how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

IanC was the originator of this thread, wondering how much warming can be expected given the GHG concentration that we have created in the atmosphere. Of course accuracy in that answer is subject to some real unknowns like what will the peak concentration be when we finally stop adding.

Hopefully what people have gathered up here in answer to his question is:

A. Systems earth is a body, in a deep vacuum, which must maintain energy balance between the incoming solar short wave radiation, which effective falls on an area equal to a diametrical cross section of the earth, 24 hours a day, and outgoing long wave radiation projecting out into space from the entire surface area of the top of the atmosphere. If incoming is greater than outgoing the system must warm until balance is restored.

B. Fossil fuels are the remains of life from millions of years ago (the Carboniferous Period) that were not allowed to decompose, but subject to great pressure and temperature from the evolving planet. The process of their creation removed trillions of tons of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. The process of recovering the energy from them will put that CO2 back into our atmosphere.

C. As the concentration of atmospheric CO2 builds, it, like all greenhouse gasses, absorbs long wave radiation emitted from earth, and immediately re-radiates it in all directions, allowing half to continue going out, and half to return to earth. This process happens with every photon/GHG molecule collision.

D. The consequent reduction in outgoing longwave radiation unbalances systems earth's energy balance, leading to the recreation of the pre-Carboniferous Period climate to a large degree.

E. Of course the resolution of the energy exchange between all of the thermal systems that comprise our land, oceans, ice, atmosphere, water vapor, etc creates weather, is so complex as to be unpredictable except in the short term. All that can be predicted for sure, and observed and measured already, is that weather will change from what we're used to, and have built civilization around, during the transition period, as well as when stability has returned.

F. So sciences best narrow answer to IanC's question is a 1.1 degree increase for each doubling of effective GHG concentration. However, several positive feedbacks will increase that. For instance, the initial temperature rise will melt many cubic miles of arctic and Antarctic ice that has been created during millions of years of the former climate. And the thawing of permafrost that has sequestered as much CO2 as fossil fuels have, will add that to the fossil fuels load. Considering all of this the actual temperature increase in the final analysis will be 4 to 12 degrees C per GHG concentration doubling.

G. There are three major and nobody knows how many other impacts these changes will cause for life on earth. 1) Rising sea levels into our cities which have been largely built as deep water ports. 2) A redistribution of rainfall that will cause dessertifacation of agricultural land and aquifers. And flooding. And change the availability of water for much of the world's population. 3) Probably an increase in extreme, violent weather.

H. Most experts believe that we have consumed about half of the fossil fuel reserve that we were given. The cheapest, highest quality half. Also the rate of consumption increases every year due to increased population and enhanced quality of life. During our consumption of the second half of our fossil fuel reserve we must engineer and build a complete sustainable replacement energy infrastructure. And, of course, if that can be done before we use all of the fuels we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by leaving it sequestered in the ground.

I. Much work is underway to address this entire situation. The only question is, are we progressing at the optimum rate? Optimum considering the economics and impact on life.

So, alcohol or cannabis? You level of coherence is plummeting....

Nah hes a meth head... hence his multiple personality disorder and endless stream of BS..A true tweaker..

 

[PMZ]

More nothing. Slacksack has an unlimited supply.

 

[gslack]

More nothing. Slacksack has an unlimited supply.

Tweakers should tweak quietly..

 

[PMZ]

Still another example.

 

[gslack]

Still another example.

yes coming from guy who has tried to claim there is a CO2 cycle rather than a cabon cycle, it means a lot.....You're ridiculous man...

LOL, your rep is perpetually at that same level and you have been here long enough for it to move some amount...It must be the price of socking..

 

[PMZ]

This from the guy who's pretty sure that plant life is built from underground diamonds and pencil leads. And wants to advise the IPCC so.

You have destroyed all of your credibility. With everyone.

 

[gslack]

This from the guy who's pretty sure that plant life is built from underground diamonds and pencil leads. And wants to advise the IPCC so.

You have destroyed all of your credibility. With everyone.

Nice try, but we already know that's your lie... Even Ian (who really doesn't like me much) busted you for that BS..

The difference, Oh socko, is I am telling the truth on you, you are lying about me.. But hey you don't care about that sort of thing, you don't need truth, you have endless bullshit..

 

[PMZ]

No, the difference is that you are irrelevant to everyone here but you, and I have summarized the real science behind mankind's AGW challenges.

 

[gslack]

No, the difference is that you are irrelevant to everyone here but you, and I have summarized the real science behind mankind's AGW challenges.

LOL, if I'm so irrelevent why are you posting to me?

Moron, you want to pretend you have said something of value but post like a crackhead.

Mr. CO2 cycle moron, that's you socko..

 

[Wroberson]

I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C. The minimum is .15C. The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max. Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts. The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed. The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.

Here's a pretty good skeptic's paper...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/global-warming-climate-change/

 

[orogenicman]

I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C. The minimum is .15C. The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max. Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts. The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed. The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.

Here's a pretty good skeptic's paper...

Global Warming = Climate Change | Watts Up With That?

That is not a legitimate peer-reviewed and published science paper, and Wattssupdoc is not a legitimate science publication (and Anthony Watt is a denier, not a skeptic). And who is Ed Hoskins, and what are his qualifications, I might ask? Seems no one knows other than that he appears to be British. But hey, if the righters can use illegitimate forums and cite unknown authors of non-peer reviewed material to argue their case, it seems only fitting to offer a rebuttal from a similar forum.

Cheers:

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers

In another he publishes an incomprehensible article by Ed Hoskins, who previously wrote that we are on the verge of an ice age.

The gist of Ed's argument is that plants love CO2 so we should give them more. He seems to be advocating a rise in CO2 up to 1000 ppm or more. I can't follow his arithmetic at all. I have no idea what he is doing with the numbers. So let's just look at the effect a rise to 1000 ppm of CO2 may have.

If we were to continue to increase emissions at an exponential rate and achieve 1000 ppm by 2100 the average global surface temperature could get up past four degrees even this century.

Just think how that might affect extremes. Melbourne has already had temperatures of 47 degrees (Celsius). Even cold Hobart has hit more than 42 degrees. Imagine if it got to 55 degrees, or 60 degrees!

It could happen, but think of this...

Well I'm not even sure it could happen. The reason I have some doubts is because if we head towards that, then some time on or shortly after the middle of the century, the weather would be such that societies would become dysfunctional and economic activity would wind down enormously, therefore burning fossil fuels would be reduced significantly. Agricultural production would all but cease in many countries. Water supplies would be made unreliable by unpredictable excessive downpours and droughts. Millions, maybe billions would have died from intolerable heat, storms, floods, famine and disease. Transport and communications infrastructure would be broken beyond repair. There would be civil wars and wars between nations that still had the wherewithall to muster an armed force. There would be epidemics and pandemics of disease. Pests would proliferate and spread.

Plants wouldn't be suffering from lack of CO2. They'd be suffering from lack of water or too much of it. They'd be suffering from heat stress - the ones that were still able to germinate and send up shoots.

Ed's in cloud cuckoo land - in fact winter is warming faster than summer

People like Ed Hoskins live in cloud cuckoo land. At the same time as he is talking about a rise in temperature he is writing that:

With a quietening sun, changing ocean circulation patterns and the present evidence of much colder winters in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 5 years, that cooling could already be upon us. The cooling climate could well last for many decades or even centuries.
The winters of the last year or two might have seemed colder and some cold records might have been broken even. But the coldest of them was still hotter than the 1951-80 average by 0.5 degrees Celsius. In 2007 the northern hemisphere had the hottest winter on record so far at a whopping 1.1 degrees hotter than the 1951-1980 average.

I notice that Ed doesn't mention northern hemisphere summers. Let's see why that might be. Here is an animation of northern hemisphere winter and summer temperatures and the global surface temperatures.

Whoops! The northern hemisphere summer temperatures are shooting way up! Whoops again - northern hemisphere winters are getting warmer faster than summers! And globally the earth just keeps on getting hotter and hotter.

Ed does some weird arithmetic to "prove" that cutting carbon emissions won't cut carbon emissions. The fact is that if we replace fossil fuel-based energy with renewable energy we still have a chance of limiting the rise to two degrees, which will be bad enough. But we have to get a move on.

Ed Hoskins' fake "experts"

I also see that in his "paper" Ed Hoskins has referred to David Archibald as if he is a reputable sceptic. David's prediction is that before seven years is out, earth will get colder than it was in the Little Ice Age!

And Anthony wonders why climate scientists don't bother 'debating' fake sceptics and disinformation propagandists!

 

[gslack]

I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C. The minimum is .15C. The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max. Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts. The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed. The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.

Here's a pretty good skeptic's paper...

Global Warming = Climate Change | Watts Up With That?

That is not a legitimate peer-reviewed and published science paper, and Wattssupdoc is not a legitimate science publication (and Anthony Watt is a denier, not a skeptic). And who is Ed Hoskins, and what are his qualifications, I might ask? Seems no one knows other than that he appears to be British. But hey, if the righters can use illegitimate forums and cite unknown authors of non-peer reviewed material to argue their case, it seems only fitting to offer a rebuttal from a similar forum.

Cheers:

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers

In another he publishes an incomprehensible article by Ed Hoskins, who previously wrote that we are on the verge of an ice age.

The gist of Ed's argument is that plants love CO2 so we should give them more. He seems to be advocating a rise in CO2 up to 1000 ppm or more. I can't follow his arithmetic at all. I have no idea what he is doing with the numbers. So let's just look at the effect a rise to 1000 ppm of CO2 may have.

If we were to continue to increase emissions at an exponential rate and achieve 1000 ppm by 2100 the average global surface temperature could get up past four degrees even this century.

Just think how that might affect extremes. Melbourne has already had temperatures of 47 degrees (Celsius). Even cold Hobart has hit more than 42 degrees. Imagine if it got to 55 degrees, or 60 degrees!

It could happen, but think of this...

Well I'm not even sure it could happen. The reason I have some doubts is because if we head towards that, then some time on or shortly after the middle of the century, the weather would be such that societies would become dysfunctional and economic activity would wind down enormously, therefore burning fossil fuels would be reduced significantly. Agricultural production would all but cease in many countries. Water supplies would be made unreliable by unpredictable excessive downpours and droughts. Millions, maybe billions would have died from intolerable heat, storms, floods, famine and disease. Transport and communications infrastructure would be broken beyond repair. There would be civil wars and wars between nations that still had the wherewithall to muster an armed force. There would be epidemics and pandemics of disease. Pests would proliferate and spread.

Plants wouldn't be suffering from lack of CO2. They'd be suffering from lack of water or too much of it. They'd be suffering from heat stress - the ones that were still able to germinate and send up shoots.

Ed's in cloud cuckoo land - in fact winter is warming faster than summer

People like Ed Hoskins live in cloud cuckoo land. At the same time as he is talking about a rise in temperature he is writing that:

With a quietening sun, changing ocean circulation patterns and the present evidence of much colder winters in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 5 years, that cooling could already be upon us. The cooling climate could well last for many decades or even centuries.
The winters of the last year or two might have seemed colder and some cold records might have been broken even. But the coldest of them was still hotter than the 1951-80 average by 0.5 degrees Celsius. In 2007 the northern hemisphere had the hottest winter on record so far at a whopping 1.1 degrees hotter than the 1951-1980 average.

I notice that Ed doesn't mention northern hemisphere summers. Let's see why that might be. Here is an animation of northern hemisphere winter and summer temperatures and the global surface temperatures.

Whoops! The northern hemisphere summer temperatures are shooting way up! Whoops again - northern hemisphere winters are getting warmer faster than summers! And globally the earth just keeps on getting hotter and hotter.

Ed does some weird arithmetic to "prove" that cutting carbon emissions won't cut carbon emissions. The fact is that if we replace fossil fuel-based energy with renewable energy we still have a chance of limiting the rise to two degrees, which will be bad enough. But we have to get a move on.

Ed Hoskins' fake "experts"

I also see that in his "paper" Ed Hoskins has referred to David Archibald as if he is a reputable sceptic. David's prediction is that before seven years is out, earth will get colder than it was in the Little Ice Age!

And Anthony wonders why climate scientists don't bother 'debating' fake sceptics and disinformation propagandists!

LOL, you just fussed at him over his illiegitimate source and you repsond with an even less legitimate source? What's worse is you made fun of the sites name and your site is called hotwhoppers???

ROFL, somuch for the "educated climate expert" gamer you were trying to run on people... And you wonder why I called you on it....

 

[PMZ]

I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C. The minimum is .15C. The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max. Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts. The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed. The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.

Here's a pretty good skeptic's paper...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/global-warming-climate-change/

There are many reports from many sources that say many things. The ones that come from the IPCC are the ones based on the most expertise, the most data, the most extensive peer review and the furthest developed theories.

 

[Abraham3]

Bingo.

 

[westwall]

I see that you remain unable to debate any of my conclusions. You just wish that reality was different. I don't blame you. I'd hate reality too if I were you.

You didn't "conclude" anything moron. You spewed out a bunch of crap that made no sense. Only a mentally incapacitated person, as you clearly are, would think otherwise...

 

[westwall]

I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C. The minimum is .15C. The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max. Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts. The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed. The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.

Here's a pretty good skeptic's paper...

Global Warming = Climate Change | Watts Up With That?

That is not a legitimate peer-reviewed and published science paper, and Wattssupdoc is not a legitimate science publication (and Anthony Watt is a denier, not a skeptic). And who is Ed Hoskins, and what are his qualifications, I might ask? Seems no one knows other than that he appears to be British. But hey, if the righters can use illegitimate forums and cite unknown authors of non-peer reviewed material to argue their case, it seems only fitting to offer a rebuttal from a similar forum.

Cheers:

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers

In another he publishes an incomprehensible article by Ed Hoskins, who previously wrote that we are on the verge of an ice age.

The gist of Ed's argument is that plants love CO2 so we should give them more. He seems to be advocating a rise in CO2 up to 1000 ppm or more. I can't follow his arithmetic at all. I have no idea what he is doing with the numbers. So let's just look at the effect a rise to 1000 ppm of CO2 may have.

If we were to continue to increase emissions at an exponential rate and achieve 1000 ppm by 2100 the average global surface temperature could get up past four degrees even this century.

Just think how that might affect extremes. Melbourne has already had temperatures of 47 degrees (Celsius). Even cold Hobart has hit more than 42 degrees. Imagine if it got to 55 degrees, or 60 degrees!

It could happen, but think of this...

Well I'm not even sure it could happen. The reason I have some doubts is because if we head towards that, then some time on or shortly after the middle of the century, the weather would be such that societies would become dysfunctional and economic activity would wind down enormously, therefore burning fossil fuels would be reduced significantly. Agricultural production would all but cease in many countries. Water supplies would be made unreliable by unpredictable excessive downpours and droughts. Millions, maybe billions would have died from intolerable heat, storms, floods, famine and disease. Transport and communications infrastructure would be broken beyond repair. There would be civil wars and wars between nations that still had the wherewithall to muster an armed force. There would be epidemics and pandemics of disease. Pests would proliferate and spread.

Plants wouldn't be suffering from lack of CO2. They'd be suffering from lack of water or too much of it. They'd be suffering from heat stress - the ones that were still able to germinate and send up shoots.

Ed's in cloud cuckoo land - in fact winter is warming faster than summer

People like Ed Hoskins live in cloud cuckoo land. At the same time as he is talking about a rise in temperature he is writing that:

With a quietening sun, changing ocean circulation patterns and the present evidence of much colder winters in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 5 years, that cooling could already be upon us. The cooling climate could well last for many decades or even centuries.
The winters of the last year or two might have seemed colder and some cold records might have been broken even. But the coldest of them was still hotter than the 1951-80 average by 0.5 degrees Celsius. In 2007 the northern hemisphere had the hottest winter on record so far at a whopping 1.1 degrees hotter than the 1951-1980 average.

I notice that Ed doesn't mention northern hemisphere summers. Let's see why that might be. Here is an animation of northern hemisphere winter and summer temperatures and the global surface temperatures.

Whoops! The northern hemisphere summer temperatures are shooting way up! Whoops again - northern hemisphere winters are getting warmer faster than summers! And globally the earth just keeps on getting hotter and hotter.

Ed does some weird arithmetic to "prove" that cutting carbon emissions won't cut carbon emissions. The fact is that if we replace fossil fuel-based energy with renewable energy we still have a chance of limiting the rise to two degrees, which will be bad enough. But we have to get a move on.

Ed Hoskins' fake "experts"

I also see that in his "paper" Ed Hoskins has referred to David Archibald as if he is a reputable sceptic. David's prediction is that before seven years is out, earth will get colder than it was in the Little Ice Age!

And Anthony wonders why climate scientists don't bother 'debating' fake sceptics and disinformation propagandists!

Your "peer reviewed papers" got destroyed in ten hours by a statistician. I know who I will place more credibility with...and it ain't your clowns...

 

[Wroberson]

I never said it was peer reviewed.
Believe who and what you want.
All I see are the defensive attacks on someone's hard work.

I notice you didn't provide any opinion about the Sun's effects on the climate.
July 2013 was 9 degrees below normal this year.
May and June were also colder than normal by many degrees.

I still suggest you get a few more blankets and maybe an extra propane tank.

 

[orogenicman]

I read about 3 days ago a report that says the total estimate from here is a maximum of 1.94C. The minimum is .15C. The idea is, when CO2 reaches a certain percentage and warmth is at max. Yes there is a maximum, cooling starts. The heat causes the ocean to evaporate and the moisture is transfer to the atmosphere where clouds are formed. The clouds block out Sunlight and allows less heat from the sun to reach the ground.

Here's a pretty good skeptic's paper...

Global Warming = Climate Change | Watts Up With That?

That is not a legitimate peer-reviewed and published science paper, and Wattssupdoc is not a legitimate science publication (and Anthony Watt is a denier, not a skeptic). And who is Ed Hoskins, and what are his qualifications, I might ask? Seems no one knows other than that he appears to be British. But hey, if the righters can use illegitimate forums and cite unknown authors of non-peer reviewed material to argue their case, it seems only fitting to offer a rebuttal from a similar forum.

Cheers:

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers

HotWhopper: More denier weirdness: Ed Hoskins Magic Numbers

In another he publishes an incomprehensible article by Ed Hoskins, who previously wrote that we are on the verge of an ice age.

The gist of Ed's argument is that plants love CO2 so we should give them more. He seems to be advocating a rise in CO2 up to 1000 ppm or more. I can't follow his arithmetic at all. I have no idea what he is doing with the numbers. So let's just look at the effect a rise to 1000 ppm of CO2 may have.

If we were to continue to increase emissions at an exponential rate and achieve 1000 ppm by 2100 the average global surface temperature could get up past four degrees even this century.

Just think how that might affect extremes. Melbourne has already had temperatures of 47 degrees (Celsius). Even cold Hobart has hit more than 42 degrees. Imagine if it got to 55 degrees, or 60 degrees!

It could happen, but think of this...

Well I'm not even sure it could happen. The reason I have some doubts is because if we head towards that, then some time on or shortly after the middle of the century, the weather would be such that societies would become dysfunctional and economic activity would wind down enormously, therefore burning fossil fuels would be reduced significantly. Agricultural production would all but cease in many countries. Water supplies would be made unreliable by unpredictable excessive downpours and droughts. Millions, maybe billions would have died from intolerable heat, storms, floods, famine and disease. Transport and communications infrastructure would be broken beyond repair. There would be civil wars and wars between nations that still had the wherewithall to muster an armed force. There would be epidemics and pandemics of disease. Pests would proliferate and spread.

Plants wouldn't be suffering from lack of CO2. They'd be suffering from lack of water or too much of it. They'd be suffering from heat stress - the ones that were still able to germinate and send up shoots.

Ed's in cloud cuckoo land - in fact winter is warming faster than summer

People like Ed Hoskins live in cloud cuckoo land. At the same time as he is talking about a rise in temperature he is writing that:

With a quietening sun, changing ocean circulation patterns and the present evidence of much colder winters in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 5 years, that cooling could already be upon us. The cooling climate could well last for many decades or even centuries.
The winters of the last year or two might have seemed colder and some cold records might have been broken even. But the coldest of them was still hotter than the 1951-80 average by 0.5 degrees Celsius. In 2007 the northern hemisphere had the hottest winter on record so far at a whopping 1.1 degrees hotter than the 1951-1980 average.

I notice that Ed doesn't mention northern hemisphere summers. Let's see why that might be. Here is an animation of northern hemisphere winter and summer temperatures and the global surface temperatures.

Whoops! The northern hemisphere summer temperatures are shooting way up! Whoops again - northern hemisphere winters are getting warmer faster than summers! And globally the earth just keeps on getting hotter and hotter.

Ed does some weird arithmetic to "prove" that cutting carbon emissions won't cut carbon emissions. The fact is that if we replace fossil fuel-based energy with renewable energy we still have a chance of limiting the rise to two degrees, which will be bad enough. But we have to get a move on.

Ed Hoskins' fake "experts"

I also see that in his "paper" Ed Hoskins has referred to David Archibald as if he is a reputable sceptic. David's prediction is that before seven years is out, earth will get colder than it was in the Little Ice Age!

And Anthony wonders why climate scientists don't bother 'debating' fake sceptics and disinformation propagandists!

Your "peer reviewed papers" got destroyed in ten hours by a statistician. I know who I will place more credibility with...and it ain't your clowns...

No, sir, they actually didn't. And your "statistician" is McIntyre, who lost any credibility he might have had long ago. Of course, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this nonsense Ed Hoskins is promoting. But you knew that.

 

[gslack]

Nah what ya did was gloss over your getting caught in your BS..

You tried to fuss at someone over their non-peer reviewed source, and do it using an even less reliable source.. You didn't even know skeptical science was a warmer blog... And ignoring the post that points this crap you pulled out doesn't make it go away. it just makes you look dishonest..

 

[orogenicman]

I never said it was peer reviewed.
Believe who and what you want.
All I see are the defensive attacks on someone's hard work.

O-M-G. EPIC FAIL!

I notice you didn't provide any opinion about the Sun's effects on the climate.

Of course. Because any suggestion that the sun's output has not been accounted for, and that it explains global warming (which you people alternately agree and disagree is occurring) is nonsense.

July 2013 was 9 degrees below normal this year.

Since June's global climate data just came out, and showed it being the fifth warmest June on record, you can't know what July did globally. I know you guys depend utterly on the crap Bob Tinsdale and Roy Spencer spew on a regular basis, but do wait for the official tally to be published before you start drooling.

May and June were also colder than normal by many degrees.

You really should have your Kool-Aid checked because, damn.

June 2013 Global Climate Update | NOAA Climate.gov

State of the Climate | Global Analysis - June 2013