IPCC and the refusal to acknowledge the importance of impending methane release.

IPCC is wrong.

Just now I heard on bbc r4 ‘Inside Science’ an interview with Phil Williamson  from Univ East Anglia ie https://people.uea.ac.uk/p_williamson   … concerning the latest report from the IPCC in which impending methane release is given very low priority. This is utterly baffling, quite erroneous and I think the placative ‘one metre by the end of the century’ to be shameful in its misleading nature.

There will not be any  ‘end of century’ to witness I am afraid.

Most of what was said I disagreed with from Phil Williamson, for instance stating that coral reefs could re-generate in fifteen years is utter nonsense, yet again no mention of the bryozoan / diatom symbiosis. Diatoms factor into so many perspectives of what we are going through. I may be wrong, merely an interested layman here. However to quote myself …

Diatoms also live a symbiotic relationship with Bryozoans ie the coloured animals that create and live in coral reefs. It is a dire irony that consuming the oil and gas of ancient diatoms ie comprising 70% of the oil and gas industry has led to both their own and our demise. No-one has ever seen a diatom with the naked eye.
diatoms – climate-change-briefing
climate-change-briefing.com/category/diatoms/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/micropolitan/marine/algae/index.html

I would have thought last years IPCC Annual Report in which low importance was given to impending methane release (ie thawing permafrost cap releasing already formed methane gas, rapidly rising microbial activity and thawing methane calthrates; both from land and from the horribly shallow East Siberian ice shelf )  would have now been aligned with enlightened thinking but no, its been swept under the carpet yet again by the IPCC and its select band of contributors. In addition Phils endeavour to constantly massage downward the numbers to 1.5 from 2.0 degrees warming is taking things too far, as dangerous as any over-exaggeration, in my opinion from what I read of other scientists 2 deg C will soon come and go, to be overshot rapidly.

Why is it Prof Peter Wadhams was not interviewed, he knows ice, a lifetimes work.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-ice-peter-wadhams-review-climate-change

Its the nature of nature to ramp and accelerate as outside influences ie mans fossil fuel greed and polluting activities come home to roost. ‘Ye reap as ye shall sow’ seems appropriate. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Reap-What-You-Sow/

Sorry to get Biblical but maybe its an ‘endtimes prompt’ because after all as time trundles on what else shall we cling to, occupy our time?

 

 

Work in progress, more info on IPCC obfuscation as info is obtained, merely the opinion of an interested layman.

A few hours later and bbc r4 again broadcasts the radio programme ‘Inside Science’ from five hours previously. Never before have I been so glad of a quick repeat. I feel sorry for Phil Williamson, I can hear in his voice the tension between what the IPCC expects and his own self worth and integrity; he invites others to reach their own conclusions, this I applaud. This also highlights the IPCC to focus on published papers where in fact change is happening SO FAST that published and peer reviewed papers have a self defeating time lag that we now need to circumvent, a view I’ve held since I first latched on to climate change a couple of years ago. Therefore the best we can be sure of is to listen to the likes of Peter Wadhams and for instance Jason Box and Natalia Shakhova.

https://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/blogs/99-russian-scientists-excluded-from-presenting-important-research-as-nasa-goddard-director-tries-to-discredit-observational-scientific-research

From the above I quote …

The event, held a fortnight ago, is still causing controversy beyond the negative tweeting by NASA Goddard Director, Dr Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt aimed his presentation at discrediting the Russian’s work, using theoretical models, without expertise in methane, or credible data. The end result is that the Russian team have composed a letter to Royal Society President, Sir Paul Nurse, asking for an opportunity to present their findings, including contributions from over 30 scientists working in the region for over 20 years.

end of quote.

Also,

https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2017/06/interview-by-nick-breeze-with-dr.html

How the Arctic climate drama runs its course

And …

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/ipcc-sea-level-rise-report/598765/

 

The ‘main man’ Sam Carana reports on the limp kow-towing IPCC Report and informs us that the IPCC doesn’t even add in methane from the submerged East Siberian ice-shelf ie what will be a quick warming and vast release of methane from less than 50m of underwater thaw; this beggars belief. http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/09/ipcc-report-ocean-and-cryosphere-in-a-changing-climate.html

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s