Global Warming/Climate Change

2013 Marked the Thirty-seventh Consecutive Year of Above-Average Temperature

by Janet Larson, Earth Policy Institute

Last year was the thirty-seventh consecutive year of above-normal global temperature. According to data from NASA, the global temperature in 2013 averaged 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit (14.6 degrees Celsius), roughly a degree warmer than the twentieth-century average. Since the dawn of agriculture 11,000 years ago, civilization has enjoyed a relatively stable climate. That is now changing as the growing human population rivals long-range geological processes in shaping the face of the planet. Fully 4 billion people alive today have never experienced a year that was cooler than last century’s average, begging the question of what is now “normal” with respect to the climate.

Despite the absence of El Niño conditions (an oceanic/atmospheric circulation pattern that tends to warm the globe), 2013 placed among the 10 warmest years in recordkeeping since 1880. With the exception of 1998 — an intense El Niño year — these top 10 years have all occurred since 2000. More important than annual records, however, is the longer-term trend, which in the case of the Earth’s temperature is clearly on the way up.

Since 1970, each decade has averaged 0.28 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the preceding one. (See Excel data.) As emissions from burning fossil fuels and forests have soared since the Industrial Revolution, the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased, peaking at 400 parts per million in 2013. The last time the CO2 concentration was this high was over 3 million years ago, when there was far less ice on the planet and the seas were much higher.

Much of the 7.5 inches (19 centimeters) of sea level rise since 1901 has been from the thermal expansion of water, but the contribution from melting mountain glaciers and polar ice caps is growing. The amount of ice in the Arctic Ocean is shrinking to new lows. While the loss of floating ice does not directly affect sea level, the shrinkage of the highly reflective cover allows more sunlight to be absorbed, heating the region about twice as fast as at lower latitudes and further accelerating melting, importantly on Greenland. If Greenland’s ice cap were to melt completely, global sea level would rise by 23 feet (7 meters). As early as 2100, seas could rise by up to 6 feet, dramatically redrawing coastlines around the world.

With each incremental increase in temperature, the risk of profound disruption increases too. Even a small rise above the freezing point at critical times means the difference between a rain shower and a snowfall, an important distinction for areas dependent on water gradually released from melting snowpack. A preview is on display in California: Following the state’s driest year on record, with precipitation just a third of average, snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains shrank to 88 percent below normal by late January 2014.

As the global average temperature has risen, the world has seen an increase in warmer days. In the United States, for instance, more high-temperature records have been set in recent years than record lows. Throughout 2013, while there certainly were cold weather events, no region of the globe experienced record cold. Heat waves have increased in recent decades in some areas, particularly in Europe, Asia, and Australia. Off-the-chart temperatures in Australia made 2013 its warmest year on record, with December marking the seventeenth consecutive month of above-average temperature. Regional heat waves continued in January 2014, with the inland town of Moomba topping 120 degrees Fahrenheit on the second day of the New Year. In Queensland, an estimated 100,000 bats died from heat stress.

Global warming is predicted to amplify both dry spells and wet ones. In one example of the kind of event expected to happen more frequently on a hotter planet, much of southern China was blanketed by intense drought and heat in July and August 2013. Seven provinces received less than half their normal rainfall, leaving 20 million acres (8 million hectares) of cropland thirsty. Losses neared $8 billion. According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, the heat wave “was one of the most severe on record with respect to its geographical extent, duration, and intensity; more than 300 stations exceeded a daily maximum temperature of 104 degrees Fahrenheit.”

In Angola and Namibia, where one of every four people are chronically undernourished, 2013 brought a second consecutive year of extremely low rainfall in a string of 30 years that have tended toward dryness. And a drought in Brazil’s northeast, thought to be the most severe in the last half century, continued from late 2012 into the first part of 2013, with some areas receiving no rain for a year. The result was some $8 billion in losses. Then in December 2013, two months’ worth of rain fell in a matter of hours in the heaviest precipitation in 90 years, leading to severe flooding and landslides.

Parts of India and Nepal also received record rainfall in June 2013, with northwestern India receiving double its normal precipitation for that month. The resulting floods and landslides killed more than 6,500 people.

The most expensive weather event in 2013, according to reinsurance company Aon Benfield, was the spring flooding in Central Europe that brought $22 billion worth in damages, only about a quarter of which were insured. June flooding in Alberta was Canada’s costliest natural disaster in history, racking up $5.2 billion in damages. A major Canadian property insurer announced premium hikes of up to 20 percent shortly after its CEO warned of “severe weather events becom[ing] more extreme and frequent” — just one of the growing number of businesses realizing the risk that climate change poses to their bottom lines.

Some insurers have pulled out from storm-prone coastal areas entirely. In a warmer world, tropical cyclones (hurricanes) are not necessarily expected to form more frequently, but the ones that do develop have a good chance of growing more severe, fueled by additional heat energy. Together with higher seas, which make storm surge more dangerous, and increasing populations and infrastructure in vulnerable areas, this is a recipe for high costs.

The year 2013 saw more tropical storms develop than the average since 1980, though fewer than average reached land. In September, Mexico had the unusual experience of being hit from both sides by simultaneous hurricanes in the North Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific. And then in the Western Pacific in November, Super Typhoon Haiyan, the strongest tropical storm ever to make landfall, ravaged large swaths of the Philippines, killing 8,000 people and leaving millions homeless. Winds that reached 235 miles per hour and a major storm surge brought damages tallying an estimated $13 billion.

While any one of these events could possibly have occurred prior to anthropogenic climate change, the risk of weather surprises is increasing as temperatures climb. Furthermore, the danger of hitting invisible thresholds — such as the loss of major ice sheets — where the effects of global warming become irreversible on a human timescale is real. With rapid rates of change, adaptation becomes difficult to impossible. For the safety of civilization, governments around the world have agreed on the goal of staying within a temperature rise of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). We will shoot past that mark, however, without dramatic reductions in fossil fuel burning and deforestation. This requires investment, but the alternative costs that will mount from inaction are beyond measure.

35 Comments

  1. A friend of mine is a climate expert, he says that is impossible to stay within the 2C limit. Is it already too late for adaptation?

  2. Hi Nicola

    See this:

    https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/11/15/the-dangerous-threshold-a-destination-or-a-milestone/

    I think the situation we’re in is serious in the extreme, and yet we could successfully deal with it if we’re collectively lucid and determined enough to do so. Changing the face of agriculture, for example, would quickly address many issues at once – including global warming.

    For example, learn how much carbon can be removed from the atmosphere by better soil management:

    https://www.permaculturenews.org/2012/11/10/tony-lovell-on-soil-carbon-putting-carbon-back-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth-tedx-video/

    See also:

    https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/11/14/the-food-crisis-a-perfect-storm-and-how-to-turn-the-tide/

    https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/01/20/wake-late-make-agriculture-truly-sustainable-now-food-security-changing-climate/

    1. Dear Craig, thanks for the quick reply… What about buffering methane, and other greenhouse gases stronger than Co2? Does this work as well?
      I know about the Co2, but nor about the other substances, and I do not have a solution in mind regarding rising sea/ water levels and nuclear power plants…

      And thank you, Bill, for putting in a more detailed view. For non experts like me it is important to get different view as I do not know any “background information” myself. (I have just got the PDC view.)

      I hope we humans are lucid enough. (I am pondering about how to make my contribution to awareness raising huge. (from the computer, between raising kids and other things.. In case anyone has got an idea)

  3. From an earlier thread…

    “So, once again, on this site we cover all the problems and solutions – not just cherry picking.”

    And yet this exact same set of NASA statistics pops up twice in less than a week without a single counter article which offers an alternative point of view.
    Fair enough. It is a thin line to tread being an editor of a site and keeping your personal opinions out of the equation and only you can decide if you are on or off that line.

    In 2010 James Hansen of NASA said this
    “The “hottest year” claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA’s James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the “hottest year” rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F). “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record,” Hansen admitted on January 13. According to NASA, none of agencies tasked with keeping the global temperature data agree with each other. “Rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses — from GISS, NCDC, and the UK Met Office — a situation that can generate confusion.”

  4. “2013 Marked the Twenty-second Consecutive Year of Above-Average Height for Greg

    Last year was the Twenty-second consecutive year of above-normal height for Greg. According to data from City Medical Center, Greg’s height in 2013 averaged 70.3 inches (178.6cm), roughly 3 inches higher than the twentieth-century average.

    Since 1970, each decade has averaged 17.6 inches taller than the preceding one. (See Excel data.)

    The growth of Greg has concerned medical researchers who are worried that the continuing above average heights he has experienced will lead to ongoing medical problems. Research amongst Greg’s family has identified similarly alarming statistics and researchers have applied for grants to study this problem.”

    Does this sound silly? Of course, you understand that Greg’s height has stopped increasing. But this use of statistics sounds incredibly alarming.

    Have you ever wondered why this argument has been used recently for global warming (so many consecutive years of above average temperatures/warmest decade etc)? It’s because the predicted continual warming has paused or stopped (we don’t know what will happen in the future – it might start going down again for all we know). How else do you worry people when the warming you predicted has not eventuated? You twist and torture statistics to make things sound terrible. Don’t you think if there had been continued statistically significant warming since 1998 they would say that? But there hasn’t, so this ridiculous argument keeps getting presented.

    Download the data in this article to see this for yourself. Take a look at the data since 1998. There has been no rise since then! 1998 was 58.30. 2012 was 58.21. The average during that time is 58.20. The only years higher than 1998 saw 58.32, 58.37, and 58.39.

  5. Greg. Your flippant response is disrespectful to people who are actually having to live through extreme weather events. I’ve noticed that these articles are attracting a certain response and the shrill nature of those responses is most telling.

    Obviously, I have no idea in the world where you are commenting from, but here in the South East of Australia, winter was 2 degrees above the long term average and summer has been 3 degrees above the long term average. This has coincided with 3 heatwaves here within 12 months – one of which during the previous Autumn broke all previous records. The farm here is facing another heatwave (the fourth) over the next week. This is not just unusual, it is unprecedented.

    Cherry picking data is an old trick and it does not impress me. I’d be far more impressed to hear what you are actually doing on a permaculture front. Too many people confuse opinions with facts these days.

    1. Hi Chris,

      Thanks for the response and I’d love to hear your comments about the following points. In particular I’m keen to have an evidence based discussion.

      Whether or not you consider my response flippant and disrespectful (and whether or not you consider it such has no bearing on the underlying arguments), I would hope this discussion would be about the facts, the evidence. If global warming has halted for 15, for 17 years, the computer models are wrong and have been falsified. If extreme weather events have not increased (and maybe even decreased), the computer models that predicted they would increase are wrong and have been falsified. Anecdotes about one particular region’s weather and climate are not proof on a global level. Let’s look at the observations, the evidence and see what it says. Relevant evidence would include global temperature datasets (such as the NASA one in this article), data at the global level on cyclones, hurricanes, tornados and other extreme weather events.

      I think it would be worthwhile for me to state my point in my original post explicitly. This article is twisting statistics to give the impression that the global mean average temperature is still rising. In reality, the evidence shows that the world has stopped warming. My analogy at the start is to show that you can twist statistics exactly the same way when looking at the growth of a person. This is important because the computer models have predicted continued and increasing levels of warming while the evidence has shown a halt to global warming for well over a decade.

      Could you please be clear as to what data I have cherry picked? Vague claims aren’t helpful. I agree with you that let’s not confuse opinions and facts – that is why I care about what the evidence says (which I value much more highly than what someone might claim).

      I also like your point about being more impressed with what’s happening with permaculture. I think that is the complaint of a lot of people that this blog seems to have lost its way as it has had a stream of articles about AGW. The environmental movement has destroyed its credibility with a lot of people with its promotion of AGW; I don’t want to see permaculture do the same thing.

              1. Craig
                We could go on for the rest of our lives producing link after link that contradicts each other and still get no nearer what is going on in the planets climates. I quite agree a railway engineer and an architecture professor are not ‘qualified’ climate scientists but the big difference is governments base policy on the mutterings of the railway engineer so as much as you would like to see scientific evidence take centre stage, as it should, the truth of the matter is policy holds the spotlight and as long as it does the understanding of the earth’s climate will be kept in the shadows.

                Until man’s undoubted technological skill can produce a machine that can provide us with measurable evidence of how the planets carbon cycle releases and locks away carbon dioxide then all the crystal ball gazing by computer model is… well.. crystal ball gazing. As the Garth article I posted shows scientists themselves are not at all sure about anything climate related. The 98% in agreement is a myth. Myths are the drivers of the AGW ‘yes or no’ debate not science, not evidence, not measurements.

                Permaculture IS the design system which will if rolled out far beyond it’s current boundaries will change the way of life for billions and in doing so will reduce the grip of those who prosper from fear and empower the individual thus making the planet a better place for all life on the earth and the earth itself. Scaring people into paying to solve a problem that may or may not exist at some point in the future which may or may not be bad for the earth and all the life upon it is insanity in my book because without sufficient freedom to spend your income where you feel it should be spent then the funds necessary for the roll out of permaculture more effectively will not be there and perhaps worst of all the deliberate scare mongering suggests that there are considerable numbers of people upon this planet who do not trust their family, friends and neighbours to be able to work out what is best for them and those around them.
                No that is a scary thought.

                1. We could go on for the rest of our lives producing link after link that contradicts each other and still get no nearer what is going on in the planets climates.

                  I see quite a difference between the links I’m sharing, and yours…

                  I quite agree a railway engineer and an architecture professor are not ‘qualified’ climate scientists but the big difference is governments base policy on the mutterings of the railway engineer .

                  No, they’re basing their policies on the findings of thousands of climate scientists.

                  And yes, their policies leave a great deal to be desired, but that’s one of the reasons it’s so important people understand ALL the issues, and start taking responsibility for them – and not just leaving it to narrow-minded policymakers…. When people begin to join ALL the dots in the big picture, which includes joining problems up to solutions, then things will start to change.

                  Until man’s undoubted technological skill can produce a machine that can provide us with measurable evidence of how the planets carbon cycle releases and locks away carbon dioxide then all the crystal ball gazing by computer model is… well.. crystal ball gazing.

                  Why are you talking about computer models? I have not referred to forecasts at all. I’m focusing on documented, historical, scientific measurements.

                  Readers of this conversation thread need to be aware that we have been aware of the impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for a long, long time. To get an idea, see this video from Frank Capra from 1958 (54 years ago):

                  https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/03/17/global-warming-is-old-news/

                  And even further back:

                  https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

                  We’ve been ignoring the science for decades, and some would have us continue to do so…. And, yes, you guessed it, those with the most interest in seeing the science ignored are those who are capitalising the most from the extraction and destruction of the world’s resources — i.e. large corporate interests, who do a tremendous job in spreading confusion amongst the masses….

                  As the Garth article I posted shows scientists themselves are not at all sure about anything climate related. The 98% in agreement is a myth.

                  I beg to differ:

                  https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

                  Scaring people into paying to solve a problem that may or may not exist at some point in the future which may or may not be bad for the earth and all the life upon it is insanity in my book …

                  Firstly, it’s a problem right now – not “at some point in the future”. And, I am not scaring anybody into doing anything. I share ‘reasons to act’, alongside ‘how to act’. Again, ignoring climate science because governments do stupid things is not a sensible approach. But, your call.

                  We could go on for the rest of our lives producing link after link that contradicts each other..

                  Quite possibly. But, since you insist on insisting on what I publish here, at least the comment thread becomes an opportunity for readers to read some more scientific articles through some of the other links and thoughts that I provide — rather than just listening to tabloids, Fox News accounts, and tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy websites.

                  Bill, I’ve seen these comment threads so many times, on this and other websites. When something is mentioned that should be responded to, it is ignored. For example, please explain why our oceans are acidifying (with dire consequences for all of us, not least of which the millions who directly rely upon fishing for sustenance), why almost all of our glaciers are shrinking (with dire consequences for hundreds of millions of people, whose water supply is reliant on them), and why our sea levels are rising. These are all documented facts — and, as it happens, they also directly correlate with the expected result of a dramatic rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

                  Sorry, but your ‘political’ arguments mean nothing to me. To make it clear, I totally refuse to ignore a real and important issue just because some in the government do stupid things with it. I look at and consider natural systems, and in how people systems can integrate harmoniously with them. That’s what this blog is about. And if it raises people’s awareness so they start to challenge those in power to actually do something truly appropriate/constructive/useful — or to even reconfigure those systems of power (the ‘invisible structures’) in order to achieve that goal — then even better.

                2. Craig
                  I get it.
                  You believe that mankind’s current activities upon this planet are having a detrimental effect on the climate of the planet.
                  I accept that belief is based on the sources of information you have found, seek out or find you and I fully respect and understand your desire to pass this on.
                  I believe that man makes many negative impacts upon this planet and has done for thousands and thousands of years. I also believe man has made many positive impacts on this planet over the same thousands of years. I fully accept the planets climate is in constant motion and must always be so if life is to continue to flourish here.

                  I arrived at this site keen to rekindle a flame I had in my teenage years which was simply to ‘grow stuff’. Back then it was my dream to make it as a nurseryman but my parents suggested that maybe it would be better to ‘get a trade behind me’ build up some capital and then go into ‘growing things’, as they called it and I was too afraid, too naive to come up with a counter suggestion. Like all parents they only wanted what they thought was best for me so no blame can be attached to them for my letting my flame go out and remaining a tradesman for decades as consumerism took hold of me.
                  The good thing about those decades is they taught me the future be it immediate or distant is unpredictable. I’ve lived through many politician pushed science based doom and gloom and indeed science based ‘golden times’ scenarios that predict a certain type of future is only possible if ‘action is or isn’t taken now’ and not one of them has become reality so I am naturally sceptical about anything the politicians push which is ‘based on science’ that means the raising of more tax or the loss of a liberty or personal choice.

                  A note on how the politics that ‘mean nothing to you’ operates here.
                  Today I have no choice but to pay the Climate Change Levy and the Renewables Obligation costs that the government here has added to every KWH of mains fed electricity on top of which I have to cover the three portions of VAT that are added to electricity as it transits from generator to my home. If I or my family want the benefits brought by the use of mains fed electricity then we must pay the pipers demands. There is no voluntary aspect to any of this.
                  Whether you accept it or not politics drives change in the direction of those who seek to gain from fear namely corporations and their governments the two parties responsible for industrialisation and exploitation of resources.

                  My only aim in posting on these climate change threads was to present an alternative to the narrative. Your site unlike many others that promote the AGW argument is different in one vital way. You publish alternative comments unmolested and you deserve applause for this.
                  However I can appreciate how this process bores the backsides off readers who are here to find out all they can about permaculture or decide if it is right for them so I promise not to enter into any more climate change exchanges from here on in.
                  Regards
                  Bill

        1. Thanks for those links Craig. I was keen to find out what they said and what evidence was presented so I started reading the first article.

          The title of the first article, “Debunking the persistent myth that global warming stopped in 1998”, was promising. I’m assuming that the central thesis of this article is that global warming is continuing. Surely this article would present proof that the temperature continues to rise. Let’s see the evidence and arguments presented in it:

          1. “The past decade was the hottest on record globally.” Just like the point of my original post, this is not proof of a continuing rise in temperatures. You cannot claim that I am continuing to grow because my height over the last decade is the highest on record. This argument doesn’t support the title and central thesis.
          2. “it should be considerably cooler than average, not hotter”. So just because it hasn’t cooled, this is evidence that the temperature is rising? Seriously? This argument doesn’t support the title and central thesis.
          3. The heat has gone into the ocean. At last, a claim that can be verified by the evidence. I’m off now to look at the evidence (the actual data) and I’ll be back with the results of my search. Meanwhile, if anyone else knows where to find the actual data, feel free to post it here.
          4. “Greenhouse gas warming certainly won’t be linear”. This argument doesn’t support the title and central thesis.

          Btw, here’s the data we have so far, the global temperature from the link in this article.

          58.30, 57.90, 57.92, 58.14, 58.28, 58.26, 58.14, 58.37, 58.26, 58.32, 58.08, 58.26, 58.39, 58.17, 58.21

          I’ll be back with more following my search for ocean data.

          1. The argo probes are probably the only source of ocean temperatures that come close to meeting scientific criteria. Even they are such a long way off the quality of land based weather stations that I don’t think we can come to any conclusions one way or another.

  6. https://www.thegwpf.org/uk-met-office-global-temperature-standstill-continues/

    “Hadcrut Month 1997

    The temperature anomaly (above 14.0 deg C) for 2013 is 0.486 making 2013 the 8th warmest year. Statistically with errors of +/- 0.1 deg C ranking the warmest years is meaningless, but it seems to be something many scientists and the media do. So, 2013 is cooler than 2010, 2009, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1998 and only 0.003 above 2007. Note that the early part of the 2000s was warmer than the latter part. Four of the five years between 2002-2006 were warmer than 2013, but only two of the past seven have been. Note also that 2013 is cooler than 2003.”

    Science has yet to figure out what is likely to be going on in the planet’s climates. Instead of being given the opportunity and the resources to ‘just get on with developing a deeper understanding of the earth’s climates’ the politicians and those who ‘scent a commercial opportunity’ leap into action to tax and ‘make a buck’ from people who are genuinely scared the sky will fall in unless we pay the government to ‘do something’.
    Problem > reaction > solution works.
    Permaculture is living proof this process works but the big difference is, to my mind at least, Permaculture deals in real problems which invoke a reaction in individual(s) to come up with and implement practical solutions creating benefits for all whereas governments/corporations invent problems, invents reactions and then create solutions that do not work.

  7. “National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
    Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.
    ‘Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.’
    ‘[…] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time’
    ‘The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)’

    No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points…” ~ Wikipedia

    See also my response here.

    Lastly, in some of my readings of the commentary here and there, I’m often reminded of this comic.

    1. I actually care more about what the evidence, the actual observations say than what a scientist or group of scientists say. Warming has occurred, yes, but the evidence shows it stopped around 15 years or so ago.

      With regards to that comic, I would reply, if only most of the money went to improving the world around us. Much of it seems to have been wasted. Look at the wind farms bringing killing rare species, look at the environmental pollution in China from mining the rare earth materials needed for solar cells, look at the enormous subsidies for “green” power, but no reduction in base load is achieved due to the volatile nature of much of the power.

  8. Why bother arguing about decimal points and world wide averages – just look at the long term physical proof which can be read in the glaciers and ice sheets that cover the poles and high mountain tops. Nearest to home is Papua. early last century there were 3 ice caps in papua – 2 have now dissappeared and the last the Carstenz glaciers will probably melt away within the next 20 years – I led 2 expeditions there in the 1970s and the tongue of the glaciers were hundreds of metres below the present tongue and in the 70’s the tongue was a long way up the mountain from a cairn placed by aDutch Geologist, Dozy in 1936. But this is not something short term it is long term – we found terminal moraines a long way down the valley which when dated indicated that the ice front was several kilometres and hundreds of metres lower 9,0000 years ago. Unfortunately those geomorphological relics have now been destroyed by the Freeport gold & copper mine. The freeport mine itself was discovered due to a pinnacle of harder mineralized rock, the Ertzberg Pinnacle, left bare by the previous glaciations. Global warming and cooling has been occurring in cycles for thousands and thousands of years! We are now in awarming part of the cycle – but our human activities are accelerating the warming to a significant extent. The proof can also be found in glaciers and opreviously glaciated areas from all over the world – Tropical glaciers in particular show the results of Global warming very quickly as thay are border line glaciers – the glaciers in africa will also dissapear this century, Columbia’s mountains are higher so they will last a little longer go to the Himalayas or the European alps if you want more proof.
    Don’ t bother arguing about decimal points make plans and act now to adapt to higher & higher temperatures in the forseeable future. .Of course one day there will be atipping point when the earth’s temperatures will plunge again, some say this could happen when the Gulf stream at al stops taking warm water to the northern extremes but don’t count on that happening in our lifetime.

  9. “But this use of statistics sounds incredibly alarming.” ~ Greg

    While I am not necessarily suggesting this is the case, maybe that’s the idea. Maybe you’ve noticed a kind of ethical ‘embellish’ or ‘bend’. But if Craig Mackintosh’s recent comment post about Bill Mollision’s contention about a ‘fight’ of a sort is true, then it seems less effective or fair to remain fighting in padded boxing gloves against those bare-fisted, yes?

    As for your growth, I’d indeed be, as you say, ‘incredibly alarmed’ with it if it flirted with Impossible Gregster territory. ;)

    1. I would contend that “ethical embellishment” is an oxymoron. Once people realise that you have exaggerated, the credibility of the “cause” is destroyed (although one could argue that if it has become a cause, maybe it’s not all bad to see credibility take a hit).

      Btw, I’m not sure if I should be worried about the growth of the “Greglettes” – their continued growth _will_ eclipse mine and who knows where it will end! Not sure I’m incredibly alarmed yet, but the past six months has almost approached alarming!

      1. If the stats are true and a particular frame, perspective or reinterpretation of them will, in some way, better help strengthen or drive a particular point home, then perhaps this is fair game. At any rate, I had some more time to read some more of the comments…

        “In 2010 James Hansen of NASA said this…” ~ Bill

        Where’s the source/link in your comment for this?

        “Warming has occurred, yes…” ~ Greg

        So you agree…
        From what is understood, a ‘mere’ 2 deg. C. warming, at least at particular rates of increase, is potentially dangerous, perhaps even catastrophic (such as with regard to feedback effects), so fractions of particular increments are understood as ostensibly significant in context.
        As for 15 years of apparently no increase in warming, that actually might be good news if it weren’t for the fact that 15 years isn’t necessarily that long when comparing temperature fluctuations/increases/trends across longer timelines.
        If we look at the simple graph in the article, we might notice that, from about 1945, it took about 30 years for the temperature trend to continue upwards. We would seem to be ‘lucky’ for this 15-year temperature ‘breather’ if this is the case, since it might buy us some time before Mother Earth catches her breath and resumes the trend…
        Frankly, it is difficult to imagine that there would be relatively negligible effects from the burning of the amount of fossil fuels humans have been burning up to this point.

        Incidentally, above, I was referring to the Impossible Hamster, but forgot the link. :)

        1. Caelan and others – in regards to ‘breathers’ in the global warming trend, it’s good if people also factor in ‘global dimming’. Watch the BBC documentary in this post:

          https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/12/17/veiling-our-true-predicament-global-dimming/

          After watching that video, then you start look look differently at the “one or two new coal fired power plants every week in China” situation. The massive industrialisation in China, India, and elsewhere puts a lot of particulates into the air, causing global dimming, which in turn mutes/veils the impact of global warming.

  10. Hi everyone,
    I would just like to add a different perspective on the unethical use of fossil fuels today and why, regardless of their contribution to global warming, the use of such energy sources goes against the permacultural ideal. Oil, gas and coal are very polluting and destructive in both burning and extraction, inhaling the fumes causes serious health problems and the mining processes are dirty in every sense of the word. Every place where these resources are available is a terrible place to live, ecologically and socially as well. All wars and opressive regimes in the world are sponsored by this industry. Rich people like us (if you own a computer you are rich, even if you don’t feel that you are) have already used more than our fair share of these energy sources and so should leave them to others who need it for the creation of infrastructure already available to us. Should you feel a bit more like the self preservating kind of person, rather than being of the socialist type, consider how your grandchildren will power hospitals, ambulances and fire trucks if we use all the liquid fuel making rubbish no one needs and jetting off to exotic holidays.
    So, regardless of the statistical or anedoctal evidence for a.g.w., all people who follow ethics of earth care, people care, fair shares must do their utmost to reduce or even discontinue the use of any substance that fails to meet the aforementioned values, no matter how useful that substance is. That said, I am guilty of being addicted to the stuff as much as anyone else.

  11. Thanks for the link, Bill, but it appears, at least on that page, that Hansen did not say some of what you have in your quotation marks above; nor is the phrase, “…claim depends on minute fractions…” to be found anywhere thereon… Incidentally, my name is spelled Caelan, as opposed to how you have it spelled. ;)

    Craig, I’m well aware of global dimming– good point/reminder– and have previously seen a documentary about it. Thanks for the link, as well as your ‘ethical bend’ ;) of my previous Impossible Hamster link, which, if recalled, originally pointed only directly to the video on You Tube.
    Global dimming only seems to narrow the margin-of-error for our species (as if we needed one!) thus making our predicaments seem more dire than they already are.

    Suzana Mawdsley, excellent points.

  12. So much energy wasted in a pissing match. Lester Brown is now part of the problem because of the polarization that his global warming theme causes.

    His price tag of US$187 billion annually to fix an arguably broken system by stabilizing population, eradicating poverty, restoring the earth’s natural support systems and stabilizing climate is simplistic at best and misleading at worst since models are always packed with assumptions – https://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_items/PlanB4_0_PDFSlidesEarthPolicyInstitute.pdf

    Nowhere in this document do you find the word growth. He does not address a consumer capitalism oriented, growth-based economic model whose growth is now debt based. His solution is business as usual but make it green and everything will be fine.

  13. Greg. I’m disappointed. You completely failed to answer my final question. 0 out of 10 dude. Talk is cheap. What are you personally doing?

    Meanwhile in the real world, Adelaide in Australia has just chalked up its hottest summer on record with 14 days over 40C degrees. Here which is to the SE of that location, we have been 8C degrees above the long term average for February so far and summer rains have failed.

    You can believe what you want, but clever rhetoric does not alter the situation. You should perhaps look up the term regression analysis sometime as it may be useful to you when analysing graphs to predict trends.

    1. I’d be far more impressed to hear what you are actually doing on a permaculture front.

      Greg. I’m disappointed. You completely failed to answer my final question. 0 out of 10 dude. Talk is cheap. What are you personally doing?

      Meanwhile in the real world, Adelaide in Australia has just chalked up its hottest summer on record with 14 days over 40C degrees. Here which is to the SE of that location, we have been 8C degrees above the long term average for February so far and summer rains have failed.

      You can believe what you want, but clever rhetoric does not alter the situation. You should perhaps look up the term regression analysis sometime as it may be useful to you when analysing graphs to predict trends.


      Hi Chris,

      You must have written something different to what I read. I just went back and re-read what was in your post and didn’t actually find a question there. I found a statement, “I‚Äôd be far more impressed to hear what you are actually doing on a permaculture front”, but as it wasn’t a question I’m not sure why you’re disappointed that I didn’t answer it. But since you have asked the question, “What are you personally doing?” I’m happy to answer it.

      However, let me state first that I believe judging someone by how much or how little they are doing is a divisive approach. Instead of looking at someone’s “credentials”, or trying to impress people, I want to see an inclusive approach – to get excited at the person who is taking one or two tiny steps as part of their life as much as the expert who has implemented a mature permaculture system that has been running for years. Even the person who is opposed to permaculture can provide a great challenge to turn them around to see the benefits and how permaculture offers so much across so many areas.

      I’ve been involved with a community co-op permaculture group for a couple of years now. I was able to get about 12 other people involved too, and although not all of them continued on with it, the exposure they have had is no doubt a positive for them and who knows what will happen in the future. This whole experience has been great for the enthusiasm of the other people as well as the increase in understanding I’ve gained in areas including gardening, soil biology and permaculture over this time.

      I’ve begun to do a little bit of experimenting in my property with some concepts I’ve come across (including hugelkultur and aquaponics). It’s very early days still, but I’ve finally taken the step I’ve wanted to for a while and I’ll be completing a PDC later this year. I still don’t know if this will lead anywhere beyond a personal application (to myself and family & friends), but I know it will give me the skills and confidence to do a lot more at home.

      I’d be interested to know more about what you are doing with permaculture too – can you share a bit about that? If this blog could return to a focus on permaculture, this can only be a good thing.

      Temperature records are constantly being broken. One region having record highs is not proof of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (just as other areas having record lows is not proof that it is wrong). Science itself is a very simple process. It is not dependant on career scientists; you do not even have to have a scientific background to see if a hypothesis has been falsified. When I look at the computer models, I see a whole lot of hypotheses which have been falsified and a couple which are just hanging on. No “clever rhetoric” is needed (or wanted) – just compare the observations to the predictions. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/ For anyone who is interested in looking at the actual data, I highly recommend the tool woodfortrees.org which allows you to easily graph the actual data. The satellite datasets provide a very good picture of temperates across the globe. I choose to believe what the evidence, the observations, show. And right now the lack of warming tells me that the models are wrong.

      I actually have done postgraduate studies in regression analysis, and I know the way it can be used and abused. When it comes to the world climate, we’re dealing with a complex and chaotic system that keeps surprising us. It’s hard enough predicting temperatures a week or two out; the fact that the models all failed to predict this 15+ years of no global warming is proof that they cannot yet model the climate accurately. This is not clever rhetoric; it is just the way the scientific method works.

      Greg

  14. One wonders why there is all this polarization. I suggest that we’ve all been had. Follow the money.

    It’s generally accepted that anything in excess is disruptive, even destructive. Whether or not excessive CO2 emissions cause a greenhouse effect that leads to atmospheric warming isn’t the issue if one thinks about the furor around that question. Where did the furor come from? One need only look at who funds Cato, Heartland, etc. Who stands to profit from the short run gains of maintaining the status quo? What is the best tactic to use? Create doubt and uncertainty and do it with a never ending media barrage.

    Let us assume for the moment that the science supporting global warming/climate change is accurate and correct. Will it prevail? Absolutely not! One of the most eloquent essayists who has a large soapbox, George Monbiot, has failed to persuade millions. Why? Because the spin doctors have created enough uncertainty and confusion. Does anyone really think that Christopher Monckton’s classics training qualifies him as an expert outside that field? But wait – he’s a Nobel Peace Laureate or at least he was in 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110429010220/https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html History seems to have been re-written as of 2014 – https://web.archive.org/web/20140209015228/https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html

    At the risk of appearing to enter the fray, I provide a start point for those wishing to look at who is creating the confusion – https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/AGW_denier. Look at their credentials and qualifications to critique and then think about the furor.

  15. Good one Bill. I’m especially convinced by this gem: The Illuminati efforts to make Satan and his worshippers (Illuminati/Freemasons) gods are parallel to their Interfaith efforts. The Pontifical one since 1986 is an extension of the 2nd Vatican Council, where the Church enthroned Satan as its head. Other Interfaith projects are EU ‘s ASEM and Pastor William Swing´s, Luci (fer)´s Trust´s, Ted Turner´s, Bill Gates´, Maurice Strong´s, Jimmy Carter´s United Religions´ Initiative, and Rockefeller´ s Aspen Institute spreads the gospel. The eco – Gaia religion based on Gorbachev´s, Rockefeller´s and Maurice Strong´s Earth Charter, i.a. is a Leninist pagan Interfaith project. The UN is full of Satanism. at https://new.euro-med.dk/20140203-satan-at-large-in-nwo-i-mind-controlled-monarch-sex-kittens-i-sold-my-soul-to-the-devil-and-won-hundreds-of-millions-of-youths-won-for-him.php

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Back to top button