Watching the corporate media dancing around the reality of non-linearity in the climate system is like watching a worm on a fishhook.
They pretend to cover the poly-crisis but only ever give us the edited highlights.
The fact that the Aerosol Masking Effect was alluded to but not given its scientific description is another example of editorial failure. I'm more inclined to believe it's a conscious decision to not tell the whole story, not an oversight!
I've added this link to my blog post on the AME which I'll drop below for added reference!
I'm a great fan of Guy and his ground breaking climate reporting on climate change science. However, I find this piece confusing. I'm just an ole retired doc and climate student, so I follow the EU's gold standard climate science service: C3S, which has been documenting the rapid increase in GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature) since the 1991-2020 baseline average, a 0.2 degC ANNUALLY, NOT decadal, a ten year period (Hansen e.al., 12 February 2025). So, current GAST is 1.64 degC and rising 0.2 degC to 1.84 by 2026, and 2.04 by 2027, and 3.04 by 2032, and 6.04 by 2047, if this trend continues. 6 degC is the extinction level for all life on the surface of Earth. Now, that's the real story, no BS, no living animals left by 2047. Have a blessed day.
Again, it is the rate of environmental change that dictates the continued survival of ecological entities. The exact temperature is irrelevant compared to the rate of environmental change. Also, as I have indicated previously—quoting governments of the world—Earth passed the 2 C Rubicon in October 2023.
So, "the exact temperature is irrelevant compared to the rate of environmental change"? Which peer reviewed journal do we find that in? Any fool can see that GAST increasing is highly correlated with, if not causative for, environmental degradation. Fields filled with burned-up/flooded out crops around the globe tell the tale.
Watching the corporate media dancing around the reality of non-linearity in the climate system is like watching a worm on a fishhook.
They pretend to cover the poly-crisis but only ever give us the edited highlights.
The fact that the Aerosol Masking Effect was alluded to but not given its scientific description is another example of editorial failure. I'm more inclined to believe it's a conscious decision to not tell the whole story, not an oversight!
I've added this link to my blog post on the AME which I'll drop below for added reference!
https://kevinhester.live/2024/03/18/the-aerosol-masking-effect-a-deep-dive-into-our-faustian-bargain/
“Watching a worm on a fishhook. That about covers it. Failing to mention aerosol masking is par for the course from paid climate scientists.
Thank you, Kevin, for sharing, liking, and adding to my work. You’re the colleague we all wish we had.
I'm a great fan of Guy and his ground breaking climate reporting on climate change science. However, I find this piece confusing. I'm just an ole retired doc and climate student, so I follow the EU's gold standard climate science service: C3S, which has been documenting the rapid increase in GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature) since the 1991-2020 baseline average, a 0.2 degC ANNUALLY, NOT decadal, a ten year period (Hansen e.al., 12 February 2025). So, current GAST is 1.64 degC and rising 0.2 degC to 1.84 by 2026, and 2.04 by 2027, and 3.04 by 2032, and 6.04 by 2047, if this trend continues. 6 degC is the extinction level for all life on the surface of Earth. Now, that's the real story, no BS, no living animals left by 2047. Have a blessed day.
Again, it is the rate of environmental change that dictates the continued survival of ecological entities. The exact temperature is irrelevant compared to the rate of environmental change. Also, as I have indicated previously—quoting governments of the world—Earth passed the 2 C Rubicon in October 2023.
So, "the exact temperature is irrelevant compared to the rate of environmental change"? Which peer reviewed journal do we find that in? Any fool can see that GAST increasing is highly correlated with, if not causative for, environmental degradation. Fields filled with burned-up/flooded out crops around the globe tell the tale.
Here is one, from among many: Synodinos et al. 2022 Oikos 2023(4): e09616 (28 December 2022)