Home | About | Donate

April 2016 Hottest on Record as 'Climate Emergency' Grows


#1


#2

What if this means that here in the USA that we never have winter anymore? Seriously! What if from now on we no longer see cold winters anymore permanently? What if a tipping has been reached that scientists didn't predict and the end result is that the climate can no longer cool back down seasonally. Oh it will cool of course but not to the degree it used to! What if our forest fire creating drought is just the new normal for our country (and elsewhere in the world) ? What if the Arctic permafrost continues to melt? The glaciers and ice caps just keep on raising sea levels?

That would mean that for all the predictions that we really don't know what will come... Or rather how fast the worst will come. The end of winters seems to have come upon us unexpectedly didn't it. I think that is very scary that we didn't predict this as a permanent change and it may be worse next year by a lot too!

What if we no longer have winters anymore? Somebody ask Trump that question.


#3

This really should raise the level of concern even higher than it has ever been. And it makes it that more frustrating to hear radical progressives say if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee they would rather vote for Donald Trump, who seems proud to be a climate denier. Or vote for Jill Stein and perhaps have a replay of the 2000 election. What does it take to wake these people up to what is at stake here. I think the future of civilization could actually be riding on this election which seems like an exaggeration but maybe not. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have rather similar positions on climate change and both have excellent records on this issue. Both could be considered climate hawks. We absolutely need one of them to win in November.


#5

Future Headline?
WORLD WIDE CLIMATE EMERGENCY; MILLIONS ARE DYING!


#7

Why spread confusion? CO2E is not the more important number. It applies only to other greenhouse gases however it still comes down to the sheer quantity of carbon in the atmosphere. If you disagree then please explain to people why you think that CO2E is the more important? It is only a helper figure such as when methane is first released (a high CO2E) it is more potent as a greenhouse gas but then a few years later it is far less so (low CO2E).

There is no specific CO2E number for methane as it declines as the years go by. It is only a scientific guide to aid in calculating a variable not more important. The actual quantities of gases including carbon are equivalences as well so calculating them at a yearly level is very complex. A certain amount of carbon released into the atmosphere will be retained for a long period of time but a great deal of it will have been taken up by carbon sequestering mechanisms in nature. Thus the aggregate number of CO2 is normally used which also incorporates CO2E gases.


#8

Headline in 4 months, "Arctic Ocean Ice is Gone."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Not visible on the graph at this site but driving the utter collapse of the ice pack is a record low volume of ice. The ice is starting out thin. Just as bad, it's absorbing solar heat way too early this year.

The long-term consequence of a blue water Arctic Ocean is massive absorbtion of solar heat by the Arctic Ocean, followed by hundreds of gigatons or teratons of methane release from the continental shelves of the Arctic Ocean.

This problem can be fought as soon as legislators are no longer in corruption-driven denial about the catastrophe.


#9

We're likely to have sporadic winters.

One effect of more CO2 and more humidity in the air is stronger storms. This means that despite a region's normally high winter temperatures, a powerful blizzard can really pull polar winter air down into itself. We can get blizzards farther down the East Coast these days because of this perverse effect, and we can get blizzards earlier in the season and later in the season. New England really lucked out this past winter when a blizzard nailed Washington D.C. and down into Dixie. The winter of 2015 was great in New England, at least through mid-January. In February and March we had to keep shoveling the snow into piles way above our heads.


#10

There is a nitpicking disease that runs through this site. I suppose that people just want to make sure that when someone says something colloquially like 'No more winters' that that person actually knows that there are qualifications. Thus some else will then get literal!

I appreciate your concern but I assure you that I am fully aware of the episodic and as yet intermittent nature of the warm winters we have been having. However there is a difference between saying something for rhetorical effect like saying the permanent end of winters and a literal understanding of the words. Since winters are seasonal and due to the tilt of the Earth and to a lesser extent its elliptical orbit, technically or rather literally we will always have winter. What we won't have is what we were used to having as winter. It was the latter - the colloquial familiar winters of snowmen and snow shovels and scarfs and mittens etc - that I addressed. The poetic understanding of the winters that we grew up with. The memory of what used to be a normal winter... That is what I was speaking about when I said the end of winter.

We had some snow and drops in temps here and there but the snow soon melted away in a few days if even staying around for that long. We had rain instead of snow. We had what I am calling the Long Fall in place of winter.

But thanks I agree with your comments. So I say again - What if we never have winters again? It is a rhetorical and poetical question that sticks in the mind and makes its case when it is heard. It wasn't intended to be strictly literal.

No more winters...

But you know what I mean though.


#11

That headline is not literally true of course as there will be some floating ice remaining.

But I know what you meant when you wrote it.


#12

Why do so many people have this predicliction to believe in species wide genocide. Using the climate crises to reduce our numbers? How strange to think that way. Just look at the technology that is producing that climate crisis and it is pretty obvious that it is the product of an outmoded technology. This aberrant paranoia about reducing our numbers is absurd and can be helped by medication. Um? Why do you think that they need anymore control over us than they already have and why would reducing population give them more considering the destabilization that will result from catastrophes and unrest etc.

Very weird and sad.


#13

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#14

The Paris target of keeping emissions under 1.5°C is "wishful thinking," Pitman said. "I don't know if you'd get 1.5°C if you stopped emissions today. There's inertia in the system. It's putting intense pressure on 2°C." (emphasis added)

The cited Guardian article also features an amazing graphic representation of the trajectory of the change. You can link to it directly here.

When confronted with things like this I don't know how to contend with the cognitive dissonance between the reality of what's happening to the world and the sheer mass of disinformation fomented to deny it.


#15

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#16

"Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have rather similar positions on climate change and both have excellent records on this issue."

Utter nonsense. Hilariously ridiculous idiocy on your part.

Clinton is a long-term proven sell-out to the extractivist, militarist, and financial capital sectors that have knowingly ignored science for decades, and placed us all on the steep slippery downward slope toward ecological collapse.

Your shilling for Clinton becomes more transparently laughable by the day.


#17

The contemptible actions of corporate and governmental "leaders" on this matter, over the past 5 or 6 or 7 decades (pick your starting point, but the Exxon revelations take us back at a minimum 4 decades) - all for the "interests" of corporate profit, "economic growth," and "national security" (actually seeking global supremacy, not national security) - will leave corporate and governmental "leaders" in a very bad position, as global climate catastrophe really gets going in the very near future, and popular anger seeks targets.

Of course these contemptible actions put everyone in a "very bad position," and even without popular anger seeking justice, there will be no safety for this "leadership" class amidst widespread ecological dis-integration and civilizational collapse.

People sometimes wonder to me, "webwalk, what are you so angry about all the time? Why are you so angry?"


#18

Pointing to that article points out the difference between getting it right and you know, not.

Someone please tell me if I've got this wrong, but April, obviously, was not the hottest month ever recorded. Nor was March, nor February... Each was the most anomalously hot month ever. This February was the hottest February ever recorded, and by the biggest margin. March was the hottest March ever recorded and by an even bigger margin. And April was the hottest April ever, and by an even bigger margin. None of them were hotter than last July, but the direction we're going is utterly clear to anyone who's not insane or infected by SISS--pSychologically Induced Stupidity Syndrome.

I'm guessing this month will be the hottest May ever and likely by the biggest margin ever. June may be the hottest month ever and we'll see about the size of the anomaly. July is extremely likely to be the hottest month ever. If only the insane lying morons would stop trying to keep us from avoiding cataclysm, we could stop repeating such things endlessly and get on with the business of saving civilization.

We need to keep 1.5°C over pre-industrial temperature as our interim goal. We'll go over it; we need to keep working to come back under it on the way to 0°C over pre-industrial temperature--the obvious and clearly only sane goal.


#19

Forgive me if i don't understand you, but i think they do mean hottest month, not hottest March or hottest April.

These are global mean temperatures. Summer and winter don't play into any seasonal or monthly fluctuations, since both hemispheres, both poles, the tropics, everything, it's all included.


#20

These questions are currently very pertinent. The end of Winters as we have known them. Wow.
Here in the Dallas area this year so far the weather including all Spring has been incredibly mild and pleasant. Almost every day the temps are cool in the shade, the wind blows gently in your face. and there is an underlying quality of peace and restfulness overall. It's dreamy , delightful.
It has struck me this very well is the calm before the storm. Drawing on that, I am taking the liberty of coming to peace with myself, my family, my friends and lovers, the Earth and all it's critters, God, the Universe, etc. Also, I'm feeling lots of gratitude.


#21

webwalk said what I was going to: I don't know for sure if it was the hottest month ever, but it was the hottest April, and it might have been the hottest month. We have to remember to avoid being "North America-centric" when reading global information.

Also, here's that visual aid that I mentioned previously, now that I remembered how to upload it:


#22

Very frightening, thanks for the GIF.

Perhaps @joejo provides a good model for handling what has begun. My endless anger certainly has not served me or the Earth, over these past 45 years since i became aware of our trajectory.