depressa do que Temíamos – Picos de Metano Atmosférico de 3096 Partes por Bilião – Aquecimento Global Descontrolado
  5. Sky Rocketing Arctic Methane Levels Help Tell Part of the Much Bigger Story of Major Change | Climate Solutions and Analysis
  6. Os 2 C Aproximam-se Mais Depressa do que Temíamos - Picos de Metano Atmosférico de 3096 Partes por Bilião - Aquecimento Global

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 7,002 other followers

%d bloggers like this: