Alarmism on stilts with its dunce cap on. This is what the public are being fed on. It’s just so ridiculous, I wonder if it’s worth even commenting on, but people who know nothing about IPCC climate science will read this and think it is fact, not ill informed garbage penned by a Fail ‘health reporter’ with maybe two grade 2 GCSEs who says:
They used two models predicting changes from a 2.6°C (37°F) rise or an 8.5°C (47.3°F) rise by the year 2100 and found the more the global temperature rises, the bigger the problem will be.
The 2.6°C rise was considered the best-case scenario, if action is taken to reduce climate change, while the 8.5°C rise was the worst-case ‘business-as-usual’ scenario, they said.
Here is what the authors say:
Current mean monthly temperature data was derived from the WorldClim dataset (www.worldclim.org) [36]. For future climates, we selected four general circulation models (GCMs) that are most commonly used by studies forecasting species distributional shifts, at a set of four representative concentration pathways (RCPs) that account for different global responses to mitigate climate change. These are the Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM1.1); the Hadley GCM (HadGEM2-AO and HadGEM2-ES); and the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Community Climate System Model (CCSM4). Each of these can respectively be forecasted for RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5. The scenarios are created to represent standardized cases of how future climate will respond to emissions outputs, ranging from the best-case scenario for mitigation and adaptation (2.6) to the worst-case, business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions scenario (8.5). The scenarios are denoted by numbers (e.g. 2.6, 8.5) corresponding to increased radiation in W/m2 by the year 2100, therefore expressing scenarios of increasing severity in the longest term.
Spot the difference? Duh, Watts per square meter is not average global surface temperature rise in degrees Celsius. Who’d have thunk it, eh? But not content to be merely an idiot reporter, Sam Blanchard goes full retard and converts degrees Celsius rise in temperature to degrees Fahrenheit, by assuming the rise in temperature in Celsius is an absolute temperature measurement! How many idiot climate change reporters have made the same mistake over the years? I’ve lost count. It’s simple, you have to use a temperature increment conversion not a common scale conversion! When you do this, 2.6C = 4.68F and 8.5C = 15.3F.
The only thing Sam got right is also wrong. He described – as do the authors – that RCP8.5 is ‘business as usual’. It’s not. Nowhere near. This is an example of scientists deliberately misrepresenting science and society to paint an extremely unlikely and nightmarish high end emissions scenario as a casual consequence of failing to address climate change.
The rest of the article is the usual alarmist drivel.
Mosquitoes carrying serious illnesses like Zika and dengue fever could migrate to the UK in the next few decades because of global warming, scientists predict.
The Aedes aegypti mosquito – currently found mostly in Africa and Asia – could be lured north by warmer, more humid weather as the global temperature rises.
And as many as a billion more people, including residents of Canada, the UK and Europe, could be exposed to the infectious bugs.
Researchers say this could become normal by 2080, if the current rate of climate change continues.
The scientists added the viruses are likely to cause particularly nasty outbreaks in countries which have never experienced them before – such as the UK – because people haven’t built up any immunity to them.
I guess the warmer, more humid summer weather in the UK will be happening whilst climate change also gives us hotter, drier summers (like 2018) . . . . . or something. The Fail even manages to misquote the author, Sadie Ryan:
In the worst-case emissions scenario, where the earth warms by 8.5C by the turn of the century, many more people will likely deal with mosquito-carried viruses, Dr Ryan said.
And she added that, without immediate action to reduce carbon emissions and curb climate change, the mosquitoes will be ‘one of our biggest threats to global security’.
I seriously doubt she would have mentioned earth warming by 8.5C by 2100!
Climate Scepticism 
Here’s another version of the same bullshit story.
Apparently “Bugs like it hot, and evolve faster when there’s lots of carbon dioxide”.
But of course it’s just a few weeks ago that we were told that
Climate change is killing off Earth’s insects
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there a short summary version kicking around of why 8.5 is a ridiculous BAU? Existing examples, even conclusions, are rather involved and not suitable for quick comment rebuttal.
LikeLike
The lack of critical thinking by those suffering from Catastrophist ideation disorder leads to self-parody like the Daily Onion {Mail} article.
This Daily Mail article ranks as dim our very own special member of Congress who seems to actually believe the world will end in 12 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I do feel sorry for places like Archangel in the Russian Arctic that must suffer terribly if malaria bearing mosquitos return due to global warming. Will Essex vicars in coastal parishes have to return to dwelling in their non-coastal vicarages (as they did in Dickens time) to avoid being infected with malaria?
Has all sense of history been lost by those fearing AGW?
LikeLike
DaveJR,
the latest post at Climate Etc happens to address that issue:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/28/whats-the-worst-case-emissions-concentration-scenarios/
LikeLike
“Has all sense of history been lost by those fearing AGW?”
Yes, Alan, absolutely. It is one of my biggest criticisms of climate alarmists – they regularly seem to be utterly oblivious to history. If they read a bit more about the past, they might just be that bit less alarmed.
LikeLike
People have been and are being deceived into thinking ‘action on climate change’ has some meaning or effect. They should ask themselves: where is there any evidence to support such claims?
LikeLike
Mark, Alan, Oldbrew,
‘Don’t need no stinkin’ evidence, don’t need no ‘istorical perspective, don’t need no nuffin’ cos climate change is goin’ to kill us all, wiv mosquitoes as big as bumblebees, rats as big as cats and mountain goats as big as . . . . mice! It’s science innit’.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Andy wrote: “the latest post at Climate Etc happens to address that issue:”
It addresses the issue, but not in 2-3 sentences. The best argument(s) needs to be made simple and succinctly to have any chance of being read somewhere like the BBC comment section.
LikeLike
The feared African tiger mosquito has already been here on the south coast of France for a couple of years, due to the warm weather. I’ve squashed quite a few, since for some reason they’re much less nimble than the native species. Despite their common occurrence, there have been no cases of zika or dengue fever reported in France.
As they slowly make their way up a gradually warming continent, the only way they could infect you Britishers is if they have recently bitten an African immigrant who has himself contracted the disease in tropical Africa before making the trekk across the Sahara via Libya or Morocco, at, say, Calais, before boarding the ferry (mosquitoes do not normally make 23 mile cross-Channel flights). Since dengue fever is not transmitted even unto the sixtieth generation, I don’t see how it’s going to be a problem in Britain in 2080 unless Africans are still stowing away in lorries in Calais in sixty years’ time. But that’s got nothing to do with global warming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now I’m totally confused, if we’re all gonna die in 12 years time how is this a problem?
LikeLike
John, I think it goes something like this:
‘We’ve only got 12 years left to save the planet. If we (meaning us, Western nations) don’t decarbonise our economies 100% by 2030 (a la Green New Deal) then we’ll all die horribly in an unstoppable Thermageddon at some unspecified future date. Meanwhile, we should do all we can to limit global warming in the next century or, on our way to unstoppable Thermageddonesque total oblivion, we’ll be nibbled by pesky disease-carrying mosquitoes who will be along for the ride to Hothouse Earth and loving every minute of it.’
LikeLike
The cynical deception of those who rely on the assertion that ‘we only have X years to save the planet” is quite annoying.
That particular claim, when deployed, should be the point when the one deploying the claim is placed under the most intense critical review.
The “X years to save the world” argument has been deployed by failed prophets like Paul Ehrlich for decades.
Not once have they been correct.
The climate hypesters have been using the assertion that there are only a few years left to save the world for decades now.
Nothing has happened in the climate that is even measurable without dubious data adjustment and dramatic distortions of the x and y axis.
Yet the climate consensus demands full unquestionable credulity.
No matter how many times they get it wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Mail probably got the 8.5C nonsense from Thomson Reuters Foundation, which is usually quite reliable:
http://news.trust.org//item/20190328174747-m5klq/
The 8.5C paraphrase attributed to Ryan is there in exactly the same words, including the somewhat odd ‘likely deal’.
The Sun was more creative. It attributed the 8.5C paraphrase to co-author Colin Carlson:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8751928/deadly-zika-virus-could-hit-uk-climate-change/
A wrong and misattributed number wrongly misattributed. Nice!
LikeLike
Tony Heller has a post on 50 years of climate scares
https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/
There are many more than those he has used, like Prince Charles in 2009:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/4952918/Prince-Charles-we-have-100-months-to-save-the-world.html
“Senior sources have revealed that Gordon Brown’s Government wants to make more use on the foreign stage of Prince Charles’s experience, expertise and contacts, particularly on climate change.”
However he did a Brexit on the climate in 2015:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/charlie-gives-us-a-reprieve/
The 2015 UK Western Morning News interview with Charles revealed that “His Royal Highness warns that we have just 35 years to save the planet from catastrophic climate change.”
LikeLike
Jaime @ 30 Mar 19 at 8:59 am
When making fun of what “we” ought to be doing you should remind people what constitutes the “we“. The theory is that global emissions of trace gases – mostly CO2 – are causing the atmospheric concentrations of those gases to rise. It is the increased concentrations of these trace gases that cause the warming. It follows that to constrain warming requires policies that will reduce aggregate global emissions. It might be a surprise for most people that if the Paris Agreement is fully implemented global emissions will be still higher in 2030 than than in 2017, whereas the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2018 estimates that
Economics is a major reason why most nations will not adopt climate mitigation policies. Assume for a moment that Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus is correct in principle. The costs of unmitigated climate change are greater than the combined costs of optimal near universal climate policies and the residual costs of climate change. The current situation is very different. Only a small minority of countries are actively reducing their emissions and every one has far from optimal policies. The implication is that the citizens of those nations will be net worse off, as the reductions in future costs will be less than the costs expended in reducing them. The optimal policy for a nation is to appear virtuous whilst doing nothing, and getting other countries to cut their emissions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not spending (wasting) much time reading alarmist tripe, I was unaware of Nordhaus’s conclusion.
So he actually claims that *mitigation* costs less than doing nothing?
🙄
The one thing we see as our landscapes are infested and polluted with windmill towers, as power costs go up and up, as industries in so-called developed countries are pressured to close, as developing countries are starved of power, it is that mitigation not only doesn’t work, it costs a lot and hurts real people.
Here is a thought experiment:
If the cause of the current climate’s changes were known to be completely natural, what would we do? Would we declare a hlobsl emergency to fight the cause of the alleged change, or would we adapt?
LikeLike
I declare a new word game. Find alternative words for some of Hunterson7’s mis-typings. The latest example:
“Would we declare a hlobsl emergency to fight the cause of the alleged change, or would we adapt?” “Hlobsl” is probably “global”, but in a different, and weird, universe it could be “lobster”.
LikeLike
The 8.5C thing bears no relation to existing temperature trends. It’s another climate model ‘projection’ so scan safely be ignored, due to their chronic tendency to exaggerate warming well beyond anything observed.
Bugs like it hot – unless they’re highland midges…
In the north west of Scotland and northern Wales the highland midge is usually very prevalent from late spring to late summer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_midge
Must be the Gulf stream effect.
LikeLike
Tony Thomas has a piece on Earth Hour: “The Propaganda Is Settled”
https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/03/the-propaganda-is-settled/
LikeLike
HUNTERSON7 at 11:40 am
I believe it is worth spending time on Nordhaus’s work due to the very restrictive assumptions that are required to justify any policy at all. I was prompted to look into the issue when Bjorn Lomborg tweeted a chart derived from Nordhaus paper from August 2018 in the American Economic Review.
Based the IPCC / Nordhaus assumptions, it is clear that restraining warming to 2.5°C will make people worse off than no policy at all. It is worse for constraining warming to 2.0°C, and much worse for constraining warming to 1.5°C. Using the UN / Nordhaus assumptions UN are deliberately trying to make people worse off. The claim of saving the planet for “future generations” is false by these criteria. It get worse when some of the assumptions are examined.
– Near global application of policy is false from the point of view of actual policy proposals when (a) developing countries (60%+ of global emissions) are exempted from cutting emissions and (b) all proposed policies on the table will not reduce global emissions.
– Developing countries are exempted due recognizing that restraining emissions will restrain economic growth, but the impact is not recognized in the Nordhaus model. I doubt if China would have achieved about two decades of near 10% growth without cheap electricity from coal.
– The impact on major fossil fuel producing countries is largely ignored. Reducing emissions to zero in a generation would be disastrous for Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia etc. For these countries the impact would be orders of magnitude worse than countries like USA or Australia.
– A uniform carbon tax is not going to happen. Sub-optimal policies include regulations on buildings and cars, token gestures such as CCS and promoting renewables.
LikeLike
Manic @30th Mar 9.23pm
My use of the word ‘we’ was entirely cynical, realising that ‘we’ are being forced to pay for spiraling energy costs to fund ‘clean energy’, ‘we’ are having our economic and social freedoms curbed one by one in the name of ‘saving the planet’, even though ‘we’ are now not contributing to the acceleration in global greenhouse gas emissions – the undeveloped nations are. The Paris Accord lets them off the hook by classifying them as ‘undeveloped’, even though some, like China, are highly industrialised and economically competitive. The Big Lie is that ‘we’, in the industrialised West, are contributing most to the supposed causes of climate change. We are not.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/30/china-coal-use-exploding-u-s-leads-world-in-co2-reductions-alarmist-media-conceal-all-this-much-more/
LikeLike
Slightly off channel, but Scott Adams, the “Dilbert” creator, has another interesting post up on YouTube.
Here is an excerpt from his summary:
“The Russian climate model is the only one predicting current data
Other top 30 models aren’t accurately predicting new data
Russian climate model says climate change NOT a danger
NOBODY has challenged the accuracy of Russian model”
LikeLike
HUNTERSON7
Scott Adams says: “Russian climate model says climate change NOT a danger. NOBODY has challenged the accuracy of Russian model”
Does this prove that Trump is in collusion with Russia, or that NOAA, GISSTEMP and HADCRUT are?
By the way, I quite liked your “hlobsl.” I bet it means something in internet slang that Alan and I are too old and past it to recognise.
LikeLike
“hlobsl”.
It sounds like something Mr Bean would say.
I think ‘hlobsl warming’ sounds pretty cool.
I think Hunter may have large fingers because ‘s’ is the key immediately to the right of ‘a’ and ‘h’ is immediately to the right of ‘g’!
LikeLike
We must turn Kent into a reservoir to store all this rain to use for drinking water.
Sunlight reflection will reduce Global Warming, the volume will act to stabilise temperatures, keeping it full will stop sea levels rising, and if chlorinated and fluorinated, nasty mosquitoes will be encouraged to die but they will have good healthy teeth.
LikeLike
hlobsl = hysterically laugh out bloody sodding loud.
Glad we got that sorted out.
LikeLike
“hlobsi” = “global”, somehow 🤯
LikeLike