Justin Gillis Strikes One Last Time

Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen

 

JGIn a paroxysm of over-the-top alarmism, Justin Gillis, at the New York Times, fires off another advocacy editorial — disguised as a climate news story.

This salvo’s title is “The Real Unknown of Climate Change: Our Behavior” — but that’s not what he is writing about. The article’s URL reveals his real agenda:

www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/climate/climate-change-denial.html

I have written about Gillis’ work before — he seldom disappoints — regularly churning out articles filled with the worst kind of climate alarm speculation. Here’s the short list from this piece — all direct quotes:

1. “Because of atmospheric emissions from human activity, the ocean waters from which Harvey drew its final burst of strength were much warmer than they ought to have been, most likely contributing to the intensity of the deluge.”

2. “the most savage heat waves that we experience today will likely become routine in a matter of decades.”

3. “The coastal inundation that has already begun will grow worse and worse, forcing millions of people to flee.”

4. “The immense wave of refugees that we already see moving across continents may be just the beginning.”

5. “We all see the giant storms, more threatening than any in our lifetimes — and while scientists are not entirely comfortable yet drawing links between the power of these hurricanes and climate change, many people are coming to their own common-sense conclusions.”

6. “The sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing in front of our eyes.”

7. “Huge forest die-offs are beginning, even as the remaining forests work overtime to suck up some of the carbon pollution that humans are pumping out.”

8. “We are already seeing heat waves surpassing 120 degrees Fahrenheit, sooner than many experts thought likely.”

And finally, in a last cry of desperation, he says:

9. “We might be looking at, oh, 80 or 100 feet of sea-level rise in the long haul, a direct result of the failures of this generation to get emissions under control. What kind of shape do you think Miami – or for that matter, New York – is likely to be in after 80 feet of sea-level rise?”

There is only one part of one point in all the above that is even close to being true — that is in #1 — Hurricane Harvey drew extra moisture from the Gulf’s warm waters — like every Gulf hurricane before it, and that extra moisture “most likely” contributed to the intensity of the rainfall.

The rest are the usual litany of climate alarm talking points which Gillis manages to exaggerate even further — it would be a waste of digital ink to even comment on them.

There is one piece of good news that should cheer your hearts though — it certainly cheered mine:

“A personal note: I am leaving The New York Times to write a book about the energy transition. I will reappear in these pages occasionally, and I will continue to engage in the public conversation about climate and energy. I invite you to follow me on Twitter @JustinHGillis.”

Gillis is [finally] quitting the New York Times. Good thing, it is long overdue — he has always performed the task of an Opinion Columnist, a radical climate alarm advocate,  somehow (and unfortunately) mis-assigned to the climate news beat.  We are fortunate that he has not followed his predecessor’s example of simply shifting to the Opinion Section (where he should have been writing all along).

# # # # #

Author’s Note:

I will not be following Justin on Twitter.

My previous essay’s on Mr. Gillis’ work are:  here, here, here, here (in which JG is commended), and here.   Honestly, I got tired of writing about his poor journalistic standards and his editorializing.

# # # # #

 

Advertisements

150 thoughts on “Justin Gillis Strikes One Last Time

  1. Be afraid! Be very afraid! Hillary Clinton tried to use climate change as a issue in the last election and lost, so Gaia is wrathful./s

      • Mark,

        Really?

        You believe that company ads are always truthful?

        You must recently have fallen off the turnip truck.

        Now had you cited the crossword puzzles, you might have had an argument.

      • Mark,

        You must be ignorant of puffery.

        Almost all advertising is essentially false, but there are bounds within which lies are allowed.

        Even so, Macy’s has been repeatedly charged with false advertising. It appears that you’re just as unfamiliar with Earth as with Mars. I could post a lot more, but would then be in moderation for an indeterminate period.

        http://ktla.com/2016/12/08/l-a-city-attorney-accuses-big-retailers-of-deceptive-advertising-plans-lawsuit/

        https://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/macys-las-vegas-nevada-c151371.html

        https://consumerist.com/2016/01/06/macys-bloomingdales-accused-of-inflating-original-prices-to-make-discounts-more-attractive/

        https://macys.pissedconsumer.com/false-advertising-for-easy-returns-20130307390965.html

      • I suggest you search for “Macy’s false advertising”. My reply showing the many charges of false advertising against Macy’s has disappeared into cyberspace.

      • Yes, Mark Johnson, I recognize your clever satire of slapping the NYT up the head with very faint praise indeed. You should have added obituaries, public notices, personals, anagrams, crosswords, chess problems, sudoku,.. to show that the paper does lots of stuff that isn’t lies. Lambasting by exceptions is brilliant! This style deserves a name. +10

      • Mark,

        My Internet search had nothing to do with Google, and everything to do with various jurisdictions bringing charges against Macy’s and other retailers.

        As you’d know, had you the least interest in learning the truth. But obviously, you can’t handle the truth.

        I posted links to four such prosecutions, but, as noted, they’re lost, although might appear later.

      • Mark, another clever backhand to the NYT article. False advertising indeed. I get it! You’re cunning with this stuff! +10. I’m sure there must be a name for this kind lampooning.

      • “you can’t handle the truth.”

        Actually, I’m very comfortable with the truth. The truth of the matter is that the advertising department is well aware of any/all lawsuits that result from their work. It makes them expend an enormous amount of energy insuring that the ads they place in print are not “lies and propaganda” so that they will not incur additional lawsuits.

        You ever work in media?

      • Mark,

        Yes,

        Are you claiming that because advertisers are prepared to deal with false advertising law suits, they never actually engage in false advertising?

      • Cube said, EVERY word published in the NYT is a lie or propaganda.

        Which of course means that on the front page where it has the four words in the title “The New York Times” …..it’s a lie.

        LOL LOL LOL

      • Mark,

        As noted, totally irrelevant to what Cube said. Yours is a distinction without a difference.

        Legal responsibility has nothing whatsoever to do with what he said.

        Your replies were ads and weather reports. We all know how accurate weather reports are, which leaves ads. I’ve showed that those at best are puffery (a legal term with which you might be familiar) and at worst outright egregious lies. But legality and responsibility aren’t the issue, which is whether anything in the NYT can be believed.

        I offered the crossword puzzles, but some of the answers in those are also debatable. However it should have been obvious that Cube was referring to “news” stories.

      • Sixto, You’d best give it up before you dig your hole deeper.
        ….
        Cube said Every

        There a lot of stuff in the NYT which is not “lies and propaganda.”

        Keep defending Cube, and you become a joke.

      • Mark,

        The joke is your inability to show false even such a broad brush statement. Weather, nope. Ads, nope. Masthead, doesn’t count.

        You lose. Again.

        Unless you accept my crossword puzzle suggestion. But even there, the answers aren’t published until a later edition.

      • Mark,

        The distinction is really quite simple.

        A newspaper is printed. The news, opinion, ads and other features in it are published. The name of the paper isn’t published. It’s simply printed, as it has already been public for some time.

      • All on this comment thread ==> Would you folks mind taking this rather silly argument someplace else? Please?

      • MarkSJohnson: Even the weather forecast. For even this is not accurate, like so many weather forecasts from newspapers. Apart from climate weather predictions, which almost always do not hit the head of the nail.
        But apart from that, Trump begins to work. As soon as these politically inclined pseudo-climate experts see that nothing is left on politically fertile ground, they get the sense crises. For the meaning of their existence is not to promote science, but to change our life to the socialism of Orwellian coinage (the rich belong all and they can do anything but the poor have to live without a carbon footprint). The poor trees that are felled for this bibliographic disaster …..

      • Mark S Johnson
        September 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm

        I don’t think the advertisements from Macy’s are lies or propaganda.

        They seem to have all articles on sale all the time. It is hard to believe.

      • Mark S Johnson
        September 18, 2017 at 7:36 pm

        Cube said, EVERY word published in the NYT is a lie or propaganda.

        Which of course means that on the front page where it has the four words in the title “The New York Times” …..it’s a lie.

        I always thought that The New York Times was an anagram not a crossword – THE MONKEY WRITES

        :-)
        SteveT

      • Even if the advertising were complete truth, it would still be propaganda, designed to convince you to Buy Their Stuff.

  2. He should stay with the Times … they seem to cherish the junk journalism Gillis writes. He’ll have a difficult time getting work (after his book fails) with a reputable news agency.

    • That is not an option. Papers are cutting staff as subscriptions drop and basically I think they have made him independent free lance and pay for articles that they print.

      Our local McClatchy paper had delivery problems. I found out they laid off all their delivery people and used 2 contractors to hire for routes and deliver. They sold their building and have papers printed in another city.

      • The only paper that doesn’t qualify as a FISH WRAPPER is Investor’s Business Daily. More Financial Information that one can absorb in a day. And IMHO the Editorial Pages are well written and factual.

    • Don’t worry. There are thousands more from where he came. They will find somebody else who has the religion.

  3. Harvey’s rainfall totals were caused by two blocking highs to the northwest and the northeast.

    It had nothing to do with increased temperatures in the Gulf.

    If the 1900 Galveston-Houston hurricane had faced the same blocking highs, there would been no Houston or Galveston today. CO2 in 1900? 296.1 ppm.

    • Bill ==> after the 1900 Galveston Hurricane, there was no more Galveston then….the mistake was rebuilding it.

      • Well, they did raise the island about 12 or more feet when they rebuilt. Chicago and Seattle also raised the cities 12-14 feet, in the 1800s. Because of flooding. Adaptation works….

      • Les ==> Galveston lucked out with Harvey making landfall way down the coast between Port Aransas and Port O’Connor … don’t know how they would have fared with a direct hit, even with the facelift.

      • Galveston took a direct hit from Alicia in 1984. It was bad, but not catastrophic. My brothers said it flooded a foot or so where they were sheltered. They were able to sleep on the pool tables. Being Canadian, of course they sheltered in a bar.

        Without raising the city 12 feet in the early 1900s, it would have been to the roof.

        As Harvey damages was more from a precipitation event (more so than the wind/storm surge), I suspect that Galveston would have fared well. Being an island, it is vulnerable to storm surges, but not flooding from excess rain. The former raises sea level considerably, the latter does not.

        My other point is that many cities are built in flood zones. When it becomes too much of a problem, we either adapt or abandon.

    • And oh how people forget:
      You live in hurricane regions, you will experience hurricanes.

      Hurricane Irma Is NOT the Most Powerful Atlantic Hurricane Ever Recorded.
      The last two serious hurricanes are the first ones in TWELVE YEARS.

      Hurricanes are not increasing in severity
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/07/hurricane-irma-is-not-the-most-powerful-atlantic-hurricane-ever-recorded/

      Irma Only A Top 25 US Storm
      http://principia-scientific.org/irma-only-a-top-25-us-storm/
      ==
      Harvey & Irma made US landfall as major hurricanes 15 days apart. Record between US major hurricane landfalls is 23 hours set in 1933.
      ==

  4. There is only one part of one point in all the above that is even close to being true — that is in #1 — Hurricane Harvey drew extra moisture from the Gulf’s warm waters — like every Gulf hurricane before it, and that extra moisture “most likely” contributed to the intensity of the rainfall.

    In this regard, I want to repeat a comment I have made before without the snark:

    What was the impact of global warming on Harvey rainfall? Let’s crunch some numbers. First of all, according this article in Wired magazine:

    Long term, the sea surface temperature of that region has risen about 1 degree over the past few decades—from roughly 86 to 87 degrees Fahrenheit, according to Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State

    .

    Converting to metric, 86°F is 30°C and 87°F is 30.55°C. It takes one calorie to heat one gram of water one degree Celsius. Likewise the heat of vaporization of water is 540 calories per gram. Thus, starting at 30.55°C, it would take 69.45 calories to heat one gram of water (ignoring that it is salt water) to 100°C plus 540 calories to evaporate it for a total of 609.45 calories. 609.45 calories per gram equals 609,450,000 calories per cubic meter.

    According to this article in the Washington Post, 1 trillion gallons of water fell on Harris County alone in four days from Saturday (Sep. 2) through Tuesday. According to Wikipedia, the area of Harris County is 4,602 sq. km. One trillion gallons is 3,781,998,708 cubic meters. Dividing by 4,602,000,000 sq. meters, the height of the water column that fell on Harris County would be 0.8225579713 meters or about 32.3841720984 inches.

    If we take the 609,450,000 calories per cubic meter it takes to evaporate that water and multiply it by the 3,781,998,708 cubic meters that fell on Harris County, we obtain a total of 2.3070192117588E+018 calories which is the energy that Harvey used to evaporate the water that fell on Harris County. Assuming that all the water that Harvey evaporated also was condensed, then we can use this energy to calculate how much water Harvey would have dropped on Harris County if there had been no global warming (i.e. if the SST had been 86°F instead of 87°F).

    Starting at 30°C, it would take 70 calories to heat one gram of water (ignoring that it is salt water) to 100°C plus 540 calories to evaporate it for a total of 610 calories per gram or 610,000,000 calories per cubic meter. Dividing 2.3070192117588E+018 calories by 610,000,000 calories per cubic meter, we obtain a new estimate of the volume of water that Harvey would have evaporated sans global warming: 3,781,998,708 cubic meters. Again, we divide by the area of Harris County and we obtain a water column of 0.8218163207 meters or about 32.3549732559 inches, which is what would have fallen on Harris County sans global warming.

    Subtracting, the latter water column from the former, we obtain an estimate of how much global-warming increased rainfall during Harvey:

    0.0291988425 inches or about 29/1000 of an inch!

    Of course, my estimate might be wrong. If somebody spots an error, please do not hesitate to point it out. It is surprising that it would make so little difference (honestly).

    • redo all of that- nobody is boiling water to evaporate it
      it changes state with NO change in temperature whatsoever.

      • The energy to change state from liquid to vapor needs to come from somewhere. Either from cooling the warming surface from which it emanates (evaporative cooling) or from the atmosphere that contacts it above.

      • Seems to me the only difference in water vapor taken up would be the amount evaporated until the sea surface cooled that 0.55 C it had increased.

        Hurricanes transfer heat from the surface water to the upper atmosphere, right? So if the sea surface temperature (SST) was 30 C before and 30.55 C when Harvey went over, wouldn’t the only difference in water vapor uptake occur in the time it took to cool the SST right under the eye by 0.55C? After that, it would be “hurricane as usual.”

        Has anyone ever measured the difference in SST before and after a hurricane passed by?

      • Evaporation is governed by temperature, pressure and wind. Unless I’ve missed something. Possibly things in the water.

        Hurricanes are very low pressure systems.

      • Per the request from gnomish: Recalculating using temperature dependent latent heat of vaporization using Henderson-Sellers 1984:

        What was the impact of global warming on Harvey rainfall? Let’s crunch some numbers. First of all, according this article in Wired magazine:

        Long term, the sea surface temperature of that region has risen about 1 degree over the past few decades—from roughly 86 to 87 degrees Fahrenheit, according to Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State

        .

        Converting to metric, 86°F is 30°C and 87°F is 30.55°C. According to Henderson-Sellers 1984, the latent heat of vaporization at 30°C is 580.9068724367 calories per gram (or 580,906,872 calories per cubic meter). Likewise, the latent heat of vaporization at 30.55°C is 580.6392950479 calores per gram (or 580,639,295 calories per cubic meter).

        According to this article in the Washington Post, 1 trillion gallons of water fell on Harris County alone in four days from Saturday (Sep. 2) through Tuesday. According to Wikipedia, the area of Harris County is 4,602 sq. km. One trillion gallons is 3,785,411,784 cubic meters. Dividing by 4,602,000,000 sq. meters, the height of the water column that fell on Harris County would be 0.8225579713 meters or about 32.3841720984 inches.

        If we take the 580,639,295 calories per cubic meter it takes to evaporate that water at 30.55°C and multiply it by the 3,785,411,784 cubic meters that fell on Harris County, we obtain a total of 2.19795882972791E+018 calories which is the energy that Harvey used to evaporate the water that fell on Harris County. Assuming that all the water that Harvey evaporated also was condensed, then we can use this energy to calculate how much water Harvey would have dropped on Harris County if there had been no global warming (i.e. if the SST had been 86°F instead of 87°F).

        At 30°C, the latent heat of vaporization is 580,906,872 calories per cubic meter. Dividing 2.19795882972791E+018 calories by 580,906,872 calories per cubic meter, we obtain a new estimate of the volume of water that Harvey would have evaporated sans global warming: 3,783,668,147 cubic meters. Again, we divide by the area of Harris County and we obtain a water column of 0.8221790846 meters or about 32.3692552981 inches, which is what would have fallen on Harris County sans global warming.

        Subtracting, the latter water column from the former, we obtain an estimate of how much global-warming increased rainfall during Harvey:

        0.014916801 inches or about 15/1000 of an inch!!!!!!

        Of course, my estimate might be wrong. If somebody spots an error, please do not hesitate to point it out. It is surprising that it would make so little difference (honestly).

      • @ James Schrumpf September 18, 2017 at 7:09 pm

        Mann claimed the SST when Harvey passed was 87°F and that the SST would have been 86°F sans global warming. The difference in SST was not due to Harvey passing over the water.

        Has anyone ever measured the difference in SST before and after a hurricane passed by?

        Please see:

      • Correct. Evaporation is a surface mass transfer process and not related to heat transfer. If you had to boil the water to get rid of it, all of your nice no-frost refrigerators would be peeing on the floor.

      • daveburton September 18, 2017 at 6:10 pm
        “I haven’t checked Phil’s calculation, but you are mistaken, gnomish. It doesn’t matter what temperature the water evaporates at, the heat of vaporization is the same.”
        …………………………………..
        dave… go wait in the car.

      • At James Schrumpf on September 19, 2017 at 4:05 am:

        How much does a hurricane cool the water during its passage?

        I posted the tweet as an answer, although I don’t know exactly. Looking at the color chart, it looks like about 1°C or so, but that is a guess. The tweet says the cooling is due to upwelling, which makes answering your question more difficult. I hope that helps.

      • Alex
        September 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm et al:
        Wind or solar, the sun provides it. The energy is required in the stated calories/joules/btu etc.. Does not matter how it hits the water molecule, only that it does!

    • One trillion gallons is 3,781,998,708 cubic meters.

      One trillion gallons is actually 3,785,411,784 cubic meters. It was a copying error. Otherwise all the other numbers appear to be correct.

      • since co2 can’t change phase, in an average volume of atmosphere, water gas contains more than 50,000 times the heat.
        it also is the lightest gas of any significant percentage so it rises without convection
        it’s a natural refrigerant.

    • Yes, Mark, what the left doesn’t get is that humanity is not going to give up its fossil fuel for a pack of lies. And the more that they don’t get that, the more they continue to fail. (so let ’em fail)…

  5. Kip,

    Your venting on Justin Gillis is much more measured and professional than mine.

    He is a classic NYTimes Progressive tripe spewing bufoon. Think Krugman, Friedman, Blow, Dowd, Egan ….. Only Ross Douthaut and Brett Stephens get away with not towing the party line as long as they bash Trump regularly,

    Gillis’ successors (Coral Davenport and her ilk) will sing the same silly song on the Times front page.

    As a native New Yorker who grew up aspiring to be a Times reader ( We read the Daily News and The Post where I came from) I am appalled at what they put out on a daily basis.

    Sometimes it’s good to be old.

      • Knowing the history of various idioms is helpful.
        In this case, “toe the line” comes from the military in which recruits are taught to stand in formation. A line is drawn or painted on the ground and the recruits are told to stand with their toe on the line.
        Over time, toeing the line became synonymous with being obedient to authority.

    • I remember a few years back when Dowd used ellipses (…) to completely change the menaing of a Bush quote, then wrote an entire editorial to trash this modified quote.

  6. You added the heat needed to raise the water temperature to 100C. That would be correct if the water boiled. But water does not have to get heated at all to evaporate. The oceans don’t boil, but water evaporates from them all the time.

    • The oceans don’t need to boil, but each water molecule needs to absorb enough energy to reach 100C before it can phase transition and break away from the surface.

      Even when ice sublimates, the surface water molecules have to absorb enough energy to break their phase bonds with the surrounding ones.

      The point to remember is that phase transition is a boundary, not an event. You don’t need the whole mass to reach transition temperature, just the molecules that are breaking their phase bonds. That’s why a pot of heated water boils instead of just poofing to gas. The water molecules at the temperature boundary (the hot bottom of the pan) transition to a gas and escape up through the water as bubbles, but loose their energy to the surrounding water and the bubbles collapse. As the water in the pot raises the bubbles get larger because the gas looses less heat to the water as it passes through, until they can survive all the way through and are released into the air.

      With surface evaporation, since the gaseous water molecules don’t have to raise up through the water to escape, the don’t loose any of their energy and are able to break away cleanly.

      No boiling oceans needed.

      ^¿^

      • I’m pretty sure that bubbles get larger as they rise because water pressure is less at the top than at the bottom.

      • a 4 inch pressure head in a pot doesn’t have that much effect on a bubble’s size. You need 33 feet of seawater to double the volume of the bubble as it rises.

    • David, it still needs the equivalent ration of energy per molecule of water to phase change it to vapour. Anything else is ‘unphysical’ and therefore impossible. Physics is a beautiful thing, when we see its subtlties.

  7. “The immense wave of refugees… moving across continents may be just the beginning.”

    Wouldn’t open-border globalists think this was a good thing?

    • Trying to strike fear in the hearts of conservatives, sort of like how they focus lots of gloom-and-doom rainfall, flooding, and hurricanes in the future on the south these days.

  8. Is Justin Gillis related to Dobie Gillis? The once well known documentary* entitled the many loves of Dobie Gillis was published almost 60 years ago. Perhaps Justin is the great grandchild arising from one of the many loves.

    Anyway, Dobie was far more believable then than Justin is now.

    * yes I know that it was really a sitcom and that Dobie’s offsider Maynard G Krebs eventually found fame as Gilligan.

  9. The devil you know versus the one …

    Does The Times give any indication who may be filling his goulashes? Perhaps, with all their financial challenges, and the public’s waning interest regarding additional pant loads of AGW propaganda, there may be no compelling plans, at this moment to reload. One can hope.

  10. I bet he was pushed out. The NYT is shedding employees. link

    The thing about the NYT is that it often carried the truth way on the back pages where most people wouldn’t see it. You could find the truth but you had to be dedicated. That might no longer be as important these days with the internet and its multitude of sources.

    • Bob,

      Sometimes one searches in vain.

      However, the NYT had one genuine journalist working for it in the last decade, Dexter Filkins. But he left to join the New Yorker. Whether his work was too truthful to fit NYT editors and owners or he just wanted to work in a longer format, I don’t know.

      But I ran into him in both Iraq and Afghanistan and was impressed. He carried a semiauto pistol and was reasonably proficient in its use. By which I mean, it didn’t make me nervous when he handled it.

      My opinion of the NYT went up because of its hiring him.

    • markl ==> There is a fairly reliable story from ex-NY Times journalists that desk editors meet with the papers editors annually/regularly and decide on what the papers “narrative” will be for major topics. Reporters/journalists are then required to see that each story that touches on the topic fits the narrative or includes the narrative’s major talking points as part of the story.
      Read each and every NY Times CliSci story and you will see that narrative jump off the page into your face — it is very obvious. It is not as simple as a bias towards alarmism — it is a definite story that has to be told each time the topic appears, without fail.
      I am trying to get a solid confirmation that this oft-repeated story is true.

      • And I’m sure the editors up the line and the paper management and executives get their marching orders from someone(s)….. the owners. They try to be transparent but it’s hard/barely possible to hide eventual ownership of anything. My point is the Gillis of the world are merely doing their master’s bidding to maintain favor and employment. It’s obvious what happens to those that don’t. I think the prime movers of this news narrative need to be exposed. Of course any mention of this gets accusations of “conspiracy theory” but you can only cry wolf so many times.

      • It seems to be the MO for the CBC (Canadian Broadcorping Castration) as well. They have about four issues that they push really hard. If they can push a trans lesbian indian handicapped climate alarmist into a book review of a children’s picture book about endangered jungle animals, they have pretty much hit paydirt. Sometimes it’s so obvious that it hurts … and I’m a privileged white male so it’s all my fault.

  11. The timing of Gillis’ screed this week actually puts him in very good company with Christian conspiracy theorists who are warning us that the end of days is quite near. The mythical planet Nibiru (Planet X) is approaching the Earth and its gravitational pull (being larger than the Earth) is going to produce an apocalypse here on Earth. Another sign is that this coming Saturday, the 23rd, Jupiter, the Sun and the Moon will all be in the Constellation Virgo. This is all based on their interpretation of Biblical passages of course.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/853642/End-of-the-World-The-Rapture-September-23-239-Nibiru-Planet-X

    “………THE end of the world is upon and we are in the “end times” according to a growing number of Christian conspiracy theorists who believe codes in the Bible and signs in the heavens mean the Rapture will soon be upon us…..”.

    Start planning your end-of-days party now.

    • Nibiru Thread ==> Never a good idea to talk religion — or bash religion. Violates WUWT policy.

      Nibiru/Planet X nuttiness has nothing to do with religion, Christian or otherwise. The Express UK quote was unfortunate — I would have snipped it if it had not been a direct quote from a known MSM source.

      I will snip this whole topic out if it can’t shift to discussing something on topic.

      • CD in Wisconsin ==> No worries…. it is often difficult to predict the reaction of the commenting readers on the ‘Net….I have written essays about one topic, only to have the commenting readers seize on some tiny phrase out of 2,000 words and discuss nothing else. Go figure!

    • I apologize for the misunderstanding here. It was my intent to expose the Nibiru/Planet X people as false prophets that the Bible talks about in numerous passages. Exactly as I view the climate alarmists prognosticating gloom and doom. I was raised a Christian myself and believe their is much wisdom to be derived from the Bible.

      Again my apologies.

  12. Let us get real here and scientific. The AGW conjecture is based upon a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere that have LWIR absorption bands. It is well known that good absorbers are also good radiators so these trace gases, often refered to as greenhouse gases, do not trap heat any more than any other gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. Based upon the paleoclimate record, and modeling results, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. Having hurricanes in hurricane prone areas at the hight of hurricane season is not that common. Such extreme weather is part of the Earth’s current climate as it has been for eons.

  13. Just a few hours … or a day … or two … away from Climate “Science” embrace of Human Hatred as born by Religion!

    No body hates Humans … like God Hates Humans! And God has been trying desperately to Exterminate US … and Failing.

    The stopwatch is ticking … down!

    Hahahahahahahhahaha

  14. Travels That Excite the Curiosity and Challenge the Mind 2016 and 2017 Highlights — Travel with The New York Times Book Now:
    http://www.academic-travel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2017-Highlights-Brochure-TImes-Journeys.pdf
    ‘Wild Australia Departing March 19 and Oct 15, 2017 Price From $8,575 Duration 12 days Travelers Limited to 25 guests.
    Australia is one of the 17 “megadiversity” countries in the world, home to a
    stunning array of plants and animals, many found nowhere else on earth.
    This ambitious 12-day itinerary explores Australia’s key ecosystems, from desert
    to rain forest to coral reefs. Only here can you see kangaroos, koalas, Wombats
    pythons, dingoes and green sea turtles all in such a short time.

    Featured Expert: Justin Gillis Times Science Correspondent
    Justin Gillis is an environmental science writer for The New York
    Times, and serves as the paper’s lead writer on the science of
    global climate change. He was the primary author of a series
    called Temperature Rising that won the John B. Oakes Award
    for environmental reporting from Columbia University in 2011. He has done extensive
    reporting across the world on the destruction of forests and the associated loss of biological
    diversity. He was one of the lead Times writers last December at the conference in Paris
    where, for the first time, all the world’s nations committed to trying to save the planet from
    the worst effects of climate change. He joins our March departure’.

    Justin if I were you chum, or any of your NYT warmist confrère, I would never let be seen dead in fossil fueled transport of any kind let alone a 747 spewing deadly CO2 because it would make me look like a perfidious hoaxer and hypocrite.

  15. From Cliff Mass – atmospheric physicist and hardly a sceptic (although accused of being mentally unsound by extreme activists for not attributing the death of a pine tree to AGW)
    There is no evidence that global warming is influencing Texas coastal precipitation in the long term and little evidence that warmer than normal temperatures had any real impact on the precipitation intensity from this storm.
    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/global-warming-and-hurricane-harvey.html?m=1

  16. The Human Animal cannot tell lies or mis-truths – EXCEPT when it is ‘talking’ remotely. Via newspapers, the interweb, TV & radio etc.

    In actual real-life face-to-face situations, the listener can tell when the talker doesn’t know their subject. We just can.
    Girls are especially good at it, supposedly they ‘have a gene’ for it. Female Intuition.

    But even in written words, the discomfiture experienced by liars is visible..
    What have we got here…..

    most likely contributing

    will likely become

    may be just the begin

    scientists are not entirely comfortable

    forest die-offs are beginning

    (so not actually happening then?)

    sooner than many experts thought likely

    (Pretty [snip]-poor experts huh)

    might be looking at

    His main bullet points are riddled with uncertainty.
    He is quite devoid of self-confidence (Classic sign of chronic depression)
    He is full of negativity (Depression yet again)
    Hiding behind the big name (authority) of the New York Times (complete wimp)

    Pity the hapless cow that tries to take this out on a date – he falls/fails at the first hurdle by having absolutely no sense of humour let alone a GSOH
    (NYT does have lonely hearts does it?)

    • climateotter ==> I have snipped a bit of language there. See WUWT Policy. No biggie, it is easy to get carried away. Let’s try to stay on the higher road.

      You will find though that Justin Gillis believes what he writes (probably a less exaggerated version) and at least believes that it is important to write this type of thing to “make people change” and “save the world”. Advocates like this are not consciously telling untruths…they think they are telling a higher truth. Calling them names does not add to the conversation.

  17. There is only one part of one point in all the above that is even close to being true — that is in #1 — Hurricane Harvey drew extra moisture from the Gulf’s warm waters — like every Gulf hurricane before it, and that extra moisture “most likely” contributed to the intensity of the rainfall.

    Let’s have some facts here before making such a partial concession.

    Where is the evidence that the Gulf was unusually warm?

    Hurricanes do not generally form in the Gulf, and the hurricanes this year were no exception. They formed out in the Atlantic, and the North Atlantic has not warmed these past 20 years, and the South Atlantic has not warmed these past 30 years.

    As Judith Curry noted (see her 8th September posts).

    In a matter of a few hours, Irma became a major hurricane. The surprising thing about this development into a major hurricane was that it developed over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic – 26.5C — the rule of thumb is 28.5C for a major hurricane (and that threshold has been inching higher in recent years). On 8/31, all the models were predicting a major hurricane to develop, with some hints of a Cat 5.
    So why did Irma develop into a major hurricane? We can’t blame 26.5 C temperatures in the mid Atlantic on global warming. (my emphasis)

    As regards the amount of rainfall, any increase in SST is a bit player since the latent heat used in vapourisation/evaporation is 540 calories per gram of water, such that even if the SST was say 0.5degC warmer, it is still 3 orders of magnitude less than the energy required to vapourise/evaporate the ocean. Accordingly, SST make a lot less impact than most people assume, and this may be the reason why these hurricanes were able to develop over waters which were just 26.5 degC, which is about 2 deg C lower than the usual threshold. 2 degC is only 2 calories per gram, so it goes only a little way to the 540 calories required for vaporisation/evaporation.

    Don’t let the media spin a story without seeing what evidence backs up the claims.

    • Richard ==> The only (very small) concession is admitting that hurricanes pick up extra energy over warm waters — the northwestern Gulf was plenty warm (not exceptionally warm — but hurricane boosting warm).

  18. Why would anyone have a problem with speculation about global heating? It seems weird to be criticising a writer doing so. I also notice the articles makes no attempt to correct the record. Why weren’t there any links or paragraphs that did some debunking. Because of this omission the author failed to convince. I am with Gillis on this one.

    • Rob ==> I might suggest that you expand your information sources — particularly on this subject. You could start with contents of this blog from Day One (over ten years ago) — see Ric Werme’s index of the site.

      Alternatively, you could start with a basic well-rounded science education, throw in a few courses in critical thinking, a good beginning course in statistics and statistical interpretation, pile on some physics, especially of dynamical systems, plus a modern course in implications to science topics of Chaos Theory. Then, starting with Lorenz (the 1950s) follow the developing story of “Global warming” — then you’ll see that none of Gillis’ points are even worthy of comment — they are non-science mixed with nonsense.

  19. Great stuff from Richard and willhaas etc..The temperature difference is the main engine. But vapour soon gets pulled up by buoyancy, and on cooling and releasing phase change energy, really stokes the show like mad. What this signifies is that increased storminess is driven by falling temperatures, because the gradient then increases between equator and poles. And that is what is happening, as the pause moves into cooling and quiet sun heliospheric conditions. Part of that too are wild jetstream conditions…..
    I would add that tropical weather is on average boring, especially compared to the forties, fifties and sixties etc.. Lower energy maybe, but huger difference….

      • Ron ==> This is a magazine piece, meaning it has been in the production stage for weeks — probably before JG and the NY Times decided to part ways.

        It does represent the NY Times’ editors mandated narrative for all climate change stories.

        In it, they follow the rules for Popular Science Communicators: Be simple, avoid jargon, write with confidence, state facts as if they were just common sense (even when telling untruths). The Times is trying to “make a difference” — the new goal of journalism — which replaced telling the truth about what has happened.

  20. The claim:
    “the ocean waters from which Harvey drew its final burst of strength were much warmer than they ought to have been, most likely contributing to the intensity of the deluge.”
    The facts (within 1 degree C of normal)

    • Tom ==> Thanks for that — but the anomaly is not really the data needed, of course, but the temperature, 86 F 83/84F and above are believed to the be the trigger temps for hurricane intensification (h/t Curry).

      Do you have any idea what the “anomaly” is the difference from? Long-term average for the 24 of August, long-term annual average? 30-year climatic average? You see — not exactly the right data to answer the question.

  21. Epilogue:

    My thanks to the readers here and to those joining into the conversation.

    Gillis, as one reader points out, has a few more pieces in the pipe at the NY Times, which they are still rolling out — including a magazine piece here which reflects the NY Times’ editors mandated narrative on climate change – it makes an interesting study. The Times editors are following a science communications formula based on recent science communications studies of how to get readers to believe a story, true or not.

    Gillis’ work at the Times will be continued by several other reporters — whose work so far has simply been a re-iteration of the Times’ CliSci Narrative: John Schwartz, Lisa Friedman, Brad Plumer, Henry Fountain, and Coral Davenport .

    The rather interesting thing is that even though the NY Times is one of the most powerful, ten or so world Newspapers of Record, their constant (mis)information on climate change has not even managed to convince most Americans — just try to imagine any other topic in science that requires such constant assertion of a catechism-like list of talking points. No one needs to be reminded over-and-over that animals breathe oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide or that the stars we see in the sky are actually other Suns or that the planets orbit the Sun and not the other way around — what is it about Climate Science that convinces the NY Times that it needs to publish article after article, each one saying the same things over and over? It certainly doesn’t qualify as science news. So what is it?

    I have been actively watching and writing about CliSci journalism for years — it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the long-run. Back in 2006, one of my children, concerned about the fate of their recently born child, asked me if I thought Global Warming was a threat to their baby’s future. I said “We really don’t know yet, I don’t think so, but ask me again in five or ten years.” In all honesty, I would give the same answer today.

  22. Here’s a Letter to Mr. Gillis among others, still waiting for a reply!!

    ‘Office’ Bar & Grill
    Lat: 26* 43′ N. Long: 82*. 08′ W.

    October 16th. 2016.

    Justin Gillis. NYT:

    Re: Greenhouse Gas linked to floods along US Coasts.

    Worsening a certainty.

    Dear Mr. Gillis

    Guess what! You’ve done it again! Grabbed my ‘attentions’ as they say with your piece in the New York Times on the upcoming sequel to Noah’s Flood!
    And once again I’m in the sardine section of an Airbus on my way to California, the land of Fruits and Nuts and the Moonbeam Governor.

    I’m always reminded of our friend Gulliver when I travel to California; remember when he travelled to Lagado to meet the Inventor who was extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers to light up the Governor’s garden on inclement days……eh? At the end of the tour the scientist held out his hand for a donation to finish the project!!! Just like now! Eh?
    For a country Vicar in the seventeen-sumpties Jonathan Swift was quite a prescient for the world we live in today, wouldn’t you say?

    But back to the point, what are we to do to save Miami from the fate of Atlantis?

    Here’s a suggestion: Pick a different Datum…..!!

    Since no one knows where Mean Sea Level (MSL) really is, let’s make one up. Your chap in Annapolis picked one and gave it a fancy name ‘Tide Gauge’ which sounds more scientific than “A Striped Stick in the Ground”…which it probably was…. unless it was a striped tube with a float in it, and a choke valve to damp out the wave action. Either way your tide gauge is tied (get it?) to Terra Firma which is no ‘firma’ than the pie crust on a peach cobbler;…. they call it crust and magma in geology, which, by the way, means Earth Science in Ancient Greek; geology that is , not pie crust…. we don’t want to get those two mixed up! Eh?
    So the rock solid foundation of your tide gauge is moving around tectonically at the speed of a growing fingernail. Worse still it moves up and down with the gravitational pull of the moon (and sun) just like the sea only not so obvious. So you see how dodgy it is trying to iron out those wrinkles and bulges on the surface of the ocean to pin down the elusive MSL.
    But not to worry, once formally consecrated the MSL becomes the Datum for the millimeter or two increase in Tide Gauge measurements that form the basis (with select extrapolation) for your terrifying sequel: ‘The Return of Noah’s Flood’!

    So what to do??

    We’ve got to do something. We can’t just sit around like gullible young oysters at the Walrus and the Carpenter’s picnic. Eh?
    Here’s my suggestion: move the datum to the top of Mount Everest!
    You may not know this but the summit of Mount Everest is several inches higher (above sea level) now, than when George Mallory fell off the South Coll. in 1927. So the gap between the Summit of Everest and Sea level is widening, which means that sea level is falling… from our new Datum!
    The people of Miami and the Marshal Islands can rejoice…and sleep in peace in the secure knowledge that they will not be inundated, or wake up drowned!
    With that one simple move you and I can carve ourselves a notch in Global History as grand as the Pyramids of Giza. By saving the World from drowning we’ll be inundated (imagine that!) with a veritable tsunami of Nobel Prizes, Medals of Honor, Knighthoods, Honorary Degrees, Orders of Lenin, Oscars, Emmies, you name it we’ll get ’em!

    Now I don’t mind splitting the spoils with you, even though it was my idea! Even at 50% you’ll have more medals than Brezhnev’s coat on a May Day in Moscow!

    I’ll bet your editors at NYT will notice and move you up the ladder a rung or two. They might even let you move beyond sexational and catastrophic journalism. Heaven knows you’ve been a loyal foot soldier in that department for long enough!
    Maybe they’ll let you write about some serious stuff… You know, “The role of the Sun in Global Warming” for example…?.!
    Good luck with that one!
    Let me know when we can start , as luck would have it I’m available.
    Yours from the College of Serious Knowledge,
    Department of Floatation Devices,

    Harvey H. Homitz.
    Constructor of Fine Arks in Gopherwood.

  23. And Again and Again ==> Justin Gillis left a lot of work in the pipe at the NY Times — today yet another “magazine story” (a longer piece meant to be displayed with large coior images) Building a Better Coral Reef by Damien Cave and Justin Gillis. (Damien Cave is the NY Times’ Bureau Chief in Sydney, Australia).

    The article is filled with — you guessed it — loads of alarmist tripe.

    The story, however, is really about how Nature itself has kept reefs alive and vibrant throughout the millions of years of their history. Divers are recovering samples of coral that survived the recent bleaching in different areas, and growing them in tanks, to be returned to the sea to seed recovery at a later time.

    This is exactly what has been found recently — some reefs die off in bleaching events, only to be found restored a number of years later by corals that have adapted to high temperatures or that use different symbiots.

    Read Jim Steele’s stuff here at WUWT for the details.

    • Lichanos ==> Andrew Revkin — he was a journalist on the Environmental beat, then shifted to the Opinion Section with an Opinion Column – Dot Earth — recently moved to ProPublica.

      • Nice piece on trends. Sadly, journalists seem ignorant of, or uninterested in the details of data analysis.

        One of my pet peeves that I find very difficult to get across concerns record breaking heat statistics. Assuming that a claim that a specific year’s temperature record does constitute a record – lots of room for investigation there – that tells us nothing about the future. Moreover, given that everyone accepts that the world is warmer now than sixty years ago ( although by how much is disputed, not to mention the cause) the fact that a record is broken ( rarely is it revealed by what margin) is unremarkable; even expected.

        I like to compare it to weight gain. I grew steadily heavier from my twenties to my fifties, but in recent years, I have been careful, and my average recorded weight has been very stable. Still, on occasion, especially after holidays, my morning weigh-in reaches new heights, yet the stable long-term average prevails. I weigh a lot more than I did when I was twenty-five, thirty-five, or forty-five, so clearly the daily fluctuations are rising from a higher baseline value, but the overall trend has been clearly flat for many years. 🤓🤗

Comments are closed.