Graham Readfearn jumps the shark, goes full alarmist calling natural feedback processes “climate monsters”

Sometimes, I think journalists that work for the Guardian have mental health issues. This is one of those times. When you call natural atmospheric feedback processes (which BTW aren’t completely known and quantified yet, only modeled and in wide range of possible value) “Earth’s climate monsters” , it’s not just irresponsible journalism, it’s crazy talk.

Earth’s climate monsters could be unleashed as temperatures rise

As a UN panel prepares a report on 1.5C global warming, researchers warn of the risks of ignoring ‘feedback’ effects

his week, hundreds of scientists and government officials from more than 190 countries have been buzzing around a convention centre in the South Korean city of Incheon.

They are trying to agree on the first official release of a report – the bit called the Summary for Policymakers – that pulls together all of what’s known about how the world might be affected once global warming gets to 1.5C.

What will happen to coral reefs? How will extreme weather events and droughts change? What about heatwaves? And then, what are the different “pathways” that economies could choose to keep temperatures to 1.5C?

On Monday morning, the summary document is expected to be released, and there will be a cascade of headlines around the world.

The report, being pulled together by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was one tiny part of the Paris climate change agreement.

As things stand, if you add up all the things that the 190-plus countries have committed to do as part of that Paris deal, global temperatures will probably go well above 3C.

We’re already at 1C of warming, so the extra half a degree isn’t far away – many scientists will say it’s already locked in, while others say there are plausible ways to stabilise temperatures at that level.

But in August, one of the world’s leading scientific journals – the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – published a “perspective” article that has become known as the “hothouse earth” paper.

There was no new science in the paper and while it was speculative, it did raise fundamental questions about the ability of governments around the world to stop the Earth from spiralling into a “hothouse”.

(bold mine) Full story here (if you want to bother)

“Speculative spiraling”. Yes, surely a “monster” in the minds of journalistic snowflakes like Readfearn. Better check under the bed, as more tangible “climate monsters” like Al Gore and Rajenda Pachauri might be hiding there.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Old England
October 6, 2018 2:23 am

The Guardian -Left wing, marxist-socialist journalism at its worst -constantly pushing out the ‘progressive agenda.

The UN’s aim is to bring about the end of democratic free enterprise and industry and replace it with a quasi-marxist unelected and unaccountable world government. Climate change was invented to achieve that aim.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Old England
October 6, 2018 3:54 am

Always follow the money pipe lines the ultimate winners are always the fuellers of the pipe line.

Turning billions into trillions.

Who fuelled the mass SJW wave, and who made trillions.

China…………they stole, by being handed western industry, they fed and profit from renewables,….but most importantly became the worlds leading nuclear installer, the real money.

All the major NGO’s have offices in China, they are the pipe lines out, the fuel……..the seed money………….

Marxists love the free money, corporate salaries for student activism.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Old England
October 6, 2018 5:36 am

The Grauniad’s readership don’t necessarily support climate alarmism, either. The comment sections have for a long time been heavily censored to bias the perceived opinions. Lately they’ve just stopped allowing comments on the subject altogether.

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
October 6, 2018 11:06 am

Yes, total censorship. I complainted about it once and to my surprise they did reply. They said comments section was not journalistic content and they wanted it to be self regulating. Like WonkyPedia, they seem to have allowed it to be manned AGW zealots.

Yesterday, their climate-du-jour article said this year’s Arctic min “narrowly missed a record low”, despite it being fully 35% above the 2012 minimum. Not so close.

They continued with a quote from activist/scientist Prof. Julienne Stroeve declaring that in the last decade ice was “melting faster than it ever has previously since records began”. Referring to a loss of 50% of the summer ice since late 70s.

Stroeve does not explain how she evaluates a decade of flat trend to be greater than a loss of 50%

There’s lies, damned lies and statistics …. then there’s climate scientists.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Old England
October 6, 2018 7:46 am

My prediction is this paper will fail miserably. They underestimate their audience. This article is akin to parents threatening their children with the “bogeyman” when even the children know it is utter nonsense.

Reply to  Old England
October 6, 2018 8:47 am

Graham Readfearn didn’t just suddenly appear at The Grauniad out of thin air. He came from Desmogblog.

Reply to  Russell Cook
October 6, 2018 9:00 am

So did Washington Post ‘reporter’ Chris Mooney ( ). It’s how wacko AGW material finds a way into legacy media outlets, because people like this infiltrated those organizations. (for those unaware of it, Desmog was set up entirely to trash the credibility of skeptic climate scientists: )

Reply to  Russell Cook
October 6, 2018 11:08 am

They did not ‘infiltrate’ they were hired for their track record, after having established a record as deSmegHeads.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Russell Cook
October 6, 2018 3:36 pm

It’s a living, Graham was a journalist working for the Courier Mail in Brisbane Australia also home of that other local lad who went on to greater things:
comment image

Ron Long
October 6, 2018 2:24 am

If these experts stay at Incheon, South Korea, a little longer they may get to witness climate change first-hand. The moisture in the atmosphere will freeze into hexagonal crystals and fall out of the sky. At that point they will flee for a warmer place, like Miami Beach, where they will encounter a climate change to their liking. Paris Agreement = Show Me The Money! Keep after them, Anthony!

Reply to  Ron Long
October 6, 2018 6:28 am

“At that point they will flee for a warmer place, like Miami Beach”

Oh My Gawd, No. NoNoNo Noooooooo!
Catastrophic Sea Level Rise in at Miami Beach will get them.
They are all going to Drown. Oh The Huge Manatee!

The news from Miami Beach is totally clear. It is way Worse Than We Thought.

Reply to  TonyL
October 6, 2018 6:57 pm

Huge Manatee. Nice.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
October 6, 2018 3:11 am

Sounds like IPCC junkets can be wrapped up:

Science is settled, UN Paris agreement is done, there are no plausible ways to stabilise outside air temperature and Godzilla ended climate change world war I.

October 6, 2018 3:12 am

maybe they could do a day tour of NK and see just how “nice” lives would be if they got their wishes?
when theres mongrels pay from their own wages for the airfare and accommodation Id believe they believe and arent just skimming green cream
if that was how it worked Id bet attendance dropped to a few dozen!

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
October 6, 2018 3:28 am

The basic issue is sharing greenfund (?) of about $500 billion!!!

The adjusted data series showed a trend of 0.91 oC for the period 1951 to 2100. The global warming component is 0.455 oC [IPCC suggestions relating to starting year of global warming and share of global warming in the trend]. This is with adjusted data series. USA data, adjusted minus raw, negates this amount also. Urban heat island effect is countered by rural cold island effect on an average.

The trend is superposed with cyclic variation between -03 and +0.3 oC of 60-year cycle. This reflects the ocean component also.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
October 6, 2018 3:49 am

What exactly is rural cold island effect Dr. Reddy? Haven’t really heard that one before, especially countering Urban Heat Island Effect. Theoretically, rural should also be a little above historic temps due to land change effect, irrigation, population etc, but interested in your answer. All the rest makes sense, and sounds reasonable…not a lot to worry about overall in the scheme of things, geo-politics always notwithstanding.

Reply to  Earthling2
October 6, 2018 4:07 am

cold island

claimed negative UHI, I guess this was a very ‘Mosherian’ finding based on some advanced modelling alleged to counteract artificial artefacs in some temp series.

In their words: every time we get more data, we observe more warming.

Reply to  Earthling2
October 6, 2018 6:11 am

That is exactly Bohr’s infamous aphorism “the opposite of a great truth must be great truth also”. So the UHI must have its opposite. This irrationality can be traced to Bohr’s open Taoism on his coat of arms. As Popper wrote, Bohr’s new gospel of irrationality started at Solvay 1927. “Complementarity, is really contradictory-ness with no aleviation of reason. This stuff is rampant. No wonder Russell praised the Dao.

Reply to  bonbon
October 6, 2018 6:31 am

This irrationality
The rational being expects the expected. In reality, one must expect the unexpected.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  ferd berple
October 6, 2018 7:14 am

Are you Dalton?

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Earthling2
October 6, 2018 4:42 pm

This is the word I am using for long — in my articles and as well as in my books on climate change. With rapid changes in rural India in terms of land and water use and cover. This creates cooling effect and not warming effect. On a hot day people like to go near a water body and greenery. On a rainy day one feel uncomfortable in urban areas over rural areas. Wind is the main player.

Dry summer you get maximum temperature compared to humid monsoon season.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
October 7, 2018 3:10 pm

Isn’t that just evaporative cooling?

October 6, 2018 3:34 am

l think us climate realists should take comfort from this. Because when the left wing air-heads at the Guardian feel they need to go full on with the alarm. lts a sure sign that the cause is losing its support fast. To be honest l think this winter is going to be a turning point for the AGW cause and it will never be the same again afterwards.
l say this because the global jet stream patterning looks like it will hit the NH hard with cold weather events during the coming winter. Maybe on a scale last seen during the LIA and don’t be fooled by warming in the Arctic. That will be just a sign that there is a large scale movement of Polar air pushing south.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  taxed
October 6, 2018 4:35 am

Hope you are wrong, but i sense you are right.

Reply to  taxed
October 6, 2018 5:20 am

The bottom line and the end point is: There is a reality and there is just one version of reality. Reality is what reality is. Regardless of anyone’s opinions about what is, opinions do nothing to change what really is in any way……And, by the way, neither does politics and regulations. Governments may be able to deploy their armed forces and police and cause people to change the way they act but politicians and bureaucrats are, collectively, little more than sad, sick jokes that get played over and over.

E J Zuiderwijk
October 6, 2018 3:34 am

The monsters live only in his head. I recommend professional help.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
October 6, 2018 4:06 am

I recommend a diet similar to that enjoyed by folks of the USA prior to ~1965 or with the nutrient content and proportions similar to those of UK war-time rationing.

Coconut oil, butter and a Vitamin D supplement (1000iu daily September thro April or *every* day for office workers and folks above 55 degs latitude)

And forget what your doctor says about alcohol. As far as your brain, mind, memory and personality go, there is NO ‘Safe’ or ‘Recommended’ amount.
Same for Mary Jane.

Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
October 6, 2018 4:12 am

that’s going around.
if it isn’t the trump derangement twist, it’s climaphobia macarena.
i think it’s like a dance fad.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
October 6, 2018 5:52 am

Monsters that live in your head are real.

Monsters that live in the closet, not so much.

Monster! Come out of the closet!! Show yourself! Do you have the appearance of Heat but are secretly Cold?

I have seen this movie before, but the audience remained perched on the edges of their seats. Was it really the Climate Monster or Uncle Ed wearing a rubber Hot-Face mask?

Stay tuned to find out.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
October 6, 2018 6:42 am

“I have seen this movie before, but the audience remained perched on the edges of their seats.”

They could be Monsters from the ID

Mark Fraser
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
October 6, 2018 7:01 am

Or a monster heading for a SCOTUS seat. Just thinkin’.

Reply to  Mark Fraser
October 6, 2018 8:03 am

Ginsburg’s been on the court for a long time.

Reply to  Mark Fraser
October 6, 2018 8:23 am

They have four reliable, politically-appointed monsters on the Supreme Court now.
But two have major health problems and one of those two has severe aging issues.

Fortunately, we may get a younger, healthier man approved today.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
October 6, 2018 7:14 am

Needs to live up to his name ?
Read fear n ….

Gary Ashe
October 6, 2018 3:34 am

Almost like Sky Dragon’s.

October 6, 2018 3:39 am


Reply to  KAT
October 6, 2018 6:04 am


David Dibbell
October 6, 2018 4:02 am

I’m counting on the good monster thunderstorms to defeat the imaginary “heat-trapping” bad monster. Let’s watch for a few years and see what happens.

william Johnston
Reply to  David Dibbell
October 6, 2018 7:05 am

Haven’t you been paying attention? We don’t have a few years. The longer we wait , the worse it will be. We must act NOW! Or something.

Reply to  william Johnston
October 6, 2018 9:21 pm

When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Gary Ashe
October 6, 2018 4:04 am

The Paris agreement where about 7 countries put in trillions, and 183 other countries spend it………….. in theory, in reality a huge Marxist/globalist slush fund.

October 6, 2018 4:11 am

The Guardian used to be a Liberal (as in UK Liberal, the political party) news organization. Before Rushbridger it was still somewhat in touch with those roots. It would regularly and predictably endorse Labour at elections, but it kept reporting and comment separate and made an effort to be objective in its news coverage.

Post Rushbridger it is no longer either Liberal or a news reporting organization. Its an activist organization whose aim is to change public policies and to bring about changes in society and the world. Having failed to dislodge Corbyn, which was a project for a while, it has now swung its comment and its reporting behind him.

The classic example showing how completely this approach has taken over the paper was the Clark County affair. You may recall that it urged its readers to write to the voters of Clark County in 2004 to persuade them to back Kerry against Bush. The extent to which the editorial staff are living on another planet is shown by the fact that they actually thought this would help Kerry. In fact, the 14,00 letters it managed to get sent probably produced a furious swing to Bush there.

But we also had Snowden, the fossil fuel disinvestment campaign, Leave it in the Ground… and so on.

The changes it wants to see reflect the interests of its editorial staff and contributors. You can get a very clear idea by glancing at the Lifestyle pages. Its target audience and its main writers are youngish urban women living in the South East of the UK who seem to think solely with their feelings. Numbers are to them unknown. These are leavened with a few died in the wool Stalinists and Islamists. There are still one or two sensible voices, but for how much longer? And how do they stand it?

The activist agenda colors the news reporting both in story selection and in treatment, and its become increasingly untrustworthy as a news organization in consequence.

Its out of touch and unaccountable. A very sad decline for an organization which in living memory was known for tough minded integrity and objectivity in its reporting.

It also seems to be losing money. The characteristic hubris of the Rushbridger era, the Berliner format with the associated hugely expensive presses which were useless for anything else, so no contract printing to offset the costs, has now been dumped. Maybe that will help.

The latest move by the UK paper media set, including the Guardian, is to demand a tax on online media, which would then be funnelled back to them to enable objective, unbiased reporting and combat fake news. Orwellian, and anyway, how on earth they would implement it when so iittle of the net is UK based, heaven only knows.

Reply to  michel
October 6, 2018 11:37 am

Good summary.

You just know a cause is doomed when the Grauniad espouses it…

Phil Salmon
October 6, 2018 4:35 am

As the Wehrmacht collapsed and Russian and allied armies converged, Germany’s Na3i WW2 leadership cast about desperately for a miracle weapon to stave off inevitable defeat.

In this flail by the Guardian one senses a similar vainglorious denyal of the impending collapse of the CAGW narrative and empire. Guardian journalists comically attempting to create science about feedbacks without the faintest understanding of feedbacks in chaotic-nonlinear systems, has the smell of desperation-bravado. The irresistible armies converging on CAGW are:

– a cooling climate
– growing irrefutable evidence of beneficial CO2 enriched global greening
– recovering Arctic ice
– growing recognition that renewable energy (wind, solar etc) is an economic and technical failure.
– voters patience with “green crap” is running out fast.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Phil Salmon
October 6, 2018 5:27 am

“..cast about desperately for a miracle weapon to stave off inevitable defeat”

Well so did we. We got ours working just in time, they didn’t. When the two weapons were combined they became truly formidable.

We can do the same here. We need another Manhattan Project, to get thorium LFTR or fusion working. Once they see the first reactor start up (and we can invite their dignitaries to witness it, although of course they might refuse) they will have something to surrender to without loss of honour, because they will see that theirs is a hopeless battle.

Getting the Russians and Chinese with us on that would help.

Of course there will be a few who persist in fighting for climate action, maybe even for 40 years. In that case we’ll have to get Al Gore to go and personally convince them the war’s over.

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
October 6, 2018 9:23 am

A Manhattan crash program is exactly right – the “dignitaries” i.e. Wall Street/City of London will stop at nothing to prevent the kind of financing needed. The real fight is there as Trump is finding out about infrastructure. The inane PPP (PrivatePublicPartner) mantra from both parties is a showstopper.

RT reported that when GOP Trump voters hear D.C. wants $60billion for Africa while Trump’s program is in limbo, for “geopolitical” China bashing, there will be a riot.

So far Trump has done nothing for fusion, with all the shale oil talk.

Jimmy Haigh
October 6, 2018 4:43 am

I thought 2 degrees C was the scary number? Now it’s 1.5.

Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
October 6, 2018 8:06 am

It was. Then they discovered that there was little chance of the earth warming up by 2.0C, so they dropped the threshold.

Gary Pearsee
Reply to  MarkW
October 6, 2018 9:30 am

And they pushed the start date back from 1950 to 1850 so they could already have a degree in the bank.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  MarkW
October 6, 2018 9:43 am

And they pushed the start date back from 1950 to 1850 so they could already have a degree in the bank. This type of journalistic crescendo always occurs before the UN report is released, hoping against hope that they can infuse more hype into the report. I think IPCC has a problem on their hands this time and are not able to just push out the alarm with impunity. Trump’s withdrawal and dismantling of the CAGW stuff in US is more than just a huge blow. The entire exercise of the Grey Cardinals who cooked this up (Maurice Strong, etc.) was explicitly aiming at bringing down the USA. The EU has been in the bag basically for over a century. The “United States of Europe” was to be a counterweight to the US. (EU is likely French for Etats Unis) and elite Champagne marxbrothers like Soros have been manipulating the Euro to be stronger than the dollar, a position it has no economic status to be. With the US gone, so is their target.

October 6, 2018 4:59 am

It has been warmer as recently as the Medieval Warm Period. It was even warmer earlier in the Holocene. If the climate monsters were going to be triggered, it would have happened long ago.

Reply to  commieBob
October 6, 2018 8:07 am

Better than 90% of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than it is right now.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  MarkW
October 12, 2018 12:45 pm

And yet, no “runaway greenhouse effect” occurred from all that alleged “positive feedback” from evaporating water putting more “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. Ditto distant past climate with up to 17.5 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is now.

If it didn’t happen then, it’s not going to happen now.

Bruce Cobb
October 6, 2018 5:00 am

It’s tricky selling the Climate Boogeyman. You want to have just the right balance of fear, shaming and guilt, but also hope, pride and determination. You have to be part football coach and part drill sargeant. Tear them down, then build them up again. They’re in the fourth quarter now, and their backs are to the wall. The bases are loaded, and it’s time to take the gloves off. Time for them to hit a home run for the planet, because there is no Planet B. Now is the time to all stick together, before it all falls apart. We can do this! Rah-rah-rah!

John Bell
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 6, 2018 6:19 am

EXACTLY! Funny to watch the rhetoric change as they try new things in the mix. It is interesting for this engineer to watch the sociology of it all, the failing of the green crap, glad to see it die, but what a fortune they made from it.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  John Bell
October 6, 2018 1:26 pm

Their problem is how to exit the whole debacle gracefully and not completely lose face.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
October 6, 2018 7:44 pm

The unwinding of a huge bureaucracy with a bloated budget takes years to accomplish.
I can recall, as a young transportation engineer in the early 70’s of huge interstate design and construction departments, their inhabitants patiently waiting for retirement as their projects had been completed. This was all leftover from the previous 30 year heyday of interstate highway construction. These were both State and Federal bureaucracies with incredibly onerous policies and immense political momentum. They are still slowly shutting down to a manageable level while trying to shrug off unnecessary environmental regulations and red tape..

The slowly sinking CAGW ship of fools is no different.

October 6, 2018 5:27 am

You also have to be part journalist and part copywriter.

John Bell
October 6, 2018 5:36 am

Look at the photo of Graham R., he is just a boy, a well indoctrinated boy, a fearmonger, the UK sure has a lot of his kind.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
October 6, 2018 5:47 am

Why give this pathetic pommie whore “journalist'” any space. He has no scientific credibility whatsoever. Who knows how he managed to immigrate to Australia. We have a million more useless left wing “journalists” like him

October 6, 2018 5:54 am

Awww, he’s such a cute little marxzy marxist…..

October 6, 2018 6:20 am

Courtesy Tom Nelson’s Tweet line:
“After 6 days at the IPCC meetings and a a marathon 38 hour final negotiating session the IPCC 1.5 SR is approved! #SR15”

Courtesy Eric Worrall’s excellent article:

“n Incheon, South Korea, this week, representatives of more than 130 countries and about 50 scientists have packed into a large conference centre going over every line of an all-important report: what chance does the planet have of keeping climate change to a moderate, controllable level?”

As with previous IPCC publications, the “summary for Policymakers” is “negotiated” by political activists, not prepared by scientists.
Those fifty scientists, even if they are representing science, are not part or portion of the political negotiations, unless they are acting on political orders.

Reply to  ATheoK
October 6, 2018 8:09 am

It’s also produced first, so that the chapter authors have time to adjust the science to match the SPM.

October 6, 2018 6:25 am

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters – Goya.
comment image

October 6, 2018 6:45 am

natural atmospheric feedback processes
if the feedbacks were unstable (runaway greenhouse effect) the climate would have long ago locked into permanent hothouse or permanent ice-age.

But instead what we see is oscillation between greenhouse and ice-age, far in excess of what is predicted by Milankovitch. This suggests that climate sensitivity and feedback cannot be a constant.

Rather, at low temperatures the feedback warms the earth, but at high temperatures the feedback cools the earth, keeping the climate in a narrow enough range that life has survived on earth for more than 3 billion years.

Consider for a moment what this means. 3 billion year. Through Catastrophic changes that make global warming look like a weak joke. A fart in an elevator.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  ferd berple
October 6, 2018 8:03 am

ferd berple “Rather, at low temperatures the feedback warms the earth, but at high temperatures the feedback cools the earth, keeping the climate in a narrow enough range that life has survived on earth for more than 3 billion years.”

Is it a coincidence that these opposing feedback forces converge with the same curve as [ water content in air by temperature chart: comment image ]?

It’s a constrained ‘dynamic equilibrium’.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 6, 2018 8:37 am

Climate sensitivity to CO2 could well be a constant, and feedback also could well be a constant fraction.

It doesn’t take much in the way of multriple time delayed feedbackl paths to end up with quasi periodic chaotic fluctuations.

Reply to  ferd berple
October 6, 2018 8:44 am

ferd berple

Rather, at low temperatures the feedback warms the earth, but at high temperatures the feedback cools the earth, keeping the climate in a narrow enough range that life has survived on earth for more than 3 billion years.

Bears repeating.

All too often, people look for “feedback” or “the cause of the Little Ice Age” at the bottom of the trough of the cold part of the cycle.
They look for the “cause” of the Minoan Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period or the Medieval Warming Period at the peak of the hot spot of those cycle.

Instead, the “cause” of the warm periods is the “over-compensation” of the entire natural climate feedback process: The combination of all warming feedbacks across the low point in the climate cycle become (temporarily) greater than the sum of the negative (cooling) feedbacks. Both negative (cooling) feedbacks and positive (warming) feedbacks have always been present and been active since the peak of the last warming period.

People use the simplistic analogy of a thermostat, but that is wrong in concept and in conceit. A thermostat does sense the temperature, and a thermostat does “actively “turn off” the heater when it gets too hot. The thermostat does sense temperature as it gets too cold, and does turn on the heater the heater when the temperature gets too cold.

But the climate HAS NO thermostat. It isn’t there.

The earth’s temperature gets “too hot” and it loses “too much” heat energy (more heat energy is lost than is received).
The earth’s temperature gets “too cold” later in the cycle, and it gains “much more” heat energy than it loses to space (more heat energy is received than is lost).
But that fleeting “one minute” of equilibrium global average temperature when “energy received = energy lost”?

The earth went through that “one minute” of radiation equilibrium a long time ago and many cycles ago …. and every time it reached that mythical, classroom-lecture hall textbook steady-state thermal equilibrium with the sun’s radiation it kept going. In both directions.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  RACookPE1978
October 6, 2018 2:00 pm

The thing we dont know is what pushes the climate to get too hot or too cold. All we know that sooner or later it reverses as it has done for 4 billion years.

October 6, 2018 6:52 am

Interesting how they think they know exactly how much CO2 will cause 1.5 degrees of warming. Considering the current ECS range of 300%….

October 6, 2018 9:04 am

“We’re gonna need a bigger air-conditioner.”

October 6, 2018 9:31 am

This is a 3D animation of the 2009 sudden stratospheric warming event (SSW), where the stratospheric polar vortex was split (classic wave2 split SSW) and almost completely disintegrated. at the bottom is the 150mb geopotential height, and above is the core of the polar vortex in 3D. The data is from ECMWF ERA-Interim reanalysis dataset.
The animation was produced by our supporter and co-admin Andrej Flis ( )
comment image


John Robertson
October 6, 2018 10:14 am

With all this “extreme unprecedented weather”that these presstitutes keep singing about, I wonder what they will print when the conditions that triggered the 1926-27 Mississippi flood recur?.
The tropical depression that dropped tons of water on the Carolinas this year was an indication of what can and will happen.
If the concept that a cooling atmosphere must reduce the amount of water vapour it can carry is true, then floods may be in our immediate future.
I can just imagine the lies and omissions that will flow from these so called journalists.

October 6, 2018 10:53 am

The GUARDIAN (of stupidity) seems to love using the term, “hothouse”, incorrectly.

This word usage is probably one of the publication’s biggest exaggerations. They seem to be calling a potential 2 C rise in a fictitious statistic an adequate requirement for Earth’s becoming a … “hothouse”, which I think is about 10 or so degrees off the standard definition (or part of the standard definition).

Do they really believe that all of Earth’s ice is going to melt, given the current trends (non trends)? — I don’t think that they even know what they are talking about — they are just linking together dramatic sounding words to create eye-catching headlines to lure their hungry audience of stupid readers.

Too critical ?

Dear GUARDIAN (of stupidity), get an intellectual life.

Alan Tomalty
October 6, 2018 11:23 am

“The problem lies with “feedbacks” – in the “supplementary information” attached to the paper, Steffen and colleagues actually listed 10 of them. With each, they include estimates of how much extra CO2 and temperature they could add once you hit about 2C of global warming.

1) For example, the ability of the land and ocean to keep soaking up CO2 could weaken, giving you an extra 0.25C of warming. 2) Dieback of trees in the Amazon and subarctic could give us another 0.1C.

3) Permafrost, which is already starting to defy its name by not being all that permanent, could release ever more methane and carbon that might add a bit more warming again (0.09C is the estimate there).”

The above was quoted right from the Guardian article. Taking these points one by one.

1) Carbonate rocks contain 40000 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. The oceans have a heat capacity 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere but currently have only 22 times more heat than the atmosphere.

The land plants are soaking up more CO2 than ever, witness the 20% increase in greening of the earth in the past 30 years.

2) Dieback of trees ( I assume they mean by drought) has not occurred and there are no more droughts than there ever were. Global warming would not produce drought anyway according to the alarmist positive feedback theory of extra CO2 causing warming which then causes more water vapour. The whole theory is in any case completely false.


The 1st and 2nd urls above refer to the fact that permafrost methane release cannot be a problem.
The 3rd url refers to the fact that agriculture contributes 18% of the greenhouse gas releases. Since the 1.5 billion cows arent going to go away soon(it is a capital crime to kill a cow in India) methane itself cannot be a worry, since there wont be anything that we will do to change the amount of methane in the atmosphere.

I have written posts before on why there are no positive feedbacks in the climate system. As usual another scare story by the communist paper THE GUARDIAN.

October 6, 2018 11:39 am

Most of us know what a tsunami can do, but moving away whole (or most of) town, it is indeed something I have not seen before.
short video

October 6, 2018 2:01 pm

“Sometimes, I think journalists that work for the Guardian have mental health issues.”
Something I figured out years ago.
Notice the Guardian has become a near readers’ comment-free area.
Because if there is something the Guardian writers really, really, really cannot stand, it is the readers being able to answer back and point out how utterly ludicrous most of their articles are.
The Guardian believes it is above everyone who is not a Guardian writer–hence their effortless air of moral superiority as they talk down to us mere ignorant grovelling troglodytes. You might mistake reading most Guardian articles for the final draft of next Sunday’s church sermon the way it hectors and lectures us all as if we are all sinners, and then damns us all to purgatory.

October 6, 2018 2:09 pm

” We’re already at 1C of warming, so the extra half a degree isn’t far away ” … need a few more years to adjust the temperature….

October 6, 2018 3:37 pm

When you were little you were afraid of monsters devouring you but as you grow up not so much. Some monsters keep hanging around to remind adults what their perpetual juvenile world would be like if you let them get the better of you. It’s like this monsters. Only in your dreams are you allowed to blow up school-kiddies or drop polar bears on them off skyscrapers or the adults are coming to get you.

michael hart
October 6, 2018 6:28 pm

– the bit called the Summary for Policymakers –

I used to think that the summary for policymakers was a summary of the document written to condense the bulk of the report down to a small bite-sized thing for policymakers who were otherwise too busy, or lazy, or stupid, to wade through the full report.

Silly me.

I realized after the last IPCC report thingy number 5, that the summary for policymakers was actually the summary that the policymakers commanded the report-writers to produce. It is the summary that the policymakers want the likes of Graham Readfearn to read.

October 7, 2018 12:15 am

“Sometimes, I think journalists that work for the Guardian have mental health issues. ”

These sorts of comments are just unnecessary. Also, they’re projections. After all, what of the mental health of people who try to paint science and scientific process as being driven by conspiracy and by political leaning?

There are people with mental issues but reading the deranged comments on his blog makes it clear just who is in need of the meds.

Reply to  Donald
October 7, 2018 7:40 am

“After all, what of the mental health of people who try to paint science and scientific process as being driven by conspiracy and by political leaning?”

We don’t try and paint anything as you call your strawman. Just point it out with the evidence-
Up to the readers to draw their own conclusions about the Groupthinkers and that doesn’t necessarily imply conspiracy. Just easily led feeble minds lacking any scientific rigour and if you fill your halls of learning with them what else would you expect? The only thing I’d add is the meteoric rise of computing power has proved to be as dangerous as modern firearms in the wrong hands.

Reply to  Donald
October 7, 2018 8:08 am

Not mincing any words here either Donald-
“I was aghast to find that nothing was done to remove absurd values… the whole approach to the dataset’s create is careless and amateur, about the standard of a first-year university student.”

Reply to  Donald
October 7, 2018 10:46 am

What about the mental health of those who have to lie about what others have said in order to have something to argue against,

Pointing out the well documented conspiracies and corruption of the climate science community is not the same thing as claiming that all science is equally corrupted.

Tom Abbott
October 7, 2018 7:40 am

From the article: “We’re already at 1C of warming, so the extra half a degree isn’t far away”

Whadayamean we are already at 1C warming? Where are you counting from? Now, this very moment? Or Feb 2016, the peak of the so-called “Hottest Year Evah!”?

If you are counting Feb. 2016, as being where we are already at 1C warming above “normal”, then you have missed the mark, because, as of today, the Earth’s temperatue is 0.8C lower than Feb. 2016, so we are almost back down to “normal” according to the logic of the author.

How long do you think it will be before we revisit the high temperature of Feb. 2016? It might be a long time.

michael hart
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 7, 2018 2:37 pm

Tom, what they do is adjust the most recent temperatures up slightly, and ones from 5 to 10 years ago down, on a rolling basis.

If real temperatures remain roughly constant then this procedure can actually produce an indefinite supply of new “record” temperatures. This has already happened with the record HadCRUT temperatures of 1998 and 2010. They were the new records in their day but later got adjusted down again to make room for the next record temperature. In due course the record temp of Feb 2016 will also be adjusted down. For a crooked scientist this is one of the advantages of quoting temperature anomalies rather than real absolute temperatures: the casual observer is less likley to notice what they are doing.

Of course some purportedly rational justification will be produced but, like with government adjustments of employment data, they conveniently seem to produce the desired result far too often.

Jim Whelan
October 7, 2018 12:12 pm

” researchers warn of the risks of ignoring ‘feedback’ effects”

What risk is that? The alarmists aren’t ignoring any positive feedback, they even make them up. What they ignore is the negative feedback which mitigates warming.

Percy Jackson
October 7, 2018 1:07 pm

I sometime wonder if anyone here actually reads the linked article before deciding to
trash it. For example from the article itself:
“Dr Glen Peters, an Australian scientist and climate modeller based at the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway, also thought some of the media coverage went too far with the doomsday vibe.”
“The paper has received a bit of pushback from scientists, largely, it appears, because of the sensational headlines it attracted.”

In other words the article makes the point that people here are making namely that the “hothouse earth” paper is not regarded as being credible and was overhyped by the media.

October 7, 2018 11:23 pm

When there have been earlier scare campaigns, the remaining sting in the tail that needs destruction is the laws and regulations passed during the sting.
Here, for example, is a list of them that entered the USA law books consequent upon the scare that predicted an epidemic of cancers caused by man0made chemicals roughly 1970-1985. This from ‘The Apocalyptics’ by Edith Efron, essential reading for all who follow events about global earming etc. Geoff

%d bloggers like this: