Tags
Abrupt Climate Change, Antarctic Ice Melt, Climate Change Feedback Loops, Climate Lag Time, Climate Tipping Points, Collapse of Industrial Civilization, Dahr Jamail, Eco-Apocalypse, Environmental Collapse, Faustian Bargain of Climate Change, Global Dimming, Methane Clathrate Gun, Near-Term Extinction, Peter Wadhams, Runaway Climate Change, Systemic Disorder
This post is in response to Systemic Disorder commenter Palloy who thinks that peak oil will save mankind and that global warming “will not be as bad as +1.5°C.” I want to answer the question of what degree of warming we are already committed to if industrial civilization were to disappear off the face of the Earth right now.
Palloy is overlooking the part that aerosols from industrial activity play in temporarily cooling the planet. James Hansen called this the Faustian Bargain:
…Human activity modifies the impact of the greenhouse effect by the release of airborne particulate pollutants known as aerosols. These include black-carbon soot, organic carbon, sulphates, nitrates, as well as dust from smoke, manufacturing, wind storms, and other sources. Aerosols have a net cooling effect because they reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground and they increase cloud cover. This is popularly known as “global dimming”, because the overall aerosol impact is to mask some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases.
Hansen’s new study estimates this aerosol “dimming” at 1.2 degrees (plus or minus 0.2°), much higher than previously figured. Aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere by rain on average every 10 days, so their cooling effect is only maintained because of continuing human pollution, the principal source of which is the burning of fossil fuels, which also cause a rise in carbon dioxide levels and global warming that lasts for many centuries…
The average global temperature rise thus far is about 0.85°C since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Once industrial activity ceases and its accompanying aerosols fall out of the atmosphere, the average global temperature will jump to about 2°C, but it won’t simply stop there because Palloy forgets that there is a lag time involved with CO2 emissions. The effects we are feeling now were from our emissions 40 years ago:
…The estimate of 40 years for climate lag, the time between the cause (increased greenhouse gas emissions) and the effect (increased temperatures), has profound negative consequences for humanity. However, if governments can find the will to act, there are positive consequences as well.
With 40 years between cause and effect, it means that average temperatures of the last decade are a result of what we were thoughtlessly putting into the air in the 1960’s. It also means that the true impact of our emissions over the last decade will not be felt until the 2040’s. This thought should send a chill down your spine!…
This “committed warming” of past CO2 emissions whose effect will be manifested in the coming decades is about 0.6 degrees Celsius. Adding up the current warming of 0.85°C from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the loss of aerosols with global dimming at 1.2°C, and the “committed” temperature rise from the 40-year lag time of CO2 emissions equal to 0.6°C, we get a total of 2.65°C. If all industrial activity stopped right now, we would already be committed to 2.65°C, a global average temperature rise of three times what we are currently experiencing. With all the drought, flooding, hurricanes, landslides, fires, and other manifestations of climate change that we are undergoing now, I shudder to think what the world will be like in 2050 and yet humans continue to burn coal and other fossil fuels at breakneck speed. According to the Climate Accountability Institute, half of all emissions have been produced in the past 25 years.
Now we get to the even more insidious aspects of anthropogenic climate change that very few comprehend. Dozens of self-reinforcing feedback loops have already been triggered, but we’ll discuss only one, the albedo effect, in the loss of our planet’s air conditioners, the Arctic and Antarctic:
(1) An increase in temperature decreases the area covered by sea ice as it melts leaving a larger area of exposed ocean.
(2) This decreases the reflection of sunlight as ice is far more reflective than the newly exposed ocean.
(3) Reduced reflection increases the area’s absorption of heat from the sun.
(4) This increases the temperature of the area, amplifying the original increase in temperature mentioned in (1).
A recent study calculated that the loss of Arctic ice reflectivity from 1979 to 2011 added an amplifying feedback to human warming equivalent to 25% of the heat captured by CO2 emissions during that same time.
We know that we don’t live in a linear world and that climate change is a non-linear phenomenon. Recent studies on abrupt climate change in Earth’s history reveal that temperatures have changed rapidly by 5°C in just 13 years. With the grand experiment mankind has irrevocably and haphazardly embarked on, the de-thawing of vast stores of permafrost and clathrates measured in the gigatons has commenced, creating the possibility for a sudden catastrophic release of such gases at any time. Methane, for about the first 10 to 20 years of its initial release before it breaks down into CO2, is many fold more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Humans are too busy calculating everything in terms of economic profit with regards to newly exposed resources and shorter shipping routes in the Arctic to take the time to fathom what damage they have done. Industrial civilization has permanently disrupted the stable period known as the Holocene within which mankind and civilization have been allowed to prosper.
Thus, we can see that the world is changing quickly into an environment that may well be outside the habitability for humans. The timing of human near-term extinction is likely academic.
Apneaman left this message here just a short time ago:
Journalist Dahr Jamail & Professor Peter Wadhams say the resulting release of methane will lead to massive climate disruption, and that we have reached a point of no return.
Update (12-3-2014):
CO2 Takes Just 10 Years to Reach Planet’s Peak Heat (Not 40 Years)
In a study that could have important ramifications on estimating the impacts, costs and benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, new research shows that CO2 brings peak heat within a decade of being emitted, with the effects then lingering 100 years or more into the future…
…The research, published Wednesday in Environmental Research Letters, provides policymakers and economists with a new perspective on how fast human carbon emissions heat the planet. Back-of-the-envelope estimates for how long it takes for a given puff of CO2 to crank up the heat have generally been from 40-50 years. But the new study shows that the timeframe for CO2 emissions to reach their maximum warming potential is likely closer to 10 years….
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394
xraymike79,
Brilliantly succinct and spot-on statement of the dire position the human race has reached.
What to do? If we succeed in promulgating the facts widely wholesale world-wide panic may ensue, possibly triggered by the collapse of financial markets. But if we seek just to alert the politicians they will just sit on it if previous form is anything to go by.
So alerting the world would seem the only way forward – and we can take comfort in the fact that this ‘secret’ is well out of the bag as I write.
Is there any hope on the horizon? Yes, it takes the form of a combination of the ‘voluntary’ ultra-extreme ‘belt-tightening the world has ever seen outside total war and geoengineering: but not geoengineering applied across the world as a whole to bring the world’s temperature down as this will just facilitate business-as-usual and allow the ruination of the planet’s life-support systems to continue unabated.
No, the tools of geoengineering must be used to stop and reverse the melting of the Arctic sea-ice and surrounding tundra to give civilisation a breathing space to reduce its carbon emissions to well below the recent historical mean so as to ‘pay back the underlying debt and the interest accumulated’ through our profligate use of fossil fuels over the last 100 years.
Xray’s fan
LikeLike
I’m seriously thinking of selling everything and moving to Brazil. As insane as this sounds, I would work here in America for as long as the economy holds together, sending money down south to my transplanted family in Brazil.
Notice that I edited the post. It’s not 2.5°C we’re committed to, but 2.65°C and accelerating every day.
LikeLike
Mike –
Help me out here-how do you arrive at 2.65? I’m missing something; .86 plus .6 = 1.46C. So what am I missing? I appreciate your posts and this site along with Guy’s.
South America has its problems right now too… Best-
and I hope you keep up the good, even if last ditch, efforts!
LikeLike
Adding up the current warming of 0.85°C from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the loss of aerosols with global dimming at 1.2°C, and the “committed” temperature rise from the 40-year lag time of CO2 emissions equal to 0.6°C, we get a total of 2.65°C. If all industrial activity stopped right now, we would already be committed to 2.65°C, a global average temperature rise of three times what we are currently experiencing.
0.85
1.2
0.6
2.65
LikeLike
Impeccable arithmetic, but can those factors really be added arithmetically like that? Probably not, as the system is non-linear.
AR4 had total net radiative forcing at +1.6 W/m², of which: aerosol direct effect -0.5; aerosol cloud effect -0.8; and surface albedo (soot on snow) +0.1 . If you take away the dimming effect of aerosols, wouldn’t there be more clouds associated with ocean evaporation not attributable to aerosols? I don’t know, it’s just a thought.
The only way to do it properly is to define all the factors in your RCP (scenario) and run it through the AR5 model. This definitely hasn’t been published in AR5.
LikeLike
There was a recent study on climate change and clouds:
Climate Change Could Diminish Valuable Cloud Cover, Scientists Say
http://ecowatch.com/2013/12/31/climate-change-could-diminish-cloud-cover/
LikeLike
I’m thinking the same thing – Except, Argentina or New Zealand!
LikeLike
Try Tasmania – uncrowded like New Zealand but much more geologically stable, and not as mountainous.
LikeLike
Mike, why Brazil? I know a Dutch chap via Facebook who is building some lovely farms down there. I think he has struggled a bit with recent droughts though not as badly as much of the country. I believe the Bush family own a substantial chunk of Paraguay. Perhaps South America is a good bet…
LikeLike
The quick answer is that my wife has relatives there.
LikeLike
The notion that geoengineering can save the day at this point is seriously flawed, it’s a hail mary pass at very best – and just another example of the hubris of the modern age.
To put much faith in it is to put faith in the systems and processes that brought us to this pass in the first place – and many of the problems faced by civilisation cannot be helped AT ALL by geoengineering. Climate change is not the only factor driving us towards collapse – merely the thing that absolutely seals the deal.
Hence why I am concerned with attempts to preserve at least the foundations of civilisation even in catastrophic scenarios (one of these days I’ll put a bit more about it online as I promised someone a while ago now).
LikeLike
Brasil is not a good option: too many people, even in the back country.
LikeLike
I have no other choice.
LikeLike
I can imagine that as more wealthy northerners move well south of the equator, more and more locals will be dispossessed and/or have their taxes increase. As the mega-wealthy, those most responsible for spreading this cancer, attempt to buy hundreds of thousands of acres for their own buffered existence, the locals may decide it’s best to eliminate them. I think we need to track the real estate purchases of wealthy industrialists and government lackeys to see which are leaving the babies and po’ folks behind to sizzle in the methane and radioactive dust. My wife is from Thailand, a little too close to the burn zone for comfort and as sea level rises and as rains inundate the high country most of Bangkok will become uninhabitable. You could come to Kentucky and pick out a nice cave, stays about 55F, maybe they’ll throw in a few animal skins and some arrowheads if the price is right.
LikeLike
Still time to consider the sailing boat option? 😀
LikeLike
Similar logic would have my brother going to Denmark lol
LikeLike
For those on facebook that are interested…we have a support group where we can talk about Near Term Extinction from a personal point of view at the link below.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTHESupportGroup/
I really need to re-evaluate the southern hemisphere option myself. It is where i am from after all. Thanks for this…. succinct and to the point and devoid of hopium.
LikeLike
Well said Mike. Thanks.
LikeLike
> Palloy is overlooking the part that aerosols from industrial activity play in temporarily cooling the planet.
No, I’m not, I am quoting figures from IPCC AR5 for scenario RCP2.6 which take aerosols into account.
> Hansen’s new study estimates this aerosol “dimming” at 1.2 degrees (plus or minus 0.2°), much higher than previously figured.
And why is it much higher than everyone agreed at IPCC just last year? I shall follow the main body of opinion until this is new figure is explained.
> Palloy forgets that there is a lag time involved with CO2 emissions.
No, I don’t, and nor does IPCC. I repeat, I am quoting IPCC’s figures, not my own.
> We know that we don’t live in a linear world and that climate change is a non-linear phenomenon.
True enough, and it follows that it is impossible to forecast the future of climate around “tipping points” accurately, and anyone that claims to be able to do so is kidding themselves.
> Thus, we can see that the world is changing quickly into an environment that may well be outside the habitability for humans.
Or maybe slowly, who knows.
Please try not to treat me as if I am an idiot.
LikeLike
There has been a call by many scientists to overhaul the IPCC because it’s “too conservative” in its estimates.
For example, the IPCC grossly miscalculated the rate of Arctic ice melt, and many scientists fear they are under-estimating sea level rise.
The IPCC is a political animal that bends reality to serve big business:
Hey, if you can disprove the work of Hansen and NASA, then get to it. Please don’t take offense at my attempts to get to the truth because my intention is not to make anyone look stupid.
LikeLike
The IPCC is way behind the curve, you ought to look into how long it takes for new findings and research to be incorporated into a report. I’d go with Hansen any day if there is a dispute between the two.
LikeLike
I would have to agree that the IPCC is too conservative. As I have already noted, the entire 33-page “summary for policymakers” was “approved line by line” by national governments, according to the IPCC itself. It seems to me reasonable that said governments (on which industrialists and financiers exert dominant influence) have “damped down” scientific consensus for political reasons.
Although I do believe an inability to conceive of a world outside of capitalism was the primary reason for its conclusion that the cost of reversing global warming will be nearly nothing calculated on the basis of global GDP, the conservatism of the predicted range of temperature can’t be, in my opinion, disassociated from political interference.
So, yes, the IPCC report has to be taken as a serious document, but used with caution and compared and contrasted with the conclusions of climate scientists independent of that body. One does not have to agree with all James Hansen says — I vehemently disagree with his nuclear-power advocacy — to take his overall conclusions seriously.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t bother reading the IPCC’s “summary for policymakers” – it is written in a sloppy politician-speak kind of language, that is designed to be interpretable in several different ways. That contrasts strongly with the scientist-speak style of the Working Group reports.
Care should also be taken with the outputs of models, which depend on the assumptions made about the inputs of models – ‘garbage in, garbage out’ and all that.
In AR5, the scenario process has changed from AR4, so that anyone who knows what they are doing can construct a Representative Concentration Profile for all the factors used in the model, have it authenicated as a valid data set, and then run through “the model” in standard form, and again with various plug-ins to the model representing different ways of modelling reality. The outputs from the various model runs can then be analysed to produce a spread of outcomes for individual items of interest, such as ‘temperature anomaly in 2050 over 1990’. From this spread, a mean and standard deviation can be calculated, hence confidence levels in a range of values.
If a model plug-in consistently gives outlier results (either consistently high or consistently low) the plug-in is considered ‘dubious’ and will probably be dropped or recalibrated over time. If a model plug-in consistently gives better results than the standard model when using historical data to predict recent data, it gets incorporated into the standard model. Thus the modelling evolves over time.
Unfortunately by its very nature, the evolving standard model must lag the latest thinking, because it can only be properly calibrated on recent ACTUAL data, and that takes time to collect and screen for inconsistencies.
The one outstanding result of AR5’s model is that it is very largely consistent with AR4’s model, which gives confidence (not certainty) that no tipping point is about to hit us.
LikeLike
“[T]he evolving standard model must lag the latest thinking, because it can only be properly calibrated on recent ACTUAL data.” Certainly that is reasonable and it is the way science advances.
The problem as I am seeing it is that climate scientists are consistently under-estimating how fast changes are occurring (such as summer Arctic ice deficits). That is not a criticism of scientists or the scientific method; merely a statement of where we are today.
Given the concrete realities we are already observing and that the post-peak oil significant decline of GHG-producing energy is well into the future, a reasonable conclusion is that the IPCC is too conservative in its projections. Thus, we are on course to hit the climatic tipping point unless we start reducing GHG emissions now.
LikeLike
> “… the post-peak oil significant decline of GHG-producing energy is well into the future, a reasonable conclusion is that the IPCC is too conservative …”
The Hubbert Curve of world oil production post-peak is a slow-fast-slow decline over say 80 years, but the economic impact is more or less immediate. Capitalism just doesn’t work with a declining oil supply. Within days of a major bank getting its derivative contracts all wrong, the whole house of cards collapses and all manufacturing, trade and electricity production stops.
The Hubbert Curve post-peak doesn’t really apply to the real world – Hubbert himself thought nuclear would take up all the slack, maintaining the required supply of energy that Capitalism needs. Today we know that that isn’t going to happen – it requires too much fossil energy to build it and run it, and to convert all transport vehicles to electric.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s by any means a given that literally the whole surface of the planet should exceed the realms of human survivability. Or, to put it another way – I have yet to see a single convincing argument that supports this assertion, though there is plenty of hand waving and dogmatic statements of faith involved. If anyone can demonstrate to me the inevitability of near term human extinction – in very specific and unambiguous terms – by proving that the whole surface of the earth will exceed one or more parameters required for human inhabitation, please bring your argument. It is one of the most defeatist statements possible, so you better have some solid scientific proof to justify the harm such statements do.
Now having said all that, I do believe we are going to see massive mortality. If you told me that 99.9% of the existing human population were going to die, I wouldn’t bother to dispute the claim, as it seems to me entirely within the realms of ultimate possibility (though timescale is still rather open ended and does depend greatly on which events occur and on what timescales).
Genetic analysis suggests humanity already came through one such bottleneck. As long as we retain enough diversity, there is no reason to suppose we could not come through another.
LikeLike
The fact that humans never existed when CO2 levels were this high is an ominous milepost, but we have many other environmental and resource depletion factors coming to a head as well. However, one aspect not much talked about is the psychological factor of desperate humans, armed to the teeth with weapons great and small from nukes to handguns, who will be faced with collapse of the biosphere, dysfunctional and failing governments, and a deteriorating way-of-life that none expected would ever go away. Human extinction is indeed possible when one considers just the single factor of over 400 nuclear plants with their radioactive waste strung across the planet facing the collapse of the electric grid. The multitude of factors boggles the mind and creates a maze of stumbling blocks for the well-being of the human species.
LikeLike
And then we have these guys to contend with who live in their own bubble of delusion and self-aggrandizement, wielding the instruments of political and social control to keep this train wreck going far off over the cliff…
LikeLike
Can you provide a convincing explanation for how enough radioactivity can be released that way to render the whole surface unsurvivable though?
I mean – people still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I grant that regions could become useless for hundred or thousands of years through contamination – but if you look at Chernobyl that really only applies to the local area, and a lot of radioactivity was released.
LikeLike
Watch the new Vice investigative report on Fukushima and you will learn that its radioactive isotopes are much more damaging and long-lived than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I need to do a post on that subject.
LikeLike
But to provide guaranteed extinction you still have to get those isotopes over the surface of the planet in sufficient concentrations in ALL regions to guarantee human life ceases to be possible.
Don’t get me wrong – I accept extinction is a possible outcome – I just don’t care for the bandwagon people tend to jump on that says it is inevitable and near-term (it is technically inevitable eventually – all things die).
It’s one of the most defeatist (and in some ways pathetic) arguments out there, though if people subscribing to things like the near term extinction Facebook group are willing to just quietly die when the time comes, that’ll help the rest of us I guess.
LikeLike
I agree that it is a very defeatist stance. That’s why I won’t commit to the specific date of 2030 which McPherson touts.
LikeLike
I’m not inclined to commit to any date personally – though everything dies some day.
Another pet gripe of mine is that people don’t back up the assertions with sound science. For instance, with a rough idea how much radioactive material is present in a nuclear plant (Fukishima for instance), a stated dispersal method (the most global and extreme I can think of would be a direct hit with a large nuclear bomb), and calculations for the subsequent radioactivity of the planetary surface along with the decay times of the elements involved, limitations of copying strategies (there are people with bunkers, and I’m unclear that radioactivity would accumulate at sea in the same way as land where fall out coats everything, though bioaccumulation can still be a concern) etc – it should be possible to categorically demonstrate inevitable extinction as an outcome, with solid numbers and methodology, as opposed to hand waving.
Whether or not it matters for the 90-99.9% of people who are going to die, I don’t suppose it really does, as they’re still dead either way. I just despise the defeatism, having grown up fighting to get by my whole life. I think it’s an attribute of the affluent and enfeebled westernised person to subscribe to such thinking and to then use it as an excuse for inaction. It’s an easy option. I’m still open to scientifically sound arguments though, to be otherwise is to be in denial (cuts both ways….).
LikeLike
I’ll try to get good info on this subject with my Fukushima post.
LikeLike
That would be appreciated, I think it’s a valuable debate to nail this extinction thing (whichever way the dust settles).
Incidentally this article appears to refers Fukushima deaths (including indirect factors) at 1656 (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/03/01/editorials/fukushimas-appalling-death-toll/#.U4eAsyi_iYY). While that’s not great (and I grant this story may not be over) – the population of Japan is far larger…
Anyway, personally I’m far more concerned about the risk of a large nuclear war than I am by that posed by derelict reactors?
And either way, we’re still talking very serious stuff even if not extinction grade – especially in the context of a world with multiple major problems happening simultaneously.
LikeLike
I’m no expert on radiation, but I am aware that an huge amount of money and resources went into containing Chernobyl and many people died in the effort. What happens if everyone just ran away from a melt down or there was just no one there or there were no resources (water, fuel) to try and contain it?
LikeLike
People did die trying to contain the core – but it took a week to evacuate areas more than 6 miles from the site, and the next day for nearer areas.
I’ve looked into this a little bit – not enough for definitive answers – and it seems to be the risk isn’t as high as people think (though much depends on successfully achieving cold shutdown and it seems foolish not to expect at least a portion of plants to fail catastrophically). After that the question becomes one of if the core decays to tolerable levels before containment fails (the refuelling cycle suggests this is possible).
Nuclear plants are certainly a definite regional hazard and I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near one post collapse, but I’m arguing they are not literally a global hazard – avoid downwind/downstream areas and bioaccumulation to the extent possible (I lived in the fallout area from Chernobyl btw – in part of Scotland – so in one sense I’ve already been downwind of a major reactor failure…).
There was a post about it on my forum (http://helpsurviveclimatechange.com/forum/index.php?topic=8.0), though I didn’t get into it as much as ideal (too many things to do, not enough time to do them).
Oh – and if people run away from a melt down – how harmful that is really depends. Three Mile Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects) is a reasonable case study perhaps? In the case of Chernobyl it was the mechanical explosion of the graphite that was the real problem – as this scattered nuclear fuel and greatly increased dispersal. In the case of Fukushima I think the main concern is the release of radioactive water (and the incredibly dumb massive spent fuel storage on site…). I’m not sure if the hydrogen explosions in the building around the containment dispersed much from Fukushima.
Anyway, all I’m really saying is you need more than a melt down (where the core burns downwards) to really disperse massive amounts of radioactive materials. An explosion can do the trick…
Even with an explosion one then must consider the weight of the fallout and the half life. Some decays fast enough not to be a long term problem and some is heavy enough to fall out of the atmosphere without spreading too far. That isn’t to say the remaining stuff isn’t potentially serious – but there are factors that mitigate the impacts.
Post collapse there is the drawback that we have no ability to detect radiation without special equipment.
LikeLike
I suspect the main problem would be intact reactors correctly shut down, along with all the spent fuel rods in their cooling pools, being abandoned due to lack of transport and/or electricity, and then igniting due to coolant failure.
Short term the problem would be Iodine-131, and medium term Caesium-133 and Strontium-90. The main impact would be in the form of cancer rates, so insidious and apparently random.
LikeLike
Via America2point0…
LikeLike
Sounds like Nafeez Ahmed, he of the self-contradictorily upbeat closing paragraphs.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Damn the Matrix.
LikeLike
LikeLike
And the reason is….
LikeLike
More evidence proving there is no upper limit on denial.
GOP climate-science deniers threaten national defense
Commentary: Republican House wants to limit Pentagon’s use of climate studies
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gop-science-deniers-threaten-us-national-defense-2014-05-28?dist=beforebell
US House denies Pentagon funds to tackle climate change as security threat
http://rt.com/usa/160904-pentagon-climate-change-house/
LikeLike
This is unacceptable. I need to know the exact timing of NTHE so I can work it into my calender. I’ve got thing to do,places to go & people to see & i don’t need unnecessary distractions. I’m demanding that someone straighten out this FUBAR,NOW. roflmao.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Pingback from Reddit:
LikeLike
Pingback from Real GDP Numbers Show -9% Annualized Drop
LikeLike
Conditions in Context: May 2014 Likely Hottest on Record Amidst Ongoing Extreme Weather
Overall, Equatorial Pacific ocean surface temperatures continued their advancement from May 27 to June 2, rising from +0.59 to +0.68 C above the 1979 to 2000 average throughout the week. Global sea surface temperatures have remained in an exceptionally hot and likely global record range between +1 and +1.25 C above 1979 to 2000 averages throughout the month of May and into early June. These extraordinary readings likely combined with very high atmospheric values to put May of 2014 in the range of hottest on record. It is worth noting that, according to NOAA, April of 2014 was also the hottest in the 134 years since global temperature measurements began.
More: http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/may-likely-to-break-global-high-temperature-records-as-el-nino-conditions-strengthen-in-pacific/
LikeLike
Pingback: No Dice — Too Little, Too Late. | Collapse of Industrial Civilization
Interested in Near Term Human Extinction? Do you see it coming soon? Not sure what to do with all the feelings that invokes? Join those of us who have accepted it as our fate on the Near Term Human Extinction (NTHE) support Group on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTHESupportGroup/
LikeLike
Pingback: Anonymous
Pingback: Still on Track for the Collapse of Modern Civilization | Collapse of Industrial Civilization