Thanks for the feedback Byron. Yes a lot of us who spend time with these problems are coming to similar conclusions. I like the acronym! Than you for the FB invites but I’ve been stepping back from FB/Messenger etc so I will respectfully decline. I’m still in a couple of groups but spend less time in them and tend to focus on Twitter for climate messaging/info etc from some reliable sources on there (they still exist amidst all the madness). Feel free to share wherever you like though of course. Best to you.
One difficulty is that scientists are not trained to communicate with the public. It’s not their skill set. Take, for example, the ‘Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report ― Summary for Policymakers’. This critically important documents starts with a listing of the names of the Core Writing Team. Only when we get to the tenth page does the summary actually say anything about the climate.
At this point we should expect to see a statement such as, ‘The World Is On Fire!’. In fact, paragraph A.1 contains 70 words and is at a the 16.9th grade reading level. (High schools in the U.S. stop at the 12th grade.) The entire first page is at the 13th grade level, and contains five dense-text footnotes.
I follow climate issues, but I have never read an IPCC report ― they are much too challenging.
Communication has to come through movies such as ‘Don’t Look Up’.
Partly agree. If anything scientists ARE thoroughly trained to communicate - but only with each other in impenetrable, to most people, jargon. I agree about the ludicrous IPCC ‘summaries’ which are supposed to be written in accessible language - I can understand these due to my own post-graduate qualifications but without them I would be switched off for sure. What is most frustrating is that climate science - and certainly the basics of what’s happening with climate change - is not actually that complicated and is definitely capable of being ‘translated’ into words everyone can understand. I don’t agree the arts are the answer although they can help. Scientists themselves have an ethical responsibility to get a grip on this massive problem. If you’re interested in more detail from me on this - I look more closely at the reasons why this is the case in the IPCC and the Faster Than Expected pieces also posted here.
"For those people who do not know what is going to happen in the next few years, the vast majority of filthy rich Republicans have built underground shelters stocked with food and water as well as lots of alcohol to party with. They do not intend to stay underground for long, as they plan on using Nuclear Weapons to blast Dirt, Dust and Sulfur from dormant volcanoes at high latitudes such as from the Aleutian Islands and mainland Alaska. I have never heard of any mention of Russian Volcanoes. I have been told by others that volcanos at the southern tip of South America may also be used.
The Dirt, Dust and Sulfur will create a nuclear winter that will last 14 to 16 months, last I heard. The Rich will come out of their shelters anytime during the Nuclear Winter, though it would be best to stay underground for at least a few days after the modern Nuclear Bomb Blasts in the dormant volcanoes. Since the modern Nukes are Fusion weapons as opposed to mainly Fission weapons as tested and used during and after WWII, the radiation intensity should be abated within a week or so.
Meanwhile, the people who do not have shelters will gradually die from the cold and the Republican goal of reducing global population to below half a billion as specified on the Georgia Guidestones (Preferably less than 300 million people as the Rich Republicans now tell me) will become a reality.
When the Nuclear Winter wanes, green life will start growing abundantly. The tremendous Green Growth will suck a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Since factories will not be in operation CO2 generation from industry will be a thing of memory. With Billions of people and animals gone, the release of CO2 from animals will also greatly decrease. The Nuclear Winter will have slowed down the release of methane from the melting permafrost. With CO2 decreasing and Methane slowing in its release rate from the permafrost, the climate will come back down to temperatures that were common 20 years ago.
Slowly, temperatures will go down to levels from a century ago. No factories and few people and large animal herds will be gone. If you are a Rich Republican you will rejoice at your good fortune. If you are not rich but alive, the Republicans might enslave you for manual labor, but do not expect any favors. You will just be slave labor and expendable at any time."?
Thank you for your supportive feedback. I am trying to model to the scientists that it is possible to talk about all this in accessible language. Many people I know are put off by the jargon and complicated academic debate. That is the language of academia but given the significance some of them could try harder to translate imho.
The issue is not that the climate scientists or CIMP6 could not predict / project 2023 climate results – the serious problem is these “supremely authoritative” climate scientists (who ridicule everyone else for being ignorant or stupid) cannot even explain it after the event. Same as they were utterly clueless for years over the supposed “haitus”!
Same as this ridiculous illogical seriously flawed notion of remaining under +1.5C at 2050 and at 2100 as recommended as being possible by the IPCC and where they also promoted achieving Net Zero emissions by 2050 is possible and yet here we are barely years away from permanently breaking thru that +1.5C barrier rapidly heading towards breaching the +2c as well in the early 2040s.
It is not even 10 years since this +1.5C goal was agreed to and already it is shot to pieces. What good are they? What good is the IPCC and their constant failures. These ideas were flawed and unachievable the day they were recommended by the IPCC scientists. The term incompetent does not even begin to accurately describe the almost complete absence of reliability and professional performance of traditional / celebrity climate scientists to date.
If what they say about CMIP6 is correct when those were ‘established’ pre-2020 then none of them are useful today imo. All are outdated by the time they were completed and published. They cannot say ocean shipping aerosol changes since 2020 have no effect because they do. The same as clouds and ice albedo has an effect. Everything has an effect — you cannot simply choose to ignore one or all of them. ( well actually you can, because this is what the science actually does. )
It is precisely why Gavin Schmidt admits on video [ https://youtu.be/CHJKKsOHtAk?si=Ets_1zgI3IqcS_AU&t=272 ] he has no idea why 2023 was a surprising spectacular year warming wise. That is because the “climate science” cannot advise him. So he has no idea at all. None. Can anyone imagine if Gavin and not James Hansen was the NASA-GISS director back in 1988 and how even worse our situation could be?
Meanwhile, new paper after paper is ignored and minimized 'as not good enough' by the Traditionalists and Celebrities who claim Authority to them and none to everyone else despite how clueless they actually are to answer any basic question.
"So let’s whine and moan about Willy Soon and Roy Spencer instead – it’ll make us look better than we actually are ourselves?" This seems to be their thinking.
Less aerosols and less clouds with slightly more atmos. water content and more insolation with several years of adding cumulative OHC, higher EEI, with less Ice in a warming world plus an El Nina in place logically delivers what exactly in 2023 and early 2024?
Certainly not a 1970s global climate. But James Hansen is an extremist unscientific outlier who has lost his marbles and should be ignored – and he is ignored as are all who identify with his scientific work!
Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming
Logic, reason and recognizing fallacies isn’t rocket science. People who say they do not know – and prove they do not know – do not know!
Carl Sagan, renowned astrophysicist and science communicator, emphasized the importance of logic, reason, and critical thinking in science. While he may not have spoken specifically about fallacies in climate science, his general views on skepticism and scientific inquiry are relevant to this topic.
Sagan often stressed the need for skepticism as a cornerstone of scientific thinking. He encouraged people to question ideas and hypotheses, to seek evidence and logical explanations, and to be open to changing their views based on new evidence.
In his book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” Sagan discussed the dangers of pseudoscience and the importance of critical thinking in evaluating claims about the natural world.
Regarding fallacies, Sagan likely would have advocated for scientists and the public to be aware of common logical fallacies, such as appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and false dichotomies, and to avoid them in scientific discourse. He would have likely emphasized the need for clear, logical reasoning based on evidence and data in all scientific investigations, including those related to climate science.
Hi Sean. We’re definitely on the same page. I’ve written about the scientists in my other pieces. Not suggesting you have to read these! But if you get the chance you will see I’ve tried to articulate much of what you say here. It’s a crazy situation that’s for sure. I don’t pretend to be an expert but I have enough education to understand the science and therefore to critique the communications of (most) climate scientists and especially the IPCC - it is truly amazing (and not in a good way) how little of this happens, as you clearly appreciate. Best to you too.
Wow exactly the points I’ve been talking about when I see denial. Can I please post this on my two groups, Extinction Education and Extinction Witnesses.. or, would you consider joining either of them.. I have put together an acronym. STEPS to describe why it is too late for humans to do anything to stop their extinction.. S is Science. Does the suggestion ‘break’ the laws of physics. T is Time. There’s not enough Time remaking. E is Economic. Does the fix it idea depend on a functioning economic system as we head into a deep depression? P is Political will. That’s evidently not going to happen.. S is Scalability. How many perpetual motion machines would have to be manufactured?
Yes - this looks like it refers to Earth Energy Imbalance EEI - Hansen talks about this. It’s a much better indicator than global average temperature of what’s actually happening and how fast.
This is an excellent overview article on the Current Climate-Change Calamity Circus.
I'll simply add two El Niño observations:
The cooling effect of El Niña stores Heat in a way that, in addition to providing a temporary false sense of security, can be ¹damaging, and be used to our ²advantage:
¹ — as El Niño releases stored El Niña Heat, he can anticipate Tipping-Points, that don't reverse as El Niña returns!
² — regions of El Niño, and El Niña, regular Rainfall, should be all-out used for Afforestation purposes! (with tree saplings, with Acanthus Mollis based Afforestation, and AM based Food-Forests)
Because in-between years of irregular rainfall seasons are killing tree saplings during their Summer months!
(Especially when, in my humble 30 years of Afforestation experience, I doubt if we'll be able to take advantage of El Niño beyond two more times!
Unless of course we can sow sufficient Eternal Acanthus Mollis Scalable sowing-simple self-managing Photosynthesis Mass fast enough to gain Time.)
'“It’s not like we’re breaking records by a little bit now and then,” Brian McNoldy, a hurricane researcher at the University of Miami, said. “It’s like the whole climate just fast-forwarded by fifty or a hundred years. That’s how strange this looks.” It’s estimated that in 2023 the heat content in the upper two thousand metres of the oceans increased by at least nine zettajoules. For comparison’s sake, the world’s annual energy consumption amounts to about 0.6 zettajoules. '?
Yes indeed. That ‘fast-forward’ comment is consistent with the ‘uncharted waters’ line and much else - what they don’t admit is how what’s happening now demonstrates just how hopelessly-inadequate the ‘models’ are. It’s not about admitting they are wrong, obviously no-one would care if this was just an academic thing - it’s about the fact these models inform all our ‘net-zero’ plans so we are in incredibly deep sh*t and doing nothing meaningful at all about it. We/they need to abandon bl**dy long-term modelling and all the absurdly-high standards of academic ‘proof’ they hold themselves to - and engage with reality.
Thanks for the feedback Byron. Yes a lot of us who spend time with these problems are coming to similar conclusions. I like the acronym! Than you for the FB invites but I’ve been stepping back from FB/Messenger etc so I will respectfully decline. I’m still in a couple of groups but spend less time in them and tend to focus on Twitter for climate messaging/info etc from some reliable sources on there (they still exist amidst all the madness). Feel free to share wherever you like though of course. Best to you.
One difficulty is that scientists are not trained to communicate with the public. It’s not their skill set. Take, for example, the ‘Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report ― Summary for Policymakers’. This critically important documents starts with a listing of the names of the Core Writing Team. Only when we get to the tenth page does the summary actually say anything about the climate.
At this point we should expect to see a statement such as, ‘The World Is On Fire!’. In fact, paragraph A.1 contains 70 words and is at a the 16.9th grade reading level. (High schools in the U.S. stop at the 12th grade.) The entire first page is at the 13th grade level, and contains five dense-text footnotes.
I follow climate issues, but I have never read an IPCC report ― they are much too challenging.
Communication has to come through movies such as ‘Don’t Look Up’.
Partly agree. If anything scientists ARE thoroughly trained to communicate - but only with each other in impenetrable, to most people, jargon. I agree about the ludicrous IPCC ‘summaries’ which are supposed to be written in accessible language - I can understand these due to my own post-graduate qualifications but without them I would be switched off for sure. What is most frustrating is that climate science - and certainly the basics of what’s happening with climate change - is not actually that complicated and is definitely capable of being ‘translated’ into words everyone can understand. I don’t agree the arts are the answer although they can help. Scientists themselves have an ethical responsibility to get a grip on this massive problem. If you’re interested in more detail from me on this - I look more closely at the reasons why this is the case in the IPCC and the Faster Than Expected pieces also posted here.
"‘Hail Mary’ geo-engineering project"
"For those people who do not know what is going to happen in the next few years, the vast majority of filthy rich Republicans have built underground shelters stocked with food and water as well as lots of alcohol to party with. They do not intend to stay underground for long, as they plan on using Nuclear Weapons to blast Dirt, Dust and Sulfur from dormant volcanoes at high latitudes such as from the Aleutian Islands and mainland Alaska. I have never heard of any mention of Russian Volcanoes. I have been told by others that volcanos at the southern tip of South America may also be used.
The Dirt, Dust and Sulfur will create a nuclear winter that will last 14 to 16 months, last I heard. The Rich will come out of their shelters anytime during the Nuclear Winter, though it would be best to stay underground for at least a few days after the modern Nuclear Bomb Blasts in the dormant volcanoes. Since the modern Nukes are Fusion weapons as opposed to mainly Fission weapons as tested and used during and after WWII, the radiation intensity should be abated within a week or so.
Meanwhile, the people who do not have shelters will gradually die from the cold and the Republican goal of reducing global population to below half a billion as specified on the Georgia Guidestones (Preferably less than 300 million people as the Rich Republicans now tell me) will become a reality.
When the Nuclear Winter wanes, green life will start growing abundantly. The tremendous Green Growth will suck a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Since factories will not be in operation CO2 generation from industry will be a thing of memory. With Billions of people and animals gone, the release of CO2 from animals will also greatly decrease. The Nuclear Winter will have slowed down the release of methane from the melting permafrost. With CO2 decreasing and Methane slowing in its release rate from the permafrost, the climate will come back down to temperatures that were common 20 years ago.
Slowly, temperatures will go down to levels from a century ago. No factories and few people and large animal herds will be gone. If you are a Rich Republican you will rejoice at your good fortune. If you are not rich but alive, the Republicans might enslave you for manual labor, but do not expect any favors. You will just be slave labor and expendable at any time."?
https://www.facebook.com/JoseBarbaNueva/posts/pfbid031WG4FwxvvKSbH6dCHbAzLuQDA9xMVMcKTMS77MJmHGWnjPPXkBGAzPSfpYRCzpA2l
Thank you. Brilliant work. A credit to you. It's like you've read my mind.
100% agree with everything you said and how you said it Jackson!
Thank you for your supportive feedback. I am trying to model to the scientists that it is possible to talk about all this in accessible language. Many people I know are put off by the jargon and complicated academic debate. That is the language of academia but given the significance some of them could try harder to translate imho.
fwiw a missive-
The issue is not that the climate scientists or CIMP6 could not predict / project 2023 climate results – the serious problem is these “supremely authoritative” climate scientists (who ridicule everyone else for being ignorant or stupid) cannot even explain it after the event. Same as they were utterly clueless for years over the supposed “haitus”!
Same as this ridiculous illogical seriously flawed notion of remaining under +1.5C at 2050 and at 2100 as recommended as being possible by the IPCC and where they also promoted achieving Net Zero emissions by 2050 is possible and yet here we are barely years away from permanently breaking thru that +1.5C barrier rapidly heading towards breaching the +2c as well in the early 2040s.
It is not even 10 years since this +1.5C goal was agreed to and already it is shot to pieces. What good are they? What good is the IPCC and their constant failures. These ideas were flawed and unachievable the day they were recommended by the IPCC scientists. The term incompetent does not even begin to accurately describe the almost complete absence of reliability and professional performance of traditional / celebrity climate scientists to date.
If what they say about CMIP6 is correct when those were ‘established’ pre-2020 then none of them are useful today imo. All are outdated by the time they were completed and published. They cannot say ocean shipping aerosol changes since 2020 have no effect because they do. The same as clouds and ice albedo has an effect. Everything has an effect — you cannot simply choose to ignore one or all of them. ( well actually you can, because this is what the science actually does. )
It is precisely why Gavin Schmidt admits on video [ https://youtu.be/CHJKKsOHtAk?si=Ets_1zgI3IqcS_AU&t=272 ] he has no idea why 2023 was a surprising spectacular year warming wise. That is because the “climate science” cannot advise him. So he has no idea at all. None. Can anyone imagine if Gavin and not James Hansen was the NASA-GISS director back in 1988 and how even worse our situation could be?
Meanwhile, new paper after paper is ignored and minimized 'as not good enough' by the Traditionalists and Celebrities who claim Authority to them and none to everyone else despite how clueless they actually are to answer any basic question.
"So let’s whine and moan about Willy Soon and Roy Spencer instead – it’ll make us look better than we actually are ourselves?" This seems to be their thinking.
Less aerosols and less clouds with slightly more atmos. water content and more insolation with several years of adding cumulative OHC, higher EEI, with less Ice in a warming world plus an El Nina in place logically delivers what exactly in 2023 and early 2024?
Certainly not a 1970s global climate. But James Hansen is an extremist unscientific outlier who has lost his marbles and should be ignored – and he is ignored as are all who identify with his scientific work!
Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2026290118
Logic, reason and recognizing fallacies isn’t rocket science. People who say they do not know – and prove they do not know – do not know!
Carl Sagan, renowned astrophysicist and science communicator, emphasized the importance of logic, reason, and critical thinking in science. While he may not have spoken specifically about fallacies in climate science, his general views on skepticism and scientific inquiry are relevant to this topic.
Sagan often stressed the need for skepticism as a cornerstone of scientific thinking. He encouraged people to question ideas and hypotheses, to seek evidence and logical explanations, and to be open to changing their views based on new evidence.
In his book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” Sagan discussed the dangers of pseudoscience and the importance of critical thinking in evaluating claims about the natural world.
Regarding fallacies, Sagan likely would have advocated for scientists and the public to be aware of common logical fallacies, such as appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and false dichotomies, and to avoid them in scientific discourse. He would have likely emphasized the need for clear, logical reasoning based on evidence and data in all scientific investigations, including those related to climate science.
Best to you. Thanks.
Hi Sean. We’re definitely on the same page. I’ve written about the scientists in my other pieces. Not suggesting you have to read these! But if you get the chance you will see I’ve tried to articulate much of what you say here. It’s a crazy situation that’s for sure. I don’t pretend to be an expert but I have enough education to understand the science and therefore to critique the communications of (most) climate scientists and especially the IPCC - it is truly amazing (and not in a good way) how little of this happens, as you clearly appreciate. Best to you too.
Wow exactly the points I’ve been talking about when I see denial. Can I please post this on my two groups, Extinction Education and Extinction Witnesses.. or, would you consider joining either of them.. I have put together an acronym. STEPS to describe why it is too late for humans to do anything to stop their extinction.. S is Science. Does the suggestion ‘break’ the laws of physics. T is Time. There’s not enough Time remaking. E is Economic. Does the fix it idea depend on a functioning economic system as we head into a deep depression? P is Political will. That’s evidently not going to happen.. S is Scalability. How many perpetual motion machines would have to be manufactured?
“22:31 in the reality there's the there's much more sunlight being absorbed than the models assume which causes much more
22:39 heat accumulating in the system than the models assume but even the lead author hasn't
22:46 published has hasn't written about this and and shared this with the media so nobody knows about this right
22:53 so it's and and people are still ignorant about it “?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq34Xn4CZnI
Yes - this looks like it refers to Earth Energy Imbalance EEI - Hansen talks about this. It’s a much better indicator than global average temperature of what’s actually happening and how fast.
This is an excellent overview article on the Current Climate-Change Calamity Circus.
I'll simply add two El Niño observations:
The cooling effect of El Niña stores Heat in a way that, in addition to providing a temporary false sense of security, can be ¹damaging, and be used to our ²advantage:
¹ — as El Niño releases stored El Niña Heat, he can anticipate Tipping-Points, that don't reverse as El Niña returns!
² — regions of El Niño, and El Niña, regular Rainfall, should be all-out used for Afforestation purposes! (with tree saplings, with Acanthus Mollis based Afforestation, and AM based Food-Forests)
Because in-between years of irregular rainfall seasons are killing tree saplings during their Summer months!
(Especially when, in my humble 30 years of Afforestation experience, I doubt if we'll be able to take advantage of El Niño beyond two more times!
Unless of course we can sow sufficient Eternal Acanthus Mollis Scalable sowing-simple self-managing Photosynthesis Mass fast enough to gain Time.)
Thanks for the positive feedback - and for the interesting professionally-informed detail about afforestation
'“It’s not like we’re breaking records by a little bit now and then,” Brian McNoldy, a hurricane researcher at the University of Miami, said. “It’s like the whole climate just fast-forwarded by fifty or a hundred years. That’s how strange this looks.” It’s estimated that in 2023 the heat content in the upper two thousand metres of the oceans increased by at least nine zettajoules. For comparison’s sake, the world’s annual energy consumption amounts to about 0.6 zettajoules. '?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-is-the-sea-so-hot
Yes indeed. That ‘fast-forward’ comment is consistent with the ‘uncharted waters’ line and much else - what they don’t admit is how what’s happening now demonstrates just how hopelessly-inadequate the ‘models’ are. It’s not about admitting they are wrong, obviously no-one would care if this was just an academic thing - it’s about the fact these models inform all our ‘net-zero’ plans so we are in incredibly deep sh*t and doing nothing meaningful at all about it. We/they need to abandon bl**dy long-term modelling and all the absurdly-high standards of academic ‘proof’ they hold themselves to - and engage with reality.