Skyrocketing emissions

On April 21, 2017, at 15:00 UTC, it was as hot as 46.6°C/115.8°F in Guinea, in West-Africa (at the location marked by the green spot on the map below).

That same time and day, a little bit to the south, at a spot in Sierra Leona, a level of carbon monoxide (CO) of 15.28 parts per million (ppm) was recorded, while the temperature there was 40.6°C or 105.1°F. Earlier that day (at 13:30 UTC), levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂) of 569 ppm and of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) of 149.97 µg/m³ were recorded at that same spot, shown on the bottom left corner of the image below (red marker).

These high emissions carry the signature of wildfires, illustrating the threat of what can occur as temperatures keep rising. Further emissions that come with wildfires are black carbon and methane.

Above image shows methane levels on April 22, 2017, AM, at an altitude corresponding to 218 mb. Methane at this altitude is as high as 2402 ppb (magenta indicates levels of 1950 ppb and higher) and while the image doesn't specify the location of this peak, it looks related to the magenta-colored area over West Africa and this looks related to the wildfires discussed above. This wasn't even the highest level recorded that day. While at lower altitudes even higher methane levels were recorded that morning (as high as 2505 ppb), above image illustrates the contribution wildfires can make to methane growth at higher altitudes.

The table below shows the altitude equivalents in feet (ft), meter (m) and millibar (mb).

57,016 ft	44,690 ft	36,850 ft	30,570 ft	25,544 ft	19,820 ft	14,385 ft	8,368 ft	1,916 ft
17,378 m	13,621 m	11,232 m	9,318 m	7,786 m	6,041 m	4,384 m	2,551 m	584 m
74 mb	147 mb	218 mb	293 mb	367 mb	469 mb	586 mb	742 mb	945 mb

Above image compares mean methane levels on the morning of April 22 between the years 2013 to 2017, confirming that methane levels are rising most strongly at higher altitudes, say between 6 to 17 km (which is where the Troposphere ends at the Equator), as compared to altitudes closer to sea level. This was discussed in earlier posts such as this one.

On April 26, 2017, CO₂ levels at Mauna Loa, Hawaii spiked at 412.63 ppm.



As the image below shows, some hourly CO₂ averages for that day were well above 413 ppm.

These high CO₂ levels were likely caused by wildfires, particularly in Siberia.

CO₂ readings on April 26, 2017, 22:30 UTC

As said, besides emissions of CO₂, wildfires cause a lot of additional emissions, as illustrated by the images below.

As above image shows, methane levels as high as 2683 ppb were recorded on April 27, 2017. While the image doesn't specify where these high levels occurred, there are a lot of magenta-colored areas over Siberia, indicating levels over 1950 ppb. The image below shows carbon monoxide levels as high as 5.12 ppm near Lake Baikal on April 27, 2017.

As the image below shows, temperatures on April 28, 2017, were as high as 26.5°C or 79.6°F near Lake Baikal.

The satellite images below shows some of the wildfires. The images also show ice (in the left panel) over Lake Baikal on April 25, 2017, as well as over much of the Angara River that drains Lake Baikal. On April 28, 2017, much of that ice had melted (right panel).

[ click on images to enlarge ]

Warming oceans

Oceans are hit by high temperatures as well. The image below shows sea surface temperature anomalies (from 1981-2011) on April 21, 2017, at selected locations.



Accelerating temperature rises

The image below illustrates the danger of accelerating temperature rises.

Above image uses trendlines based on data dating back to 1880, which becomes less appropriate as feedbacks start to kick in that accelerate such temperature rises. Indeed, temperatures could rise even faster, due to feedbacks including the following ones:

• Less sunlight getting reflected back into space

As illustrated by the image below, more ocean heat results in less sea ice. This makes that less sunlight gets reflected back into space and instead gets absorbed by the oceans.

[ Graph by Wipneus ]

• More ocean heat escaping from the Arctic Ocean into the atmosphere

As discussed before, as less heat is mixed down to deeper layers of oceans, more heat accumulates at or just below the surface. Stronger storms, in combination with the presence of a cold freshwater lid on top of the North Atlantic, increase the possibility that more of this ocean heat gets pushed into the Arctic Ocean, resulting in sea ice loss, which in turn makes that more heat can escape from the Arctic Ocean to the atmosphere, while more clouds over the Arctic Ocean make that less heat can get radiated out into space. As the temperature difference between the Arctic Ocean and the Equator decreases, changes are occurring to the Northern Polar Jet Stream that further speed up warming of the Arctic.

• More heat remaining in atmosphere due to less ocean mixing

As also discussed before, warmer water tends to form a layer at the surface that does not mix well with the water below. This stratification reduces the capability of oceans to take up heat and CO₂ from the atmosphere. Less take-up by oceans of CO₂ will result in higher CO₂ levels in the atmosphere, further speeding up global warming. Additionally, 93.4% of global warming currently goes into oceans. The more heat will remain in the atmosphere, the faster the temperature of the atmosphere will rise. As temperatures rise, more wildfires will erupt, adding further emissions, while heat-induced melting of permafrost will also cause more greenhouse gases to enter the atmosphere.

• More seafloor methane entering the atmosphere

The prospect of more heat getting pushed from the Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean also comes with the danger of destabilization of methane hydrates at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. Importantly, large parts of the Arctic Ocean are very shallow, making it easy for arrival of more ocean heat to warm up these seas and for heat to destabilize sediments at the seafloor that can contain huge amounts of methane, resulting in eruptions of methane from the seafloor, with much the methane entering the atmosphere without getting decomposed by microbes in the water, since many seas are only shallow, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one.

These feedbacks are depicted in the yellow boxes on above diagram on the right.

How fast could temperatures rise?

When taking into account the many elements that are contributing to warming, a potential warming of 10°C (18°F) could take place, leading to rapid mass extinction of many species, including humans.

[ Graph from: Which Trend is Best? ]

So, how fast could such warming take place? As above image illustrates, it could happen as fast as within the next four years time.

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


Links

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

• How much warming have humans caused?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-much-warming-have-humans-caused.html

• Accelerating growth in CO₂ levels in the atmosphere
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/02/accelerating-growth-in-co2-levels-in-the-atmosphere.html

• Arctic Sea Ice Getting Terribly Thin

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/08/arctic-sea-ice-getting-terribly-thin.html

• Methane Erupting From Arctic Ocean Seafloorhttp://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/03/methane-erupting-from-arctic-ocean-seafloor.html

• The Methane Threat
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-methane-threat.html

• Methane hydrates

http://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com/2013/04/methane-hydrates.html

• Methane Erupting From Arctic Ocean Seafloor
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/03/methane-erupting-from-arctic-ocean-seafloor.html

• Which Trend is Best?
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/03/which-trend-is-best.html

• Warning of mass extinction of species, including humans, within one decade
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/02/warning-of-mass-extinction-of-species-including-humans-within-one-decade.html

Embed from Getty Images

Labour and the Conservatives have never been particularly hospitable homes for their moderate, centrist members.  Corralled within an insulated party bubble consisting mainly of true believers, the moderate members have often been regarded as potential betrayers, consensual minded types who occasionally find common ground with their opponents; worse, as people who seem too willing to question the orthodoxies of their chosen tribe and challenge some of their heart-held beliefs.  What kept them going was the belief that their party leaderships, whatever they said in public, often shared their own centrist, outward-reaching attitudes.  In a sense they had to, for how else could they expect to govern except with the support of some of that part of the electorate which didn’t traditionally identify with their party?  So for decades in the past century or so, the two parties were, for the most part, led by mainstream centrists. 

Since 1945, the Labour party has had only one exception to this general rule until Jeremy Corbyn’s unexpected victory; Michael Foot, who presided over the disastrous defeat of 1983.  For the Conservatives, the story has been more mixed, as the era of One Nation leadership came to an abrupt halt with Margaret Thatcher’s election as leader in 1975.  Her electoral success was enabled by weak and divided opposition, but her leadership eventually became too divided for the party’s parliamentary leadership and was brutally shunted aside in favour of the more centrist John Major in 1990.  Major’s appeal brought his party an extra term in government, but his three successors ditched the appeal to moderation and presided over two election defeats until the more One Nation oriented David Cameron took over. 

Even in their darkest times – the early 80s for moderate Labourites, the noughties for moderate Tories – moderate members of each party could take solace from both the possibility of a return to favour at the top, and the knowledge that at least their opponents weren’t out and out lunatics.  A centrist Labour leadership benefited from the Tory retreat into its right-wing laager in the noughties just as David Cameron was able to see off the leftwards tilt of Ed Miliband.  Alas, no more.

If the liberal progressives in either party were tempted to be despairing about the outcome of the Brexit referendum, that is as nothing compared to the political landscape that looms before us in the 2017 general election and its aftermath.  Never has it been such a bad time to be a moderate in politics.  While Jeremy Corbyn exercises a complete control over the Labour party on behalf of his left-wing supporting movement, Momentum, Theresa May abandoned some time ago any attempt to face down her right-wing in turn.  Indeed, for all the eloquence of her chief of staff’s speech writing in the early months, it is difficult to discern a clear political vision from May, other than the need to stay in power and bludgeon a hard Brexit through parliament whatever the consequences.  There is a small remnant of moderate, independent minded MPs on the Tory benches, but they are unlikely to be much enlarged by the influx of new Tory MPs on the back of this election.

It is a bleak picture, but is there some light to be had from the direction of the Liberal Democrats?  Tim Farron has bounded fresh faced and energetic into the election and his party has trumpeted over 5,000 new members since the election was called.  They may even pick up seats – probably at the expense of Tory MPs in Remain-leaning southern metropolitan seats, or traditionally liberal south-western ones.  As nice as such a boost will be, they are unlikely to reach their glory days of 60 plus MPs without further work in the Labour strongholds of the north, and here it is more likely to be Tories – as in Copeland – who take the prize.

Why has liberalism, the progressive attitude once prevalent in all parties, reached such a dire state?

In essence liberalism has never been a far-reaching ideology in populist terms. Labour’s brand of social liberalism was smuggled onto the statute books by Roy Jenkins and his successors on the back of its more populist electoral appeal to manual Britain for better wages and working conditions, and better public services.  Margaret Thatcher’s economic liberalism came cloaked in populist attacks upon the failures of social democracy, and then appeals to national identity (via the Falklands and latterly Europe). 

Progressive liberals always sought validation from the establishment in power, and not from the people.  The belief in a reasoned, consensual, progressive building of a civilised state served by governments committed to at least some aspects of the liberal cause wasn’t one easily sold in gut electoral terms.  But populism was always tearing away at the fabric.  Most people, uninterested in politics and prepared to vote instinctively and emotively, and once upon a time tribally, had no time for the finer aspects of political debate and theorising.  While the liberal state delivered, this seemed fine, especially when each party had a core of leaders committed to variations on the same project.  Nevertheless, as turbulence swept the global community, and mass migration became a feature, the fragile belief in a liberal state that could both serve its people and extend magnanimity towards others started to explode. 

The incendiary devices for such resentment had long been readily to hand in the form of the popular press.  Once the liberal state stumbled in its attempt to explain the impact of global trends that put indigenous workers out of their jobs, and seemed to fail to arrest influxes of foreign workers to occupy the lower reaches of the salary earning spectrum, the way was open for the ever louder beat of nationalism. 

It came from the right-wing press, and was quickly adopted by politicians with an eye to the main chance.  It seems odd, in the age of social media and the generally accepted ability of anyone and everyone to forge their own news sources via facebook, blogs and twitter, to talk of the power of the press, but power it is.  Few twitter accounts or facebook pages can match the reach – even today – of traditional newspapers.  Where social media is bifurcated and diverse, newspapers still provide a common currency in news and opinion.  In some respects, social media merely amplifies this.  A single front page in the most powerful of the papers – the Mail or the Sun – can drive social media comment for days.  A largely mediocre political class remains in thrall to the apparent and high profile power of newspapers.  The Telegraph had MPs on the run for months over expenses a few years ago; Theresa May crafts her agenda almost entirely to suit the Mail and the Sun today.  And what makes these papers even more powerful is their ability to dance to the otherwise inchoate beat of the nationalist drum up and down the country.

Liberalism – the belief in reasoned, rational politics – is upended today by the resurgent triumph of nationalism.  In a shrewd column recently, the Economist’s new Bagehot (Adrian Wooldridge) identified the posthumous triumph of Enoch Powell’s vision for Britain (“Thethird man”).  The party that succeeds, he argued, would be the party that successfully articulated this ideal of a national identity, and he further noted that Theresa May’s provincially rooted Englishness seemed to have a far better chance of success than Labour’s messy, divided party. 

For the liberal, this is a most unappetising vision.  Having successfully emerged from the last wreckage of nationalist triumph in the first half of the twentieth century, securing what seemed to be a permanent supra-national and liberal dominance, the collapsing of that same hegemony, and the accompanying lack of confidence in its future, is once again unleashing the darkest of political forces.

It is a bleak time indeed to be a moderate.  

       1.  Theresa May hasn’t actually called a general election yet.  She can’t.  The Fixed Term Parliament Act leaves that decision with the House of Commons, so in reality the fate of this putative election lies with the other parties (see Lord Norton's short sharp analysis).  If Labour – as Corbyn has asserted – supports the call, along with the SNP and the Lib Dems, then the one thing they cannot do is accuse May of putting party interest before country.  The Act no longer allows her to do that.  Instead, it makes a 2/3rds majority of MPs responsible instead.  Murmurings of turkeys and early Christmases spring to mind, and I do wonder if all Labour MPs are going to sign up to Corbyn’s suicide pact tomorrow.  If they do, then for more than a few it will be a means to hastening their unloved leader’s end.

2.       2.  Most forecasts – actually all forecasts – give the Tories a whopping likely majority.  This is pretty solid, and it will take a small political earthquake to dislodge the Tory advantage (although…Trump, anyone?).  Therefore much of the interest will be on how the opposition forces realign themselves.  If Labour really does head into an electoral meltdown, are the Liberal Democrats well placed to take advantage of it?  Tim Farron was far more sure-footed today than Jeremy Corbyn, and the Lib Dems are claiming a thousand new members in the few hours since Theresa May’s announcement.  They may also benefit from the “Remain” leaning seats currently held by Tories in south London and the south west – some estimates put their possible gains from the Tories at 27 seats.  Nevertheless, can the Lib Dems also budge Labour in its northern heartlands?  The now redundant Manchester Gorton by-election was showing some real LD strength thanks to a good local candidate, but can that be repeated across a swathe of Brexit believing Labour seats?

3.       3.  Will this election make UKIP formally redundant?  They are not defending any seats since the defection of sole MP Douglas Carswell (who was never a spiritual UKIP-er anyway)  and it will be interesting to see what happens to their 3 million 2015 votes.  If they see a sharp decline, we can probably rule them out as a political force from June 9^th onwards.  If we haven’t already done so.

4.       4.  Theresa May has crafted this as an election on Brexit, but does that mean she is hoping no-one will look too closely at the rest of her domestic agenda?  She is struggling to define herself at the moment, making speeches that lean towards One Nation conservatism but carrying out actions that suggest old style Tory callousness.  Catastrophic morale in the NHS, short-funding of schools, budget incompetence recently over NI contributions, craven-ness on challenging the corporate interests she claimed to be ready to face up to….all this points to an uneasy domestic agenda that has hardly been crafted to win popular support. 

5.       5.  It’s about personalities.  With Brexit the dominant political item, and no-one really having a clue about how it will or should pan out, the election will – as so often – come down to personalities, and for May there is very little competition.  Jeremy Corbyn is as hopeless a leader as you could hope for in your opponent, while Tim Farron will struggle, even with an election megaphone, to make the impact he needs.  By slapping down the chance of a TV debate May has also deprived Farron of his possible “Cleggmania” moment.  It was a smart move on May’s part – she had nothing to gain from such a venture.

6.       6.  Finally, the result doesn’t mean a one-party state.  Should the Tories win big – the most likely outcome – they still face inordinate problems over the next five years, and such a result gives both Lib Dems and Labour the chance to properly regroup (under a new leader in Labour’s case, or with a spun off new party).  Five years may seem like a lifetime to upset liberals, but it offers May a mere two-year extension on her current lease.  In the end, that may not actually be enough if Brexit bombs.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are accelerating. As illustrated by the image below, a linear trend hardly catches the acceleration, while a polynomial trend does make a better fit. The polynomial trend points at CO₂ levels of 437 ppm by 2026.

EPA animation: more extreme heat

This worrying acceleration is taking place while energy-related have been virtually flat over the past few years, according to figures by the EIA and by the Global Carbon Project. So, what makes growth in CO₂ levels in the atmosphere accelerate? As earlier discussed in this and this post, growth in CO₂ levels in the atmosphere is accelerating due to continued deforestation and soil degradation, due to ever more extreme weather events and due to accelerating warming that is making oceans unable to further take up carbon dioxide.

Ocean warming is accelerating on the Northern Hemisphere, as illustrated by above image, and a warmer Atlantic Ocean will push ever warmer water into the Arctic Ocean, further speeding up the decline of the sea ice and of permafrost.

[ click on images to enlarge ]

Loss of Northern Hemisphere snow cover is alarming, especially in July, as depicted in above image. The panel on the left shows snow cover on the Northern Hemisphere in three areas, i.e. Greenland, North America and Eurasia. The center panel shows North America and the right panel shows Eurasia. While Greenland is losing huge amounts of ice from melting glaciers, a lot of snow cover still remains present on Greenland, unlike the permafrost in North America and especially Eurasia, which has all but disappeared in July.

[ for original image, see 2011 AGU poster ]

Worryingly, the linear trend in the right panel points at zero snow cover in 2017, which should act as a warning that climate change could strike a lot faster than many may expect.

A recently-published study warns that permafrost loss is likely to be 4 million km² (about 1.5 million mi²) for each 1°C (1.8°F) temperature rise, about 20% higher than previous studies. Temperatures may well rise even faster, due to numerous self-reinforcing feedback loops that speed up the changes and due to interaction between the individual warming elements behind the changes.

[ Arctic sea ice, gone by Sept. 2017? ]

One of the feedbacks is albedo loss that speeds up warming in the Arctic, in turn making permafrost release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.

Higher temperatures on land will make warmer water from rivers enter the Arctic Ocean and trigger wildfires resulting in huge emissions including black carbon that can settle on sea ice.

Given the speed at which many feedbacks and the interaction between warming elements can occur, Arctic sea ice volume may decline even more rapidly than the image on the right may suggest.

[ Record sea ice volume anomalies since end 2016 ]

Ominously, sea ice volume anomalies have been at record levels for time of year since end 2016 (Wipneus graph right, PIOMAS data).

As the Gulf Stream pushes warmer water into the Arctic Ocean, there will no longer be a large buffer of sea ice there to consume the heat, as was common for the entire human history.

Moreover, forecasts are that temperatures will keep rising throughout 2017 and beyond.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology reports that seven of eight models indicate that sea surface temperatures will exceed El Niño thresholds during the second half of 2017.

The image on the right, by the ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts), indicates an El Niño that is gaining strength.

For more than half a year now, global sea ice extent has been way below what it used to be, meaning that a huge amount of sunlight that was previously reflected back into space, is now instead getting absorbed by Earth, as the graph below shows.

[ Graph by Wipneus ]

Where can all this extra heat go? Sea ice will start sealing off much of the surface of the Arctic Ocean by the end of September 2017, making it hard for more heat to escape from the Arctic Ocean by entering the atmosphere.

The Buffer has gone, feedback #14 on the Feedbacks page

It looks like much of the extra heat will instead reach sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean that contain huge amounts of methane in currently still frozen hydrates.

[ click on image to enlarge ]

The danger is that more and more heat will reach the seafloor and will destabilize methane hydrates contained in sediments at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, resulting in huge methane eruptions.

As the image on the right shows, a polynomial trend based on NOAA July 1983 to January 2017 global monthly mean methane data, points at twice as much methane by 2034. Stronger methane releases from the seafloor could make such a doubling occur much earlier.

Meanwhile, methane levels as high as 2592 ppb were recorded on April 17, 2017, as shown by the image below. The image doesn't specify the source of the high reading, but the magenta-colored area over the East Siberian Sea (top right) looks very threatening.

We already are in the Sixth Mass Extinction Event, given the rate at which species are currently disappearing from Earth. When taking into account the many elements that are contributing to warming, a potential warming of 10°C (18°F) could take place, leading to a rapid mass extinction of many species, including humans.

[ Graph from: Which Trend is Best? ]

How long could it take for such warming to eventuate? As above image illustrates, it could happen as fast as within the next four years time.

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


Links

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

• How much warming have humans caused?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-much-warming-have-humans-caused.html

• Accelerating growth in CO₂ levels in the atmosphere
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/02/accelerating-growth-in-co2-levels-in-the-atmosphere.html

• An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming, by Chadburn et al. (2017)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3262.html

• Reduction of forest soil respiration in response to nitrogen deposition, by Janssens et al. (2010)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n5/full/ngeo844.html

• Methane Erupting From Arctic Ocean Seafloor
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/03/methane-erupting-from-arctic-ocean-seafloor.html

• Warning of mass extinction of species, including humans, within one decade
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/02/warning-of-mass-extinction-of-species-including-humans-within-one-decade.html

El Niño 2017 is strengthening. On March 24, temperatures in Africa were as high as 50.6°C or 123°F.

The image below shows wildfires hitting Northern China and Far East Russia on April 4, 2017. The Amur River, which forms the boundary between China and Russia, is visible on this Terra/MODIS satellite image, with red dots indicating wildfires.

Emissions associated with such wildfires can be huge, as illustrated by the image below. On April 4, 2017, sulfur dioxide (SO₂) levels were as high as 766.29 µg/m³ at a spot (marked by the green circle, left panel) north of the Amur River, in Russia, while carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels were as high as 513 parts per million at that same spot and carbon monoxide (CO) levels there were as high as 17,402 parts per billion.

These high sulfur dioxide levels indicate that sulfur that has over the past few decades been deposited there from smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, tailpipes of vehicles, etc., can re-enter the atmosphere as a result of wildfires, confirming the conclusion of earlier studies such as by Hegg et al.

This indicates that sulfur levels in the atmosphere are higher than previously estimated, given that most previous estimates were mainly based on real-time emissions from industrial activity at the time. When adding revolitalization of previously-deposited sulfur (due to wildfires) into the picture, estimates for such aerosols' masking effect of the full wrath of global warming will be higher than previously thought, and increasingly so, as wildfires are becoming painfully more common as Earth continues to warm up.

This also implies that it becomes increasingly plausible that, when aerosol levels suddenly drop during heatwaves, wet bulb temperature starts crossing sustainability limits for humans without air-conditioning. Note that in July 2016, weather conditions at a spot in the U.S. came perilously close to this limit.

What could further contribute strongly to a rapid rise in global temperature is the combination of decline of Earth's snow and ice cover and eruptions of methane from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

The Gulf Stream is heating up as the 2017 El Niño strengthens, fueled by record low global sea ice extent, which means that a lot of extra heat is getting absorbed globally (image below, by Wipneus).

Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent were are record low on April 1, 2017, as the images below show.

Sea surface temperatures were as much as 5.9°C or 10.6°F warmer than 1981-2011 at the location marked by the green circle on the image below.

Over the next half year, increasingly warm waters will be carried by the Gulf Stream from the coast of North America to the Arctic Ocean. As this warmer water arrives in the Arctic Ocean, there will no longer be a large buffer of sea ice there to consume the heat, as was common for the past thousands of years and longer. Additionally, warmer water looks set to arrive in an Arctic Ocean that will be heated up like we've never seen before, as so much of the sunlight reaching the surface of the Arctic Ocean doesn't get reflected back into space anymore and as temperatures again look set to reach record highs in the Arctic during the northern summer.

Where can all this extra heat go? Sea ice will start sealing off much of the surface of the Arctic Ocean by the end of September 2017, making it hard for more heat to escape the Arctic Ocean by entering the atmosphere. The extremely dangerous situation is that it looks like much of the extra heat will instead reach sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean that contain huge amounts of methane in currently still frozen hydrates.

An image in an earlier post showed many cracks in the sea ice north of Greenland. Above image shows that huge cracks are also present in the sea ice in the Beaufort Sea.

On the combination images above and below, high concentrations of methane show up all over the Arctic Ocean, specifically over the Beaufort Sea and over and around Greenland. Note also the methane showing up over Antarctica, as discussed in an earlier post.

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


Links

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Extinction
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/extinction.html

• How much warming have humans caused?
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-much-warming-have-humans-caused.html

•Earth losing her sea ice
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/03/earth-losing-her-sea-ice.html

• Methane Erupting From Arctic Ocean Seafloor
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/03/methane-erupting-from-arctic-ocean-seafloor.html

• Nitrogen and sulfur emissions from the burning of forest products near large urban areas, Hegg et al. (1987)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD092iD12p14701/full

• Warning of mass extinction of species, including humans, within one decade
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/02/warning-of-mass-extinction-of-species-including-humans-within-one-decade.html

• Low sea ice extent contributes to high methane levels at both poles

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/03/low-sea-ice-extent-contributes-to-high-methane-levels-at-both-poles.html

• It could be unbearably hot in many places within a few years time
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/07/it-could-be-unbearably-hot-in-many-places-within-a-few-years-time.html

A coworker said to me the other day, "You know March; It goes in like a lamb and out like a lion." I asked him if it wasn't the other way around though and he was adamant that it came in mild and went out wild. So I let it be. In Oakland, March started very rainy and has ended full of sunshine and wildflowers, so however the saying goes, I am loving it.

Running: In March, I ran just shy of 200 miles (298) and climbed about 33,000 feet. My favorite run was a second go at the Rim to Rim to Rim, where I ran with friends from the South Rim of the Grand Canyon to the North Rim and back to the South Rim. It is hard to do it in one day am I was plumb tuckered out, but it was worth it!

You can see us in the middle -- we are tiny!

Heading toward the north rim.

Reading: In March, I read the following 7 books, including three from my own collection (bolded) and one borrowed one (italic)! I still have not paid for a book since 2014 when I started my "no book buying" challenge. It has been a lot easier than I thought it would. Thank goodness for the library! My favorite book was The Paris Architect, which is about a WWII architect who builds hiding places for Jewish people while also designing armament factories for the Germans. As always, it's interesting to learn more about that what went on during the war while also being entertained at the same time.

In the Belly of the Beast: Letters from Prison (***)
Carry on Warrior: Thoughts on Life Unarmed (***)
The Wonder (***)
The Namesake (***)
On Beauty (***)
Heart and Soul (***)
The Paris Architect (****)

Travel: Vegas, baby! For our Grand Canyon trip, we flew into Vegas, but it's not as exciting as it sounds. After a late arrival, we went to our room in Henderson, NV (apparently the retirement area of Vegas, who knew) and stayed out until past 11 pm in a smoky bar. It made me love California and our smoke free bars, that's for sure. The next day we made the drive to the South Rim where we scoped out the canyon from the rim. The next day we did R2R2R and then on Monday we drove back to Vegas and caught our flight, with a stop at the Hoover Dam of course!

I also met up with my Mom for a weekend in Auburn, where we ate and hiked and caught up on everyone's doings. She had a rough month in February, when there was a lot of rain and she was out of power and phones for quite some time and I had a broken water tank so had been taking showers at the gym or improvising. So it was nice to get a hotel room and relax a bit, even if it was just for one night! Plus we found two new breakfast places that we loved! (See 1 here + 2 here)

Have you ever been to Vegas, baby!? What is your favorite book that you have read so far this year? Where should I go for my vacation this year (I am open to any and all suggestions)?

Hearings of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology recently degenerated into a farce, as three fringe scientists were paraded next to “mainstream-scientist” Michael Mann. The Hearing turned out to have little or no intention to live up to its stated goal of examining the “scientific method and process as it relates to climate change” and instead turned into a theater to stage climate science denial.

Reports of the event confirmed the bias of mainstream media to focus on climate denial while ignoring the side of the Climate Spectrum that is sounding the alarm, as also illustrated by the image below.

Indeed, in discussions on climate change, why ignore the side of the Climate Spectrum that is sounding the alarm? Accordingly, a poll at the ArcticNews group asked: “Who would you instead like to appear in a discussion with Michael Mann?” The results are shown below:

It must be said that not all media are ignoring the warnings. Some media did pick up alerts, e.g. those contained in a recent post at Arctic-news, with the RT video getting a lot of views, shares and comments on facebook and youtube. Will there be further media following these examples?