Arctic sea ice area on January 28, 2016, was only 12.17902 million square km. At this time of year, sea ice area hasn't been as low as this for at least since satellite records started in 1979, as illustrated by the image below.

based on image from: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Furthermore, on January 29, 2016, Arctic sea ice reached its second lowest extent since the satellite records began, as the image below shows.

based on image from: nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

Why is sea ice at record low?

The sea ice is in a bad shape due to very high temperatures. A forecast for January 30, 2016, shows surface temperatures over the Arctic that are 2.7°C (4.86°F) warmer than they were in 1979-2000. The image below further illustrates this, showing temperature anomalies at the top end of the scale, i.e. 20°C (36°F) above 1979-2000, in many places in the Arctic.

At this time of year, there is very little sunshine in the Arctic. Therefore, these anomalies are caused by sea water that is warmer than it used to be. The image below shows that on January 24, 2016, sea surface temperature was 12.3°C (54.2°F) at a location near Svalbard marked by the green circle, a 10.4°C (18.7°F) anomaly.

Such anomalies are in turned caused by water that is much warmer than it used to be, and that is being carried by the Gulf Stream all the way into the Arctic Ocean.

Water much warmer off the North American coast

The water off the coast of North America is much warmer than it used to be due to emissions that extend from North America over the Atlantic Ocean due to the Coriolis effect. The image below, from an earlier post, shows carbon dioxide levels as high as 511 ppm over New York on November 5, 2015, and as high as 500 ppm over the water off the coast of coast of New Jersey on November 2, 2015.

from the post: 2015 warmest year on record

As discussed at an earlier post, also relevant are other emissions such as carbon monoxide that depletes hydroxyl, making it harder for methane to be oxidized. Below is an update on carbon monoxide levels.

These emissions heat up the Gulf Stream and make that ever warmer water is carried underneath the sea surface all the way into the Arctic Ocean, while little heat transfer occurs from ocean to atmosphere, due to the cold freshwater lid on the North Atlantic.

Arctic sea ice in uncharted territory

Update 1: For the time of the year, Arctic sea ice is now at a record low since satellite records started in 1979, both for area and extent. The image below shows Arctic sea ice area up to February 1, 2016, when area was 12.27298 million square km.

based on image from: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

The image below shows Arctic sea ice extent up to February 2, 2016, when extent was 13.932 million square km.

based on image from: nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph

Update 2: For the time of the year, Arctic sea ice remains at a record low since satellite records started in 1979, both for area and extent. The image below shows Arctic sea ice area up to February 4, 2016, when area was 12.30656 million square km.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

Comprehensive and effective action is needed

This situation spells bad news for what will happen later in 2016, also given the current El Niño. Less sea ice means that less sunlight is reflected back into space, resulting in more heat being absorbed by the Arctic Ocean.

As more heat reaches the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, the risk increases that heat will penetrate and destabilize sediments containing methane hydrates. Methane escaping from hydrates could strongly accelerate warming in the Arctic, causing further melting of the sea ice, in a spiral of warming that could escalate into runaway warming.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.


Related posts

- Why America should lead on climate
arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/01/why-america-should-lead-on-climate.html

- Sea surface warmest on record
arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/10/september-2015-sea-surface-warmest-on-record.html

- Climate Plan
arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/plan.html

- 2015 warmest year on record
arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/12/2015-warmest-year-on-record.html

Arctic sea ice area on January 28, 2016, was only 12.17902 million square km. At this time of year, sea ice area hasn't...
Posted by Sam Carana on Sunday, January 31, 2016

Embed from Getty Images

She was meant to have had a lock on the Democratic Party nomination, in a year that looked good for a Democratic presidential candidate.  Hillary Clinton had the sort of star power few could hope to emulate, and she was one half of a couple who virtually embodied the term "power couple" in a party that was firmly in hoc to their machine.  And then came Iowa, and an insurgency that proved to be her undoing.  Barack Obama's soaring rhetoric and hope for change undid Hillary's hopes of breaking the glass ceiling for women in 2008.

And here she is again.  Her machine is intact, her supporters well motivated, she's captured the endorsement of one of the country's leading liberal newspapers, the New York Times; yet once again this once impregnable candidate faces a grassroots insurgency that could de-rail her second attempt at the presidency.

Of course it's not quite the same as 2008.  Hillary is a wiser person and a better candidate.  Her debate performances - under-reported at a time when everyone is obsessing over the Donald's wrecking of the Republican debates - have been far sparkier and effective than before.  Plus, she does have eight more years of hard won experience behind her, four of them as the former insurgent, Barack Obama's Secretary of State.  Bernie, meanwhile, has mobilised extraordinary support, and could certainly provide an upset in Iowa before what looks like a big win in New Hampshire (bordering his own Vermont state).  But Bernie can't match Obama's rhetoric, and he can motivate liberals but arguably not the mainstream who will there to be grabbed in the event of a very rightist Republican nomination.

It can, in fact, only be good for Clinton and the Democratic Party to have a race come much closer.  It would not have benefited Clinton at all to go through a coronation before the rough passage of the main election in autumn.  This way, she has to really hone her campaigning instincts, and she has to work out why so many Democrats and previously uncommitted voters are flocking to Bernie.  This Washington Post piece, and the turning of a sceptic noted here by Cody Gough, shows why "the Bern" is whirling up such a wind, and Hillary would be foolish to discount this.  She runs as an establishment candidate - her experience is a key selling point - at a time when many American voters seem dead set against that amorphous entity.  Capture some of the Sanders insurgency and Hillary really could have a winning formula.

This BBC report brilliantly captures the difference between the Clinton and Sanders rallies in Iowa and in so doing points up much of the distinction between these two seasoned politicians.

Hillary is no shoo-in any more.  Bernie Sanders has done the Democratic party a considerable service for that.  Whether the Senator from Vermont can provide the political weight to balance the excitement of his campaign, against a candidate who has weight aplenty, will ultimately determine who really is the most credible candidate to go against what will likely be one of the most dangerous Republicans in over a generation.  The Democrats should enjoy their primary season.  But they need to get this choice right.

Political reputations rise and fall with the ease and frequency of hot and cold winters.  George Osborne has been riding high for months now - ever since the last election really.  Forgotten were his earlier strategic errors, such as the "omni-shambles" budget with its tax on hot pasties.  In vogue were his Commons socials and the near universal expectation that he would succeed David Cameron.
Well George kindly reminded everyone that his political antenna is not always as well attuned as it should be, when he ill-advisedly tweeted about his distinctly less than overwhelming tax deal with Google at the beginning of this week.

Now the knives are back out, as this Sun piece suggests today.  They've managed to get two ministers to provide them with some juicy quotes about Osborne - he's a social cripple, "just like Gordon Brown"; he's weird "like Milliband".  Osborne must be reeling this morning.  The last two Labour leaders aren't people that Labour politicians want to be compared to, never mind a high flying Tory chancellor.

We shouldn't expect too much from this scuffle.  It's an early shot, a quick hit and run at a time when the Chancellor is particularly vulnerable.  Osborne still controls considerable patronage, and most Tory MPs won't want to be seen to oppose him while he remains the favourite to succeed Cameron.  The Westminster village, as we see time and time again, doesn't operate with the rationality of anywhere else.  That's arguably one of the real messages about today's criticisms.  They may have more than a kernel of truth - Osborne can hardly claim ordinary bloke persona, and he does make egregious strategic errors.  But if he looks like a winner in two years' time, he'll be a winner regardless of his competence.  How do you think Gordon Brown managed it?  The stories of his lethal rages, paranoid rants and social awkwardness were legion well before he was PM.

It's diverting for us when one of the political tribes descends into civil war, and we're a bit bored with it just being the Labour party at the moment.  But the Conservatives aren't exactly bringing up exciting alternatives to the wounded front runner either.  I suspect we haven't heard the name of the next Tory leader in that context yet.  After all, two years is a long time......

Last year was very hectic for me. The reason for this is that in addition to working and running a few races, I was in the market for a home. There are a lot of moving pieces involved when buying a home, especially when you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is one of the hottest places to live (and the most expensive) in the country.

I thought I would break down my search into a few posts, starting with the beginning, which was financing. Oh the joys of getting a loan. Now, I have no idea what the right or wrong way to go about this is, but I will talk about the way that I did it, and what seemed to work for me.

First, I pulled my credit report. I have heard, and I am not sure if this is true, that it is better to pull it 6 times in one month than 6 times over the course of a year. So I pulled it, knowing that the lenders would also pull it. Luckily, it was in good shape.

The next thing I wanted was a pre-approval letter. I had no idea what I was getting myself in for, but I did know that a pre-approval letter was better than a pre-qualify. With a pre-approval, the lender gets mostly all of your paperwork and then they use that to figure out how much they will be willing to lend you. This is important for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is hard to figure out how much you can afford. I spent a lot of time on the internet plugging in numbers, but until the lender actually used my actual hard data to get an amount, I was just guessing (with the help of Google).

The second reason that it's important is that it helps to submit the pre-approval letter with your offer. This can help convince the seller that you are serious about the offer, and it will make them more comfortable that your agreement is not going to fall through due to lack of financing. In the Bay Area, your offer will most likely not get accepted without a pre-approval letter.

To get a pre-approval letter, you have to figure out who you want to try to get a letter and/or a loan from. How do you figure this out? Good question! Once again, I turned to Google (and Zillow) to find out who could give me the best rate. In addition, I asked several people who they had used and how their experience had been. I got a lot of different answers. Zillow named two internet banks and Bank of America as having the best rates. Two of my friends used Quicken (internet bank) and Bank of America.

So, I contacted one internet bank, Bank of America (who happens to be where I have had my accounts since I was a teenager) and Citibank. What happened next was this:

The internet bank asked me to fill out a form with my financial info and send it back to them. The lady was very nice and the operation seemed legitimate. I filled out the form and sent it back and got a pre-approval letter the next day.

Bank of America connected me to Texas. I finally got routed to a local agent, who barely spoke English (sorry!) and tried to talk me into getting a 5/1 arm (adjustable rate) instead of the 30 year fixed that I asked her for. She then asked me to send in about 400 different kinds of paperwork, including all of my Bank of America  bank statements. I sent them all to her and did not hear back from her for three weeks (when I called her, her message said she was on vacation).

Citibank sent me an unprofessional email with no signature or logo that looked like a 12 year old had sent it, asking for 400 different kinds of paperwork. I told them I would feel more comfortable seeing a real person and giving my documents to them and the guy blew me off.

Since the Citibank guy seemed unprofessional, I contacted a third option, a local broker, and I sent him all my 400 different kinds of paperwork. He was very helpful and even helped me run a few different scenarios, depending on my down payment and/or desired purchase price. The guy was easy to reach on the phone and answered any (dumb) questions I had throughout the entire process.

The verdict: The amount I could qualify for was less than I wanted, since they could not count bonuses or overtime unless you could show two full years and proof that it would be ongoing. Bummer. So that meant the amount I thought I could spend was not the actual amount... in addition, I found it very strange that they ask you how much you want to spend. Can't they just crunch all the numbers and then tell you what the absolute max is?

My advice: Try a bunch of different lenders. You have no commitment to them. Once you have all of your 400 documents in pdf form, you may as well send them to as many lenders as you can!

In addition, my realtor told me a few tips. (1) the big banks (BofA etc) take forever to get you an answer, sometimes meaning you lose the house because you can't get financing in time. I know this as well because I work for a big bank and I see some of the frustration over how long thing take. (2) The internet banks will give anybody a pre-approval letter and will often give you the number YOU want, rather than what you can really afford. This causes problems later when it comes to getting the actual loan. Due to this, often times sellers will not accept offers if the letter is from an internet bank.

So, there we have it, my new understanding of financing in a nutshell.

Have you gotten a home loan? What advice or tips do you have for others regarding the situation? 

*Disclaimer: I am not a professional. Any opinions I give are my own and you should do your own research before making any rash decisions. :) 

I have had several requests from people to give everyone a tour of my "new" house.  I have to admit, I have been putting it together little by little and it's still not fully settled in, so that is why I have been stalling on the "house tour". Three months after I moved in, I finally got a couch, and I am still working on sorting things out and deciding where their place in the house (or the Goodwill bag) will be.

The new house is a 2 bedroom, 1 bath and is about 1,000 SF. The reason I chose it was that the location is convenient to the freeway and public transportation. I also really loved the hardwood floors and the large backyard. It's also on a dead end street, and only has 8 houses on the street, which I see as a plus. Without further ado, here are a couple of photos of the new place.

Front of House (right before lots of raking!)

Front Porch (my parents made the wreath)

Kitchen

Kitchen

Living Room

Living Room

Living Room

"Office" (haven't figured this room out yet)

Sun Room / Reading Nook -- window seat

Sun Room / Reading Nook -- corner nook

Bathroom

As I mentioned and as you can see, I still have a long way to go! I need to put up photos, especially in the living room above the couch,  and I still need to organize things and do a major purge. I am not big on decorating, but have been having fun doing a few DIY projects, which I will have to share later. I have also done a bit of work to the front and back yard, but will have to save that for another post as well!

Do you like decorating? When you move, how long does it take you to get everything sorted in the new place? Where is your "go to" place for home decor?

There are many reasons why America should take the lead in action on climate change.

It's fair and in everyone's interest that America takes the lead

It's fair that those who pollute most, do most to clean things up. America's current and historic emissions are huge, while a lot of what has been produced elsewhere is also consumed in America. Moreover, it's in everyone's interest if America takes the lead. That is confirmed by studies such as this one, showing that there are no technical or economic barriers against cleaning things up. Doing so has many benefits, including job and investment opportunities, and scope for exports. In order for American industries, such as car manufacture, to remain competitive with products from overseas, they must clean up their act. In addition, there are many health and the environmental benefits, while shifting to clean energy will remove perceived needs for America to send military forces across the world to protect global supply lines of fossil fuel.

Legal obligations to act

There are also legal obligations for America to act. Back in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Mass. v. EPA that the EPA must act on any air pollutant that endangers public health or welfare. The EPA subsequently found this to be the case for six greenhouse gases and took action, including by issuing plans to limit carbon emissions from power plants. More recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in favor of the EPA plans.

Furthermore, as Michael Burger points out, Section 115 of the Clean Air Act also authorizes the EPA to act on emissions that contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare in other countries, the more so where the other countries provide the U.S. with reciprocal protections. At the Paris Agreement, such reciprocity was affirmed by some 190 nations (accounting for over 93% of current GHG emissions) pledging to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

In other words, no new laws are needed and action can and should be taken now, as this blog has pointed out for years, e.g. in this 2014 post that featured the image below.



The threat of methane eruptions from the Arctic Ocean seafloor calls for urgent action

This blog has repeatedly pointed at another reason why especially America must act, and must do so rapidly, comprehensively and effectively. In October 2015, oceans reached record high temperatures, especially on the Northern Hemisphere, as illustrated by the image below.

Northern Hemisphere October ocean temperatures based on NOAA 1880-2015 data - plot area goes from 1900 to 2050 and from -1 to 4 degrees Celsius above baseline, i.e. compared to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.

Above image features a trendline showing that oceans on the Northern Hemisphere could, by the year 2043, be 4°C or 7.2°F warmer than the 20th century average. Increasingly, methane levels over the Arctic Ocean are showing strong increases from October onward, as huge amounts of ocean heat are reaching the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean from that month onward.

North America contributes strongly to accelerating warming of the Arctic Ocean. The Coriolis Effect makes that high levels of emissions originating from North America are extending over the Atlantic Ocean, and are warming up waters off the east coast of North America, as illustrated by the image below.

Top left: CO2 414 ppb green circle, up to 433 ppm in New Jersey. Top right: CO 274 ppb green circle, up to 890 ppb in New Jersey. Bottom left: Jet Stream 250 hPa. Bottom right: Sea surface temperature anomaly 8.5°C/15.3°F green circle.

2015 maximum nightly sea surface temperature anomaly

Carbon dioxide emissions are important, but also relevant are other emissions such as carbon monoxide that depletes hydroxyl, making it harder for methane to be oxidized.

As emissions keep rising, the Gulf Stream will carry ever warmer water into the Arctic Ocean, resulting in greater melting of the sea ice and associated albedo changes that in turn accelerate warming in the Arctic.

Surface temperature anomaly Jan 21, 2015 - Jan 20, 2016
 

This is further illustrated by the images on the right. The top image shows 2015 maximum nightly sea surface temperature anomalies, with anomalies of 5°C off the North American east coast as well as in the Arctic Ocean.

The second image on the right illustrate the extent at which warming in the Arctic Ocean is accelerating, compared to the rest of the world. The image also shows the cold freshwater lid over the North Atlantic.

Temperature anomaly forecast for January 28, 2016
 

As the temperature difference between the Arctic and the equator decreases, the jet stream gets more elongated, at times moving all across the Arctic Ocean. This is one of a multitude of feedbacks that contribute to accelerating warming of the Arctic Ocean. The result is illustrated by the third image on the right, showing strong warming over most of the Arctic Ocean, while at the same time some places on land at higher latitudes north are experiencing extremely cold conditions.

descending cold freshwater on January 25, 2016

Another one of such feedbacks is that warmer water off the coast of North America will result in stronger winds moving over the North Atlantic toward the Arctic Ocean. This can also speed up ocean currents, so it can result in more heat being carried toward the Arctic Ocean both in the atmosphere and the water.

Meltwater from glaciers and sea ice can descend along the edges of Greenland into the North Atlantic, forming a cold freshwater lid on the North Atlantic, where it accumulates at the surface over the years, as illustrated by the image on the right that points at a -4°C or -7.1°F anomaly compared to 1981-2011.

In addition, precipitation (rain, snow, hail, fog, etc.) can further contribute to expansion of this cold
freshwater lid over the North Atlantic, as illustrated by the images on the right.

cold freshwater lid over the North Atlantic

While this cold freshwater may constitute a barrier that slows the flow of warm water toward the Arctic Ocean at the surface, the danger is that it prevents heat transfer to the atmosphere from warm water flowing below the sea surface, with the net result of more heat arriving in the Arctic Ocean.

Furthermore, if this cold freshwater lid also prevents water from sinking deeper in the North Atlantic, this may also contribute to more warm water arriving in the Arctic ocean, as illustrated by the bottom image on the right.

Such feedbacks can dramatically accelerate warming of Arctic Ocean, resulting in heat destabilizing sediments that can contain huge amounts of methane.

In conclusion, America must take the lead in action on climate change. It's fair to do so, it will benefit everyone, there are legal obligations to do so and there is great urgency to act in the light of looming methane eruptions from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described at the Climate Plan. 

In October 2015, oceans reached record high temperatures, especially on the Northern Hemisphere. The image features a...
Posted by Sam Carana on Saturday, January 23, 2016

Embed from Getty Images

We didn't understand America back in 1776 and we're not very good at it now.  If gun laws are clear evidence of that, the popularity of Sarah Palin is even better evidence.

The woman who did more than anyone else, apart from Barack Obama, to ruin John McCain's chances of the presidency in 2008 is back as a political cheerleader-cum-would-be-office-holder.  And for Donald Trump, possibly the nearest male equivalent to her own brand of populist, anti-establishment, celebrity-seeking, not always sense-making political showmanship.

Trump's campaign is still largely focussed on outmanouevring his closest and most sinister rival for the Republican nomination, Ted Cruz, a man hated equally by everyone who he works with, whether left or right.  And he's done it again.  Trump's original anti-Muslim comment was designed to outflank Cruz, and receiving the endorsement of Palin is another humdinger that must be rankling with the Texas senator.  (In fact, we know it does because a Cruz staffer had a go at Palin hours before her much anticipated endorsement of Trump, causing a minor twitterstorm generated by Bristol Palin who attacked Cruz back. It's all fun and games and mutual love in the Christian vote-seeking Republican camp).

Palin is still a crowd-puller amongst Tea Party conservatives and the fundamentalist Christian base which Cruz appeals to so much, as the Telegraph's David Lawlor shows in his rolling pieces on the Iowa meeting.  It speaks volumes about Republican grassroots' political sensibilities that she is.  After torpedoing the McCain bid in 2008 she promptly left elective politics, resigning as Governor of Alaska (from where you can see Russia, as she memorably reminded everyone when asked to give evidence of her foreign policy expertise) to pursue a more lucrative career as a media celebrity.  She must still rank as one of the most proudly stupid and ignorant people to ever seek elective office, and her rambling endorsement of Trump was filled again with her own string of bizarre and meaningless catch-phrases ("We're not gonna chill, we're gonna drill, baby, drill"; they're replacing the safety nets with hammocks"; and lots of "Doggone....").

But Palin has energised the Trump campaign as the Iowa vote approaches on Feb 1st., and if her endorsement swings enough of that mid-western state's conservative base towards the Donald such that he beats the hitherto-favourite Cruz, well then his bid for the eventual Republican nomination is looking stronger than anyone - including probably Donald himself - might have ever believed.

I love the Republican race.  I just don't want any of them to be president.

Embed from Getty Images

Bless them.  MPs gathered in numbers not usually seen for debates to discuss the pressing issue of whether Donald Trump, who hasn't got any immediate plans to visit Britain, should be banned just in case he ever does.  As they earnestly debated the ins and outs of an essentially trivial petition, you almost felt that they believed America was watching and listening.  The full range of faux outrage was on display, with one MP dramatically declaring that Donald Trump had insulted her personally.

Oh dear.  Never mind the fact that this debate effectively took Trump at his own valuation.  Never mind that MPs were debating something they themselves couldn't actually affect (the power to ban is the Home Secretary's).  Never mind that there must have been 101 other ways for MPs to spend their time that might actually have had an impact on their constituents.  The key thing about this debate was the continued suffering British politicians have that somehow, in a mind somewhere across the Atlantic, Britain actually matters.

She doesn't, and hasn't since 1812 when British troops burned down the executive mansion in a sort of last hurrah.  The Americans repainted it and had a place they could now call the White House, which was nice.  But the feeling in Britain, ever since America started becoming the No 1 Nation, has long been that somehow we are tied together in a uniquely special relationship.  Alas, reality shows us a rather different picture, as a quick historical gander through the distinctly unspecial relationship will show.  Here are its principal lowlights, which I set out some time ago, when David Cameron was in the first throes of his infatuation with Barack Obama.

Roosevelt and Churchill.
This is where it was meant to have started. FDR moved heaven and earth to get US aid to brave little Britain, and he and Churchill bestrode the post-war world stage like conquering colossi joined at the hip. Yes?

Er, well not quite. Roosevelt was a thoroughly reluctant interventionist. He gave short shrift to the pro-interventionist Century Group, deferring instead to advisers like Sumner Welles, who in January 1940 was still determined to get Hitler and Mussolini to talk peace. When help did come, Roosevelt extracted everything he could from Britain and then tried to make sure the Atlantic War was firmly eastern focused, which suited American interests better. Neville Chamberlain had always believed that the cost of American help would be too high – he wasn’t wrong. Military bases, trading concessions and considerable regional influence was all ceded to the USA. The Roosevelt-Churchill relationship existed mainly in the mind of Churchill himself, who did so much to propagate it. Which is surprising, given the way FDR himself sought to undermine Churchill in front of Stalin at Yalta.

Truman and Attlee
Well, Attlee didn’t speak much anyway, but his Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin did, and it was Bevin who felt so downtrodden by Truman’s Secretary of State that he advocated British ownership of nuclear weapons, if only so that “no foreign secretary gets spoken to by an American Secretary of State like that again”. It was another Truman Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, who caustically remarked that “Britain has lost an empire but not yet found a role”. Thanks for the support Dean.

Eisenhower

One word really. Suez. When Anthony Eden tried to protect British interests in the Suez Canal, Eisenhower was the first and most important statesman out of the blocks to condemn him. And then begin a run on the pound. Never mind that Khrushchev was slaughtering Hungarian rebels at the time – Britain was Enemy No. 1! Oh, and lest we forget, it was Eisenhower as US Supreme Commander who stymied Churchill and Montgomery’s plan to beat the Russians to Berlin. The Russians weren’t a threat you see.

Nixon and Heath
Possibly the only really effective working relationship between a US President and a British Prime minister, because it was based on an understanding that there wasn’t actually a Special Relationship at all. Both Heath and Nixon believed that America’s real focus in Europe was never going to be a single country, but a united European organization. Nixon, in any case, was very clearly identifying the East as the true arena for US activity.

Reagan and Thatcher
This is where it’s meant to really go into overdrive. If the lovebirds Maggie and Ron didn’t have a special relationship, then who did? But, alas, for all their cooing to each other in public, Reagan not only proved notoriously slow to throw support behind Britain in the Falklands crisis, but then didn’t let Thatcher know when he invaded the Commonwealth country of Grenada. Britain had to content herself by joining 108 other nations in condemning the invasion at the UN. Tellingly, Reagan later recollected than when Thatcher phoned him to say he shouldn’t go ahead, "She was very adamant and continued to insist that we cancel our landings on Grenada. I couldn't tell her that it had already begun." Special Relationship indeed.

Bush and Blair
No world leader was more determined to show his support for the US than Tony Blair. No other world leader was greeted familiarly as “Yo, Blair”. But for all the support he gave to George W. Bush’s strategy of middle east invasion, Blair’s voice was heard as tinnily as anyone else’s when it came to trying to influence US foreign policy. It was one of the supreme, defining failures of his premiership.

Embed from Getty Images

Attention in the US presidential primaries is focusing more on the Republican race than the Democratic one, not least because there actually is a Republican race, whereas whatever the enthusiasm of Bernie Sanders' supporters, no-one is yet thinking in terms of Hillary not winning the Democratic nomination.

Republican debates are offering some great moments as they fight lack rats in a sack, but it is worth turning to look at Hillary in the more measured Democrat debates too.  Sanders has at least offered some useful challenge to Clinton, absorbing the zeitgeist of the liberal left in her party and forcing her to recognise and deal with it.  And, the debates are a measure of what Hillary might be able to offer in the main presidential run-off after summer.

The evidence from the latest Democratic debate - at least according to Slate - is that she is one classy and effective debater; a better debater than campaigner says Isaac Chotiner.  And that means whoever wins the Republican race, they are going to have their wacky political offerings put under a sharp, forensic and public spotlight.  Which could well see them melt as the vast army of mid-term non-voters turns out to ensure the White House stays centrist.

Embed from Getty Images

It says a lot about the Republican party that it looks as if it will spend the next few months deciding whether Donald Trump or Ted Cruz should be the standard bearer for all of its hopes and aspirations in November's presidential elections.

Of course much can change - and probably will - by then, but in the meantime we have weeks' worth of hard-right posturing on the part of those two lead candidates to get through.  And it's taken some doing, but Ted Cruz is managing to make Trump look like a decent, compassionate, upstanding and moderate man of great political wisdom.  Cruz is an unprincipled flip-flopper (see this detailed take-down of his various immigration positions) whose pronouncements and rallies carry the deep whiff of sulphur, but the recent Republican debate exchange at least showed him being verbally out-manouevred by the Donald.

Cruz took a swipe - as he has done previously - at what he calls "New York values".  Now "New York values" can often be used as shorthand in America for a variety of unseemly accusations.  The very first episode of the seminal political drama "West Wing" saw this sharp exchange on the subject between liberal Toby and a hard-right Christian activist:



But Cruz meant social liberal.  When he referred to "New York values" he was addressing his fundamentalist Christian base and attacking such anathema as same-sex tolerance, diversity and liberal ethics.  And he might have meant Donald Trump, whose outsize personality is certainly very definitely of New York.  Cruz' unpleasant insinuations could have been left hanging, but Trump rose to the occasion for once, and gave a great take-down.

Trump may lose out to Cruz in Iowa - due Feb 1st - while Cruz may lose out to Trump in New Hampshire.  But if they keep the top two spots as the primary season goes on, the whole Republican party is going to be the one that loses out.  Yet you get the impression that for many members losing out on the White House is an acceptable consequence of keeping the Republican brand tea-party pure.  What a party.

Embed from Getty Images

The world of print is over and will be overtaken and then replaced by its digital oppressor.  This has been declared for so long - a bit like Nostradamus' many and varied predictions for the end of the world - that we have probably ceased listening to it.  But the world of print is suffering, and in particular there exists a small but growing debate about the rewarding of writers.

One thing that the online world has done is to allow vast numbers of amateur writers to publish themselves and their meandering thoughts.  This blog, and this writer, is one example.  Such openness, so the argument runs, has led to a serious under-rewarding of professional writers.  With so much free stuff available, why pay?  The Huffington Post, a big online news affair, generates loads of its stuff by getting desperate people to write for it for free, and it is not alone.

I'm not sure I wholly agree that this should lead to the undermining of proper, good writers however.  Nick Cohen, an excellent, stimulating, readable journalist and author, has a great pop at the Oxford Literary Festival for refusing to pay its authorial speakers, in an online piece for the Spectator here.

Now let's be clear.  I think Cohen is a superb writer.  I willingly fork out for his books and I would buy magazines for his articles without a backward glance at my ever-decreasing bank account.  But I can also access him for free.  See above.  So why would I pay?  His perfectly just argument is a little undermined by the willingness of his employer to give so much of his stuff away.

The internet grew up with a mantra that it should all be free, but of course by "all" we really only mean the unedited commentary and news part of it.  Newspapers and magazines have done themselves no favours by hawking so much of their material for free, and it is perhaps not surprising that cheese-paring literary festivals like Oxford have followed suit and tried to extract writers to speak for free whilst paying for pretty everyone else who works at the festival.

Writers should absolutely be able to charge for their appearances.  Writers with confidence in the quality and marketability of their work should vigorously protect their right to be read on payment of an appropriate sum.   It would be a decent and affirming nod to the validity of the knowledge economy if that were the case.  Meanwhile, the rather less edified grafters on widely unread blogs should also be allowed to luxuriate in the illusion that people might also read our less elevated free offerings.  See.  The market at work.

Embed from Getty Images

Tory MP Nick Herbert is leading the EU "Stay" campaign - or one of them at any rate - and not before time if a poll in the Mail is to be believed.  According to the Survation poll the "Leave" option now leads by 6%, given impetus it would seem, by concerns over terrorist attacks and a migrant influx that would clearly not exist if we weren't in the EU.

The Telegraph describes this as a "war", although quite why the preparation to debate an important referendum issue should be a "war" is puzzling in itself.  The Telegraph lost a lot of its news credibility some time ago when its cozy relationship with HSBC was revealed, but still.  A war?

Nick Herbert is effectively leading what will be the minority view within the Tory party about Europe.  Sceptics in the Tory party - up to and including the cabinet - are so plentiful that David Cameron has almost seemed besieged by his desire to secure a deal which could persuade people to vote to stay in.  As Nick Clegg - resurfacing on today's Marr show - remarked, it is going to be important to remember that the EU referendum extends rather further than the broiling civil war amongst the Tories.

Another salvo in the right-wing exchanges was fired in the Telegraph as well.  "Historians for Britain", a fantastically named group presumably suggesting that other historians are not at all committed to Britain, has dished the notion that the EU has had any role in preserving peace since the war.  And in this, I have to cautiously agree.  I think the EU has been a remarkable development in a continent which little over half a century ago was used to tearing itself to bits every few years on the battlefield, but yes I think NATO more than the EU can claim the credit for actually helping to preserve the very peace from which the EU has emerged and flourished.  The EU's forays into foreign policy have not been particularly effective - witness eastern Ukraine, a crisis begun at least in part by heavy handed EU overtures to pro-western Ukrainian politicians - and they struggle to speak with a single voice over such things as migration or the middle eastern conflict.  But still.  At least they do speak. And meet. And negotiate. And hold summits and things.  I doubt there's a person alive in the war-tortured middle east - outside the gun-toting, violence-inflicting, morally abandoned psycho loons of ISIS and their associates - who wouldn't rather have an EU type approach to inter-state affairs than the military machisma currently prevailing.

The referendum will hopefully be based on rational pro and anti arguments, but in amongst it I have to confess that there is a wholly emotive endorsement on my part of the whole EU experiment, and what it is meant to represent.

It's that time of year again! Money pie time! This year was fun because a coworker loved that I did this last year and decided to join in the fun. We have been presenting each other with our "pie" each quarter to see where things have gone over time. 

Here's the breakdown! But first, a couple of notes. First, I did not include any savings in this chart. I do put aside money for retirement as well as an emergency fund and a fun money fund. However, as this money is not technically an expense, it is not included. Also, I excluded my down payment, as it would have inflated the "home" category to over 90 percent. 

Home: Like last year, this includes rent and utilities but this year, as well as taxes and insurance, this category was also furnishings heavy. As I said, I did not include my down payment. However, there were still a lot of things, such as blinds, appliances and other misc items, that I will not have to buy every year, but that were a big expense this  year. I was a bit aghast at the high percentage, but if I just had rent/utilities only, it would be closer to 33%, which is about right, according to articles like this. 

Travel: I hope I never have to make this category smaller. I have mentioned this before, but I will skimp on most everything before I give this one up! As you can see I forwent shopping for travel this year. I have a great trip to Europe, as well as several other trips around the US to visit with friends, and several road trips to do active things around California. 

Transportation: This category is mostly commuting, but I also rent a car approximately one weekend per month in order to visit family or friends or to go to a running event. I did not try to separate the costs for running related things into the entertainment category, as they are often all intertwined. 

Groceries/Eating Out: Funny that these are almost the same! I probably only eat out about once a month, so this shows that when I do eat out, it is a major event! Eating out also includes coffee shops and beer, which is probably the majority of my expense in that category! I also put all Costco trips in the grocery category, even though there were some other odds and ends in the basket usually.

Misc: This includes haircuts, gifts and donations, credit card fees.. things like that. The bulk of it is gifts and donations. I think I got my hair cut twice last year!

Health: This includes pre-tax deductions and any copay or charge for contact lenses etc.

Entertainment: This includes movies, baseball games, and running related (or other hobbies) expenses. Truly this year I did not spend a lot on running gear, only race fees. Also, like I said before, my transportation to running events was either carpooling or it went into the transportation or travel category. It may be better to try to separate those out this year to get a more accurate idea of where the money is going.

Shopping: If it's not food, I don't buy it! This category included clothing, toiletries and items from Target that were not home or running related. I literally bought maybe 4 (Banana Republic) shirts for myself this year from a thrift store, and that was about it! k

So, what did I learn from this? I am pretty happy about where I spent my money in 2015. If needed, I could definitely spend less on travel. Currently it is not necessary, but it would have to be the first thing to get a haircut if I needed some extra money. As you can see, I don't really spend a lot on unnecessary things, except for travel. I am also happy about how much I am putting aside and am trying to increase my savings amounts if I get a raise this year, instead of just spending more.

What is the biggest piece of your spending pie? Do you keep track of where your money goes? What are your financial goals this year? 

At the Paris Agreement, nations pledged to cut emissions and avoid dangerous temperature rises. Yet, the rise in greenhouse gas levels and temperatures appears to be accelerating.

Record growth of carbon dioxide levels at Mauna Loa

Annual mean carbon dioxide level measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, grew by 3.17 ppm (parts per million) in 2015, a higher growth rate than in any year since the record started in 1959.

As above image shows, a polynomial trendline added to the data points at a carbon dioxide growth rate of 4 ppm by the year 2024 and 5 ppm by the year 2028. 

At the start of the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. On January 11, 2016, as above image shows, carbon dioxide level at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, was 402.1 ppm. That's some 143% times what the upper level of carbon dioxide was in pre-industrial times over at least the past 400,000 years, as the image further below illustrates.

At higher northern latitudes, carbon dioxide levels are higher than elsewhere on Earth, as illustrated by above image. These high greenhouse gases contribute to accelerated warming of the Arctic. 

Methane levels rising even faster than CO2 levels, especially over Arctic Ocean

Historically, methane levels have been moving up and down between a window of 300 and 700 ppb. In modern times, methane levels have been rising even more rapidly than carbon dioxide levels, as illustrated by the image below, from an earlier post.

As above image illustrates, the mean level of 1839 ppb that was reached on September 7, 2014, is some 263% of the ~700 ppb that historically was methane's upper level.

The image below, from an earlier post, shows the available World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) annual means, i.e. from 1984 through to 2014, with added polynomial trendline based on these data. The square marks a high mean 2015 level, from NOAA's MetOp-2 satellite images, and it is added for comparison, so it does not influence the trendline, yet it does illustrate the direction of rise of methane levels and the threat that global mean methane levels will double well before the year 2040.

Recently, some very high peak levels have been recorded, including a reading of 2745 ppb on January 2, 2016, and a reading of 2963 ppb on January 8, 2016, shown below.

These high readings illustrate the danger that, as warmer water reaches the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean, it will increasingly destabilize sediments that can contain huge amounts of methane in the form of free gas and hydrates. Images associated with these high readings show the presence of high methane levels over the Arctic Ocean, indicating that these high peaks originate from the Arctic ocean and that sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean are destabilizing. The danger is that these peaks will be followed up by even stronger abrupt releases from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean, as water temperatures keep rising.

Rising temperatures

Global mean temperature in 2015 was 0.87°C (~1.6°F) higher than in 1951-1980. 

Above image shows NASA data with a polynomial trendline added that points at a 2015 temperature that is more than 1.1°C (~2.03°F) higher than it was in 1900.

The image on the right shows that it was 1.17°C warmer in 2015 than it was in the period 1890-1910.

Additionally, some 0.3°C warming had already taken place by the year 1900, as discussed in an earlier post.

Together, that makes that 2015 temperatures were 1.47°C above pre-industrial levels.

Furthermore, temperatures did rise steeply over the course of the year 2015.

By the end of the year 2015, the temperature rise was even stronger than the average for 2015 would indicate, as illustrated by the image on the right.

It is now 2016 and temperatures are still rising. In other words, it now is more than 1.5°C or 2.7°F warmer than in pre-industrial times. In conclusion, we have already crossed the 1.5°C guardrail that the Paris Agreement had pledged to try and limit global warming to. 

What is the prognosis for the temperature rise from here onward? The current El Niño is expected to continue well into 2016. Even if the El Niño slows down, it will by then likely have contributed to huge losses of snow and ice cover, including sea ice melt in the Arctic. The resulting albedo changes alone may well have an even stronger warming effect than the El Niño, while there are further feedbacks such as disruption of the jet stream and methane eruptions from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

The image below shows that, when that same trendline featuring in above graph is extended into the future, it points at a 2°C or 3.6°F global temperature anomaly rise before the year 2030, a rise of about 4°C or 7.2°F by 2040, and a 10°C or 18°F rise before the year 2060. That would be a rise compared to the period 1951-1980, i.e. warming compared to pre-industrial levels would be even more severe.

Three points are important to help more fully grasp the predicament we are in:

1. At higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, temperatures are rising faster than globally, as illustrated by above image that shows that a 10°C rise could hit the Arctic by 2030. 
2. Summer peaks will be even more devastating than annual averages. 
3. The rise of temperatures on land will be steeper than the rise in the combined land-ocean temperatures, as illustrated by the image below that shows that a 3°C rise on land could occur well before the year 2030.  

Comprehensive and effective action needed

As greenhouse gases and temperatures keep rising, the heat will be felt earliest and most severely on land, during the northern summer and in the Arctic.

One big danger is that soil that was previously frozen will become exposed and will start releasing huge amounts of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide or methane.

Furthermore, boreal forest, tundra and peat bogs are at risk of firestorms that will also come with huge amounts of emissions.

All this will make the rise in temperature speed up even more, with much of the soot from firestorms in Siberia settling on the Himalaya Tibetan plateau, melting the glaciers there and causing short-term flooding followed by rapid decrease of the flow of ten of Asia’s largest river systems that originate there, with more than a billion people’s livelihoods depending on the continued flow of this water.

Again, the reason why temperatures look set to rise so abruptly and dramatically in the Arctic is feedbacks, as discussed as the feedbacks page. The biggest danger that comes with these rapidly rising temperatures in the Arctic is that large methane eruptions from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean will further heat up the atmosphere, at first in hotspots over the Arctic, and eventually around the globe, while also causing huge temperature swings and extreme weather events, further contributing to increasing depletion of fresh water and food supply.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan. 

Below is an image by Malcolm Light, which updates an image that appeared in an earlier post. 

Annual mean carbon dioxide level measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, grew by 3.17 ppm (parts per million) in 2015, a higher...
Posted by Sam Carana on Thursday, January 14, 2016