'Every indicator is flashing red,' says UN as it warns of record 'climate imbalance'
The Earth is close to breaching the key warming threshold of 1.5C - beyond which increasingly severe and compounding climate impacts are triggered.
The Earth's climate is in a "state of emergency", according to the United Nations which has warned it is more out of balance than at any other time in observed history.
Forget wars, death, destruction and grotesque political incompetence, the real threat is made up numbers.
15 comments:
I am going to maintain a stiff upper lip. Even in the face of such an unprecedented crisis I will be maintaining some dignity.
A proper Englishman can take a 1.5 degree increase in temperature without resorting to hysteria.
Mike - good show, we stout-hearted chaps can take it without turning a hair.
Out of balance eh? I wonder how they determined what was in balance?
The 1.5C (and 2.0C) limits have no scientific basis, and were chosen purely to give the alarmists something to bang on about...
Tammly - it's weird how they don't even check their own language for obvious silliness.
Dave - yes, invented as something to bang on about and made close enough to bang on about it. As useful as a nine pound note.
Under the beach at St Bees in Cumbria lies the remains of the petrified Forest of Copeland. It is occasionally uncovered by a combination of high tide,very rough weather,and a strong southerly current. In all the years I lived in St Bees I saw it only once. Apparently the remains are from many thousands of years ago beginning just after the last Ice age and before man turned up to start cultivating the land. A totally natural process in forming the landscape as it changed after the ice melted .I have no doubt that it was really caused by all those stone age men lighting wood fires to cook Mammoth steaks.
I mean, just what are they trying to pull, inventing scenarios which are called out? Ethical is not the word for them.
John - yes, it's so ludicrous when we look back at natural changes which were vastly more significant than the trivia we are supposed to worry about. Ironically they are interested in banning wood fires for yet another made up reason.
James - disgusting is the word for them, but we become so used to the lies that even blatant lying can seem less than disgusting at times.
Meanwhile, retreating glaciers have revealed tree-stumps at high altitudes where no trees now grow, showing that the climate there was suitable for forests not that long ago - perhaps during the MWP. Needless to say there's no mention of this in the MSM or the BBC.
The real reason of course is that they haven't yet worked out how to tax logs or shut down your woodstove remotely.
Peter - yet it's interesting and informative, but even that can be bad in their hopelessly subverted world.
Anon - they may look at some kind of annual woodstove certification, nothing is off the table for totalitarian loons.
It would really be helpful (and revealing) if we had a common view of timescales. We have daily weather, quarterly seasons, and then 'climate'. Some argue that climate is timed as a period of 30 years (possibly assuming that 'living memory' is reliable) .
And yet we have wider variations over hundreds of years (e.g. the 'Little Ice Age') or rather more for full on Ice Ages. How can anyone form a proper view of 'climate change' if you don't agree on the timescales that are appropriate?
It makes you wonder if all the 'crises', 'emergencies', 'wettest period in recorded history' are just unbounded rhetoric to persuade people.
And the rhetoric is beginning to wear thin.
DJ - one of the most interesting single sentence demolitions of the climate game I ever came across was -
"The climate changes on all timescales."
I think it was a geologist who came up with this, but he was essentially saying that it cannot ever be legitimate to choose a timescale and claim that it accurately reflects any other timescale, from years to millions of years.
Perhaps climate is 'fractal'? So climate appears chaotic, but is actually composed of many competing elements of changing sizes. In which case asserting climate is driven by a few major elements is a failure to realise that 'the model' is not modelling the circumstances properly.
The assertion that the climate may be simply modelled is not science, but rhetoric.
DJ - yes, locking in CO2 as the lone global climate driver was scientifically absurd as it requires the endless denial of other drivers however interesting and potentially important they turn out to be.
Post a Comment