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

 

 

 

Climate change… a worthwhile hour.

I would normally never cope with / tolerate / be bothered with an hour long vid but this treatment is most worthwhile. Its a good vid and needs to be required viewing for many many people on this planet.

For instance telling us…

… 03:35 Arctic temp rise is now six times faster than global average not times two as per outdated IPCC presentations.

… of the ‘stiffs’ at the IPCC I mean non-functioning bods (it was a charade actually) that as we are told are twenty years behind the times ie current thinking at 05:20

IPCC = a misleading impression. These two men will tell you the IPCC is laughable, a joke amongst the Climate Community. Twenty years behind the time.

*What I’ll do in the next day or so is work up the salient points into a buletted list, hour long vids as much as they are welcomed are difficult to fit in to my schedule and need to get lots done.

 

What can we do about general media, Fox News and other such unthinking yet biased populist nonsense?  Realise that my own interest of chemtrails has been so entangled unfortunately deliberately with nonsense theories that its v difficult to get the average person to take on board that aircraft trails in the sky warrant a suspicious eye. For newbies : some trails stay around and haze yet oldtime conventional trails merely evaporate, turn to nothing.  So what is going on when we get hazy obscured skies ? Please think, please question.

Fox are clever, they medicate their product with a reinforcing populist viewpoint that is engineered / premeditated to draw viewers to their bosom. Its all agenda, increasingly is so, to be on message, to promote a viewpoint. Choice is often now not to learn but to receive reinforcemnt of ones own viewpoint. Retro retarded bigots just love it …..

Rates of change and alterations are expotential, ie not a linear response. This is the quite frightening interconnectedness of the climate system on the planet ie jet stream, arctic temperature, water temps and movements and leads to methane release which will sky rocket the whole system onto another more horrible level. My loose terms here are intentional using ‘horrible’ meaning theres nothing we can do, the numbers self reinforce and all egg each other on into an unknown scenario ad infinitum. Think of crop failure, altered rain pattern, the limit of human sufferance due to heat (hence trump and his need of a wall indicating he does recognise climate change) … loss of human cognisance, reasoning and will, unable to function … or question.