The hottest year

Written By: - Date published: 8:54 am, November 17th, 2016 - 40 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming - Tags: , , ,

Thirteen of the fifteen hottest years on record have occurred since 2000.

2014 was the hottest year ever.

2015 was the hottest year ever (“smashing” records).

2016 is going to be the hottest year ever.

What if – what if every year from now is the hottest year ever?

(Oh and by the way, the same trend is starting up in record CO2 concentrations.)

Stephen Hawking gives humanity less than 1000 years on a habitable earth. He’s pushing space travel as the only hope for survival, I guess because he doesn’t see any chance of us turning back from climate madness.

40 comments on “The hottest year ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. johnm 2
    17 November 2016 at 10:26 am

    For the First Time in Human Existence, CO2 Rates Break Records Two Years in a Row
    Wednesday, 16 November 2016 00:00 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report

    If current trends continue, by the end of this year the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will have reached a record rate of between 3.2 to 3.55 parts per million (ppm). 2015 also saw a record rate of atmospheric CO2 increase of 3.05ppm.

    For perspective, the 1980s and 1990s witnessed annual CO2 increases in the atmosphere of roughly 1.5ppm each year, a rate which had increased roughly 30 percent to 2ppm annually by the 2000s. In other words, thus far, the 2010s are seeing an average rate that will mark another huge increase, to around 2.5ppm annually.

    Prior to the dramatic increases we witnessed last year and this year, humans had never seen two consecutive years of record rapid rates of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase.

    Meanwhile, in September, the Earth reached a level of 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and that level is here to stay, according to scientists. This benchmark signifies a new era for the planet.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38387-for-the-first-time-in-human-existence-co2-rates-break-records-two-years-in-a-row

    DrDignity • 3 hours ago

    Dahr, It’s more like the power of C02 at 490 ppm. Adding all the green house gasses together, methane, carbon dioxide, fluorinated hydrocarbons & nitrous oxide, you get a grand total of 490 ppm C02e. That’s incredible, all since 1880 baseline of 280 ppm. Check out this fabulous site:
    robertscribbler.com

    • Robert Atack 2.1
      17 November 2016 at 7:28 pm

      Scribbler is way underestimating our current CO2e
      This is one of my CH4 rants
      Dear Dr Rajendra
      I understand you mentioned me to a college in New Zealand, with regards to my question on the forcing factor of CH4/CO2, thanks for that.
      Unfortunately, I couldn’t quite get my question answered via anyone associated with the IPCC, but that is par for the coarse so not unexpected.
      I will give you my thoughts, I will be happy to be proven wrong.
      So here goes, if you are still there
      I’ve read several times that ‘we’ are at a worse point than we have ever been in known climatic history, and during that history it has been proven that the planet heated up by 16C over as little as 10 years, if that is close to being true, and we are in a worse situation, then +16C could be just around the corner.
      HOW?
      Its the methane that is going to get us, as the last straw, you know better than me I’m sure how fast the CH4 content is rising in the atmosphere, (supposedly hit 1.910ppm) being about 1.85ppm at the moment (unless you know more?) and always increasing, so with that fact in mind what would the immortal effect of CH4 be compared to CO2?
      How about this question?
      If you have a tube of CO2 and you fire infrared light through it, what is the resulting blocking of infrared transmission (absorption and reradiation) per molecule or per gram of CO2 inside the tube?
      Then do the same thing with a tube full of CH4. How much more does CH4 absorb-reradiate than CO2? This was done crudely by John Tyndall 1859 with primitive equipment? What is the answer now that we have lot of very sophisticated equipment? That is what I cannot find out.

      I posted this on a blog site the other day, again I’m happy to be proven wrong.
      > It is looking like it will be all over within the next 10 years, currently the environment is the closes to a massive temperature rise of no less than 9C, it has EVER been, never before has CO2 gone up so fast, never before has there been so much CH4 trapped by the rapid thawing ice,never before (to the best of our knowledge) has CH4 gone from an 800,000 year average of .7 ppm to 1.85 ppm in as little as 100 years. NEVER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      > http://www.planetextinction.com/documents/Methane,%20the%20Gakkel%20Ridge%20and%20human%20survival.pdf
      > Everything is pointing to us currently at about 1,000ppm CO2/CO2e
      > 400 ppm CO2
      > 400 – 600ppm CO2e as CH4
      > 100 ppm N20 (or some such? I isn’t that smart)
      > and someone calculated the negative feed back of the particulates (smog) acting like a curtain = about 60 ppm CO2e
      > Its the methane, and ‘they’ don’t want you to know, or it is so fucking bad they haven’t a clue of how to tell you.
      > WASF.
      So I think it is way to scarey a subject for you guys, or you are under political pressure to dumb down methane to maintain the bullshit shell game that is carbon trading?
      And you wouldn’t want your US masters, being outed for adding tons of CH4 to the environment via fracking. And of coarse everyone via coal.
      To tell the truth I gave up on the IPCC the very first time I read something you put out.

      Good luck
      Regards
      Robert Atack
      http://www.oilcrash.com

      • Robert Atack 2.1.1
        17 November 2016 at 7:47 pm

        I’ve sent out at least 110 enquiries to any person I’ve found on the net that might be able to tell me the true forcing factor of CH4, not many replies, but got one of up to 1,000 ppm, and another saying the higher the concentration the higher the forcing factor (which is a given) as we might be seeing near the Siberian arctic shelf area maybe? And one guy agreed with Paul Beckworth, who said maybe 150 – 300 ppm ? in it first year, …… well as the amount isn’t going down, we are always in the first year, in time frames that matter.

        Typical email
        Dear Katey
        I am trying to find out the forcing factor of CH4 over C02 in time frames that matter, specifically the life time of the methane.
        This is the question my friend Kevin posed to someone the other day, his explanation is way better than I could manage.
        As you might understand from the question, this is quite a relevant topic to bring up, what with near term human extinction being the result.
        Thanks for your time
        Sincerely Robert

        Dear XXX
        I am not involved in research now but do have an Honours Degree in Chemistry from a UK university, and specialized in spectroscopy.

        For more than a year I have been very troubled by the way the relative warming effect of methane compared to carbon dioxide is calculated, the UNIPCC initially assigning a value of 23 times CO2 over 100 years and 72 times CO2 over 20 years, which were subsequently increased to 34 times CO2 over 100 years and 86 times CO2 over 20 years.

        I have searched, with no success, for the instantaneous absorption-re radiation value of CH4 versus CO2, and many months ago telephoned (and emailed) Paul Beckwith at the University of Ottawa to discuss the matter; at the time he said he thought it was about 250, but has not confirmed this figure. The decay curves I have seen suggest an instantaneous value for methane of the order of 300 times that of carbon dioxide, and I have seen an unreferenced article by Malcolm Light suggesting a value between 1,000 and 300 times CO2 for times scales that matter.

        It seems to me there is something very suspect in the manner in which the IPCC calculates the effect of methane in the atmosphere, in that it treats methane as though it decays to carbon dioxide (which we know it does) and assigns and average value over time for the decay. Yet the concentration of methane in the atmosphere does not decline because every molecule of methane that gets oxidized by the OH ion or OH radical mechanism is replaced by another. Indeed, the rate of release of methane molecules into the atmosphere clearly far exceeds the rate of oxidation, so the concentration and actual mass of atmospheric methane both increase, as you are well aware, and have been highlighting.

        The inability (unwillingness?) of scientists in the Anglo-American sphere to resolve the methane question led me to comment recently that ‘it will probably be the Russians who find the answer to the methane question (I am writing from New Zealand, by the way).

        Clearly you will not be able to answer my question immediately, but I would appreciate it if you could give the matter some thought and discuss it with anyone who knows the answer or is in a position to do the research necessary to discover the answer.

        Kind regards

        Kevin

  4. Macro 4
    17 November 2016 at 11:40 am

    There is no doubt that the planet is warming and there is no doubt that we are primarily responsible for that. However I think that it is far too early to be forecasting continuous yearly increases in global temperatures based upon a 3 year trend. The current surge in global temps has been well anticipated by climate scientists awaiting the next El Nino event of similar size to that of 1998. It was this massive spike in 1998 that lead to the infamous mantra of the climate denialists “No Warming Since 1998” and the so called “pause”.
    What we are have observed over the past 3 years is the result of a massive El Nino when the Pacific has released massive amounts of heat stored into the ocean over 18 years, along with the continuing energy imbalance caused by increasing GHG. The year following El Nino (2015-16) also tends to be warm as the energy released slowly dissipates, but as we move into La Nina we can expect at least a plateau, if not a cooler Global temperature for a year or so.
    A good summary of the current situation can be read on The Conversation here.
    As the earth continues to warm just what the effects of that warming will be on the ENSO is unknown at this stage. In its latest report (2013) the IPCC had LOW confidence in exactly what will happen to ENSO in the future even while they had HIGH confidence that ENSO itself will continue. If the ENSO were to shift to more La Nina like or more El Nino like states the result is predicted to add more variability (i.e. how frequently events occur), however if the ENSO were to shift to less La Nina or less El Nino the events would become less frequent.
    As can be seen from the Graphic here we are now entering a La Nina phase of the ENSO. Just how large this will be is unknown, but as SST in the Pacific decline in the near future, more energy will move into this massive heat sink.

    • johnm 4.1
      17 November 2016 at 12:37 pm

      Viewing The Paul Henry Chris Brandolino interview El Nino and ENSO ( https://www.climate.gov/enso ) El Niño & La Niña (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) are minor side issues to the continuously rising CO2 levels which are heating the Planet Worldwide! The ENSO cycle is a powerful perturbation but still just a perturbation.

      There is a direct link between rising year on year CO2 levels and Global heating ( and the rate of yearly increase is itself increasing!). The Ocean sink for the heat is failing, we can’t dump any more heat and CO2 into it which has acidified the waters to point of killing the Great Barrier Reef.

      We are in indeed in a Climate Emergency!

  6. adam 6
    17 November 2016 at 11:57 am

    I’m with Hawking by the way.

    Time to get out, lets go wreak another planet.

    https://www.kiwispace.org.nz/

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      17 November 2016 at 1:34 pm

      I’m with Hawking by the way.

      So am I.

      Time to get out, lets go wreak another planet.

      By the time we get there we should have learned to live within limits. If we don’t, we probably won’t get there.

    • weka 6.2
      17 November 2016 at 1:46 pm

      Can’t tell if you mean that or not adam. Myself, I can’t see the point of saving humans if we destroy everything else to do it. Isn’t that the attitude that got us in this situation in the first place?

    • Macro 6.3
      17 November 2016 at 4:43 pm

      I hear there is a decent restaraunt at the end of the Galaxy.

  7. The Real Matthew 7
    17 November 2016 at 1:47 pm

    The world needs to urgently administer a de-population strategy.

    The core cause of climate change is that there are too many people on the planet trying to live at too high a living standard.

    The left needs to abandon it’s “a women’s womb is sacred” edict and show some leadership by instituting a 2 child maximum policy. Such a policy would also have positive long term side effects in reducing child poverty and alleviating housing costs.

    • Clump_AKA Sam 7.1
      17 November 2016 at 2:07 pm

      No. The problem is consumption not population

      http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-08-39.pdf

    • weka 7.2
      17 November 2016 at 4:25 pm

      “The core cause of climate change is that there are too many people on the planet trying to live at too high a living standard.”

      Yes. Please share how you are lowering your standard of living. This would make a great conversation.

      • Clump_AKA Sam 7.2.1
        17 November 2016 at 5:49 pm

        Marginalising people by directing them to consumption is a major means of control. The efforts of mainstream media have become much more extreme, you have journalists (that’s if you can call them that now) who troll social media looking for public opinion that suit there agenda I order to amplify that agenda to make every one feel more insecure, rather than going to where the action is and reporting on it.

        The amount of money needed to survive is declining and that makes people more insecure and that’s a crucial part of how the economy and its consciousness has been reorganised to make people insecure. The way out of it depends on the people as a whole who are involved.

    • Richard McGrath 7.3
      18 November 2016 at 7:01 am

      Yep let’s have forced abortions for women in their third pregnancy. A woman may own her uterus but anything and everything can be nationalised in the name of the common good.

      • Lara 7.3.1
        18 November 2016 at 2:59 pm

        OMG I seriously do hope you’re being sarcastic Richard!

        I see a couple of comments here from men about women’s reproductive issues.

        How about you guys just go get vasectomies and stop even faintly considering the option of forcing abortion or any other birth control on women?

        Because that sure looks pretty damn ugly. And it’s also bloody unnecessary.

        FYI NZ has a birth rate now just below replacement rate. As so many developed European countries. And the common thing with these places? It’s not education. it’s not GDP. It’s giving women the right to control their own fertility. And the respect to let them make their own bloody decisions.

        Every fucking time I see men saying the answer to the problems that we’ve created is to have control over women’s bodies I get really fucking angry. No guys. Fuck off.

        When women have access to contraception and safe abortion, and are allowed to make our own choices, we make the best choices for ourselves and the birth rate goes down.

        FWIW I agree, overpopulation is a problem. But the answer is not to force abortion or contraception on women, nor even to have a “one or two child policy”.

        • Corokia 7.3.1.1
          18 November 2016 at 3:21 pm

          Yes Lara! I’m also sick of men saying the problem is overpopulation and then only talking about it as if it is a women only issue. Vasectomy is cheap, quick, permanent and has very little health risk.
          But the chances of an effective global population control scheme being instituted are about as remote as effective action being taken to reduce greenhouse gases.

          • Lara 7.3.1.1.1
            20 November 2016 at 12:29 pm

            I have not once seen a man say the solution to the problem of overpopulation is to force all men to have vasectomies. Not once.

            That would work though.

            I don’t think it’s an okay solution, but it’s just as invalid as forced abortion or contraception on women.

            And to the two men here who have uttered comments about women’s reproduction and bodies: “The Real Matthew” and “Richard”: you need to take a look at your attitudes to women. As displayed here they’re pretty disgusting.

  8. Bill 8
    17 November 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Since atmospheric CO2 is a cumulative problem, then of course year on year levels (measured by whatever 12 month average) are going to show an increase. Or has there been a year that has registered a drop that I’m just unaware of?

    That the rate of increase is increasing…well, that’s a different kettle of fish, and has led some to conclude (as far as I could wrap my head around what they were saying) that we’ve busted the capacity of natural carbon sinks to absorb the shit we’re pumping out there – ie, that the sinks are becoming less and less effective and that it’s showing up as an increasing rate of atmospheric CO2 accumulation.

    It could be that the rate is increasing simply because we are spewing ever greater amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere mind. And that every time we’re telling ourselves that emissions have plateaued, we’re only looking at emissions coming directly from Annex 1 countries.

    Or it could be a mix of both.

    And whatever it is, it’s Not Good.

    As for Hawking…meh.

    • Macro 8.1
      17 November 2016 at 3:15 pm

      Actually following the GFC Bill there was a decrease in global carbon emissions – the one and only time so far. So what we need right now is another major recession or depression and so may be Trump is not so bad after all!
      The problem is there is a lag between increasing CO2 levels and temperature rise. The energy imbalance, and that is not going to stop until about 30+ years after we stop adding more GHG to the atmosphere.

      • Bill 8.1.1
        17 November 2016 at 4:11 pm

        I seem to recall (and I think this was from Anderson) that data or measurements showed CO2 levels increasing faster in spite of the GFC.

        I could be wrong, but it wouldn’t be the first time that the measurements for Annex 1 countries have been misleadingly applied to a global context. (Stern absolutely did just that back in 05 or whenever his major study/report came out)

        But on the GFC rates, maybe I’m thinking of a hellish rebound post GFC.

        Regardless. The total amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere go up even if we put out less this year than last year. Which is the salient point.

        And yes. Crash capitalism or burn. Everybody “knows” that but no-one wants to take it on board.

  9. Paul 9
    17 November 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Recommended viewing.
    Before the Flood.

  10. Paul 10
    17 November 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Recommended viewing.
    Before the flood.

  11. johnm 11
    17 November 2016 at 4:51 pm

    Beyond Paris: Finding the Courage to Face the Climate Emergency

    Last weekend in Orlando the platform committee of the Democratic Party added language into their platform acknowledging the official position of the Democratic Party to be that we are in a global climate emergency. Further, the platform acknowledges the scale of the threat to be so large that it will require a leadership response from our country on the scale of our national mobilization to confront the threat of fascism during WWII. The platform language I offered through an amendment entitled, Global Climate Leadership, explicitly acknowledges that anything short of that will bring catastrophic consequences to civilization:

    Democrats believe it would be a grave mistake for the United States to wait for another nation to lead the world in combating the global climate emergency. In fact, we must move first in launching a green industrial revolution, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because it is in our own national interest to do so. Just as America’s greatest generation led the effort to defeat the Axis Powers during World War II, so must our generation now lead a World War II-type national mobilization to save civilization from catastrophic consequences.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/19/beyond-paris-finding-courage-face-climate-emergency

    • johnm 11.1
      17 November 2016 at 4:54 pm

      ” Just as America’s greatest generation led the effort to defeat the Axis Powers during World War II,”

      Despite what band of Brothers tells us:

      Actually it was the Russians who defeated Nazi Germany. The western front was a side show! The Germans just had holding forces there. Don’t forget the Russians lost 20 million people.

      • In Vino 11.1.2
        17 November 2016 at 8:12 pm

        Agreed. Nazi Germany put roughly 80% of its war effort into the Eastern Front, ie, Russia. We boldly conquered less than 20% of Hitler’s war effort, because some of that 20% was put into the West before Hitler attacked Russia. (We were consistently losing before Hitler attacked Russia. Sorry, but the Battle of Britain was never a high priority for Hitler.)

        We let Russia absorb Hitler’s worst before we even opened a second front in Normandy. Quite right johnm -it was Russia that sacrificed most, bore the greatest burden, and deserves the credit that we love to steal for the defeat of Nazi Germany.
        USA deserves credit for the defeat of Japan ( a minor power in comparison, if very courageous) but it is indeed an irony that Germany’s defeat is now invoked as an example.

        • Red Hand 11.1.2.1
          17 November 2016 at 9:03 pm

          “We let Russia absorb Hitler’s worst before we even opened a second front in Normandy”

          The US and British and their allies opened fronts in north Africa and then in Italy before the German Army was defeated in Russia.

          The Russian front was a land front, The Normandy invasion required an invasion by sea with far tighter timetables and a more difficult potential retreat situation than the armies in Russia faced.

          • In Vino 11.1.2.1.1
            17 November 2016 at 10:58 pm

            No, the British won at El Alamein against depleted German forces, and after that the allied landings in North Africa, Sicily, Italy were also against mere holding forces, as johnm said. The Russians were fighting the crucial battle at Stalingrad involving 200,000 German troops, while the British beat a mere 50,000 at El Alamein. And that was the only victory we in the West had at the time. The 80% – 20% thing holds true, (25% is close enough).. And how well did we do in Italy against those mere holding forces? They stalled our advances embarrassingly well. The Russians did the major work – look at the post-war map of Europe. There is the proof.
            I do not blame the Russians for being sceptical about all the difficulties you mention about the Normandy landings – it suited GB and USA to let Russia and Germany bleed each other.

        • Richard McGrath 11.1.2.2
          18 November 2016 at 7:05 am

          I’m sure the people of Eastern Europe were grateful to be delivered from one totalitarian dictator to another.

          • In Vino 11.1.2.2.1
            19 November 2016 at 12:06 am

            Yeah, that is how things tend to go – not like in the fairy tales. But rough justice, after how the West dealt to Russia after WW1.

      • joe90 11.1.3
        19 November 2016 at 1:18 am

        Actually it was the Russians who defeated Nazi Germany.

        And Stalin’s shonky wee deal with his Austrian mate to roll over eastern Europe, enslave whole populations and divvy up the spoils?.

  12. Robert Atack 12
    17 November 2016 at 8:57 pm

    It wouldn’t matter if we had President James Hanson, Bill McKidding, Me, JohnM, or anyone you care to mention.
    The fact is we have gone from 280 ppm ish CO2 to 403 ppm ish CO2 in about 100 years, the last time the environment went to 400 ppm CO2 it took 10,000 years and was the biggest extinction event at the time with something like 90% of all life gone, 403 ppm + CO2 and 2. ppm CH4 are locked in as the minimum for at least the next 1,000 years ? More like millions.
    There is potential for thousands more tons of carbon than humans have added to the environment, laying under the fast thawing under sea catherates. ‘They’ say something like 50 tons of Ch4 is equal to what we have added to the environment in the past 200 years or so? And there are 2-4,000 tons of CH4 off various coasts around the world ie Gisborne.
    I’ve seen predictions of the seas evaporating around 2080.
    WWF said something like 60% of species (I guess that is ‘life’) will be gone by 2020, I think they are saying the extinctions started around 1970 ish?

  13. Richard McGrath 13
    18 November 2016 at 7:07 am

    Didn’t we pass the point of no return in terms of warming some time ago?

  14. johnm 14
    18 November 2016 at 11:10 am

    https://soundcloud.com/schnelleralsgedacht/sag-009-guy-mcphersons-new

    Update on Guy McPherson’s NZ visit late November to early December.

    He speaks at Victoria Uni 6/12/16 6pm
    Victoria Law School Government Building Lecture Theatre 1