BBC Climate Coverage, Then and Now
July 25, 2018
Leo Hickman tweets a comparison between BBC climate coverage in 2018, and 2008.
A number of Brits, including skeptics, have made the connection between this summer’s extreme heat, and the severe heatwave of 1976.
The Guardian published a comparative global temp graph, showing the marked difference, globally, between then and now.
Below, Newsnight from 2008. Climate scientist placed as an equal with denialist shill.
Below, if you have not seen, an evaluation of James Hansen’s predictions from 1988 – now being played out.
Advertisements
July 25, 2018 at 10:24 am
Wonderful! We have made some progress since 2008! Maybe by 2028 we will have REALLY come to accept the reality of AGW and decided to DO something meaningful about it.
Fast forward ten years. Whooops!!! Too late! Several tipping points will have been reached by then and runaway positive feedback will be occurring. Ah well, at least we talked about it for decades before it happened. Hansen even got it right 30 freaking years ago but no one listened.
And has anyone done the math re: A $100/ton carbon tax? Burning one gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO2—-burning 50 gallons yields one ton of CO2—-$100 tax on one ton = $2 tax per gallon.
Have no fear though—-Jeffy4Z will keep ranting about how we must save ourselves by a massive political uprising and overturning of the system—-perhaps he will start setting aside $2. for every gallon of gas he burns to set a good example for the rest of us?.
July 25, 2018 at 4:42 pm
Without particularly disagreeing with your main point, I point out your math is wrong. It is a neat $1 per gallon.
July 25, 2018 at 7:54 pm
It’s not wrong if there are only 1000 pounds in a ton. LOL
July 31, 2018 at 9:56 am
Comes from not obeying the metric system…
July 25, 2018 at 11:24 am
The Beeb is slipping, having to stay somewhat on side with the Government at this time.
A recent AMOC paper they wrote about and didn’t fact check.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44875508
Rahmstorf and Mann are not impressed.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/07/does-a-slow-amoc-increase-the-rate-of-global-warming/
They do point out it is chock full of holes and based on premises that have been demonstrated incorrect plus misrepresenting previous research.
Not a good look that the BBC publishes it as fact without even a simple fact check and crosscheck of references quoted
What the BEEB published was the paper that claimed current warming is due to slowing of the AMOC and that will last another 20 years, without fact checking or getting expert advice
July 26, 2018 at 4:04 am
Also the usually excellent Climate News Network has given the “study” credence.
Nature may explain North Atlantic circulation
https://climatenewsnetwork.net/nature-may-explain-north-atlantic-circulation/
July 26, 2018 at 4:27 am
Tried to leave a comment, no appearance your worship
July 27, 2018 at 4:00 am
ARSTechnica comments on the paper are quite good. .
I felt grumpy too when I read their conclusions. .
Last week, Nature published a climate science study that reached a very surprising conclusion—one that other climate scientists are taking issue with. Two other scientists penned a critical response and posted it at Real Climate the same day, outlining their issues with the study’s findings.
This kind of argument could be left to play out among scientists, but the BBC News covered the study without skeptical counterweight, so we thought it would be worth explaining what the arguments are about.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/new-study-blaming-warming-on-disrupted-atlantic-flow-has-scientists-grumpy/
July 25, 2018 at 1:32 pm
The BEEB’s been dancing to the tune of neo-con politics & economics for a long while now. Every bit of bad news is served with a side of denial. In Canada a government that claims to take climate change seriously is pouring money into a new pipeline for bitumen despite the risk that (in any scenario not ending in climate disaster) the asset (i.e. expensive, high-carbon oil) will (must) wind up stranded. The west, and especially the English speaking west, is dancing at the end of time…
July 25, 2018 at 4:45 pm
Jet Stream Stalled over Sweden Climate Weather Connection Explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yObanrslYME
July 25, 2018 at 6:26 pm
[…] https://climatecrocks.com/2018/07/25/bbc-climate-coverage-then-and-now/ […]
July 26, 2018 at 1:13 am
I expected a lot of buzz about the memorable summer of 1976 especially from denial quarters, to but in truth there is little comparison with the heatwave of 2018.
The first sensible article I saw for those who cannot spare 11 minutes to watch the B.B.C video was in the U.K’s Metro news media. . . . . . . . .
Professor Peter Stott, Met Office science fellow in attribution, said global temperature rises were fuelling heatwaves, and climate models had been predicting an increase in extremely hot spells for more than a decade.
‘It’s coming true before our eyes,’ he said.
‘Back in 1976 we were having this prolonged heatwave, but much of the globe was pretty average. Now if you look at the globe, it’s pretty warm.’
https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/24/climate-change-happening-right-eyes-proof-7753745/
July 26, 2018 at 1:26 am
It also surprised me the when auntie beeb published the recent iffy AMOC study, which looked very suspect, the Real Climate article highlights the weakness of the work.
I was living in a seaside resort in England’s South West in 1976 – I remember it was the year of the ladybirds, covering buildings, beaches and made outside dining and wining uncomfortable. Now it seems to be year of the vampire horsefly.
Parents are being warned to drain their paddling pools after use to avoid being bitten by ’vampire horseflies’ set to invade the UK.
The insect population is flourishing during one of Britain’s longest heatwaves in 40 years and standing water is an ideal breeding ground.
In one week alone, 9,000 calls were made to the NHS over horsefly bites – a figure which is twice as high as the baseline number for this time of year.
And the ‘plague’ could bring with them the threat of serious infection.
Bites can result in painful swellings and charities warn that potential infections might not be treatable with existing antibiotics, according to Birmingham Live.
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/families-told-drain-paddling-pools-1809584
July 26, 2018 at 12:32 pm
I assume you mean Zianyao Chen & Ka-Kit Tung, Nature Vol. 559 July 19, 2018. Thanks for Real Climate article note, it’ll interest me when I’ve time. My spidey sense kicked in when a commenter against a Guy McPherson doom video referenced it because the concept on decadal and longer time scales violates the understanding by climate scientists of “Earth’s energy budget” and any climate scientist publishing with that huge change proposed needs to clarify their new science modifying “Earth’s energy budget” concept:
– Time-averaged global solar input (quantity and spectral distribution)
– Earth’s average albedo
– Quantity and type of atmospheric greenhouse gases
The 3 items above are the lot for Earth’s balanced GMST, nothing about heat going into oceans. It’s a very big deal to state that you’ve proved that incorrect. Now, ENSO that you are going to mention is a cycle that takes heat temporarily down and cools the surface by revealing colder water ultimately from the Antarctic at the tropical Pacific Ocean surface. It definitely does not cool the surface by sinking the heat in the Pacific Ocean “instead of” warming the surface. It cools the surface by revealing colder water ultimately from the Antarctic at the tropical Pacific Ocean surface (you see this colder-than-average surface water over a vast area of the tropical Pacific Ocean in temperature pictorials of La Nina years), not the same thing. This concept of lowering GMST by “taking heat down” instead is different than ENSO and seemed nonsensical to me as soon as I read it.
For one thing, ~310 zettajoules heat was added to oceans 0-2000m since 1960-1970 average baseline. That would have increased GMST by ~310/10.5 = 29.6 degrees if applied to the atmosphere and land surface to 6m deep instead of being “buried in the oceans”. That’s patently inane and the reason is that heat “buried in the oceans” goes there instead of passing through Earth’s atmosphere and being radiated to space. It does not get “buried in the oceans” instead of sitting for decades or even years in Earth’s atmosphere. I heard a “Heidi Cullen” climate scientist say this “buried in the oceans” instead of sitting in Earth’s atmosphere to some U.S. of American politicians a few years ago and it was inane when she said it, it’s inane if you guys say it (I think you have) and it would be inane even if Wally Broecker said it, or anybody.
Summary:
– Earth’s GMST cannot be lowered by “taking heat down into the oceans instead”
– Earth’s GMST can be lowered internally by an energy flow within Earth’s ecosphere by using by bringing to the surface some of the “store of cold” in the oceans which got there by water radiating heat to space near Antarctica & Greenland over the last 3,300 years
– The above 1st line contradicts the universally-accepted (coal/oil shills excepted) principle of “Earth’s energy budget” and the 2nd line above does not.
July 31, 2018 at 10:00 am
The theory is called ABGW, anything but global warming…