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.
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 ( https://twitter.com/Recretos )
https://youtu.be/bminxfVGa5w
Reply
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.
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.
“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.
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/
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.
3) https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/natural-methane-time-bomb-unlikely-wreak-climate-havoc
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-gas-hydrate-breakdown-massive-greenhouse.html
https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2
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.
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
“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.
” 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….
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.
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.
“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.
“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-
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/04/sting-how-fake-science-garbage-gets-published-in-peer-reviewed-journals/
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.
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.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/
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.
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.
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.
” 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.
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.”
or
“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.
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
http://www.geoffstuff.com/apoc_acts.jpg