May is the 8th consecutive hottest month EVAH!

At least since before the records have been kept, and probably since the Eemian period a hundred-ten-thousand years ago.

Anyway, here's the latest from Robertscribbler with tips o' th' hat to: Ryan in New England, June, and dtlange.

May Marks 8th Consecutive Record Hot Month in NASA’s Global Temperature Measure

Image source: NASA GISS.

May of 2016 was the warmest May since record keeping began for NASA 137 years ago. 

It is now the 8th record hot month in row. In other words, since October, every month has been the hottest such month ever recorded (October vs October comparison, November vs November etc). And May’s record is just the most recent high mark during a period that has now vastly exceeded all previous measures for global temperature tracking. 

The month itself was 0.93 C above NASA’s 1951-1980 baseline measure. It’s the first month since October that readings fell below the 1 C anomaly mark. A range that before 2015 had never before been breached in the 136 year climate record and likely during all of the approximate 12,000 year period that marks the Holocene geological epoch. 

It’s a reading that is fully 1.15 C above 1880s averages.  

A 1.2 C annual 2016 departure is firmly within the range of estimates for global temperatures that occurred within the Eemian climate period around 115,000 years ago. At that time, global ocean levels were between 16 and 25 feet higher than they are today. And if such warm temperatures continue for any significant duration, we could expect oceans to at least rise by as much (especially considering the fact that about 15-20 feet worth of sea level rise is locked into the ice of glaciers that are now in the process of heading into the global ocean).

 Image source: The Keeling Curve.

Atmospheric CO2 levels peaked at 407.7 parts per million in May as well. A jump of about 3.8 parts per million above peak readings during May of 2015.

If carbon dioxide levels were to remain so high we could expect global temperatures to, over the course of 300-500 years, hit near 3 C above 1880s levels and oceans to rise by as much as 60-120 feet. Adding in methane and other greenhouse gasses — current CO2 equivalent for all global heating gas estimates are now in the range of 490 parts per million. Enough to warm the Earth by about 4.6 C over hundreds of years and to, among other things, eventually raise oceans by 120 t0 200 feet.

For more click here.

Now speaking of destabilised glaciers and ice sheets, the Larsen 'C' Ice Shelf, right next door to the Larsen 'B' one which collapsed and shattered in 2004, is now in a more fragile and unstable state than previously thought.

From dtlange:

Antarctic Discovery Reveals Larsen C Ice Shelf Weakness 

Researchers report discovery of a massive subsurface ice layer, at least 16 km across, several kilometres long and tens of metres deep, located in an area of intense melting and intermittent ponding on the Larsen C Ice Shelf in Antarctica which may suggest the ice shelf is even more fragile than thought.

reportingclimatescience.com/2016/06/14/larsen-c

Well here's a bit of good news: Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) reports that that “coal and gas will begin their terminal decline in less than a decade.”

June links to the Bloomberg News article (peak fossil fuels for electricity by 2025); this from Ryan in New England:

Here is the core finding of BNEF’s “annual long-term view of how the world’s power markets will evolve in the future,” their New Energy Outlook (NEO): 

"Cheaper coal and cheaper gas will not derail the transformation and decarbonisation of the world’s power systems. By 2040, zero-emission energy sources will make up 60% of installed capacity. Wind and solar will account for 64% of the 8.6TW [1 Terawatt = 1,000 Gigawatts] of new power generating capacity added worldwide over the next 25 years, and for almost 60% of the $11.4 trillion invested." 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/06/13/3787700/coal-gas-plants-cheap-renewables/ 

And the reasons?

First, renewable energy benefits from manufacturing economies of scale. Second,  Fossil fuels are finite resources that are dependent upon extractive mining. Third, Cheaper coal, oil and gas, due to increased renewables and lower demand otherwise, means that less oil, coal and gas will be extracted: this means Peak Oil, Peak Coal and Peak Gas will be passed. Fourth, Once this begins to happen, the fossil fuel industry is put on death ground and will have to switch to renewables or squash them through political control. (Credit Robertscribbler)

But the caveat is that the manufacture and build-out of renewable energy infrastructure is dependent upon fossil fuels! Which means if there is a future shortage of fossil fuels, especially if Hillary or Trump gets us into World War 3, renewables may get the short end of the stick so that shorter-term needs are met instead.

Even with the Bloomberg forecast of 60% catchment of all electricity by zero-carbon energy sources by 2040 (a huge feat by itself if it happens) still runs bad risks from the perspective of climate change, because it implies we'll be stuck with 435 to 460 ppm CO2 and around 510 to 570 ppm CO2e by then.

And another thing we need to beware of: Wall Street is still investing in fossil fuels: they are betting that fossil fuels will continue to be extracted and consumed, perhaps even at the expense of zero-carbon sources.

From June:

World’s Banks Driving Climate Chaos with Hundreds of Billions in Extreme Energy Financing 

Wall Street continues to back the most polluting fossil fuel industries “at the expense of some of the most vulnerable communities on the planet,” states new report.
The report, $horting the Climate: Fossil Fuel Finance Report Card 2016 (pdf), put forth by Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Sierra Club, and Oil Change International, evaluates the private global banking industry based on its financing for fossil fuels… 

So big extreme fossil fuel investments are massive bets that governments won’t stop climate change. 

http://commondreams.org/news/2016/06/14/worlds-banks-driving-climate-chaos-hundreds-billions-extreme-energy-financing

Some of the big playaz are Citigroup, Bank of America, JP[irates]Morgan Chase, and Barclays. And our candidates, where do they stand? Let's see, now.... Donald Trump doesn't believe Global Warming is for real and promises to end all funding for climate monitoring by the US. Hillary, although she says a good line, is in the pockets of Wall Street, especially Goldman Sachs, and has considerable backing from Fossil Fuels interests. Which means she'll give lip service to combatting climate change but pursue "Drill, baby, drill!" policies once elected, just like Obama. Oh, great. So these two pose to threaten Near Term Extinction upon us not only by World War 3, but also the utter collapse of civilisation by Dangerous Climate Change - the Fossil Fuels Derivatives Beast. At least with the latter we won't go extinct! 

For more, click here.

Peak Fossil Fuels Soon?

It looks like we may have peak fossil fuel demand quite soon, due to the ramp-up in renewable energies. But then again, it may be because of the overhang in debt is killing demand, at least for finished products.

And last year the demand for coal dropped quite a bit. It's probable that the drop in coal demand was because of drop in demand from China for commodities: its economy has been faltering a bit lately. But the drop in coal demand was made up for, and a little bit more, by demand for oil and natural gas. All in all, fossil fuel use rose by 0.56% yoy in 2015.

Sources:

Robertscribbler

The Automatic Earth (here, here, here and here)

Gail Tverberg's Our Finite World - Debt

Coal in Dire Straits as Renewables, Natural Gas from Fracking Give it a One-Two Punch!

Reblogging another post from Robertscribbler, supplemented (a demain) by a blurb from yesterday's The Automatic Earth Debt Rattle.

Coal Production, Exports Plummet as Peabody Energy Declares Bankruptcy.

by Robert Scribbler, 13 April 2016 (condensing mine)

Jenny Marienau of the climate disaster prevention group 350.org is certainly right about one thing. A healthy world. A world full of life and of prospects for all people, all living things. A world that avoids the worst impacts of a terrible climate disruption on the road to a hothouse mass extinction. In this, far more hopeful, world there is no place for companies like Peabody Energy. Companies whose profit-making and related accumulation of a corrupting political power and influence is entirely dependent on locking in an ever-worsening global crisis.

Today that company, representing the largest coal interest in the Western World, declared bankruptcy. An optimistic announcement that comes amidst a swift sea change and a precipitous contraction in the global coal industry. One that, if world-wide public, private, protest action, and individual efforts to reduce carbon emissions on the back of 200 nations reaching a landmark global climate agreement in Paris continue in force, may well be a beginning of an end to the fossil fuel energy era.

The broadening contraction in coal has forced bankruptcies not just for Peabody, but for other major American coal players like Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources. A devastating wave for a climatologically destructive industry that appears less and less likely to survive in any form resembling its former might.

It’s all a part of an emerging supertrend that is being reinforced along many fronts. The first of which involves a broad global protest action against new coal plant construction and wider fossil fuel based energy itself. Led by key groups like 350.org, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, these critical actions have targeted construction sites, pipelines, railways and mines. In addition, a comprehensive divestment campaign spear-headed by 350.org has targeted capital flows to the fossil fuel special interests.

Source: Clean Technica with US EIA data.

Within the fossil fuel ranks there is also division. Even among the fossil fuel players there appears to be an acceptance that coal is on its way out. Messaging coming from the fossil fuel industry appears to have shifted to support of the still very harmful natural gas and for a new global fracking campaign. In essence, what we observe is that the oil and gas interests, including the new fracking interests, have basically maneuvered in a way that effectively throws coal under the climate change response bus. Coal is tougher to greenwash than natural gas and the spearhead campaign against coal as the worst of the worst among carbon polluters has proven undeflectable. This has been especially true in the UK where even conservatives are aiming to shut down coal plants (while continuing their harmful efforts in support of fracking and aimed at suppressing rates of renewable energy adoption).

More here. 

Now from Raúl Ilargi Meijer of The Automatic Earth:

Demand destruction and debt deflation.

• Peabody, World’s Top Private Coal Miner, Files For Bankruptcy (Reuters) 

 

[Link]

Peabody Energy, the world’s largest privately owned coal producer, filed for U.S. bankruptcy protection on Wednesday in the wake of a sharp fall in coal prices that left it unable to service a recent debt-fueled expansion into Australia. The company listed both assets and liabilities in the range of $10 billion to $50 billion. Falling global coal demand, stricter environmental controls and a glut of natural gas have pushed big miners, including the second largest U.S. coal producer, Arch Coal, into bankruptcy protection over the past year.

What Robertscribbler and Raúl Meijer didn't tell you, but Reuters does, is that Peabody Coal bought out MacArthur Coal, a big Australian coal mining concern supplying metallurgical  coal to China's steel mills, right when the price for that kind of coal was at an all-time high. As you might have known recently, demand for minerals and fossil fuels of all kinds have been plummeting, perhaps chiefly due to the recent economic stumbles in China. Of course, Mr. Meijer does keep people abreast about the trends in the general economy and whatnot, and they are not good.

And it is these trends which, if they continue, may put the kibosch on Business-As-Usual, and perhaps save us from the worst cases of the upcoming climate changes.

Oil at $30 Dollars a Barrel Bodes Ill for Fossil Fuel Interests as Renewables Ramp up

First, there's no sign the present oil glut is going to go away. The inventories in the USA are bigger than ever since the Great Depression and the prices both on the spot market and at the pump just keep dropping -- with a few jumps to keep experts guessing.

From Zero Hedge via The Automatic Earth (hat tip to Raul Ilargi Meijer)


US Crude Inventories Are The Highest Since the 1930s
by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, 27 January 2016

In case you were under the impression that oil was stabilizing, we thought this chart might help clarify just how “different” it is this time in the energy complex… U.S. crude inventories are at levels last seen when President Herbert Hoover was battling the Great Depression.

US Crude Inventories are the greatest since the Great Depression!
Source: Zero Hedge via The Automatic Earth 

After this week’s build – Crude stockpiles climbed 8.38 million barrels to 494.9 million in the week ended Jan. 22, the highest since November 1930, according to weekly and monthly data from the Energy Information Administration. It did not end well last time…

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-27/us-crude-inventories-are-highest-great-depression

But prices will probably continue to go down. After all, according to historic data going back to 1861, today's prices, while relatively inexpensive, are no bargain.

From Market Watch via The Automatic Earth (again, hat tip to Raul Ilargi Meijer)


Chart going back to 1861 shows oil isn’t insanely cheap right now
By William Watts, Market Watch, 27 January 2016

Not insanely cheap by historic price
Source: Market Watch via The Automatic Earth.

Oil futures are hovering around $30 a barrel—not far off 12-year lows—and bears are penciling in a test of $20 or lower. It is a pretty downbeat picture, but is black gold really that cheap on a historical basis? Not really, according to the chart from Deutsche Bank, which tracks inflation-adjusted oil prices—and the average price—all the way back to 1861, just two years after Edwin Drake drilled the first productive U.S. oil well near Titusville, Pa. Over the last 150-plus years, the average oil price is $47 a barrel, according to the data. West Texas Intermediate oil futures for March delivery were down 22 cents, or 0.7%, at $31.23 a barrel in late morning trade. “So current levels are low but not exceptionally low relative to long-term history,” said Jim Reid, macro strategist at Deutsche Bank, in a Wednesday note.

The charts were published as part of an annual study by the investment bank. Interestingly, Reid did note that this was the first year that the firm’s long-term mean reversion exercise shows positive return expectations for oil since the study began more than a decade ago. But don’t get too excited over prospects for an immediate mean-reversion rally. Reid puts the findings in the context of the commodity cycle, which is on the downswing after a sharp run-up that began in the mid-1990s. He notes the “long-held belief” that commodities, such as oil, that are a factor of production can’t outstrip inflation over the long term because “if they do there will be alternatives found.”

That helps to explain oil’s pullback. This process, however, “can take years to resolve, so even if we’re correct, commodity cycles can still last a long time before they eventually mean revert,” he wrote. Meanwhile, the graph “doesn’t suggest that current levels are as extreme as many would suggest even if long term value has returned,” Reid said. “The $140 prices a few years back look especially bubble-like” from a long-term perspective.

Of course, if oil stays at a low price for *too* long, when demand comes back up, the fossil fuel companies may not be in a position to furnish the demanded supply. Prices will shoot up and demand will be destroyed again.

From Our Finite World (hat tip to Gail Tverberg)


Why oil under $30 per barrel is a major problem

by Gail Tverberg, Our Finite World, 19 January 2016  

A person often reads that low oil prices–for example, $30 per barrel oil prices–will stimulate the economy, and the economy will soon bounce back. What is wrong with this story? A lot of things, as I see it:

1. Oil producers can’t really produce oil for $30 per barrel.

A few countries can get oil out of the ground for $30 per barrel. Figure 1 gives an approximation to technical extraction costs for various countries. Even on this basis, there aren’t many countries extracting oil for under $30 per barrel–only Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. We wouldn’t have much crude oil if only these countries produced oil.



Source: Alliance Bernstein via Our Finite World.

2. Oil producers really need prices that are higher than the technical extraction costs shown in Figure 1, making the situation even worse.

Oil can only be extracted within a broader system. Companies need to pay taxes. These can be very high. Including these costs has historically brought total costs for many OPEC countries to over $100 per barrel.

Independent oil companies in non-OPEC countries also have costs other than technical extraction costs, including taxes and dividends to stockholders. Also, if companies are to avoid borrowing a huge amount of money, they need to have higher prices than simply the technical extraction costs. If they need to borrow, interest costs need to be considered as well. 

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2016/01/19/why-oil-under-30-per-barrel-is-a-major-problem/

In the above article, Gail Tverberg notes that renewables are still at a vary small fraction of total energy supply, but the graph she posts indicates that they are increasing in proportion. Enough to cause some traditional fossil fuel energy companies to try to head off the ramp-up of renewables off at the pass. Like in Nevada recently. (hat tip to Robertscribbler.)

Welcome to the Renewable Energy Renaissance — Fight to End Fossil Fuel Burning is Now On
by Robertscribbler, 27 January 2016

Beneath the dark and growing cloud of human fossil fuel emissions there are a few carbon-free lights being kindled among all the black, coal-ash soot.

They’re the lights of a new renaissance. An unprecedented period of change for governments, the energy markets, and for individuals themselves. For we are all, whether we realize it or not, now embroiled in a struggle that will determine our own fates as well as that of our children and of all the generations to follow. For this renaissance is as much about liberation — the provision of clean energy choice as means to free ourselves from a wretched captivity to fossil fuel consumption — as it is about fighting to leave those very hothouse mass extinction fuels in the ground.

It’s a new kind of vital social unrest. A global struggle for justice on a scale not seen since at least the downfall of the slave trade. The battle lines have been drawn — in courtrooms, at ports, along pipelines, and on the train tracks, in the legislative offices of cities, states and in the halls of the federal government itself. We, as a civilization, are being divided into pro-renewable energy, pro-response to climate change, pro saving life on this Earth, and anti-renewable energy, anti-response, climate change denial factions. It is a disruptive, highly dangerous period of history. One we must successfully navigate if we are to survive as a modern civilization and, perhaps, as a species living on this Earth....

An example of this struggle in microcosm took place during December through January of 2015 in Nevada. Emboldened by similar decisions in Arizona, monopoly utilities moved to protect their carbon-polluting infrastructures by pushing the state government (made up of a majority of republicans to include the governor — Sandoval) to impose restrictive fees on solar energy use throughout the state. Targeting rooftop solar energy systems, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUCN — also made up entirely of republicans) voted to, across the board, increase costs for rooftop solar users by both slashing incentives and imposing draconian fees. The decision negatively impacted 12,000 current solar customers using rooftop power to include families, schools and even public libraries....

Nevada’s PUC decision smacks of a monopoly power generation protection scheme. One that has made it impossible for solar installers to operate in the state. As result, Nevada’s two other top solar installers (Vivint and Sunrun) have now followed Solar City’s example [of stop doing business in Nevada] and decided to halt operations in Nevada. The jobs impact from just these three solar providers closing shop is a net loss of 6,000. But with hundreds of small solar installers active in Nevada before the ruling, the economic and environmental damage is likely to be ongoing and long-term....

As if Nevada’s war against rooftop solar industry within its own state wasn’t bad enough, a group of 26 states currently governed by fossil fuel industry funded republicans are now submitting a Supreme Court challenge to Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The group has re-stated the now typical and jaded republican claim that the EPA doesn’t retain the legal authority to regulate carbon emissions. The new claim is predicated on the statement that EPA will force fossil fuels out of business, stating that the federal government does not retain the authority to effectively ban the use of a particular set of fuels.

It’s a convoluted appeal that smacks of past states rights arguments regarding every kind of dangerous, toxic or nefarious trade from slavery, to firearms, to tobacco. The appeal letter demands an ‘immediate stay’ on the Clean Power Plan (a cessation of implementation). It seeks to sanctify as ‘legal right’ the ability of coal plants to remain open and to continue pollution. It attacks federal government decisions that would support renewable energy as a solution to climate change (without using the words climate change once in the document, which itself required a supreme manipulation of legalese to achieve). And it uses language that implies state policy directives and goals supersede those of the federal government. 

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/27/welcome-to-the-renewable-energy-renaissance-fight-to-end-fossil-fuel-burning-is-now-on/

It is folly to oppose the growth of Renewables and further increasing it. Because we don't have an infinite amount of fossil fuels within the Earth's crust and eventually, sooner rather than later due to the insanely low prices compared to the costs of extraction, there will be no more fossil fuels that will be brought to market, and an ever-increasing reduction in supply prior to that. Better to build out renewables as much as we can, and perhaps build ourselves a bridge to a better future, even with a lower standard of living, than to collapse, bit by bit, headlong into a new Dark Age and all the misfortunes and unpleasantlesses that would accompany it.

[Pseudo-]Conservative Hubris to Cause a Triple Greek Tragedy.

Around the world, but especially in the White Anglosphere nations and Russia, pseudo-conservative politicians are enacting or trying to enact laws, policies and subsidies that would favor fossil fuel vested interests over renewable energy.  Do they not realize that the fossil fuels will eventually run out, or do they think the Earth is this creamy nougat with unlimited stores of fossil fuel?  If they do realize, do they think that fossil fuel companies will make out like bandits once fossil fuel extraction peaks and declines as they charge whatever the traffic will bear for an increasingly scarce resource?  And do they really think, peak oil or NO peak oil, we can just keep emitting the combustion waste and extraction by-wastes into the atmosphere and environment without setting off a runaway hothouse climate and creating polluted wastelands in the process?  I mean , how foolish can they be?

One country, the United Kingdom, now has a "Conservative" government that thinks the British can switch over from coal to natural gas by fracking the countryside.  A year back or so, there was an unsuccessful fracking play there; the drillers came up with NOTHING.  This may be typical for Britain. So where are they going to get the natural gas from, Russia?

So without further ado, I'll hand this over to Robertscribbler.

Toxic Interests: In Lead-up to Paris Summit, Conservative Politicians Around the World are Fighting to Kill Renewable Energy

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/11/24/toxic-interests-in-lead-up-to-paris-summit-conservative-politicians-around-the-world-are-fighting-to-kill-renewable-energy/

We have seen the enemy and he is us.

‘He,’ in this case, is those among us now fighting an all-out war against government programs aimed at reducing the damage caused by human-forced climate change. And in this present time of ramping climate catastrophe, there is no excuse at all for this morally reprehensible activity. Yet, excuse or no, the foul actions of these shameless ignoramuses continue. For all around the world conservatives (called [neo] liberals in Australia) with ties to fossil fuel based industry continue to scuttle programs that would result in the more rapid adoption of renewable energy systems even as they undermine related initiatives to increase energy efficiency.

At a time when the world faces down a growing climate crisis — one that will have dramatically worsening impacts as the decades progress — these failed and corruption-born policies represent the most abhorrent of political activities. And as the world convenes to consider how best to lessen the danger posed by an unfolding global tragedy, there are many in power who are now actively working to increase that danger.

More than anything else, this corrupt group is fighting to enforce ramping dangers, an ever-broadening harm, and untold future tragedy.

Continues here.

These neo-liberal politicians are leading us into a triple tragedy of economic collapse due to peak oil, fossil fuel exhaustion and demand destruction because of the businesses and consumers taking on too much debt to continue buying the stuff at the same rate as before; of civilizational collapse due to climate change, especially from the global weirding to come such as the storms of our grandchildren; and environmental collapse due to both climate change and fouling the environment with combustion waste and extraction by-wastes.  These pols are not conservative in the LEAST because in the end they will not conserve ANYTHING.  Not even our "non-negotiable" way of life.

The Greeks had a word for this go-ahead-and-ignore-any-warnings attitude: it's called hubris.