By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: The news has become stranger since the climate policy debate has decoupled from the IPCC. Ludicrous claims of certain doom and nightmarish futures splash across the headlines, seldom with rebuttals (climate scientists are complicit in their silence). This one-sided flow of “news” will shape public opinion slowly but surely, creating support for bold measures by President Clinton. Activists are panicking the public for political gain.
“I think looking at grief is quite appropriate, as I believe we are facing human extinction”
— Comment by a reader on the FM website.
“The more immediate danger is runaway climate change. A rise in ocean temperatures will melt the ice caps and cause the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide from the ocean floor. Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees.”
— Nobel laureate physicist Stephen Hawking on “Good morning Britain on NBC News’ U.K. news partner, ITV News in May 2016.
This was reported as “Earth DOOMED by climate change which could burn us alive, warns Stephen Hawking” by Sean Martin in The Daily Express, 31 May 2016.
We have heard this before. The BBC hinted at it last year; Hawking has said it before. There is no support for this in the IPCC’s reports and little (perhaps none) in the peer-reviewed literature. There are papers clearly saying the opposite, such as “Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climates” by Colin Goldblatt el al, Nature Geoscience, August 2013 — Gated. See the press release here. Excerpt…
“The so-called `hothouse’ climate of the Eocene is the most useful constraint for anthropogenic change. With the solar constant 1% less than today and a few thousand ppmv CO2, the mean temperature was 10 K warmer than today. With CO2 and temperature both higher then than we expect in the foreseeable future, this implies that an anthropogenic runaway greenhouse is unlikely.
“…As the solar constant increases with time, Earth’s future is analogous to Venus’s past. We expect a runaway greenhouse on Earth 1.5 billion years hence if water is the only greenhouse gas, or sooner if there are others.”
While peer-reviewed analysis is good, it is obvious that Earth cannot become Venus in any policy-relevant time. See the NASA fact sheets for Venus and for Earth. They explain that…
- Venus is closer to the Sun. Venus is aprox. 0.72 AU distant from the sun (72% of Earth’s), with a total solar irradiance (TSI) almost 2x that of Earth.
- Venus has a denser atmosphere. The pressure on Venus is 93x that of Earth, the equivalent of almost 1 kilometer under the ocean. This is probably the largest factor causing its high temperature.
- The clouds of Venus are mostly sulphuric acid (not water vapor) — a powerful greenhouse agent.
- The atmosphere of Venus has nearly 3000x more CO2 than Earth’s atmosphere. Venus is 96.5% CO2 by volume vs. 380 per million for Earth (0.038%). Goldblatt el al say that with CO2 at 30,000 ppm Earth would have “no stable temperate climate.” That would require burning 10x more than Earth’s estimated fossil fuel resources.
A bizarre, even fun example of our mad news media
“Humans? In 2300? At the rate we’re going odds are there WON’T be many of them and the ones that are there will be far too busy trying to survive to bother over history, other than to curse us.”
— Comment by Bruce J. at the website of Brad DeLong (Prof Economics, Berkeley).
Take a look at “When Did the End Begin?” by Robert Sullivan in New York Magazine — “A scientific debate that’s oddly amusing to entertain: At what point, exactly, did mankind irrevocably put the Earth on the road to ruin?” The title is irrelevant to the article, which discusses dating the point at which the “Anthropocene Era” began, if the designation is approved. That is, when human impacts are the predominate force shaping Earth. It does not imply the beginning of the End Times.
Sullivan gives us the real-world version of an incident in Berkeley Breathed’s great “Bloom County” comic strip. It is not funny when played out in real life.
Bedfellow: “Hello, Bloom Beacon! This is Senator Bedfellow! What’s with this headline? … There’s no story, just a headline!”
Milo: “Which headline?”
Bedfellow: “The big headline on the front page!” ‘BEDFELLOW: THE SECRET LIFE OF A WIFE-SWAPPING ATHEIST’”
Mile: “Oh, that’s just a typo.”
Conclusion
“There will be no successor civilization. … Our planet had ONE shot at building a sustainable industrial civilization, and we humans f***ed it up, big time.”
— Comment by Redwood Rhiadra at website of Brad DeLong (Prof Economics, Berkeley).
A battle consists of phases. Both sides muster their forces, seize advantageous positions. Victory comes to the side that breaks through their foe’s lines. Then begins the pursuit phase, as the losers are chased away or destroyed.
Climate alarmists have followed this formula in the climate public policy debate. They built commanding positions in academia, the news media, ngo’s (such as foundations and the major science professional associations), and the relevant government agencies. With the funding and power so gained, they attack — abandoning the scientists of the IPCC (once called the “gold standard of climate science). Their articles are cheered and echoed by scores of organizations. Dozens of glitzy (well-funded) websites staffed by professionals propagate their messages, as do a flood of books and films.
Now they use their commanding position to say almost anything, however bogus, which pushes their message of climate doom. This campaign will reshape public opinion. For more information see Why skeptics will lose the US climate policy debate.
If we’re doomed anyway, then why bother trying to do anything about CO2? Make up your mind liberals, are we helpless, or do we have control over the weather? Of course liberals have a fantastic ability to claim that CO2 emissions are the greatest threat to mankind just15 minutes after stepping off a transatlantic flight, so such twisted logic is nothing new.
If we shut off all the cars and all the lights and stop producing food, Mother Earth might forgive us and let us live a week or two before it returns to the perfect state it was in before horrible people showed up and ruined everything. But the Green people have the secret sauce to survive and thrive without leaving footprints in the green, green grass where they will live in peace with the animals. Like Bambi!
I don’t see any evidence that the “news has become stranger”. All that is presented is one news story from a British Sunday tabloid (hardly a newspaper of note) and one personal narrative in the New York Magazine about the current debate as to whether or not geologists should define a new age which ends with a hopeful belief that human change is good. If that is all the evidence there is (unlikely given the need for the media to
sell papers etc) then the argument is false and if there is more evidence then it needs to be present.
Germinio,
(1) “I don’t see any evidence that the “news has become stranger”.”
It was a framing statement to the opening of a brief note (this isn’t a paper in EOS).
(2) “All that is presented is one news story from a British Sunday tabloid (hardly a newspaper of note)”
Keep those eyes closed! This was a report of a statement by one of the world’s best-known scientists in an interview on NBC News, with the headline from the UK’s #8 newspaper.
(3) “and one personal narrative in the New York Magazine ”
Looking at the reactions of individuals give us an understanding of how people react to the news. If you read newspapers, you will see this is a common tool of journalists.
Fabius,
Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees.”
__________________
Venus is the latin nomen for the greek Aphrodite, the goddess of love.
__________________
So ‘Venus’ ought to be a ‘Vena’ to be feminine.
__________________
why has the latin godess of love to be male.
__________________
FabiUS.
Johann,
People speaking English (a mess of irregular forms) can’t criticize the occasional irregularities in Latin!
Here’s an explanation of how Venus got a masculine form: http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/7255-juno-and-venus/
Fabius, you didn’t get that the sheer weight of venus’ atmosphere column
holds venus in brownian physics :
The tighter the atmosphere / molecules pressed -> the more collisions of molecules -> the more energy accumulated.
Sun’s happy to renew outgoing radiation.
Feel free to correct me where I’m wrong.
That’s a discussion about real world. No political assembled lists of ‘Abweichler’s
And that’s what fabia maxima knows :
My advice to skeptics — which has been ignored — has been for the skeptics to work together and more effectively. Their origin as hobbyists — not for work or political reasons — prevents them from mutual defense (which the alarmists do with incredible effectiveness), raising funds (the vast sums of “denial” funding is a myth), or effectively fighting the alarmists (with a few exceptions, such as those mentioned in this post).
For example, by challenging climate scientists to test the models.
I suspect an effective campaign could be decisive. As it is they rely on technobabble (any highly technical argument is technobbble to the general public) and conspiracy theories. Sadder still, is that they thing they’re winning.
________________________________
technobbble
“The clouds of Venus are mostly sulphuric acid (not water vapor) — a powerful greenhouse agent.”
How is there supposed to be a “greenhouse effect” when almost no sunlight reaches the surface?
Exactly!
Tony,
I don’t know if you are serious but — heat trapped in the atmosphere will warm the surface.
Not if it is coming from the plant’s core via the surface.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“Earth DOOMED by climate change which could burn us alive, warns Stephen Hawking” by Sean Martin in The Daily Express, 31 May 2016.
“There is no support for this in the IPCC’s reports and little (perhaps none) in the peer-reviewed literature. There are papers clearly saying the opposite, such as “Low simulated radiation limit for runaway greenhouse climates” by Colin Goldblatt el al, Nature Geoscience, August 2013 — Gated. See the press release here. Excerpt…
A high level of fear is needed for organizations like the UNDP to sell their agenda
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2812034
The general public is smarter and has more common sense than AGW promoters think; which is why
crying wolf is not a strategy that works. I think level heads will win in the end. People need good information to make informed decisions.. More accurate and truthful info is slowly getting through to the publics attention.
It does not matter what the American people think when it has already been decided in Party meetings in Phoenix and in the claimed mandate list that Hillary points to in January. Everyone else is fly over country.
The reality is that despite all the CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus, there is no evidence of a radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperature at the surface of Venus can all be accounted for by the thickness of the atmosphere of Venus and its proximity to the sun.
I have read this site for over 10 years now and it is brilliant .Genuine comment. First time I have posted on here.
Well from my itty bitty point of view here at the bottom of the lowest circle, I would like to advocate for an impartial media climate detective, someone like Holmes, Friday, Columbo, etc.
Just get the facts.
If nothing else it would make for a great series.
The whole of the Western World is confounded by this problem.
You Americans are trying to provoke WW III through the use of anti-Russian ‘propaganda’ and wilfully ignoring all the evidence that it is the West parking tanks on Russia’s lawn rather than the other way around. You are obsessed by conquering Russia. Grow up……
You are ignoring all the decades of Western imperialism, aggression, organisation of coups etc etc when claiming that ‘Islam’ is the dominant problem facing the world. It is actually the US/West’s support of Wahhabi Islam extremists, through the Saudi Royal Family and associates, through the Statelets of Qatar, Bahrain etc etc. You are obsessed by controlling the world’s oil. Grow up.
You are ignoring the effects on agricultural land of never-ending uses of pesticides, fertilisers etc and its resultant loss of soil fertility. Obsessing as you all do about GM Crops etc etc. You are obsessed by control all life forms. Grow up…..
You are all ignoring the effects on the majority of people of this false binary choice between capitalism and socialism, when actually it is a choice between neoliberalism and fascism. You are obsessed with suppressing democracy. Grow up……
There is no end to the mind controlling propaganda going on in the West.
Every time you read a newspaper, switch on the TV, read the internet it’s there.
This site has its own clear line too, even if it doesn’t realise it.
Wild claims re CAGW are made without reservation or counter argument by the BBC because all the senior managers in the corporation have zero knowledge of science (physics, technology etc) and policy was decided at an early stage that the consensus IPCC view should prevail that the science for CAGW is settled – no counter argument is aired.
Had a good laugh at this……
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/21/global-warming-expedition-stuck-in-arctic-sea-because-of-too-much-ice/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social