Readers may recall yesterday that I posted about a wacky paper that said Earth was on it’s way to a “hothouse state”. The press release for it was so bad, and so full of straw men arguments, I didn’t even bother to look up the actual paper.
The Guardian went a bit loopy with it.
And Ben Pile @climateresistance on Twitter summed it all up like this:
Here are the Greens, trying to turn what the scientists admit is wildly speculative into political capital. https://t.co/m3F9OjdXzf
— Ben Pile (@clim8resistance) August 7, 2018
Josh had similar thoughts, and came up with this:
Bishop Hill bothered to look up the paper, should you want to bother reading it. It’s junk science at it’s worst, and apparently sailed through peer review in less than two months.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115
The abstract:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate zombies wobble, then they do fall down.
Unfortunately, they get back up — they’re zombies.
I thought those were Weebles….
Weebles wobble, but they don’t fall down.
At last a testable hypothesis. Thanks for that reminder.
As, you see, observational evidence beets modelling every time.
The weebles hear the fear
They wobble as a single herd
The ground shakes once more
Which type of beet were you planning on modeling?
The study is titled “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene”.
Augury is the practice from ancient Roman religion of interpreting omens from the observed flight trajectories of birds (aves). When the individual, known as the augur, interpreted these signs, it is referred to as “taking the auspices”. [Adapted from Wikipedia]
If they were to practice augury at a windmill station, they could supplement their predicitive capacity through reading avian entrails.
This was a lead story on the influential BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning. The BBC, despite its charter, takes an utterly one sided approach to man made climate change. it did not occur to the presenters and the BBC ‘climate correspondent’ that this sort of story is not really consistent with the huge amount of alarmist stuff that they have peddled before. Poor journalism
BBC one o’ clock news on TV covered this big time with lots of scary footage. The impression given was that the apocalypse is almost on us. I found it laughable but many innocents will no doubt have been horrified at what is apparently about to happen. Sadly many people still believe that the BBC is trustworthy.
There was a time, not that long ago, when people living under oppressive regimes all around the world, would listen to the BBC news on short wave radio. It was their best, if not their only source of factual and unbiased reporting.
Sad, innit?
That was the World Service – a somewhat moire independent organisation funded by the Foreign office.
I gave up listening to the BBC World Service quite some time ago. There was more and more AGW and other trendy PC stuff being pushed and the last straw for me was the incredibly irritating bash-you-on-the-head-with-noise racket between the time signal and the ‘news’. That was very sad after earlier years of much better output and its formerly good reputation.
Smart Rock..
I was once one of those living and working in remote third world places who listened religiously to the BBC world news on my short wave. Radio Moscow always occupied the closest frequency to the BBC for their English language fake news.. to the discriminating ear, besides the content, the giveaway was the odd American vowel in their imitation BBC English!
Cheers
Allan
BBC Radio 2 today, the Jeremy Vine show with Vanessa Phelps (Ugh!) standing in had an appallingly one sided ‘debate’ with climate ‘experts’ on whether the current UK, European and World heatwave indicated global warming.
Predictably they wheeled on three or four ‘experts’ who variously said it was a ‘signature’ of climate change (whatever that means) and that the 1976 UK heatwave may have been a 1 in 100 year event, but we’re now seeing these as 1 in 50 and that’s likely to drop quickly. I’m paraphrasing but it’ll be available on iPlayer if you can stomach it.
They then wheeled on a couple of callers to ask some lame questions to ‘challenge’ the ‘in studio’ professor who, from memory was from, wait for it…….. yep! the University Of East Anglia (it may have been one of the others but I was so enraged by the biased content I could barely speak other than mutter obscenities).
This wasn’t just poor journalism, it was a determined effort to present the case for AGW on one of the most popular radio shows in the UK, presented by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.
The BBC some years ago formally abandoned any pretence of impartiality on this subject: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBCs-dirty-little-secret-lands-it-in-a-new-scandal.html
It’s a great shame some of the stalwarts here on WUWT couldn’t have called the show. It would have been wonderful to hear the Beeb’s embarrassment.
They pre-screen calls and only let through the ones that will fit the narrative.
Archer
I have had my say on the Jeremy Vine show, on a completely different subject.
They didn’t object to me, as a former Cop, having a real go at a Chief Constable on the subject of reasonable force. I recall my parting shot was that if he dared enter my house with malicious intent he wouldn’t leave in the same condition he arrived.
And yes, it happened once, and the criminal came off a very sorry second best, nor was I charged, but I’ll suffer that indignity to protect my family and property to the best of my abilities. My point was that I’ll make damn sure the message gets round the criminal fraternity never to consider violating my domain.
Sorry, veering OT.
The climate event was, however, stage managed beyond belief. This was a BBC luvvy, love in discussion on the evils of climate change, joined by every self seeking, grant claiming scientist they could round up for a 20 minute show.
Ye, I’ll damn well complain!
Dance the Zombie Calypso: How Low Can You Go….
Oh I’m sure the climateers have a few more rungs they can go down.
There’s a bottom?
Hell, they can go lower than a few – they’ve got a fleet of backhoes on retainer.
Could you possibly have meant “… Limbo: How Low Can You Go …”?
“Go LOWER now…
Go LOWER now…
How LOW can you… err, d@mmit, snapped-off at the waist. Just like all the others; stupid rotting zombie flesh…
Oh good – it’s still moving!”
Still with the polar bears…
It is a given that they’re still running polar bear climate extinction hysteria in 2028. ABC and SBS have been talking complete rot about sinking islands for thirty years now, with no end in sight, even though they know perfectly well that it’s dishonest misleading nonsense. Truth does not sell enough advertisement space, lies are much more profitable.
The BBC has run with it too , in fcat it has got a lot of coverage so in true climate ‘sceince’ fashion its total lack of credability means nothing becuse of its PR impact.
Here in Canada, most mainstream media have taken up this old retread and are spreading it like it’s something all-new. Same for the current heatwave in Europe. Everyone has already forgotten last winter’s extreme cold in Europe… But of course, it was also caused by man-made climate change.
Would love to know what a “Planetary Threshold “ is. Perhaps if we all got together, faced east and jumped forward in unison, we could slow things down a bit. Do I need a (sarc here?
No wonder the Guardian is looking for contributions.
Alasdair
The Guardian. A failing rag that wouldn’t be read were it not free.
Conditioning to fear requires relentless hype to elicit the desired hysteria responses.
The main stream media will not relent, they will keep shreiking until everyone is driven mad and starts ‘seeing’ what’s not there, and starts shreiking hysterically too.
It’s what you do to start a stampeed, and thus to get everyone moving fast in one direction as one group as they panick at what they know not.
Otherwise known as creating consensus.
The news informs us so that we make wiser choices.
Mexico City gave itself an earthquake generated by excited World Cup fans jumping up and down simultaneously.
“Planetary Threshold”, that’s where you step over the edge of the flat earth. There be dragons. There be zombies. One big step for Mann…
Gotta love the tumbling zombies. 🙂
As the Chinese and the Russians will never cooperate we are all doomed!!!! So lets not worry about it as we cannot stop it. Buy a Ford Ranger, turn up the A/C, launch the ski boat and enjoy it.
Hasta la Vista baby.
then STOP THE CHEMTRAILS !!! water vapor is #1 source of warming…heat cannot escape at night. Global Warming is a nighttime phenomenon where heat cannot escape to space due to cloud cover. CHEMTRAILS are a big contributor to the water vapor.
I think you forgot the sarc tag!
Something else to add to DHMO.org?
One meaning of guardian is someone who makes decisions for incompetent people. I think it also applies in this case, the difference being that The Guardian is also incompetent.
As Larry Niven’s Louis Wu character said in his “Ringworld” novel, “The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more competent fools.”
I just don’t effing get it. How is it that people think they can have any control or effect whatsoever on ice age vs interglacials, especially 1) given the nature of the system itself, and 2) given that these massive swings in “average global temperature” have been going on for millions upon millions of years? At what point do they stop doubling-down on their sensationalist scare-mongering?
They don’t want to control the climate they want to control society.
This is just a convenient dodge.
For some, for sure. But I’m sure there a bunch of legitimate true believers writing these papers that have had their brains broken through cognitive dissonance backlash.
Yep, the watermelons (green on the outside, commie red on the inside) are at it again. They are convinced that “climate change” is the best way to put the chains back on their recalcitrant serfs… heck, they think they can convince their serfs to put the chains back on their own legs…
KO, look at this comment from one of the researchers.
Professor Johan Rockström, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre and one of the authors of the paper, is a leading expert on positive feedback mechanisms. He told the BBC “What we are saying is that when we reach 2 degrees of warming, we may be at a point where we hand over the control mechanism to Planet Earth herself.”
He added: “We are the ones in control right now, but once we go past 2 degrees, we see that the Earth system tips over from being a friend to a foe. We totally hand over our fate to an Earth system that starts rolling out of equilibrium.”
Thanks for the quote. But the presumption! We currently control things? It’s laughable. The tail does not wag the dog in the real world. Plus, his presumption that the Earth is a friend is erroneous: Nature has been trying to kill us all non-stop since the beginning. Human adaptability, perseverance, and inspiration are what have allowed us not only to survive as a species, but to prosper…to the point, apparently, where we’ve become infected with a plethora of parasites.
Rockström or “Skrock”-ström as in swedish for superstition is NOT an expert on climate, He is an agricultural engineer, i.e a university farmer. Well-known to the swedish skeptics for his non-stop nonsense.
A simple search for him reveals that he is moving to be ‘co-Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research’. Check him out…
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/contact-us/staff/2008-01-16-rockstrom.html
“At what point do they stop doubling-down on their sensationalist scare-mongering?”
It’s in the abstract above — “new governance arrangements.” It’s never been a secret, they always tell you what they’re doing. When they have a New World Order, with total abolition of national sovereignty, then there will be no further need for globull warming, or freezing, or ozone depletion, or alien attack.
Today’s lecture: Us vs Them: Defeating the Enemy.
Tomorrow’s lecture: Choosing a New “Them”.
There is never an end for totalitarianism seekers. It can’t survive without some unifying “Other” against which to struggle. When all external enemies are defeated, it must perforce turn within itself.
Peer review doesn’t ensure that a paper is valid. The only way that could work is if the reviewers actually reproduced the paper’s findings.
That pretty much explains the ‘consensus’ in climate science.
It is widely acknowledged that peer review is fatally flawed. Getting science on an even keel is a gargantuan task and there are no obvious answers.
Even at its best, peer revue only means that, in the opinion of the reviewer(s), the author(s) picked an interesting topic, researched it with reasonable methods, and avoided obvious blunders. BFD
But anymore it only means that the blunders are given a pass if the paper furthers “The Cause”.
“Peer review” shows what it is worth at PNAS. On the other hand, the authors are modestly predicting only the hottest temperatures in 1.2 million years, not “evah”.
Peer Review – often thought to be the gold standard in scientific assessment – only works when the peers doing the review are equally drawn from a wide range of scientific viewpoint. Sadly this is no longer possible in the climate science arena
Helps when the reviewers are not Zombies. Well at least they probably didn’t speed-read it.
The review process at PNAS is particularly poor. It’s more of a vehicle for distribution, less an academic journal.
These alarms are contradicted by paleoclimatology research into both hothouse and icehouse conditions on this planet over eons.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/08/07/summer-hothouse-silliness/
The problem with that graph is that both poles are the same temperature. In reality, the south pole is a lot colder than the north pole. link
Paleoclimatology might not be that useful at predicting possible future conditions. The planet’s continents keep shifting around and changing the possibilities for ocean currents. Was there a gulf stream a billion years ago? Probably not, at least not as we now know it.
On the other hand, what the graph does show is that the temperature at the equator doesn’t change much. It is probably strongly regulated by the physical properties of water and air. link
Bob, the gradients on the left side refer to the S. Pole; N. Pole, as you say, is less cold. The right side is showing estimated GMT. In the post discussion, a modern warming period graph shows the two poles on the same chart.
The graph is crummy. My interpretation of the scale on the 4th horizontal line from the top is latitude, beginning with the North pole. The equator is the vertical line in the middle of the chart. The South Pole is on the right hand side.
And the vertical scale is Degrees C, with 0C on the 4th horizontal line down.
I was in QC for 25 years and if we had a problem with a customer who would not see sense we would show them a graph based on the Baffle Them With BS principle. Worked every time because no one will admit they don’t understand the graph.
The reason why the poles have the same temperature in the middle is because these depend on the environment there based on.
Severe Icehouse based on large land mass over the pole. These likely favour no warm ocean currents from reaching it.
Extreme Hothouse based on ocean over the pole with little or no land surrounding it. Warm ocean currents are likely to reach the pole in this situation.
If the Arctic ocean region was all land, the pole there would be much closer to -50c. In this scenario interglacials would disappear and we would be stuck in permanent ice age conditions.
Thanks a lot, very interesting graphic.
Oceans serve to mitigate effects of solar cycles, in which sun spikes are the determinant untouchable by Climate Priests’ Collective Concordance.
This kind of thing makes me want to puke. There is something seriously wrong with these people. The greens, in my mind, align themselves with the Remoaners (who decry everything Brexit, spreading doom and gloom everywhere) and the Trump-bashers in the US (always digging and looking non-stop for dirt to heap on his valiant efforts).
Instead of celebrating all the wonderful things we are so lucky to enjoy in our lives, all they want to do is to spread fear everywhere.
I know what I would like to do with the b***** lot of them – but I don’t think it would get past moderation.
“Collective human action…”
There’s your key.
Here’s your sign. (/Jeff Foxworthy)
“New governance arrangements”. (Call me old-fashioned, but thought these arrangements were made by the people voting in a democracy.)
Many of the ‘remoaners’ and those demanding concerted international action on climate change are offshoots of the same ‘new ideology:’ big government (by better people.) They are often members of an elite owing their living to the state or the international community, which prioritises international policy over local (national) democracy, and searches for new ways to leverage international initiatives over local consent. Hence the tendency to blame any unfortunate election result on ‘populism;’ as I often say, populism is what you call democracy when you don’t like the result. The start of the current international climate initiatives was the creation of Agenda 21, with the foundations laid by Maurice Strong. In Europe, the power of the collective over the individual nation was enshrined in the founding principles of the EEC – to avoid any repetition of the kinds of events that triggered the second world war.
Both initiatives were almost certainly intended to benefit humanity, but the unintended consequences include a steady drift towards totalitarianism and the abolition of freedoms based on choice and prosperity.
Well said, for the most part.
Your attribution of origin, to beneficent intent, is questionable.
Regardless, the monster has now stepped into the open and revealed its true nature.
And don’t forget “The League of Nations” formed after WW1. Wilson promoted it but couldn’t convince the Senate to go along. The “MSM” back then wasn’t as …centralized… in it’s reporting as it is today.
We could use more “diversity” in the MSM (and the internet “media”) today.
It seems that “diversity” today means the opposite of being free to express diverse opinions.
(I think The Bill of Rights called it something along the lines of “Freedom of the Press”?)
Actually, it’s freedom of speech. meaning anyone’s speech. The Lamestream Media WANT you to believe the First Amendment applies only to them.
You’re right of course.
I didn’t mean to imply that freedom of speech only applied to those who would decide what is allowed to be heard.
You missed the word “new.” As in “NEW Governance Arrangements” aka NWO.
Governmental perfection will eliminate the need to vote.
Chasing weather headlines at its worst. They’ve been doing it so long that no one listens anymore.
Definitely in the well, that’s not really news, but its interesting… department:
I am certain quite a few of us have noticed that “climate science goofiness” is seasonal. For example, it seems like phys.org and other sites have just been loaded to the gills with “save a tree, eat a beaver” type articles of late. How plastics need to be banned, blatantly labeling the effluent-stream of petrol and coal fueled engines as pollutants. We’ll bake unless we atone for our profligate sins. All that.
And lo, the Northern Hemisphere Summer weather is warm! As most often it is, most years. While never so cheekily banal as to just vomit up, “Its hot! Its global warming!”, the very same intent is clearly telegraphed with the uptick in climate-change, doom-and-gloom articles. Of our very near future roasting at our own hands.
Tipping points — which cannot and have not been shown to exist — are today’s bogeymen. Beware the Jabberwock, my Son. The Jaws that bite, the claws the grab; Beware the jubjub bird, and shun the infamous Bandersnatch!
TO OUR FEARLESS SITE MASTER — again it might not be terribly arresting, but perhaps we might have an article from your research team on just this observation? I’d think it shouldn’t be too hard to count professional literature citations by season, and plot ’em for say the last 10 or 20 years. If — as hypothesized — there is a strong correlation between mean temperature and the number of Sky is Falling serious, professionally submitted and run papers … well, it does kind of indict the Purveyors of Doom for coöpting Dear Old Mother Nature’s seasonal variations to their own nefarious ends.
Just asking…
GoatGuy
I believe it was the frumious Bandersnatch…but it works all the same.
And slithey toves did gyre and gimbol in the wabe…
A dose of Pepto-Bismol & an enema will sort that out !
It only takes two seconds to rubber-stamp something, but they knew that wouldn’t look good, so let it sit for 2 months for proper aging. You have to do these things properly.
There still have not figure out that they should not use the word “collective”. It’s a dead giveaway, comrade.
A letter in the AUgust edition of Geoscientist, a magazine put out by the Geological Society of London, raises the same spectre. Martin Siegert of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College wrote “The the scientific evidence for human induced climate change is irrefutable … The challenge is for us to decarbonise our global economy by around 50 years’ time.” This without a shred of evidence that CO2 causes climate change, when it clearly does not cause warming -ie the Pause, and that high CO2 levels during warm interglacials have never prevented the return of a new ice age, nor the onset of warming when CO2 levels were at their lowest.
Hmmm, religion is irrefutable, not science.
To the warmist clowns, Gerbil Worming IS their religion.
But these are “leading” scientists guys! How can you argue against leading scientists?
Bishop Hill bothered to look up the paper, should you want to bother reading it. It’s junk science at it’s worst, and apparently sailed through peer review in less than two months.
Did he actually write a review anywhere? I couldn’t find it in his blog…
There is no science in this paper. It is totally about speculation and as such should never have been published. But that is the sad state of science, or should I say Climate Science, today. Littke science, lots of ideology.