More Bad News for the Planet

Blog readers SHOULD know by now how dangerously incorrect some of the science is on what we can soon expect. For example, the IPCC report (due in 2014) completely omits permafrost melting from any projections.

Now, there is a new report that should be digested.  Degrees are in Celsius:

And now a new study has shown just how unrealistic the 2-degree goal is. “If we keep going on as we have been, it will be 5 degrees,” says co-author Glen Peters, who works at Norway’s Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO). And scientists agree that such a dramatic warming of the earth’s temperature would have devastating consequences.

The consequences of the projected increase of five degrees would be fatal. Researchers already expected that an increase of two degrees would result in glacial melt at the polar caps, and a dramatic increase in sea levels and droughts that would likely lead to waves of migration worldwide. All of this would be significantly more intense in the event of a five-degree increase of emissions.

Scientist Forecast Dramatic Temperature Increase

Melting Earth
The planet must not be allowed to warm beyond 2 degrees Celsius, according to the official targets at the Climate Change Conference in Doha. But a new study shows the goal is far from realistic. Current human activity is set to increase the temperature by some 5 degrees, and the consequences will be dire, scientists warn.

There is widespread reporting (which I have not bothered to cover since it was so predictable) that the current climate talks would fail. And they are failing.

It should be becoming crystal clear that the entire world is facing an absolutely hellish future. And that political will to address the crisis remains criminally absent.

I’ll have more to say on this later.


Update: Radio Ecoshock has a new broadcast the states it quite clearly – extinction ahead (audio only). And far, far sooner then you may think.

Grab a beer, sit down and take a listen. Contemplate what this is going to mean. Readjust your priorities, starting tonight. It won’t change the outcome, but you’ll still be better off.

I was playing around tonight with a plug-in for WordPress that indexes all several thousands posts on the this blog. After getting it working, I stumbled across a post of mine from 2006 (six years ago) that makes it clear – just 2°C of warming is “catastrophic”. We’ve been told all along what we could reasonably expect, and for at least six years I’ve been writing about it. Now, the (brave) science is finally saying the same thing.

More Update:

We’ve been lulled asleep into thinking that “just 2°C” is okay by us, because of very bad reporting in the past, after all, how bad could that really be?  But we’re forgetting what that figure actually represents and how less the half of this number has already resulted in 50 million climate refugees.  It’s also a far, far higher number in the Arctic where the ice is found, which will all melt at just 2°C or less.

The image below is the Arctic temperature anomalies recorded in November 2012, a whopping 20C:

Arctic Temperatures Anomolies

There are also elevated levels of methane from the same exact period:

Global Methane Levels Increasing

“This is what abrupt climate change looks like. In the paleorecords global average temperatures increased over 6 degrees C within a decade or two, I suppose we will know more precise numbers in a few short years.”

If 2°C is now well understood as “catastrophic”, 6 °C isn’t even in the realm of “survivable” in “a few short years” which now appears to be all we have left.  Global rapid catastrophic climate change is now an established fact.

NOAA: Climate Change Driving Arctic Into A ‘New State’ With Rapid Ice Loss And Record Permafrost Warming

Follow the link above, there is a short video worth watching.


admin at survivalacres dot com

6 thoughts on “More Bad News for the Planet

  • December 5, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Good quote, except we ARE that stupid:

    The new data is beginning to confirm what scientists had been warning people about for decades, said Andy Pitman, director of the Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW.

    “There are papers that should come with a warning: ‘do not read this if you are depressed’, or ‘please have a stiff drink handy as you read this’. [This] paper is one such example,” Professor Pitman said.

    The greenhouse gas emissions path the world is taking “is not a tenable future for the planet – we cannot be that stupid as a species,” he said.

    I think I’ll go pour myself another glass of good Merlot now…

  • December 5, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    See the update, listen to the broadcast.

    Then have another drink, you’re going to need it.

  • December 6, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    I finished off the whole bottle. 🙂

    I can’t recall if you’ve referenced Peter Ward’s “Under a Green Sky” so I wanted to post a few telling comments from a review that pertain to the juggernaut hurtling towards us all:

    “There’ve been five major extinctions where 50-95% of life died. Below is a list of the mass extinctions Ward believes were caused by global warming – and he wrote this book to explain why human-caused global warming is probably going to cause another major extinction, probably the second worst in Earth’s history (the worst being the Permian).

    …In 2005, Lee Kump, at Pennsylvania State University, an expert in ocean chemistry and other scientists were the first to publish a paper hypothesizing that hydrogen sulfide was involved in both the land and sea mass extinctions.

    These nasty, toxic oxygen-hating organisms exist now in deep anaerobic places like the Black sea. The lower layer is full of hydrogen sulfide and the upper layer is full of oxygen. The two layers coexist until oxygen levels drop above, and then the balance is tipped to favor the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria, which produce even more hydrogen sulfide. At some threshold the hydrogen sulfide layer could abruptly rise to the top, killing marine life above.

    The hydrogen sulfide would keep rising and release bubbles of extremely poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas into the atmosphere, killing land plants and animals as well. This horrifying scenario is known as the Kump hypothesis. Adding to the killing were huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane coming from ocean bottoms and the largest eruption in the history of the earth – the Siberian Traps. This amplified greenhouse warming, and made the hydrogen sulfide even more deadly — lethality increases with warmth.

    Worse yet, hydrogen sulfide destroys the ozone layer, which shields Earth from UV rays, and this is quite likely what happened, because we can see fossil creatures damaged in a way that looks like it was caused by radiation. UV killed ocean phytoplankton (at the bottom of the food chain) as well as land plants (even now phytoplankton are being destroyed under the large ozone hole in Antarctica).”

    What do you think of Ward’s analysis?

    Maybe I’ll go back to hard liquor.

    • December 7, 2012 at 2:22 am

      I’ve also seen a recent study that indicated that the climate has flipped in a tiny span of time (mere years). Pretty sure it was a coral study, and now they’re racing around the world trying to find additional data. They’re now saying that past science is hugely mistaken how fast these events take place, previously thought to be long and drawn out, now they say the evidence points to very quickly.

      I think it’s now dead clear we are on the path to extinction. Spent some time tonight looking around, still see science based websites quoting 5 year old data which is now widely known to be very far off the current science projections and what is happening on the ground. Even posted a few links, imagine that.

    • December 15, 2012 at 8:16 pm

      “The expectation that the worsening problem would put pressure on the international community to find a solution has not been borne out — and isn’t likely to be.”

      Someone should coin a phrase on this sort of thing (other then Hopium). Worsening problems do NOT change human behavior. They often simply make us go faster.

      The 2C target is utterly, totally dead. Every climate scientists knows this. Only the really obtuse continue to quote it, but it’s completely impossible now. Yet articles continue to get published with this figure, because it “would be politically risky” to suggest anything else.

      Clear proof that they are willing to go on lying to everyone.

      “Today’s computer-simulated climate models, the foundation of all UN climate negotiations, represent the “almost complete disregard for reality,” says Werner Krauss, from the Helmholtz Geesthacht Center for Materials and Coastal Research. “A world is being saved that only exists as a model.”

      I’ve done a lot of research into the 2C “target”. It’s bogus. Wrong on many levels and no longer even thought of a safe; possible; or desirable. “Too late” is putting it mildly.

      More here –

      “The situation is absurd,” says Sebastian Wiesnet of the University of Bamberg. “It would be more forthright, with respect to voters, to step back and think about how global climate protection could really be implemented.” Efforts to actually prepare for the effects of climate change, he says, could not only be implemented more quickly, but they would also be cheaper than emissions reduction efforts.”

      Yet one without the other would be completely pointless. I hope they realize that.

Leave a Reply