The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratioh has just released its global climate analysis for May 2015. The results
May 2015 was
* The warmest May on record globally
* The warmest May on record on land
* The warmest May on record on the oceans
* The warmest May on record in the Northern Hemisphere
* The warmest May on record in the Southern Hemisphere
Also, the warmest March-May, Jan-May and (I think) 12-month period in the record.
Comment is superfluous, but don’t let that stop you.
John Quiggin 
You sound altogether too jubilant.
It’s bad news isn’t it?
The only blue-coded land masses are the USA and Australia. God really is joking around with that one.
“is superfluous, but don’t let that stop you.”
Am I doing it right?
@chrisl
I interpreted it as concerned not jubilant, and saying deniers need to give up denying the facts and get on board to stabilise the climate.
@Ikonoclast
I thought he knew better, but you are right. He is hoping to “convince” them with “facts”. Yawn!
Yeah, but how about some empirical evidence that has been curated by Fox News?
Zero value due to excess supply.
I see no solution if the Third World expects the same living standard as Westerners.
Even with all the fancy meetings by our millionaire politicians – the facts are that per capita CO2 emissions are increasing, according to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
So even if there was no increase in living standards but just population increase – emissions would still increase.
Having atmospheric CO2 above 300 causes endless global warming and our carbon sinks are becoming saturated.
So we are doomed by two things – injustice between Third World and First World plus population increase which is so necessary for our capitalist mode of production.
The only way out is ZPG and economic de-growth.
I see no alternative.
@Ivor
So no renewables? No hope for fusion power? No belief that human ingenuity will triumph? No possibility that we can actually stop being as wasteful and profligate as we are now?
And what is this about ZPG? The actual projections already show population growth reaching zero and declining in the second half of the century – just because they are.
And rather than economic de-growth, why not just de-grow the CO2 producing stuff?
@John Brookes
…what is this about ZPG? The actual projections already show population growth reaching zero and declining in the second half of the century …
John, I’d love to think this was true but could you refer us to the authority for this?
The last time I looked at population growth graphs, we were increasing exponentially. Projections into the future showed straight line rises.
This site:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/18/world-population-new-study-
11bn-2100
offers some hope but seems to assume half the population will be de-sexed at birth.
If the population does start to decrease (global warming?), will our current economic models cope? At present, our economic health seems to depend on growth, which seems to be correlated with population growth and increased consumerism.
@John Brookes
Yes. Science says we must have renewables, but investment bankers, hedge funds and miners say we need more coal and oil.
Population will not be declining in the second half of the century.
See: Evidence
In order to prevent climate catastrophe, reducing emissions is not sufficient.
How do you degrow “just the CO2 producing stuff” when Africans want to live in the same type as houses as Westerners and have roads and office buildings too?
Can Africans have cars and computers too? Can everyone in India have sealed roads, concrete paths and concrete gutters? Can everyone in China or South America have the same rights to air travel as the West?
Can every city in the Third World expect to have high rise buildings?
It seems pretty obvious to me what the answer is.
There is absolutely no reason why the globe will not become uninhabitable due to CO2 because this was how the earth’s atmosphere was originally.
The necessary changes are just too radical for either capitalism or market socialism or even cooperatives to even consider.
@John Brookes
Yes. Science says we must have renewables, but investment bankers, hedge funds and miners say we need more coal and oil.
Population will not be declining in the second half of the century.
See: Evidence
In order to prevent climate catastrophe, reducing emissions is not sufficient.
How do you degrow “just the CO2 producing stuff” when Africans want to live in the same type as houses as Westerners and have roads and office buildings too?
Can Africans have cars and computers too? Can everyone in India have sealed roads, concrete paths and concrete gutters? Can everyone in China or South America have the same rights to air travel as the West?
Can every city in the Third World expect to have high rise buildings?
It seems pretty obvious to me what the answer is.
There is absolutely no reason why the globe will not become uninhabitable due to CO2 because this was how the earth’s atmosphere was originally.
The necessary changes are just too radical for either capitalism or market socialism or even cooperatives to even consider.
@Ivor
Investment bankers?
The CEO of the Clean Energy Fund Corporation (which the Abbott Government has tried to shut down), Oliver Yates, is an investment banker by profession.
From the CEFC’s website
He also sought Liberal Party preselection for the senate in 2009.
@Uncle Milton
Interesting anecdote.
But the picture remains the same – more exploration licences and activity is spreading across the globe.
Big business will always purchase elections so that their politicians can close down or out-flank renegades like Yates and co.
@Uncle Milton
people need to get real.
To reduce emissions sufficiently these few companies [List ] need to close down their oil extraction projects and switch to building alternative industries.
So what is the strategy for this?
@Uncle Milton
people need to get real.
To reduce emissions sufficiently these few companies [List ] need to close down their oil extraction projects and switch to building alternative industries.
So what is the strategy for this?
Not that I like to get the boot in but the CEFC is not operating in a commercially sound manner. On 1/7/15 they should have gotten a cumulative total of $6bn from the Treasury. However I’d expect an independent valuation of their investments and reserves should be well short of this ie some of their investments will prove to be duds. Their accounts seem to be shrouded in multiple layers of obscurity see if you can work them out
http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/reports/annual-reports/files/annual-report-2013-14/appendices,-glossary-and-index/appendix-c-cefc-special-account.aspx
They can also help ARENA who give rather than lend money. Some projects got over 40% financing from grants ie 0% cost of capital pro rata. Soon we can expect a native woodchip furnace to get some free cash.
Looks grim. Get some chickens, plant a garden (won’t need a hothouse) and buy a gun. Only fools and cowards don’t prepare to protect themselves and their loved ones.
The lack of guns in this country is one of the things that add to my pollyanna-ish optimism.
@rational liberal
I wonder, are you shilling for a poultry supplier or a gun retailer?
Could it be both?
And how well does that kind of gig pay?
Rational liberal, I think only fools would imagine that guns will protect you where defending the social institutions like government, police, courts in order that they protect your loved ones won’t. If the latter go down, your guns won’t do much more than add to the carnage.
Our governments are not serving us very well with climate science denial and obstructionism yet I don’t believe those can remain tenable too much longer; when political unity of purpose – because our future is widely accepted to be at stake – much becomes possible that previously appeared beyond our capability.
Is rational liberal actually Peter K Rosenthal, head film critic for The Onion?
Here’s their retrospective review of Home Alone:
http colon doubleslash www dot theonion dot com slash video slash the-onion-looks-back-at-home-alone-37681
Dare I say that Ivor Rational Liberal and possibly Ivor have moved on a denialist stage in the climate debate?
Straight from “Nya nya nya its not happening, so no point doing anything about it” to “OMG its the end of the world, its too late, no point actually doing anything about it.”
@John Brookes
You are not correct.
It is what science says.
It is what multinational fossil fuel companies intend to do.
It is a reality that emissions in 2040 will be 13% ABOVE 2014 levels according to todays Age newpaper pg 32.
The same point is made by Yahoo finance…
at: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/world-power-sector-emissions-seen-110000957.html
@Ivor
Ivor, that is what is known as a forecast. It may be the case that emissions are at that level in 2040 or it may not, but it is hardly a ‘reality’. Emissions in 2040, like anything that may happen in 2040, is pure conjecture.
Ivor.
nothing about 2040 is a reality yet. We have many many choices to make before we know what emissions will be in 2040. And don’t forget that the rich elites don’t want to end up with a dead world, so eventually most of them will come around to the need for carbon emission control even though at present they are desperately trying to maximise their profits from fossil fuels.
@Tim Macknay
@john goss
The projections are evidence based – after decades of analytical work.
Their statements are many times stronger than simple unauthorised “may not”.
The factors they used are “reality”.
If the rich don’t want to end up in a dead world they need to understand exponential growth and the parable of the boiling frog.
Unfortunately enough people will only want someting sufficient done when it is far too late.
If there is near 10 billion people (as expected in 2050) then 14.8 gigatonnes is just 14.8 metric ton per capita p.a. This is way, way, way off target.
Acording to the IPCC (2007) to stabilise CO2 at between 445 and 490ppm (resulting in an estimate global temperature 2 to 2.4oC above the pre-industrial average) emissions would need to peak before 2015, with 50 to 85% reductions on 2000 levels by 2050.
See: IPCC 4
A 50% reduction, on 2000 levels globally, is 50% of 4.1 metric tons per annum (using data for “World” from table cited earlier). 2 metric tonnes per capita seems a sensible benchmark by 2050.
So where is the necessary plan, strategy or theory for this?
What sort of lifestyle results in 2 metric tons p.a. per capita?
@Ivor
“What sort of lifestyle results in 2 metric tons p.a. per capita?”
The one we have now. Just replacing fossil generators with rewables, and ICE vehicles with evs, almost does the trick by itself. Look at the invaluable LLNL energy flowcharts (for the USA, but Australia must be quite similar) and track the 60% of wasted energy today. The two changes I mentioned will cut the waste to around 20%. So that’s 40% of primary energy gone, mostly fossil. The rest can come from efficiency gains in industry, commerce and housing: not too tall a hill to climb in a quarter-century.
@Ivor In Australia the corporate sector is dominated by extractive industries. Elsewhere corporates are divided, and if anything tend to support action on climate change. There is absolutely nothing in the natural interest of either corporations or the rich that would lead them to oppose action on climate change.
@John Brookes
I recorded a comment in reply to John Brooks. It was not offensive: it simply doubted John’s optimistic opinion that world population would decline after 2100.
Could I be advised why it has been deleted?
@Ivor
You seem to have an unrealistic view of the reliability of this kind of forecasting. There’s a reason why all forecasting used for commercial purposes carries a disclaimer saying that past performance cannot be used as a reliable guide to future performance – because human affairs are extremely resistant to reliable prediction.
The significant and surprising changes over the last few years in the areas of energy and climate change, that were not predicted (including the massive price declines, and exponential growth in the capacity, of renewable energy; the decline of coal imports and consumption in China; the rise in gas production in the USA and accompanying decline in coal-fired power generation; and the 2014 pause in the increase of global GHG emissions) are all demonstrations of the limitations of forecasting.
All forecasts are guestimates. They can be informative, but to treat them as ‘reality’ is folly.
Presumably you’re aware there is a Fifth Assessment Report, released in 2014, which used more up-to-date modelling. So why cite the older report? Because the more up-to-date report doesn’t suit your argument quite so well?
Warming ? Its been ferociously cold in Canberra lately .Trust is so much more easily destroyed than built up .Groups that thrive on paranoia have a natural advantage. Since we didnt care for our disadvantaged properly in the richest countries in the best of times ,I fear what we will do if the promise of ever increasing consumption is threatened.
@Geoff Andrews
Maybe JQ is too busy to get to the comments in moderation and let them out. I have one there also and I didn’t think I said anything controversial.
Did your comment go into moderation or was it actually deleted?
@Zucchini
This was the case in the 1990’s and they did nothing that had a meaningful impact.
It was also the case after Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” but they did nothing meaningful.
They presumably read the IPCC report in 2007(?) and, nearly 10 years later, they have done nothing even though it was spelt out clearly that to stabilise at between 445 and 490 ppm CO2 the world needed to peak in 2015.
Now they will not peak until after 2040.
Games such as pretending that the 5th report in 2014 is relevant (Tim Macknay) is wrong as action was required from 2007 all the way through to 2014 when the report did not exist.
This did not happen because of the interests of Western economies to power ahead, and of Third World nations to catch-up.
It is very simple – GHG concentrations need to be reduced to pre-industrial levels before the rate of warming (@ 0.15 per decade) overwhelms the climate system.
If we are over 350 ppm for the next 100 years (which is likely), unstoppable temperature will increase around 15 degrees C minimum.
I only focus on CO2 because it has a long half life @ approx 50 years.
The steps that are now required are beyond the capability of economies based on growth-first attitudes and associated policies.
There may be a scientific solution and some magical ingenuity that can suck CO2 out of the atmosphere at gigatonnes per day – but funds are not being directed to finding and developing it.
@Tim Macknay
You misunderstand the point.
The exact numbers are not so important, nor even the rate or timescale.
It is the structure of the problem and its trend.
Comments saying some report changes things – and not providing evidence – just wastes everyone’s time.
This common ‘head in the sand’ waffle is why nothing is done and everyone expresses meaningless concern knowing that when serious concequences arise there will be an entirely different generation who will be devastated.
If you do not agree that CO2 needs to be reduced 50% to 85% on 2000 global levels, then provide your evidence.
The automoderation has been overzealous lately. I just approved 10 comments. Remember not to use lots of links.
On population, there’s still lots of uncertainty about when global population will peak and at what level. But it seems pretty clear that net reproduction rates are headed below replacement in most places, which means that population must eventually stabilize and decline
http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/01/humanitys-future-below-replacement-fertility/
@James Wimberley
Yes – replacing fossil with renewables does the trick. Although human induced methane either through agriculture or through releases from melting Tundra is also an issue.
I think we have known that for several decades now.
We did not know how intrenched business interests would be and took no account of the legitimate right of China and India to aspire to the same living standard as in the West.
@John Quiggin
In 2011 the top demographics experts of the United Nation suggested by 2100 there would be 10.1 billion.
This has now been revised upwards according to the link posted by Geoff Andrews [ ].
@John Quiggin
In 2011 the top demographics experts of the United Nation suggested by 2100 there would be 10.1 billion.
This has now been revised upwards according to the link posted by Geoff Andrews [ Here ].
@John Quiggin
Current population trends are [ Here ]
The need is for the whole world to have net increase of zero or leass than single digits carbon emission per capita.
The actual numbers are not as relevant as are the trends and structure of the problem and responce as demonstrated so far.
@John Quiggin
Current population trends are [ Here ]
The need is for the whole world to have net increase of zero or leass than single digits carbon emission per capita.
The actual numbers are not as relevant as are the trends and structure of the problem and responce as demonstrated so far.
@Ivor
You misunderstand the point.
No, I think I understand it well enough.
So you’re backing away from relying on a particular forecast with specific numbers, and falling back on vague generalities.
This is meaningless waffle.
What on Earth are you talking about? All I did was dispute your claim that a particular forecast of emissions out to 2040 should be treated as if it were a foregone conclusion.
@Tim Macknay
Science is not vague generalities.
Science is as science does – and if there is a problem with a conclusion there would be evidence?
Anyone can make claims. either which way.
So where is your evidence?
@Ivor
“Science” is not a magic word that converts vague generalities into facts.
Indeed.
Evidence for what?
Ivor, do you think it is likely that birth rates in North America, Europe, China, and Japan will rise to replacement level? Because that’s what the study in the link you provided assumes and that’s rather an odd assumption to make in my opinon and I’d be interested to know the thinking behind it.
@Tim Macknay
Contesting evidence based science needs evidence and rigor at the same level.
Otherwise people are just running interference.
@Ronald Brak
I am quite happy using UN expert data without provoking them with unevidenced quips such as in various posts above.
Using UN resources, I expect that population will increase to around 10 billion near 2040 a nd some sources are claiming higher.
Even if population levels out or declines, CO2 emissions will not fall as required by IPCC 4 or 5 or even the next one.
“on record”, simply means these events and experienced and recorded data of energy levels in the environment-atmoshphere has never happened before in the constraint of our records. Comment is superflous, the trend is seriously alarming.
Ivor, do you think that fertility in countries that are currently below replacement levels will rise to the replacement rate?
@Tim Macknay
I now know why you have not provided any evidence to support your claim that the 5th report somehow changed things.
I used the 4th which set a benchmark of 50% of 2000 levels (ie 50% of 4.1 metric tons).
The 5th report set a bench mark of 40% of 2010 levels (ie 40% of 4.8 metric tons).
you probably knew this, and did not cite it because the 5th report completely substantiated the 4th and increased the requirement.
Page 10-11 incl. footnotes is particularly relevant – [ Here ].