Showing posts with label danger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label danger. Show all posts

Thursday, June 18, 2026

Extreme heat danger

Forecast of Wet Bulb Globe Temperature of 35°C or 96°F in south of Texas, U.S.

A temperature of 39°C or 102°F is forecast for a location in the south of Texas, U.S., for June 18, 2026 20 UTC. With a relative humidity of 51%, this translates into a 'feels like' temperature of 52°C or 125°F and a Wet Bulb Globe Temperature of 35°C or 96°F.


Furthermore, as illustrated by the image below, a temperature of 41°C or 105°F is forecast for another location in the south of Texas, U.S., for June 18, 2026 20 UTC. With a relative humidity of 44%, this translates into a 'feels like' temperature of 52°C or 126°F and a Wet Bulb Globe Temperature of 35°C or 96°F.


According to NOAA, the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) is an indicator of heat related stress on the human body at work (or play) in direct sunlight. It takes into account multiple atmospheric variables, including: temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle, and cloud cover.

By contrast, the wet bulb temperature measures the lowest temperature to which an object can cool down through the evaporation of water, primarily accounting for heat and humidity in the shade.

Wet-bulb temperature (from earlier post)

The human body can cool itself by sweating and the stronger the wind, the more one can cool off by sweating. As temperatures and humidity levels keep rising, a threshold can be reached where the wind factor no longer matters, in the sense that wind can no longer provide cooling. This physiological limit was long described as a 35°C wet-bulb temperature. i.e. once the wet-bulb temperature reaches 35°C, one can no longer lose heat by perspiration, even in strong wind, but instead the human body will start gaining heat from the air beyond a wet-bulb temperature of 35°C.

Accordingly, a 35°C wet-bulb temperature (equivalent to 95°F at 100% humidity or 115°F at 50% humidity) was long seen as the theoretical limit, the maximum a human could endure. Many assumed that reaching such a limit would require a large increase in temperature, but a 2020 study (led by Raymond) warns that this limit could be regularly exceeded with a temperature rise of less than 2.5°C (compared to pre-industrial).

Furthermore, a 2022 study (led by Vecellio) finds that the actual limit is lower — about 31°C wet-bulb or 87°F at 100% humidity — even for young, healthy subjects. The temperature for older populations, who are more vulnerable to heat, is likely even lower. In practice the limit will typically be lower and depending on circumstances could be as low as a wet-bulb temperature of 25°C.

Wet Bulb Globe Temperature of 36°C or 97°F forecast to hit location in California

The image below shows that a temperature of 47°C or 116°F is forecast to hit a location in the south of California on July 25, 2026 21 UTC. With a relative humidity of 17%, this translates into a 'feels like' temperature of 48°C or 119°F and a Wet Bulb Globe Temperature of 36°C or 97°F.


Forecast of extreme heat danger in Washington and Baltimore region 

Below is a forecast for July 2, 2026, of extreme heat danger in the Washington and Baltimore region, where a wet bulb globe temperature of 35°C is forecast for a location in Annapolis, 31 miles South-Southeast of Baltimore, Maryland.


The above images illustrate that the wet bulb globe temperature threshold can increasingly be reached or even crossed in multiple locations in the United States. 

High temperature forecasts

The image below shows that a temperature of 117°F (47.22°C) is forecast for a location in California on July 9, 2026. 


High temperatures are forecast to hit not only California and Texas, but also many other areas in the United States. The combination image below shows a forecast for July 27, 2026 1 EDT or 21:00 UTC, with a temperature of 117°F (47.22°C) marked for a location in Oklahoma in the panel on the left. The forecast is confirmed by the 7-10 days maximum temperature forecast in the panel on the right.  


The image below also shows very high maximum temperatures forecast for large parts of North America. 


The image below shows that a temperature of 113°F (45°C) is forecast to hit a location in Montana on July 12, 2026. 


The image below is a HRRR forecast showing similar conditions hitting Montana on July 12, 2026, with temperatures marked to be as high as 113°F (45°C). 


The image below shows maximum temperature (left) and temperature anomaly (right) on July 12, 2026. 

[ click on images to enlarge ]

Seven mechanisms heating up the Arctic Ocean

There are at least seven mechanisms behind the temperature rise of the water of the Arctic Ocean.

1. Ocean heat

Firstly, warm water is pushed along the path of the Gulf Stream from the North Atlantic through the Fram Strait into the Arctic Ocean and - to a lesser extent - from the North Pacific through the Bering Strait into the Arctic Ocean. This is illustrated by the image below that shows sea surface temperatures as high as 32.8°C (or 91.04°F) around North America on July 22, 2026. The image also illustrates that geographic conditions facilitate the Gulf Stream to push ocean heat north from the Atlantic Ocean toward the Arctic. 


2. Insolation

A second mechanism is high insolation. In line with seasonal changes, huge amounts of sunlight are reaching the Arctic at this time of year, which directly heats up the water, while heatwaves on land can extend over the Arctic Ocean and hot air can be pushed over the Arctic Ocean due to strong wind, further heating up the water of the Arctic Ocean, especially where the sea ice has now disappeared.

3. Changes to wind patterns and ocean currents


While wind strengthens as temperatures rise, polar amplification of global warming is narrowing the temperature difference between the Equator and the Poles, and this can slow down and distort wind patterns such as the Jet Stream and ocean currents such as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and the Southern Meriodinal Ocean Circulation (SMOC). Changes to wind patterns and ocean currents constitute a third mechanism that can at times dramatically increase the polar temperature.

4. Albedo change

Albedo change constitutes a fourth mechanism. Decline of the snow and ice cover is causing more sunlight to get absorbed by the surface, instead of getting reflected back into space as was previously the case. Many aerosols such as soot (from burning fuel in the Northern Hemisphere) and dust are reaching the Arctic and are settling down on the snow and ice cover, thus contributing to albedo change. Decline of the snow and ice cover and higher temperatures also result in stronger growth of plants and algae, further speeding up the temperature rise due to albedo changes. 

5. Water from land

A fifth mechanism is warm water from land entering the Arctic Ocean. As coasts around the Arctic Ocean heat up, this will also heat up run-off from land and water from rivers that enter the Arctic Ocean. 

This is illustrated by the image on the right that shows sea surface temperatures up to 18.1°C (or 64.58°F) in the Bering Strait on July 9, 2026.

The combination image below shows sea surface temperature anomalies of 13.1°C (or 23.6°C) higher than 1981-2011 where water of the river Ob flows into the Arctic Ocean on July 11, 2026 (in the panel on the left), and 11.3°C (or 20.3°F) where run-off from Alaska enters the Arctic Ocean (in the panel on the right). 

[ click on images to enlarge ]
The image below shows that a temperature of 112°F (44.44°C) is forecast for a location in South Dakota on July 16, 2026, further illustrating that high temperatures can increasingly hit locations at high latitudes. 


6. Disappearance of the buffer

The snow and ice cover act as a buffer that consumes heat as the ice melts and permafrost thaws. Disappearance of this buffer constitutes a sixth mechanism that can abruptly and dramatically increase the temperature of the water of the Arctic Ocean.

7. Further feedbacks and compound impacts

The seventh mechanism includes feedbacks and compound impacts of feedbacks and of extreme weather events. Abrupt eruption of huge amounts of methane from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean, as the temperature of the Arctic Ocean increases, has been discussed in many earlier posts such as this one. The image below, from the feedbacks page, illustrates the mechanism of multiple feedbacks amplifying each other and accelerating the heating up of the atmosphere and the water of the Arctic Ocean.


Compound impact of high temperatures, extreme weather events, fires, lightning and ozone

The image below shows sea surface temperature anomalies of 9.3°C (or 16.8°F) reached on June 27, 2026, at the mouth of the Northern Dvina River in Russia and of 8.2°C (or 14.8°F) south of France in the Mediterranean Sea.


High sea surface temperatures go hand in hand with strong evaporation from the sea surface and high levels of water vapor in the air. 

When there is strong wind, this can result in strong thunderstorms, storm damage and flooding. 

Alternatively, other wind patterns can at times lead to stagnant high temperature combined with high humidity, and this combination can be hard to bear. 

The image on the right shows a very high sea surface temperature anomaly of 16.2°C or 29.2°F (at the green circle) in Hudson Bay on July 14, 2026.

Furthermore, ground-level ozone (O₃) peaks during warm, sunny summer afternoons, as nitrogen oxides (NOx) from motor vehicles and industry react with sunlight and heat to form O₃. Lightning can contribute significantly to O₃. At the surface level, lightning can contribute to more than 40% of O₃ during intense thunderstorms. O₃ in the troposphere is a short-lived yet potent greenhouse gas and ground-level ozone also constitutes a health hazard for wildlife, livestock, people and vegetation, making forests more vulnerable to fires that can be ignited by lightning, as discussed on facebook in a recent comment.

In the video below, Paul Beckwith discusses forest fires burning in Canada. 


The compound impact of high temperatures, extreme weather events, fires, lightning and ozone was also discussed in earlier posts such as this one. Carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH₄) and O₃ are linked in several ways. When CH₄ is broken down by hydroxyl (OH), ground-level O₃ is formed, which is both a potent greenhouse gas and a harmful pollutant. Depletion of OH extends methane's lifetime. CO is also broken down by OH in the presence of nitrogen oxides (NOx, i.e. NO + NO₂), as illustrated by the image below. 


CO entering the atmosphere during forest fires depletes OH and this extends methane's lifetime. The image below, from Copernicus, shows a forecast for July 17, 2026, of the presence of CO and aerosols such as black carbon (BC) and sulfate (SO₄⁻²) over North America during forest fires, when sulphur is volatilized into the atmosphere as gases like sulphur dioxide (SO₂).


The screenshot below warns about the compounding dangers of fires in peatlands in the Arctic. 

[ screenshot from earlier post, adapted from a 2026 analysis by Meri Ruppel ]
Brown Carbon (BrC) is an organic carbon (OC) that absorbs light, instead of scattering or reflecting it, so while smoke and BrC may temporarily shade parts of the surface, BrC does contribute to atmospheric heating. 

The temperature impact over a short horizon (say, a period of one year) of short-lived climate forcers such as CH₄, O₃, CO, BC and BrC can be enormous. The image below shows a striking difference in temperature impact over 10 years (top row) versus 100 years (bottom tow) of carbon dioxide (CO₂, yellow), CH₄ (orange), BC (dark brown) and CO (green), illustrating that the temperature impact of short-lived climate forcers is much larger when calculated over a shorter period. 

[ adaptation of IPCC image, highlighting the impact of CO₂, CH₄, BC and CO ]

The screenshot below also discusses the impact of short-lived climate forcers such as CH₄, stratospheric water vapor (H₂O), BC, CO and O₃. 
[ screenshot from earlier post ]

James Hansen once wrote the following (in 2007), mentioning a GWP of BC of ~2000 over 20 years:
"CO₂ is the largest human-made climate forcing, but other trace constituents are important. Only intense simultaneous efforts to slow CO₂ emissions and reduce non-CO₂ forcings can keep climate within or near the range of the past million years. The most important of the non-CO₂ forcings is methane (CH₄), as it causes the 2nd largest human-made GHG climate forcing and is the principal cause of increased tropospheric O₃, which is the 3rd largest GHG forcing. Nitrous oxide (N₂O) should also be a focus of climate mitigation efforts. Black carbon ("black soot") has a high global warming potential (~2000, 500, and 200 for 20, 100 and 500 years, respectively) and deserves greater attention. Some forcings are especially effective at high latitudes, so concerted efforts to reduce their emissions could still "save the Arctic", while also having major benefits for human health, agricultural productivity, and the global environment."

As discussed in an earlier post, methane eruptions from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean alone could suffice to abruptly cause a huge temperature rise. Additionally, compound impacts such as described above could abruptly drive up temperatures and strengthen feedbacks, causing industrial activity to collapse and sulfate cooling to end abruptly, in turn resulting in urban fires and in people resorting to burning biomass for heating, transport and cooking of food, further fuelling pollution. This combined impact could cause the clouds tipping point to get crossed and cause a potential temperature rise of 18.44°C (from pre-industrial) in a matter of months, as discussed earlier at the extinction page.

Many of these mechanisms have been discussed in earlier posts such as this one. One mechanism is a cold freshwater lid that is forming at the surface of the North Atlantic, due to ocean stratification, meltwater and increased precipitation falling down the path of the Gulf Stream, as described at this page. The increased freshening of the sea surface may temporarily slow down melting of Arctic sea ice, but it also enables warm water to be carried underneath this lid into the Arctic Ocean, threatening to cause destabilization of sediments containing huge amounts of methane. 

At the same time, slowing down of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is resulting in less heat arriving in the Arctic ocean, temporarily that is, because the heat is accumulating in the Atlantic Ocean and a single cyclone may suffice to abruptly move huge parts of that heat into the Arctic Ocean.

For now, it appears that slowing down of AMOC and the formation of the freshwater lid are temporarily slowing down the melting of Arctic sea ice. At the same time, though, warm water is accumulating in the North Atlantic and the freshwater lid can enable much of this heat to abruptly - further facilitated by distortion of the Jet Stream - be carried underneath this lid into the Arctic Ocean, threatening to cause destabilization of sediments containing huge amounts of methane. As temperatures keep rising, such freshening can only temporarily slow down Arctic sea ice melting and the 2026 El Niño may prove it to be short-lived.

Extreme weather all over the globe

As the temperature rise keeps accelerating, extreme weather events are striking with increasingly stronger ferocity, sharpened intensity, longer duration, greater frequency, wider ubiquity and with impact that is - accordingly - accelerating in severity. 

Extreme weather events are increasingly striking locations all over the globe, as highlighted by the combination image below. A temperature of 52.9°C or 127.1°F was recorded at (a virtual) 1000 hPa on July 4, 2026, over Tibet at a location marked by the green circle (left), while a temperature of 21.3°C or 70.4°F was recorded at the same time and location at the surface in Tibet (right). 


Tipping points crossed

The 2026 El Niño could trigger at least 10 tipping points to get crossed, as follows:
  1. the 2026 El Niño could contribute to:
  2. early demise of the Arctic sea ice, i.e. latent heat tipping point +
  3. associated loss of sea ice albedo,
  4. destabilization of seafloor methane hydrates, causing eruption of vast amounts of methane that further speed up Arctic warming and cause
  5. terrestrial permafrost to melt as well, resulting in even more emissions,
  6. while the Jet Stream gets even more deformed, resulting in more extreme weather events
  7. causing forest fires, at first in Siberia and Canada and
  8. eventually also in the peat fields and tropical rain forests of the Amazon, in Africa and South-east Asia, resulting in
  9. rapid melting on the Himalayas, temporarily causing huge flooding,
  10. followed by drought, famine, heat waves and mass starvation, and
  11. collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
[ image from earlier post, click on images to enlarge ]

Conclusion

The situation is dire and unacceptably dangerous, and the precautionary principle necessitates the danger to be acknowledged, while facilitating rapid, comprehensive and effective action to reduce the damage and to improve the outlook, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration, as described in posts such as in this 2022 post and this 2025 post, and as discussed in the Climate Plan group.


Links

• NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) - National Weather Service
https://digital.weather.gov

• Climate Reanalyzer
https://climatereanalyzer.org
Temperatures in Tibet are also discussed on facebook at: 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10164452475574679

• nullschool.net
https://earth.nullschool.net

• Heat Stress in the US (2025)

• Arctic Blue Ocean Event 2025? (update June 2025)


• Transforming Society
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/10/transforming-society.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Climate Emergency Declaration
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climate-emergency-declaration.html






Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Extinction in 2020?


Above image depicts how humans could go extinct as early as 2020. The image was created with NASA LOTI 1880-Nov.2019 data, 0.78°C adjusted to reflect ocean air temperatures (as opposed to sea surface temperatures), to reflect higher polar temperature anomalies (as opposed to leaving out 'missing' data) and to reflect a 1750 baseline (as opposed to a 1951-1980 baseline), with two trends added. Blue: a long-term trend based on Jan.1880-Nov.2019 data. Red: a short-term trend, based on Jan.2009-Nov.2019 data, to illustrate El Niño/La Niña variability and how El Niño could be the catalyst to trigger huge methane releases from the Arctic Ocean.

How was above image created? Let's first look at the baseline. The NASA default baseline is 1951-1980. The added trend in the image below shows early 1900s data to be well below this 1951-1980 baseline. In this analysis, a 0.28°C adjustment was therefore used to reflect this, and to reflect a 1750 baseline, a further 0.3°C was used, adding up to a 0.58°C baseline adjustment.


Furthermore, the NASA Land+Ocean temperature index (LOTI) uses sea surface temperatures, but ocean air temperatures seem more appropriate, which adds a further 0.1°C adjustment. Also, when comparing current temperatures with preindustrial ones, it's hard to find data for the polar areas. Treating these data as 'missing' would leave important heating out of the picture. After all, the polar areas are heating up much faster than the rest of the world, and especially so in the Arctic region. Therefore, a further 0.1°C adjustment was used to reflect higher polar temperature anomalies, resulting in the above-mentioned 0.78°C adjustment.

Finally, the red trend illustrates El Niño/La Niña variability. As discussed in a recent post, an El Niño is forecast for 2020 and this could be the catalyst to trigger huge methane releases from the Arctic Ocean.

The image below shows El Niño/La Niña variability going back to 1950, added to the NOAA monthly temperature anomaly.



As said, the Arctic region is heating up much faster than the rest of the world. There are several reasons why this is the case. Decline of the sea ice makes that less sunlight gets reflected back into space and that more sunlight is reaching the Arctic Ocean. This also causes more water vapor and clouds to appear over the Arctic Ocean. Furthermore, Arctic sea ice has lost most of the thicker multi-year ice that used to extend meters below the surface, consuming huge amounts of ocean heat entering the Arctic Ocean along ocean currents from the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans.

[ created with NOAA Arctic Report Card 2019 image ]
Above-mentioned feedbacks (albedo changes and more water vapor and clouds) contribute to higher temperatures in the Arctic. Furthermore, as the temperature difference between the North Pole and the Equator narrows, the jet stream changes, which can lead to further Arctic heating, i.e. higher temperatures of the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean and over land around the Arctic Ocean, which in turn causes higher temperatures of the water flowing into the Arctic Ocean from rivers.

Furthermore, jet stream changes can also cause additional heating of parts of the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.

[ click on images to enlarge ]
Above image shows that sea surface temperature anomalies off the East Coast of North America as high as 13.6°C or 24.4°F were recorded on December 18, 2019.

Ocean currents can bring huge amounts of heat into the Arctic Ocean, and this can be amplified due to cyclones speeding up the inflow of water from the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean into the Arctic Ocean.


As above image shows, the temperature rise of the oceans on the Northern Hemisphere is accelerating. This constitutes a critical tipping point, i.e. there are indications that a rise of 1°C will result in most of the sea ice underneath the surface to disappear. This sea ice used to consume the inflow of warm, salty water from the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. So, while there may still be sea ice left at the surface, since low air temperatures will cause freezing of surface water, the latent heat buffer has gone.


As long as there is sea ice, this will keep absorbing heat as it melts, so the temperature will not rise at the sea surface. The amount of energy absorbed by melting ice is as much as it takes to heat an equivalent mass of water from zero to 80°C.

The danger is that, as Arctic Ocean heating accelerates further, hot water will reach sediments at the Arctic Ocean seafloor and trigger massive methane eruptions, resulting in a huge abrupt global temperature rise. As discussed in an earlier post, a 3°C will likely suffice to cause extinction of humans.


Earlier this year, an Extinction Alert was issued, followed by a Stronger Extinction Alert.

In a rapid heating scenario:
  1. a strong El Niño would contribute to
  2. early demise of the Arctic sea ice, i.e. latent heat tipping point +
  3. associated loss of sea ice albedo,
  4. destabilization of seafloor methane hydrates, causing eruption of vast amounts of methane that further speed up Arctic warming and cause
  5. terrestrial permafrost to melt as well, resulting in even more emissions,
  6. while the Jet Stream gets even more deformed, resulting in more extreme weather events
  7. causing forest fires, at first in Siberia and Canada and
  8. eventually also in the peat fields and tropical rain forests of the Amazon, in Africa and South-east Asia, resulting in
  9. rapid melting on the Himalayas, temporarily causing huge flooding,
  10. followed by drought, famine, heat waves and mass starvation, and
  11. collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
[ from an earlier post ]

The precautionary principle calls for appropriate action when dangerous situations threaten to develop. How can we assess such danger? Risk is a combination of probability that something will eventuate and severity of the consequences. Regarding the risk, there is growing certainty that climate change is an existential threat, as discussed in a recent post. There's a third dimension, i.e. timescale. Imminence alone could make that a danger needs to be acted upon immediately, comprehensively and effectively. While questions may remain regarding probability, severity and timescale of the dangers associated with climate change, the precautionary principle should prevail and this should prompt for action, i.e. comprehensive and effective action to reduce damage is imperative and must be taken as soon as possible.

The image below gives a visual illustration of the danger.


Polynomial trendlines can point at imminent danger by showing that acceleration could eventuate in the near future, e.g. due to feedbacks. Polynomial trendlines can highlight such acceleration and thus warn about dangers that could otherwise be overlooked. This can make polynomial trendlines very valuable in climate change analysis. In the image below, the green linear trend and the blue polynomial trend are long-term trends (based on Jan.1880-Nov.2019 data), smoothing El Niño/La Niña variability, but the blue polynomial trend better highlights the recent temperature rise than the green linear trend does. The red short-term trend (based on Jan.2009-Nov.2019 data) has the highest R² (0.994) and highlights how El Niño could be the catalyst for huge methane eruptions from the Arctic Ocean, triggering a huge global temperature rise soon.


The image below, from an earlier post, explains the speed at which warming elements can strike, i.e. the rise could for a large part occur within years and in some cases within days and even immediately.


As the image below shows, peak methane levels as high as 2737 parts per billion (ppb) were recorded by the MetOp-2 satellite in the afternoon of December 20th, 2019, at 469 mb. Ominously, a large part of the atmosphere over the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) is colored solid magenta, indicating methane levels above 1950 ppb.



The situation is dire and calls for immediate, comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.



Links

• NASA - GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/index_v4.html

• NOAA Northern Hemisphere ocean temperature anomalies through November 2019
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/nhem/ocean/1/11/1880-2019

• NOAA - Monthly temperature anomalies versus El Niño
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201911/supplemental/page-3

• 2020 El Nino could start 18°C temperature rise
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/11/2020-el-nino-could-start-18-degree-temperature-rise.html

• NOAA Arctic Report Card 2019
https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019

• Critical Tipping Point Crossed In July 2019
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/09/critical-tipping-point-crossed-in-july-2019.html

• Most Important Message Ever
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/07/most-important-message-ever.html

• Accelerating greenhouse gas levels
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/11/accelerating-greenhouse-gas-levels.html

• Debate and Controversy
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/debate.html

• Extinction Alert
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/02/extinction-alert.html

• Stronger Extinction Alert
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/03/stronger-extinction-alert.html

• Abrupt Warming - How Much And How Fast?
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/05/abrupt-warming-how-much-and-how-fast.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html



Saturday, April 1, 2017

Mainstream Media Biased By Focusing On Climate Denial

Hearings of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology recently degenerated into a farce, as three fringe scientists were paraded next to “mainstream-scientist” Michael Mann. The Hearing turned out to have little or no intention to live up to its stated goal of examining the “scientific method and process as it relates to climate change” and instead turned into a theater to stage climate science denial.

Reports of the event confirmed the bias of mainstream media to focus on climate denial while ignoring the side of the Climate Spectrum that is sounding the alarm, as also illustrated by the image below.


Indeed, in discussions on climate change, why ignore the side of the Climate Spectrum that is sounding the alarm? Accordingly, a poll at the ArcticNews group asked: “Who would you instead like to appear in a discussion with Michael Mann?” The results are shown below:


It must be said that not all media are ignoring the warnings. Some media did pick up alerts, e.g. those contained in a recent post at Arctic-news, with the RT video getting a lot of views, shares and comments on facebook and youtube. Will there be further media following these examples?




Sunday, December 8, 2013

CLIMATE REPORT'S HUGE OMISSION OBSCURES FULL DANGER

by Gary Houser

CLIMATE REPORT'S HUGE OMISSION OBSCURES FULL DANGER:
Grassroots Must Insist IPCC Include Massive Permafrost Carbon




"Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies .......   The speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise. 
The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science ..... means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming."
                              
—  Scientific American, "Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative", Dec.6, 2012    [1]
The primary scientific report used by governments of the world to guide their policies on climate has failed to convey the full danger being created by release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. By focusing on human-generated carbon, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has ignored an even more threatening process now being triggered by those emissions. Rapid warming in the Arctic - where temperatures are rising twice as fast as the global rate - is thawing an incomprehensibly vast stockpile of nature's own carbon which has been trapped in ice for millenia. This threat is described in a new mini-documentary (entitled "Last Hours"  [2] )the importance of which has been highlighted by leaders on the climate issue such as Al Gore.   [3]  

The scale of this threat is mind-boggling. There is over three times more heating power stored in this "permafrost" than that which has been caused by human greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of the industrial age - and this refers only to that located on land (as opposed to the coastal seabeds). [4]  This stockpile includes super greenhouse gas methane, acknowledged even by the IPCC itself to be a stunning 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a warming agent over 20 years (with climate-carbon feedbacks). [5]   
Despite a formal appeal by scientists specializing in permafrost study that IPCC issue a special assessment drawing attention to this tremendous danger  [6], the recently released report neglected to do so. The French news agency Agence France-Presse reported that due to bureaucratic delays and a log-jam in the processing of cutting edge data, 
"the cut-off date meant the authors were unable to evaluate recent, but very worrying, studies that say methane trapped in ice-bound coasts in northeast Siberia is being released as seas warm, thus putting the greenhouse effect into higher gear."   [7]

This massive failure by IPCC means that governments world-wide have not been given adequate warning about how preciously little time may be left to prevent the crossing of a tipping point leading to unstoppable global catastrophe. By not addressing the unique consequences brought on by accelerated Arctic warming, the IPCC is in fact skewing the picture that needs to be presented.
"Arctic and alpine air temperatures are expected to increase at roughly twice the global rate .... A global temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius means a 6 degrees Celsius increase in the Arctic, resulting in an irreversible loss of anywhere between 30 to 85 percent of near-surface permafrost."   [8]
Even worse, more cutting edge science (also not included in the IPCC report) reveals additional unsettling developments. Exposure to sunlight appears to speed up the rate of permafrost thaw: "...sunlight increases bacterial conversion of exposed soil carbon into carbon dioxide gas by at least 40 percent compared to carbon that remains in the dark." [9]   This thaw on land is being matched in the shallow coastal seabeds. Natalia Shakhova - who has helped lead numerous fact-finding missions along the coast of Siberia - reports that releases there are "now on par with the methane being released from the arctic tundra."  [10]  She also warns that these releases can be larger and more abrupt than those resulting from decomposition on land.

As previously frozen methane vents to the atmosphere, the warming it causes can thaw and release even more. This "feedback" is capable of escalating into a "runaway" chain reaction that humanity would be helpless to stop. This is the same methane that some scientists point to as a major factor in the most sweeping mass extinctions in earth's history - the PETM and the end-Permian, the latter of which decimated  90 percent of all life forms.   Whether this association can be absolutely proven or not (the scientific basis for its connection to the Permian is explored in the BBC documentary "The Day Earth Nearly Died"  [11] )no one can credibly deny the immense power of this greenhouse gas. 

By omitting this crucial information, policymakers are being dangerously lulled into believing there is more time to act - and less urgency - than what is in fact the case. At precisely the moment when the world needs the most unambiguous and emphatic warning from the scientific community - a moment which may not afford humanity any second chance to recover and correct course - it is nowhere to be found.  


Methane plumes rising from the seafloor
Over the years, the IPCC has been wrong numerous times in its projections. According to Scientific American:
"In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years."  [12]  
As the opening quote states, this pattern has persisted regarding several aspects of the issue. Given this history, it is not surprising the current IPCC report is again "behind the times" on the very day it is published.  In the short time following its release, a large number of experts on sea level rise are already saying that the IPCC projections are too cautious and conservative.  [13] 

Originally created with a mission to provide government bodies with un-biased scientific facts on climate disruption in order to inform the process of policymaking, the IPCC process has become seriously impaired by a combination of internal problems and outside pressure. The result has been the production of reports that not only fail to keep up with the cutting edge of the science itself but are also tainted by a bias toward overly conservative assessments. 

The same key article in Scientific American describes the internal logjam: 
"Such assessments typically take five to seven years to complete in a slow, bureaucratic process: ......... a summary for policymakers, condensing the science even further, is written and subjected to a painstaking, line-by-line revision by representatives from more than 100 world governments – all of whom must approve the final summary document."   [14]  
Materials from scientists are only accepted for consideration after they have been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal. This process in itself can take up to three years. Then another requirement is that such materials cannot be submitted beyond an early cut-off date. The goal of instituting an orderly process is laudable, but the severe problem is that the pace of climate disruption is most assuredly accelerating. If vital information at the cutting edge of these frightening changes cannot make it through these hurdles in time, there is a huge gap of five or six years before it can be integrated into the next report.  

 A key example would be the definitive paper documenting the land-based permafrost feedbacks which asks IPCC to issue a special assessment. Not only was this request ignored, but this documentation was not even considered as it was published after the cut-off date. 

The current IPCC report is quite intimidating at over 2000 pages long. A solution to both problems of timeliness and excessive length is to make the IPCC process more nimble by tackling the various key components of climate disruption individually rather than combining them all into one ponderous document. An example would be a report strictly limited to Arctic issues. As the most rapidly warming region on earth - with profound impact on the global climate - it is entirely deserving of special attention.

The second major problem is that when the IPCC was first set up, a provision was inserted which provides government entities the so-called "right" to review and approve the official Summary for Policymakers - the most important section. As the incredibly wealthy fossil fuel lobby holds great power over many governments, this provision provides an opening to pressure those governments into weakening the language.  As such power was actively used to weaken segments of the last Summary in 2007, [15]  it cannot be ruled out that such was used again. Scientific research should not be censored by political entities, a point made eloquently by British expert on feedback dynamics David Wasdell:
"What comes out is that which is 'acceptable' ...... from science that is about six years out of date, and that becomes the basis for negotiation and decision-making. It is grossly inappropriate....... There are many pressures ..... not least the enormous profits that continue to be made from fossil fuels." [16]  
This provision should be put up for debate and stricken.    

fish skeleton on parched soil, credit: Will Sherman
There is a corrective action which can be taken. Precedent already exists for the IPCC issuing a "Special Report" on aspects of the issue it considers worthy of special attention. A recent example is one on the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. There is a powerful case behind the need to release a Special Report on the threat from permafrost thaw in the Arctic. But an institution this size does not move unless there is a strong and coordinated campaign aimed at raising the issue and applying some "push". All the grassroots environmental groups that have led the climate movement are now called to recognize the dire need to integrate this frightening issue into the framework of all thinking and strategizing. If this is not done, and governments around the world continue to ignore it, there is a high likelihood that all other climate campaigns will fail. 

Keystone XL Pipeline protest - photo taken Feb 13, 2013 - from: flickr.com/photos/tarsandsaction/ 
The valiant effort to oppose the tar sands pipeline must be continued. But this movement must recognize that the climate threats are not presenting themselves in single file - one at a time. Several dangers are simultaneously bearing down on humanity. The laws of physics driving these threats will not pause for political stagnation. If the governments of the world fail to see the sleeping giant awakening in the Arctic and adjust their collective sense of urgency accordingly, then it appears our fate is sealed. The laws of physics will run their course. We owe it to those generations that would inherit a devastated planet to do better than that.      

The prospect of humanity being blindsided by a tremendous - and perhaps even fatal - blow is unthinkable. There is no "Planet B" to turn to if the conditions necessary to support life on our present planet are wiped out. Our society places great trust in the scientific community. Faced by any threat of this magnitude, our assumption is that our scientists will fulfill their moral obligation, act on the precautionary principle, and give us ample warning. In this case, that trust is being violated. It is therefore up to concerned citizens everywhere to speak out, hold them accountable,  and insist that governments receive the warning that is needed. This dangerous and potentially suicidal omission must not be allowed to stand.  

Who stands up for the children? - screenshot from children against climate change protest video
"The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time. They are kneeling with hands clasped that we might act with restraint, that we might leave room for the life that is destined to come."  — Terry Tempest Williams [17]


Gary Houser is a public interest writer and documentary producer focusing on climate issues and the "sleeping giant" of Arctic methane in particular, and based in Ohio in the U.S.  He is seeking to network with others with similar concerns re: permafrost thaw who work in the U.S. context. Current projects are:  persuading major enviro / climate groups to integrate Arctic permafrost thaw as a high priority issue into their campaigns, a specific grassroots campaign to pressure IPCC toward a Special Report, public hearing on Arctic issues in the U.S. Senate, production and broadcast of Arctic permafrost thaw documentary on one of the national TV networks in the U.S.   He can be contacted at:  garyhouser4@gmail.com   


SOURCE LINKS:  

  1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative
  2. www.lasthours.org
  3. Press release: Last Hours Film Raises Issue Of Global-Warming-Induced Extinction ...
  4. Is Arctic Permafrost the "Sleeping Giant" of Climate Change? - NASA ...
  5. New IPCC report released in 2013, at IPCC AR5 WGI Table 8.7
  6. Press Release - National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDIC)
  7. Compiling latest climate report took 3 years; critics say that's too long ...
  8. NSIDC Press Room: Press Release: UNEP report urges ...
  9. Thawing Permafrost May Be 'Huge Factor' in Global Warming ...
  10. Arctic seafloor methane releases double previous estimates
  11. "The Day Earth Nearly Died" (BBC documentary) : http://youtu.be/4dhNEAu4wDo
  12. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative
  13. Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise ...
  14. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative
  15. Washington Post: U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down
  16. Video: Envisionation Interview: David Wasdell On the IPCC & Scientific ...
  17. Quote by Terry Tempest Williams: The eyes of the ... - Goodreads