2015 hottest year on record – the Planet didn’t get the Green Party memo on the success of Paris Climate Change Conference?

36
1

2015-heat-map

We are in a tipping point scenario now…

2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record, Scientists Say

Scientists reported Wednesday that 2015 was the hottest year in the historical record by far, breaking a mark set only the year before — a burst of heat that has continued into the new year and is roiling weather patterns all over the world.

In the contiguous United States, the year was the second-warmest on record, punctuated by a December that was both the hottest and the wettest since record-keeping began. One result has been a wave of unusual winter floods coursing down the Mississippi River watershed.

Scientists started predicting a global temperature record months ago, in part because an El Niño weather pattern, one of the largest in a century, is releasing an immense amount of heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere. But the bulk of the record-setting heat, they say, is a consequence of the long-term planetary warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

“The whole system is warming up, relentlessly,” said Gerald A. Meehl, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

…climate deniers and minimalists will continue their empty ego driven denial, the rest of us have to cope with the consequences.

Despite the self congratulatory hyperbole of NGOs and Environmental movements desperate to make any inch look like a win, the Paris Climate Change Conference was a failure. We are at risk of run away climate change now, at a speed never before seen on this planet in its entire history.

It n normally takes hundreds of thousands of years for CO2 to naturally build to the levels we have now. We’ve artificially done that in a mere couple of centuries. The ramifications are extreme and the response needs to be radical.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Currently we have a Climate Minister who knows nothing about climate change, NZ water being returned for being too polluted, a do nothing public policy and a political spectrum not responding fast enough.

We need the debate now.

TDB will live stream an alternative Climate Change Conference on 14th February to begin that conversation.

36 COMMENTS

  1. Martyn,

    Thank you for continuing to highlight the most pressing issue of the times.

    I spend 15 years attempting to get NZ governments (central and local) to respond sanely to this issue and attempting to awaken the ‘sleepy Hobbits’ and deniers that make up the bulk of the NZ population, all to no avail.

    Having written 5 books on the matter, given speeches, radio interviews, television interviews, and having arranged for Guy McPherson to come to NZ, I gave up around 3 years ago in the face of witting ignorance, apathy and denial.

    Witting ignorance, apathy and denial continue to rein supreme, even as the world burns.

    In addition to 2015 being by far the hottest year ever, 2016 is forecast to be even hotter. How could it not be when greenhouse gases are at an all-time high and accumulating in the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate?

    The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 403ppm, which is more than 3ppm higher than a year ago. Atmospheric CO2 will break through 307ppm in May, and outlier results in excess of 408ppm are likely.

    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.png

    The annual rate of atmospheric accumulation is nearly 5 times what is was when Keeling began measuring (1958).

    https://www.co2.earth/co2-acceleration

    This implies accelerating planetary meltdown (Abrupt Climate Change), which must inevitably lead to an uninhabitable (for humans and other large mammals) planet in a matter of decades.

    Since the spectre of abrupt Climate change came on the scene (early 2000s), NZ government efforts have been focused on accelerating this catastrophic scenario (carbon trading and carbon credits etc. were only ever financial scams designed to make money for individuals whilst ignoring the key issue of the burning of fossil fuels).

    Making everything that mattes worse faster is still the prime focus of government activity, as demonstrated by the ramming through of TTPA, the focus on expanding road and air transport, the focus on promoting corporatized sport and tourism etc.

    I pity every healthy person under the age of 60 because they are the ones who will be worst affected by this burgeoning anthropogenic catastrophe on the path to extinction.

    .

  2. explain how sea levels have risen 60 metres over the last 2000 years when for most of that time, man was not producing gasses. Explain how we have gone from an ice age to present before man produced green house gasses.

    • That is just so plain silly it’s hardly worth responding to -such is the desperation of climate change deniers to hang on to ridiculous notions.
      Dave,

      The remains of numerous Roman settlements built on the coast and along estuaries as ports 2000 years ago are…. wait for it….just above present-day sea level.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausentum

      According to your preposterous narrative of a 60 metre rise in sea level such sites would now be 55 metres under water.

      Anyway, there is now evidence that CO2 levels and climate disruption commenced about 8,000 years ago, corresponding with the rise of ancient civilisations based on cutting down trees and mass production of grains.

      Pollution of the atmosphere through industrial activity was ramped up from about 1780 and went into ‘hyperdrive’ in the late 20th century.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2iyU4XjmaI

    • @Dave
      I could just as easily ask you to explain how to Earth has grown to 50 times the size it was 50 years ago. The answer to both your questions is the same as the answer to mind; it hasn’t happened, and you (or whoever you’re copying this divel from) is making stuff up. If you want to convince it that it has happened, try providing some references to *evidence*. The evidence that disproves the most common “climate skeptic” tropes is collected here, for your convenience:
      http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

      @AFewKnowThheTruth
      I respectfully suggest that the holier-than-thou, doomer attitude your comments here comes from is itself part of the problem, as explained here:
      http://www.salon.com/2014/03/02/how_to_debate_climate_change_deniers_without_scaring_them_off/

      • Daniel,

        Unfortunately it has nothing to do with evidence or techniques in debating. But it does have a lot to do with manipulation of society by tiny groups of sociopaths.

        The item you referred to includes this:

        ‘But what do I know about the fossil fuel industry? I study literature. I am not a scientist. My specialties are agrarian novels and Modernist aesthetics, not cloud formation or sea ice. When making arguments, I have to trust the vast majority of scientists who agree that humans are changing the climate, that the changes will have huge and unpleasant effects, and that we should really get our act together and fix the problem. The scientists’ job is to perform and publish the research that supports these claims. My job — and my students’ job — starts where peer review ends: we need to make scientific evidence digestible and believable to a general audience. Since solving climate change requires mass engagement, how we talk about the problem matters as much as the science that confirms its urgency.’

        Well I do know a lot about ‘the fossil fuel industry’ and science. The evidence for anthropogenic abrupt climate change became irrefutable in the 1980s (though the warnings go back over a century to the work of Arrhenius).

        What happened was that vested interest groups -particularly those connected with profits from fossil fuels- funded massive misinformation campaigns to ensure the public were kept thoroughly confused and ensure there was no proper public debate. Central, local government and the corporate media also ensured there was no proper public debate. At this very late stage there is no ‘solving climate change’.

        Stephanie Bernhard was uninformed-misinformed/deluded when she wrote this:

        ‘To reverse our planet’s destruction, we need more than scientific data. We need to refine our message to the masses’

        As a scientist (Honours Chemistry), I can assure you there is no ‘reversing our planet’s destruction.’ Sadly, there is not even going to be slowing down of the rate of destruction (well not within time frames that matter): the economic-financial system DEAMNDS AND GETS faster destruction. And the bulk of the populaces of most nations DEMAND AND GET faster destruction.

        Most people living in ‘developed nations’ think they are each entitled to 100 ‘energy slaves’ -that is mechanical devices which convert energy at a rate equivalent to 100 humans working continuously. supplying them with food, water, heating, transport, entertainment etc. and easing the physical labour of mowing lawns, cutting down trees, preparing food etc.

        The masses have been carefully trained over several generations to believe they are entitled to motorised transport, air travel, heated or air conditioned homes and offices, readily available consumer products of all kinds etc.

        Only immediate abandonment of ALL MINING AND FOSSIL FUEL extraction could provide any glimmer of hope of the Earth’s temperature not rising beyond the point of uninhabitability. And we know for certain that the only remedy will not be adopted. Indeed, most nations that have not already severely depleted their fossil fuel reserves are fully committed to INCREASING FOLLSIL FUEL EXTRACTION. Besides, all ‘the markets’, the sacred markets which are ‘worshipped’ daily, are intricately linked to fossil fuel extraction and mining

        Unstoppable geochemical forces have been triggered, as is clear from the update of atmospheric CO2, which is now over 403ppm; that is at least 80ppm above the safe level that prevents planetary meltdown, and is 3.33ppm above the level just a year ago.

        Over the coming year the global economy will add another (approximately) 35 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere and this time next year atmospheric CO2 will be at least 406ppm.

        And if the global economic system were to come to a sudden complete stop, we would then be faced with the big rise in temperatures associated with decreased Global Dimming (Global Dimming masking the effect of Global Warming by 1 to 3oC).

        Guy McPherson has just posted a new essay: ‘Six paths to Near-term Human Extinction.

        http://guymcpherson.com/2016/01/six-paths-to-near-term-human-extinction/

        I suggest that if you have any EVIDENCE humanity is not careening rapidly towards self-annihilation (and taking numerous other species down with it) you present you evidence there for discussion.

        Or here at TDB.

  3. BTW Howard Lyman is quoted in the documentary Cowspiracy, which seeks to understand why the largest factor of climate change is being ignored:

    “You can’t be an environmentalist and eat animal products. Period. Kid yourself if you want: if you wanna feed your addiction, so be it, but don’t call yourself an environmentalist.”
    http://i.imgur.com/PZ5mdnD.png

  4. At least a debate i s happening. there were 2 geologists interviewed on radio about the ice age, climate change and so on. The 60 meter figure was theirs, not mine.

    • Dave – who were these phantom scientists? Let me guess; Dr Victor Frankenstein and Bruce “The Hulk” Banner.

      If you’re trying to present a case, all I can say is; thank god you’re on the Deniers’ side.

    • Dave,

      Warming and cooling DID occur naturally as a consequence of irregularities in the Earth’s orbit and volcanic activity until humans began to drastically alter the biosphere and drastically alter the composition of the atmosphere.

      If you had bothered to view the previously linked video you would have seen that the natural cycle would have generated another ice age, but in practice the addition of a massive quantity of CO2 the atmosphere has completely overwhelmed the natural cycle and has now caused severe overheating.

      For the past 800,000 years the average atmospheric CO2 concentration was 230ppm, with occasional peaks of 260ppm and toughs of 180ppm.

      It is now 403ppm, 140ppm above normal and rising at an unprecedented rate which is increasing.

      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

      Continuing on the same path, of desequestering carbon (in the forms of coal, oil and natural gas) and releasing it into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide will render the Earth uninhabitable for most extant species within a few decades, perhaps less, depending on the interaction of mutually-reinforcing positive feedbacks, .

      Nothing could be simpler. A plague of greedy apes overpopulates the Earth and messes up the geochemical systems and biological systems that make life possible, so life becomes impossible.

      • Well, the jury is still out on that.

        The climate models developed in the early 90’s have failed to predict the pause in warming that has occurred in the first part of this century (the 2015 result has more to do with El Nino than any long term rise): Non-predictive science is bad science.

        What we know:

        1/We are increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere

        2/ What has historically caused climate change prior to industrialisation

        What we don’t know:

        1/ How the increased CO2 will affect climate

        2/ How much of the current observed change is due to natural causes and how much is anthropogenic

        • Andrew – probably because scientists are still gathering information on AGW climate change. Ice core samples, satellite data, atmospheric sampling at Hawaii – these take time to collect.

          But everything collected thus far points to global warming taking place as humans dump more CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

          Did you really think we could cause massive pollution on a planetary scale and get away with it? Did the near destruction of the Ozone Layer caused by human-induced CFCs not give you an inkling that industrialisation and intensive agricultural activity – coupled with global de-forestation (natural carbon sinks) – would have consequences?

          Think it through.

          • Yep Frank, what you say sounds fairly reasonable at a superficial level, although the science is rather more complex than that.

            Briefly, the CO2 molecule can only block a very limited spectral band of light from the sun and there is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to block most of that. So the basic physics suggests that the Earth would see a very slight warming then plateau at that level. However, the theory of global warming is based on a positive feedback mechanism in the upper atmosphere for which we still have no proof, because the runaway heating we were told about in the 90’s which should be happening now, simply hasn’t happened. So all bets are off at this stage.

            In my view, global warming is just a symptom of a much bigger issue: There are too many people on this planet! Other symptoms include massive deforestation in third world countries and the wiping out of pelagic fish stocks. So instead of wasting time attending conferences on unproven theoretical climate science, environmentalists should be barracking for birth control in the third world:

            Because if climate doesn’t get us, SOMETHING ELSE WILL!

            • So instead of wasting time attending conferences on unproven theoretical climate science, environmentalists should be barracking for birth control in the third world

              So let me see if I’ve got this right…

              Increasing levels of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide started with the industrialisation of the West – especially the United States – and now you’re expecting the Third World to “pay” for increasing greenhouse gas levels by way of birth control?!

              These are gas emissions not initially caused by the Third World, and only added to in recent years.

              Do you realise the crass stupidity of your comment?

      • Dave has discovered a fact about which climate scientists are ignorant!

        He has discovered that SLR has changed in the past due to natural causes!

        Dave asserts that nature has “much more” influence than man. (how does he figure that out?)

        But never mind the pesky questions. Quickly Dave! – you must alert the climate science community, tell them to figure out how much SLR is due to natural causes and how much is down to man. The ignorant corrupt scientists in the pay of Al Gore must have wasted at least three decades doing nothing.

        • 1. Climate change in part happens naturally. Calculating how much is natural and how much is mans influence is not overly complex. The sad part is that the subject is used in an attempt to gain political points, have a crack at the government, industry, or who ever. I know this is a left wing blog site and as such these comments are to be expected. It is a shame however that fiction gets in the way of facts.

          • Climate change in part happens naturally. Calculating how much is natural and how much is mans influence is not overly complex.

            Really?

            Dave, this declares to the world that you are a climate moron. A scientifically challenged buffoon, and not worth any more of my time.

            • If one accepts that sea levels were lower 20000 years ago than they are now then nature (in part) must be causative of their subsequent rising. If you vehemently argue than man is responsible for part of global warming either currently or will be in the future, it is essential to provide some commentary as to what percentage this is. Failing to do so, and calling people names dilutes your argument.

            • Richard:

              We have an enormous volume of data showing more or less continuous climate change prior to industrialisation.

              What factors caused this to happen?

              Are those same factors at work today?

              So one can only conclude that some of the change we’re seeing is due to natural causes, but nobody knows how much.

          • for C02 it’s 3%. To overload the planets ability to absorb C02. All you have to do is produce 3% more C02 than that which occurs naturally

  5. ‘Warm Arctic Storms Aim to Unfreeze the North Pole Again — That’s 55 Degrees (F) Above Normal For January’

    http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2016/01/north-pole-unfreezing-for-seond-time.html

    And Arctic sea ice is already at a recod low.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    Once the ice is gone all incoming heat goes to warming and none to phase change, which means the rate of warming will ramp up phenomenally.

    An ice-free Arctic may occur this year; it may be next.

    We’ll almost certainly know by late August [2016].

    We may have just 7 more months of denial and apathy.

  6. Absolutely every man-made climate denier I know or come across is a white male, over 30. And I’ve met a lot of them.

  7. Absolutely every man-made climate change denier I know or come across is a white male, over 30. And I’ve met a lot of them.

    • um..so what? One could probably argue that white males over 30 are better educated than a lot of demographics.

      • Lets look at the two largest economies. The U.S and China.

        They say that for every 500k people, one genius will emerge.

        Now let’s round off to the nearest 100 million.

        -U.S 300 million = 600 genius level intellects
        -China 1 billion = 2000 genius level intellects

        But all this dosnt account for the fact the U.S intellects compete in a 50 trillion dollar economy, and Chinese intellects compete in a 6 trillion dollar economy.

      • Or one could argue that white males over 30 tend to be less well educated, more conceited, less interested in the future, and have a greater level of vested interest in denial of reality when it comes to the burning of fossil fuels.

        Otherwise known as petrol-heads.

        • Somewhat of a generalization but the hat will fit a few. Anyway, you say and i quote ” carbon dioxide will render the Earth uninhabitable for most extant species within a few decades, perhaps less”. If a meteor was predicted to hit earth in say 40 years and render the earth uninhabitable, scientists and governments from every part of the globe would acknowledge the fact and be be collectively working on a solution. I do not see this with global warming. I see a lot of people who seemingly have an agenda professing doom and gloom, calling people names morons should they dare to disagree. carbon dioxide will render the Earth uninhabitable for most extant species within a few decades, perhaps less?. I dont think so

          • That’s right. You are a moron. Did you know we have climate studies in schools?

            That’s where all the information scientists have been collecting.

          • you say and i quote ” carbon dioxide will render the Earth uninhabitable for most extant species within a few decades, perhaps less”. If a meteor was predicted to hit earth in say 40 years and render the earth uninhabitable, scientists and governments from every part of the globe would acknowledge the fact and be be collectively working on a solution. I do not see this with global warming.’

            You do not understand the nature and purpose of government. Let me explain.

            The purpose of government in the western world is to promote business-as-usual on behalf of money-lenders, corporations and opportunists.

            If you understand the history of NZ you will understand that NZ was set up as a business; NZ was set up as a corporation, and it still is a corporation, with its prime concern being business-as-usual. In the case of NZ, BAU also involves looting-and-polluting and generally exploiting the environment and the people, and sending profits to the overseas owners on a regular basis. The phony democracy that has been set up is just a cover for the real game, which is still looting-and-polluting and exploiting in order to obtain profits to be sent overseas.

            Britain still extracts wealth from all over the world, despite the demise of the British Empire.

            The USA was taken over by corporations between 1800 and 1980, and the government of the USA now entirely represents the interests the interests of corporations. Sure, there is a façade of democracy but in reality it is an utter sham.

            When it comes to environmental issues there is a huge problem for corporations because all corporate activity degrades the environment, quite often horrifically. Indeed, the very operation of an industrial system is incompatible with continued existence of life-as-we-know-it on Earth because all industrial activity is ultimately dependent on use of fossil resources and generation of carbon dioxide.

            You will note, if you have read the UNIPCC reports, that a range of scenarios are presented, with best case and worst case scenarios given designations. The worse case scenarios suggest a rise in average temperature of the order of 6oC by the end of this century. Well such a temperature rise would be greater in magnitude and at a faster pace that during any of the previous extinction events, including the Permian Extinction event that wiped out 95% of life on Earth.

            In order to not ‘scare the horses’, governments continually focus on the best-case scenarios, which are entirely unrealistic and lead to annual proclamations from the media of ‘faster than expected’, ‘higher than expected’, ‘hotter than expected’ etc. Which is just bullshit because extraordinarily fast overheating is exactly what IS expected and is exactly what is witnessed.

            Governments around the world beholden to money-lenders and corporations cannot possibly acknowledge the true rate of overheating otherwise they would have to acknowledge that BAU is not possible, and that would immediately bring down all the financial systems and the corporate rort systems that have been built up over the past several centuries. it would also lead to mayhem. Governments prefer to lie continuously in order to maintain confidence just a little longer……kicking the can down the road as long as possible.

            Hence, you must expect nothing but lies from the NZ government, which is exactly what we get.

            Do not forget that universities are beholden to governments to funding; it therefore follows that most universities will tow the line as required, otherwise they would lose their funding and rapidly go out of existence. Most research these days is directed to corporate interests, and very little (if any ) public good research is done these days. There has been corporatisation of everything, including education. This leaves only a few brave individuals within the system and independents to expose the truth.

            One way round this for universities is to say nothing. Another is to get on board fraudulent schemes which profess to be working on strategies to ‘save the planet’ via geo-engineering etc. Of course, none of the proposed schemes stand any chance whatsoever of fixing anything because the entire geochemical system has already been pushed way beyond the tipping point: Atmospheric CO2 is now 170ppm above the very-long-term average and 120ppm above any previous peak in the past 800,000 years. But such geo-engineering schemes do fulfill an important roles of providing the pretence that someone somewhere knows what they are doing and will eventually come up with a ‘solution’. You might as well say the solution to a cooked egg is to uncook it.

            There is no solution to an inherent flaw in the industrial system that dominates the Earth and which the vast majority of people refuse to abandon.

            Therefore the environmental predicament will get rapidly worse until the industrial system collapses. and will then get rapidly worse because the Global Dimming generated by industrial activity will cease. Lack of Global Dimming will result in planetary overheating proceeding at the unmasked pace.

            With Arctic sea ice now at the lowest extent ever in recorded history

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

            and carbon dioxide at the highest concentration in over 3 million years and rising at the fastest pace in all the Earth’s history (much faster than during all previous Extinction Events), we should expect the Arctic Sea to become ice-free in the very near future (by 2020), and possibly as early as August 2016.

            Once the rapidly declining protective ice in the Arctic Sea has melted, planetary overheating will ramp up to an even faster pace than already experienced.

            Therefore, since this a matter of ecology, we should not dismiss the possibility of the Earth becoming uninhabitable within 15 years.

            I personally do not think overheating will take place at a sufficiently fast rate to render the Earth largely uninhabitable in 15 years, and personally believe it will take more like 30 or 40 years for the Earth to become largely or completely uninhabitable for humans.

            However, we are dealing with non-linear processes, many of which self-reinforce and many of which mutually reinforce, so a 15 year time scale for extreme meltdown is not inconceivable.

            If you actually want to become informed, as opposed to simply presenting personal opinions, I suggest you read the following and the ‘Monster Climate Change Essay’ on the same website.

            http://guymcpherson.com/2016/01/six-paths-to-near-term-human-extinction/

  8. Thank you for your lengthy reply. Firstly, I am not a moron.I do appreciate blogs such as this where differing points of view can be debated. I will have a look at the website suggested as I am interested in the topic.I am not conspiracy theorist that you seem to be , nor as pessimistic, consequently I probably sleep better. I look forward to observing the future and hope you are wrong. Regards.

  9. ‘I am not conspiracy theorist that you seem to be’

    ???

    Are you saying that people who provide the best possible scientific data and scientific analysis are conspiracy theorists?

    Don’t forget that the term Conspiracy Theory’ was invented by the CIA as a means to discredit truth-tellers.

    The fact is, groups of people DO conspire to loot resources, exploit people, and lie to the general public about it all

    If in doubt, follow the money trail.

Comments are closed.