The Crisis Report - 77
Let's review the situation. A summary of the last two years of analysis.
We have reached the “end of the beginning”. 2023 was the last “normal” year of our lives. The last year of the 20th Century Climate Optimum.
The Climate Crisis, or more dramatically “Collapse”, has started. It’s kicking into high gear this year. Things are almost certainly going to get a LOT worse over the next few years.
Because.
Warming hasn't slowed. The amount of ENERGY going into the Climate System this year is actually greater than in 2023 so far.
So far, more ENERGY is on track to go into the Oceans this year than last year.
The ocean takes in heat from the Sun no matter what phase we are in. El Nino or La Nina doesn't change that.
Last year the oceans took in 15ZJ of HEAT. That's about 476,000,000 million Hiros worth. Roughly 3.4 Hiros per square mile of ocean.
This year, that number is going to be at least that high, probably higher.
In his recent paper:
Comments on Global Warming Acceleration, Sulfur Emissions, Observations — (16 May 2024) James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato
Hansen states:
“Global temperature (12-month mean) is still rising at 1.56°C relative to 1880–1920 in the GISS analysis through April (Fig. 1). [Robert Rohde reports that it is 1.65°C relative to 1850-1900 in the Berkeley Earth analysis.3] Global temperature is likely to continue to rise a bit for at least a month, peak this summer, and then decline as the El Nino fades toward La Nina.”
“Present extreme planetary energy imbalance (EEI) will limit La Nina-driven temperature decline.”
Thus, El Nino/La Nina average global temperature likely is about 1.5°C, suggesting that, for all practical purposes, global temperature has already reached that milestone.
So.
I would say the odds are, that it's NOT going to cool down significantly this year or next. HEAT is going to build up in the oceans and we will probably have another El Nino in 26'/27'.
WE HAVE BEEN BUILDING UP TO THIS MOMENT OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.
This is what I have been telling you was happening.
If you have been reading my stuff for awhile you shouldn't be surprised by what's going on. However, my readership has taken a big leap upward lately. There are a lot of new readers who are catching up with “the program already in progress”.
I recently was criticized for “assuming” that my readers “know as much as you do” and being “hard to follow”. On reflection, I can see their point.
My work has built on itself over the last two years as I have layered on additional knowledge and insights over time. For someone who hasn't been following along I can see that it can be convoluted, confusing, and overwhelming.
For that reason, I thought that this might be a good time to do a review and summary of my climate analysis for the last two years.
This is an “outline” and summary. If you want ALL the details.
Read the papers. :-)
LET'S START WITH RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE IN FEBRUARY 2022.
031 – If you suggest that the war in Ukraine is related to Climate Change, people tell you Putin doesn’t care about “Climate Change”. People are idiots.
Here is the “hidden driver” behind this action. Something Putin has known about for awhile, but that “mainstream” Climate Science is just starting to admit.
Putin has an "inside track" because Russia has been a "climate canary". Siberia has been warming at an incredible rate since 1979.
It would have been obvious, decades ago, to Russian climate scientists that "something" wasn't right with the Western (mostly American) climate models.
Arctic Amplification was predicted in 1974/1975 in the VERY FIRST General Climate Models. Everyone has known it was going to happen. The questions were always "how much" and "what effect would it have".
The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979
Communications Earth & Environment volume 3, Article number: 168 Aug 2022.
“In recent decades, the warming in the Arctic has been much faster than in the rest of the world, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. Numerous studies report that the Arctic is warming either twice, more than twice, or even three times as fast as the globe on average. Here we show, by using several observational datasets which cover the Arctic region, that during the last 43 years the Arctic has been warming nearly four times faster than the globe, which is a higher ratio than generally reported in literature.”
GOT THAT?
The Arctic warms about 4X as much as the Equator. This has huge consequences because the Moderates predicted in 1998 that this "Arctic Amplification" would be "less than 2X".
Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 103, NO. D6, PAGES 5943-5971, MARCH 27, 1998
One of the FIRST consequence of this fact.
Russia is getting HOTTER, faster than almost any other place on Earth.
Parts of Siberia have warmed +7°C since 1979.
Recent summers in eastern Siberia have been marked by particularly extreme temperatures — as much as 38 degrees Celsius, or 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
As a result of this warming, it's BURNING.
The Permafrost is MELTING.
Global warming has widened the Batagay megaslump, a Retrogressive Thaw Slump, from a small gully to a yawning pit more than 900 meters wide.
Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground Oct 2019
“The permafrost that once sustained farming — and upon which villages and cities are built — is in the midst of a great thaw, blanketing the region with swamps, lakes and odd bubbles of earth that render the land virtually useless.”
Extremes of summer climate trigger thousands of thermokarst landslides in a High Arctic environment
“Retrogressive thaw slumps (RTS) – landslides caused by the melt of ground ice in permafrost – have become more common in the Arctic, but the timing of this recent increase and its links to climate have not been fully established. Here we annually resolve RTS formation and longevity for Banks Island, Canada (70,000 km2) using the Google Earth Engine Timelapse dataset.”
We describe a 60-fold increase in numbers between 1984 and 2015 as more than 4000 RTS were initiated, primarily following four particularly warm summers.
Modelled RTS initiation rates increased by an order of magnitude between 1906–1985 and 2006–2015, and are projected under RCP4.5 to rise to >10,000 decade−1 after 2075.
“These results provide additional evidence that ice-rich continuous permafrost terrain can be highly vulnerable to changing summer climate.”
65% of Russia’s landmass is PERMAFROST.
It will NOT be suitable for "farming" for centuries, if EVER.
65% of Russia is permafrost. Add around +2.5C of warming in Siberia by 2030. Forest fires burning the boreal forests away. Massive flooding on the western (European) side of the Urals. Drought in the eastern grain belt as the rains move north and accelerate permafrost melting. That's Russia in 10 more years.
In ten years, Russia as we know it, will have burned and melted away.
The climate models indicate Ukraine will be a "Climate Oasis" thanks to the Black Sea. At least for awhile, perhaps as long as a century.
Putin doesn't want to "conquer" the Ukrainians. He wants to ANNIHILATE them.
He wants their land for a "New Russia"
His actions, and Xi's, indicate they think "collapse" is imminent. They are playing like there won't be any "long term".
At least with things the way they are now.
Putin wants to get control of a "good spot" with secure food and water before anyone else even knows what's going on.
036 - The World’s Forests are Burning, Ecosystem Turnover is the Cause. Let’s All be Really Clear on What that Means.
I use the term “ecosystem turnover” frequently in my articles to explain why the planet is going to be plagued by fires on unbelievable scales for the rest of this century. The basic idea is that Global Warming is warming up the entire planet, so every ecosystem on the planet is going to change in response to that warming.
Not just “vulnerable” places, not just “some” places, every place is going to go through this. The ecosystem you live in right now is already dying.
You might not have noticed it yet, but the plants and animals have. When it reaches a tipping point where there is enough debris from the dying ecosystem laying around, fires will start happening.
From 2001 to 2021 Russia had the highest rate of tree cover loss due to fires, with an average of 2.51Mha lost PER YEAR.
Current Siberian heating is unprecedented during the past seven millennia Aug 2022
When they burn, CO2 is released.
Siberia’s massive wildfires are unlocking extreme carbon pollution - Aug 2021
The fires have released roughly as much carbon as Germany does in a year and sent plumes of smoke spilling over the North Pole.
Record-high carbon dioxide emissions from boreal fires - March 2023
There were record-high carbon dioxide emissions from boreal forest fires in Northern Canada and Siberia in 2021 continuing a trend that has been going on since at least 2000, according to new international research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington DC. While boreal fires usually account for 10% of global fires’ carbon dioxide emissions, they contributed 23% in 2021, the study authors reported.
The researchers warn that boreal ecosystems are poised to become perhaps the dominant source of intensive fires and carbon emissions from fires in the future.
‘Another way of putting these emissions from 2021 into context is that it is roughly double the emissions in that year from aviation,’
The IPCC reports and forecasts still don’t fully factor in feedbacks like this, because the science is emerging and uncertain. Discussing feedbacks is still too speculative for them to put into the final reports, because feedbacks have the potential to set off a cycle of apocalyptic warming.
UNFCCC reporting methodology "Does NOT Count" carbon losses from "unmanaged lands". 2.7B tons of carbon emitted from Russian wildfires between 2004-2020 becomes 1.4B tons in the UNFCCC report.
The worlds forests are going to BURN. The Boreal Forests of the High Arctic will be first.
049 - The Earth’s Climate System - A Short Users Guide. Part 02. Arctic Amplification — Understanding why the Polar Zones are warming 4X faster than the rest of the planet.
The ARCTIC is warming much, MUCH FASTER than the rest of the Earth.
Why is that?
The term for this is “ARCTIC AMPLIFICATION”. Here's how it works.
The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979
Communications Earth & Environment volume 3, Article number: 168 (Aug 2022)
What graphic “b” is saying, it that about 50% of the Arctic Polar Zone has been warming at a rate of AT LEAST 0.75C per decade since 1979. Parts of it have been warming at a rate of 1.5C per decade.
What graphic “c” is showing, is the AMPLIFICATION of warming that results from this accumulating HEAT ENERGY.
Areas of the Arctic Polar Zone (Siberia) have warmed as much as +7C since 1979. Most of it has warmed +3C to +4C.
+1C of warming at the Equator causes +4C to +7C of warming in the Arctic.
050 - The Earth’s Climate System - A Short Users Guide. Part 03. Permafrost Melting — The role of permafrost in the Climate System.
In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted “that if current trends continue, a summer without sea ice will occur in the next 40 to 100 years”.
Or, it could happen “sooner”.
Arctic summer sea ice could disappear as early as 2035 - 2020
This is due to “Arctic Amplification” - It’s IMPORTANT because it tells us a LOT about how the Climate System actually works.
This is the Earth’s Climate System stripped down to it's most basic level.
The Earth’s Climate System is not that hard to understand, it’s about Heat.
HEAT enters at the Equator (80%)—→HEAT flows to the poles—→HEAT exits into space.
The Difference between the Amount of HEAT that enters the system each year and the Amount of HEAT that leaves it (EEI), is basically the amount of heat energy “in the system” that translates into the Global Mean Temperature, weather, and climate.
That's the Climate System stripped down to it’s most basic level.
The Climate System is about HEAT. Where it comes from, how it flows, where it goes, and what happens when it gets there.
If you want to understand the Climate System, “follow the HEAT”.
Here's an important detail. The Northern and Southern Hemispheres process this heat energy differently. Because 2/3 of the land surface area is in the Northern Hemisphere and the North Pole is an ocean while the South Pole is a continent.
WHAT WE DID NOT KNOW, during the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s when we decided it was probably safe to keep burning fossil fuels. Was if the Poles would "eat" the extra ENERGY flowing from the Equator or if there would be "heat buildup".
NOW WE KNOW.
Areas of the Arctic Polar Zone have warmed as much as +7C since 1979. Most of it has warmed +3C to +4C.
+1C of warming at the Equator is resulting in +4C to +7C in the Arctic. Because, the effect of ACCUMULATION, is the AMPLIFICATION of INPUTS.
This knowledge allows us to understand the Climate System more deeply and to see how it works more completely.
Let's talk about that.
054 - Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our “Climate Paradigm”. Part 3 - Latitudinal Gradient Response and Polar Amplification.
Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 103, NO. D6, PAGES 5943–5971, MARCH 27, 1998 by David Rind NASA\GISS
As much as this paper was a “response” by the Moderates to the PROBLEM of the PETM Arctic fossils (alligators and palm trees in Northern Greenland 53mya). It/s not titled, “Implications of the High Arctic Fossil Record on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity”. That’s a secondary issue in this paper.
This paper is about the “Latitudinal Equator to Pole Temperature Gradient”.
If you are wondering what the “latitudinal temperature gradient” is, and why it’s important. Rind’s first statements at the beginning of the paper ask.
“How variable is the latitudinal temperature gradient with climate change?”
“This question is second in importance only to the question of overall climate sensitivity”
SO, WHAT IS THIS ABOUT, and WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
UNDERSTANDING THE LATITUDINAL EQUATOR TO POLE TEMPERATURE GRADIENT” (LEtPTG) : The Basics.
Let’s start with 3 basic PHYSICAL FACTS about our planet.
The Earth is tilted on its axis.
80% of the ENERGY powering the Climate System, starts between 23°N and 23°S. The other 20% is split between the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and the Southern Hemisphere (SH) below 40°N and 40°S.
Because of 1 & 2 the two POLAR zones ALWAYS exist in states of ENERGY DEFICIT. It’s why they are “cold”, they lose more ENERGY to Space during their Winter months than they take in during the Summer months.
The ENERGY starts at the EQUATOR and moves towards the POLES.
In the Climate System, ENERGY starts at the EQUATOR and flows towards the two POLES.
The permanent ENERGY IMBALANCE between the HOT EQUATORIAL ZONE and the COLD POLAR ZONES results in a CONSTANT flow of HEAT ENERGY from the equator to the poles using the oceans and the atmosphere.
This FLOW of ENERGY is what we perceive as “weather”. The long-term state of the ENERGY IMBALANCE between the equator and the poles is what we perceive as “climate”.
Everything else is details.
The differential between the EQUATOR and each POLE is consistent and there is a GRADIENT in the temperatures between those points. That’s what the LEtPTG measures.
It’s REALLY important but in a non-intuitive way.
The North Pole Gradient from 1950–1980 was roughly -45C.
Meaning that if it’s +25C (77F) at the Equator, you would expect it to be around -20C (-4F) at the North Pole.
The South Pole Gradient from 1950–1980 was roughly -80C. The SP is MUCH COLDER.
Meaning that if it’s +25C (77) at the Equator, you would expect it to be around -55C (-67F) at the South Pole.
When Rind asked in 1998,
*“*How variable is the latitudinal temperature gradient with climate change”
These curves are what he was talking about.
— — — — — — — — —
NOW, HERE’S THE “FATE of CIVILIZATION” QUESTION.
SO, pay attention.
What happen/s at the POLES when you slam more HEAT in at the EQUATOR, what effect does that have on the LEtPTG?
In 1998 there were 3 main “theories” about the North Pole.
The NP would just ‘eat’ the extra HEAT ENERGY. — DENIERS
The temperature at the NP would go up, “slightly”. — MODERATES
The temperature at the NP would go up, “A LOT”. — ALARMISTS
Well, the paleoclimate research took awhile, but NOW WE KNOW.
The LEtPTG shifts, A LOT.
Some Thoughts on Global Climate Change: The Transition from Icehouse to Hothouse Conditions
From book: Earth History: The Evolution of the Earth System (2016)
At the North Pole temperatures go up about +20C. Shrinking the difference between the Equator and the NP from 45C to just 25C. Meaning that if is 77F at the Equator we would expect it to be about 32F at the North Pole.
This is what the “near term” future of the Arctic looks like. It’s a LOT hotter than the rest of the planet.
If that seems “far fetched” to you, remember the High Arctic has ALREADY warmed about +4C ON AVERAGE. Parts of it have warmed +7C.
Around 2015 the RATE of Warming jumped up again. It went from about +0.18C per decade to about +0.36C per decade. AT THE EQUATOR.
In the High Arctic that's going to mean temperature increases of +1.5C per decade on average. With Siberia warming at about +2.5C PER DECADE.
056 - Unclothing the Emperor : Understanding “What’s Wrong” with our “Climate Paradigm” - Part 4. The PERMAFROST — is MELTING, “faster than expected”.
I want to be REALLY clear about this, because I don’t want to be misleading. I am going to take the existing research on the permafrost and the Climate System, then present you with my ANALYSIS of what it means. Which is also going to be my interpretation of how the Climate System works.
For the most part, this new interpretation, or paradigm, isn’t NEW. I am not laying out anything radical or “off the wall”.
Everything in my interpretation of the Climate System comes from the field of “Climate Science”.
However, I am COMPLETELY rejecting the MODERATE Climate Paradigm that has dominated Climate Science for the last 40 years.
The Climate Paradigm of the Moderates.
Tracing its roots back to Callendar, who in 1938 calculated a +2°C temperature rise for a carbon dioxide doubling (2xCO2). The MODERATE position “coalesced” in 1979 at the five-day “ad hoc” study group on carbon dioxide and climate in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
The Moderates saw the planetary climate system as being resistant to change, strongly self correcting, and reactive only on centennial or millennial timescales.
They THEORIZED that “Climate Sensitivity” to 2xCO2 (A doubling of CO2 levels) would be between +2C and +3C.
Hansen’s Climate Sensitivity estimate in Global warming in the pipeline = (4.8°C ± 1.2°C).
Later on in 1998, they THEORIZED that “Polar Amplification” or “Arctic Amplification” would be “less that twice” the amount of “overall warming”.
The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979
Communications Earth & Environment volume 3, Article number: 168 (Aug 2022)
Lastly, they UNDERESTIMATED the amount of Carbon in the Permafrost by AT LEAST 100%.
In 2008, the first REAL study of Arctic permafrost and its potential to influence the Climate System, DOUBLED the estimate for the amount of organic carbon held in permafrost soils.
Vulnerability of Permafrost Carbon to Climate Change: Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle
During the 80’s, Climate Science came to be dominated by these “Climate Moderates” because the Republicans backed them.
Once the high Arctic PETM fossils started showing up in the 90's this became a crisis question in the field. Because there is NO WAY for those fossils to be there based on the current "Climate Paradigm".
That's why the paper in 1998 happened. That was our chance to "course correct".
Latitudinal temperature gradients and climate change.
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 103, NO. D6, PAGES 5943–5971, MARCH 27, 1998 by David Rind NASA\GISS
Instead the Moderates "doubled down on stupid". They declared that paleoclimate research wasn't applicable to the current situation and should be ignored AND they "low balled" the amount of Arctic Amplification because that was the only way to keep their models working.
Until recently NO ONE was checking to see if reality was conforming to the Climate Models.
The attitude has been something like this statement from climate researcher Dr. Dessler in an NYT interview in Dec. 2023 about the “unprecedented” warming in 2023.
“On its own, one exceptional year would not be enough to suggest something was faulty with the computer models. Your default position has to be, ‘The models are right.’”
It’s pretty clear. It’s going to be a LOT HOTTER than the Moderates thought. They were WRONG about EVERYTHING.
Including how BAD melting the Permafrost is going to be.
Permafrost isn’t a feature, it’s a CARBON BOMB. And we just set it off.
The cascade of “tipping points” this triggers, will probably warm the Earth an additional +3/+4C when Climate/Thermal Equilibrium is reached.
Consider this.
There is NO Permafrost older than 700,000 years. What does that tell us?
That before 700,000ya, Greenland and the High Arctic used to regularly get HOT enough that there was NO PERMANENT permafrost area in the High Arctic. If one formed during a cold period, it melted again during the next HOT period.
The Modern High Arctic and the High Arctic of 53 million years ago. They are basically the same configuration of land masses. Which means, that 700,000 years of Organic Carbon have ACCUMULATED in the Permafrost Zone. In fact, the “Boreal Zone” has functioned as a carbon sink for so long that if you burned all of the oil available in all the reserves around the world, you would still release less carbon than the boreal forest and permafrost is currently holding.
During the last million years CO2 levels NEVER went above the Green line. Above that line, there probably was NO PERMAFROST. The Orange line was where we were in 1990. We are NOW at the Red line and CLIMBING fast. The organic matter once trapped on ice suppresses an estimated amount of organic carbon around 1,672 gigatonnes. Which is equivalent to all of the organic carbon contained in ALL of the land plants on the WHOLE planet PLUS what’s in the atmosphere at this moment.
A SINGLE gigatonne is roughly the mass of all the land mammals in the world other than humans. It’s also roughly 2x the mass of all of the humans in the world That’s ON TOP OF the CO2 that the BURNING of the Northern Boreal Forests is going to add to the atmosphere.
Remember these trees? They are ALL going to BURN by 2050. This could add +200ppm to the atmosphere as a result of that burning. THERE IS ENOUGH ORGANIC CARBON IN THE PERMAFROST TO INCREASE THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVEL TO ABOUT 1300PPM.
Half of this frozen organic matter is found in the first 3 meters of the permafrost and the remaining is in deposits that extend up to 30 meters deep
It’s melting. WAY faster than the models indicated it would.
"Observed maximum thaw depths at our sites are already exceeding those projected to occur by 2090 under representative concentration pathway version 4.5."
In 2020 the Arctic Institute warned that a 3 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures could melt 30 to 85 percent of the top permafrost layers that exist across the Arctic region.
Let’s be REALLY CLEAR about this.
It’s TOO LATE to do anything about this without attempting GEOENGINEERING the Climate System. Probably using SOx aerosols to increase the planetary ALBEDO to reflect more sunlight away from the planet.
James Hansen, and the team of climate scientists who work with him, are calling for a HUGE build out of nuclear power plants AND a global program to “turn the sky WHITE” with sulfate particulates. In conjunction with a CRASH effort to slash Global CO2 emissions as quickly as possible.
By their reckoning, “It’s the ONLY plan that has a chance of working and preserving our civilization.”
Anything short of that, “is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while we wait for the ship to go down”.
We are “at” or approaching +2°C of warming as of 2023.
The Rate of Warming is AT LEAST +0.36°C per decade.
AND, this report indicates.
Report: Warmer planet will trigger increased farm losses.
Extreme heat is already harming crop yields, but a new report quantifies just how much that warming is cutting into farmers’ financial security.
For every 1 degree Celsius of warming, yields of major crops like corn, soybeans and wheat fall by 16% to 20%, gross farm income falls by 7% and net farm income plummets 66%.
Those findings, reported in a policy brief released Jan. 17, are based on an analysis of 39 years of data from nearly 7,000 Kansas farms. The brief is a collaboration between the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Kansas State University.
That we are about to see a SIGNIFICANT loss in agricultural production by 2030.
SO.
In summary, it's going to get a LOT HOTTER and several billion people will probably starve to death by 2030.
The Climate Apocalypse HAS STARTED.
THIS IS YEAR ONE.
This is my analysis.
This is what I see.
This is my “Crisis Report”.
rc 06142024
Notes:
Hopefully, everyone will be “on the same page” now. A lot of people have told me “how shocking” it is to see things laid out cohesively like this. If you have been reading my stuff for awhile none of this is going to “surprise” you. But, seeing it in review might make it more clear.
If you are one of my “newer” readers, “welcome”.
Pull up a chair and join the conversation. Things are about to get “interesting”.
Richard. I started reading your substack around issue 50 or so if memory serves. Followed you on reddit under your various handles that I know of. Like you I am also autistic and want to ‘follow the evidence where it leads’ as my 90s professor said to us back then. And… JFC. The 5 stages of grief don’t even apply to me as I feel like I inhabit them all at once in glorious contradiction.
But ya know. I get it. Things are so fucking bad right now. Climate change/chaos is bad enough and then I found out about the 9 planetary boundaries moons ago making it a polycrisis. And even then, the 9 planetary boundaries don’t even cover the totality of the polycrisis facing us homo-sapien-idiots. E.g https://www.andbiodiversity.info/reports.html It’s all so inter-related and inter-connected
Thank you Richard for your analysis. I feel like Mugatu in Zoolander (2001) taking crazy pills! My life experience has taught me that so many people will just squish reality for a FUCKTON of a variety of reasons (that has a vast literature about it).
Thank you for another update Richard.
One key question to ask is the following:
Will the climate change moderates (e.g. Mann, Hausfather) and skeptics/contrarians/deniers (e.g. Lindzen, Siegel) ever admit that they were wrong, or will they remain in denial all the way to their graves?