None of this is ‘settled science’. A Hunga Tonga event hasn’t happened before - at least, it hasn’t happened where we can monitor in detail and in real time the ‘unprecedented’ injection and global distribution of water vapour into the stratosphere and analyse the subsequent effects on global temperature, atmospheric circulation patterns and stratospheric ozone concentration. The science is a work in progress and does not bear the stamp of ‘consensus’ - not that any legitimate science should ever bear that stamp anyway.
Does it occur to you for even a moment, that the reason corporate media makes confusing and hyperbolic statements about the climate crisis, is that the investors behind that media also invest in fossil fuels and they want people to not trust climate science?
The climate and extinction crisis is real, and here's what may happen if we don't reverse it immediately.
Nature Is Giving Humanity Our Final Extinction Crisis Warning
PS: Just eight months after I wrote this essay, hundreds of dead sea lions & dolphins appeared on California beaches due to an unprecedented offshore algae bloom, signaling a possible mass ocean die off. Below is NOAA's report on the sea lion and dolphin deaths.
Note: A bit of hope in all of this is that the Tonga oceanic volcano explosion in early 2022 (which threw huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere) likely played a big role in our recent heat waves, and therefore may also have something to do with these die offs. The water vapor in the atmosphere triggering the spike in warming will dissipate in about 4 years.
NOAA: Toxic Algal Bloom Suspected in Dolphin and Sea Lion Deaths in Southern California
No, it doesn't, on account of the fact that the corporate media largely sing from the same hymn book on the alleged 'climate crisis' and any confusing and hyperbolic statements made by them are usually the result of their own incompetence and inconsistency in following the rules of their own 'climate crisis' propaganda. To suggest that the MSM is deliberately engaging in obfuscation with the aim of cultivating public mistrust in climate 'science' is a conspiracy theory. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's a conspiracy theory with very little supporting evidence.
I've been a full time climate and environmental activist for four decades, and can tell you from experience this is exactly what is going on. Regardless the crisis is 100% real. Read the essay.
I've been a full time critical thinker from the time I started thinking basically - and critical thinking informs me that the Guardian invented the 'climate crisis' in 2019, in the process of relabeling 'climate change', formerly known as 'global warming', as part of their editorial style guide! Before they did that, the term 'climate crisis' was hardly ever used. Critical thinking informs me that there is no empirical, scientific data which lends support to the notion of a 'climate crisis'.
In other words, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Apparently your 'critical thinking' doesn't include taking a little time to do an actual web search about the history of activism to reverse global warming, and the terminology used around it.
Widespread use of the term "Climate Change" originated in 2003 with Republican PR flack Frank Luntz (a brilliant corporate propagandist) who circulated a memo that got the Bush Administration to replace the properly alarming and accurate term "Global Warming" with "Climate Change" in order to essentially disappear the problem. Here is a link to an article about that very memo in a *2003* report in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Very shortly after Bush started using the term, activists like myself and Ralph Nader *immediately* in 2004, began countering Luntz's bullshit spin by pointing out that "climate crisis" was a far better term which fit the gravity of the emergency we are facing.
As a leading California climate organizer (and a trained messaging expert) I was already widely talking to thousands of environmental activists and scores of organizations by 2004, explaining Luntz's bs game, and recommending we use the term "Climate Crisis". Since I helped found the modern clean energy program movement in California in the mid 2000s (and since I brought up the problem in nearly every coalition organizing call, meeting, and email conversation in which the wiggle term "Climate Change" popped up) this meant that pretty much every California climate organizer was familiar with the term-shift to "Climate Crisis" and why it was important.
This awareness quickly spread nationwide and worldwide as national figures like Nader talked about it very publicly. Here is the link to a 2004 interview in Sierra Magazine with lefty messaging guru George Lakoff, in which he specifically recommends using the far better term "Climate Crisis" to describe the problem in order to deflect Luntz's deceptive messaging. (Sierra Magazine reaches millions of Sierra Club members all over the US.)
"Winning Words: George Lakoff says environmentalists need to watch their language" link:
After this language change was sparked by Nader, Lakoff, myself and others, by the mid 2000s environmentalists everywhere were using the term "Climate Crisis". For example here's the link to a 2006 PDF annual report (to nearly two million members) from The Center for Biological Diversity which clearly uses the term. Search "climate crisis" at:
To show that I was indeed part of this messaging shift, here's a 2007 article I published locally in San Francisco criticizing so called "biofuels" in which I also use the term "Climate Crisis" in the fourth paragraph. (It's a really good exposé that is still relevant today, so I recommend reading the whole article.)
"The Terrible Illusion of Biodiesel" - Eric Brooks, 2007 - link:
A pretty simple web search taking just a few minutes shows these and hundreds of other such links. Because you didn't do that simple search, you were off on the origin, and reasons, for the switch to the term "Climate Crisis" by a full 15 years.
I never claimed that the term climate crisis was not used before the Guardian popularised it in 2019. I said it was 'hardly ever used' and that is true, if you bother to do your research. You and your environmental activist pals might have campaigned for its use but you had little impact overall. It was only after the Guardian popularised the term (along with other media outlets) and the shift to focussing on extreme weather events occurred that the term 'climate crisis' became widely known and used. Extreme weather was, supposedly, the physical manifestation of the unfolding crisis; it was the yardstick by which 'climate breakdown', the climate emergency or the climate crisis was measured. This necessitated of course the weaponisation of extreme weather which the media duly did, with gusto.
I know exactly what I am talking about and the extreme weather/climate crisis messaging is a phenomenon which has become dominant only in the last few years. Before that, allegedly 'catastrophic' man-made greenhouse gas radiative forcing of the climate was called 'global warming', then 'climate change' (because it wasn't warming as catastrophically or as quickly as the models predicted), then finally a 'climate crisis' as activists realised that they needed to communicate an existential, happening emergency, as supposedly evidenced by extreme weather events across the globe in order to effect the political change and public change in behaviour which they desired.
🤣🤣 To quote you verbatim: "critical thinking informs me that the Guardian invented the 'climate crisis' in 2019"
I don't need to do 'research' you ridiculous, uneducated, Fox/AlexJones brainwashed clown. I've worked directly, hands on, full time in the movement for four decades. The entire environmental movement has known that what's happening to the climate is a crisis since James Hansen called attention to it *as* a crisis in his 1988 congressional testimony on global warming.
What are you 12?
Because you've been utterly brainwashed by right wing corporate media manipulated by fossil fuel interests, you are hopelessly confusing the real crisis, which actually exists, with fake nonsense that WEF types like Bill Gates, Al Gore and Klaus Schwab are peddling to *hijack* the actual crisis and turn it into a cartoon caricature that they can use to control governments and populations. People like you are totally incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality, and real conspiracies from nutjob quakery.
Trying to talk with people like you about this stuff is like trying to explain algebra to a 3 year old.
Oh, and your comparison of the alleged 'joint climate and extinction crisis' of today with the Permian Extinction of 250 million years ago is utterly absurd:
One of my obsessions is to track the monthly progressions of ENSO events. The current El Nino first appeared as a blip in the Nino 3.4 anomaly graph in April 2023. It passed the 0.5°C threshold around May 2023. By September 2023 it had reached about 1.4°C but it still looks puny relative to the 2015-16 El Nino which peaked at about 2.6°C. See https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/figt5.gif.
It looks to me as if Spencer and Christy are deluding themselves, but what do I know!
Jaime, I thought Roy Spencer was more open minded. Wouldn’t a real scientist be awed by Hunga Tonga instead of being so dogmatic. He has lost his curiosity to egocentrism. 😞
I hesitate to comment on why Dr Roy Spencer may have come to the conclusions he has. Perhaps he has done a lot more research behind the scenes, but on the face of it, his justification for dismissing Hunga Tonga and instead blaming the current El Nino for the 2023 spike in warming looks pretty shaky.
LOL. Really intelligent comeback there. Cutting edge scientific criticism. I'm just trying to conjure up a visual image of what sucking fossil fuel cock might look like . . . . . not very successfully I have to admit!
You’re blowing smoke out your ass. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels is responsible for 80% of all GHG and more than of the eminent climate crisis.
You’ve got nothing but speculation and deflection. If you want to talk topic. I’m right here.
Not quite correct. Animal agriculture is number one at 51% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions. The other 49% comes from fossil fuel burning, other agriculture and land use change, etc. See:
"Livestock and Climate Change" - World Watch Institute
You're obviously a very unsophisticated and scientifically challenged troll and it would not be worth trying to engage with your dirt poor 'arguments'. So I won't. Just please keep your crude and insulting remarks to yourself.
Very much looking forward to reading what you have to say. I would like to understand the implications of the Hunga Tonga eruption and be able to communicate it to others.
Does it occur to you for even a moment, that the reason corporate media makes confusing and hyperbolic statements about the climate crisis, is that the investors behind that media also invest in fossil fuels and they want people to not trust climate science?
The climate and extinction crisis is real, and here's what may happen if we don't reverse it immediately.
Nature Is Giving Humanity Our Final Extinction Crisis Warning
https://ericbrooks.substack.com/p/nature-is-giving-humanity-our-final
PS: Just eight months after I wrote this essay, hundreds of dead sea lions & dolphins appeared on California beaches due to an unprecedented offshore algae bloom, signaling a possible mass ocean die off. Below is NOAA's report on the sea lion and dolphin deaths.
Note: A bit of hope in all of this is that the Tonga oceanic volcano explosion in early 2022 (which threw huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere) likely played a big role in our recent heat waves, and therefore may also have something to do with these die offs. The water vapor in the atmosphere triggering the spike in warming will dissipate in about 4 years.
NOAA: Toxic Algal Bloom Suspected in Dolphin and Sea Lion Deaths in Southern California
https://fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/toxic-algal-bloom-suspected-dolphin-and-sea-lion-deaths-southern-california
"Nature Is Giving Humanity Our Final Extinction Crisis Warning"
Twaddle.
So nothing but ad hominem bullshit? Of course.
Evidence free argument. Immediate block. Bye..
No, it doesn't, on account of the fact that the corporate media largely sing from the same hymn book on the alleged 'climate crisis' and any confusing and hyperbolic statements made by them are usually the result of their own incompetence and inconsistency in following the rules of their own 'climate crisis' propaganda. To suggest that the MSM is deliberately engaging in obfuscation with the aim of cultivating public mistrust in climate 'science' is a conspiracy theory. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it's a conspiracy theory with very little supporting evidence.
I've been a full time climate and environmental activist for four decades, and can tell you from experience this is exactly what is going on. Regardless the crisis is 100% real. Read the essay.
I've been a full time critical thinker from the time I started thinking basically - and critical thinking informs me that the Guardian invented the 'climate crisis' in 2019, in the process of relabeling 'climate change', formerly known as 'global warming', as part of their editorial style guide! Before they did that, the term 'climate crisis' was hardly ever used. Critical thinking informs me that there is no empirical, scientific data which lends support to the notion of a 'climate crisis'.
In other words, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Apparently your 'critical thinking' doesn't include taking a little time to do an actual web search about the history of activism to reverse global warming, and the terminology used around it.
Widespread use of the term "Climate Change" originated in 2003 with Republican PR flack Frank Luntz (a brilliant corporate propagandist) who circulated a memo that got the Bush Administration to replace the properly alarming and accurate term "Global Warming" with "Climate Change" in order to essentially disappear the problem. Here is a link to an article about that very memo in a *2003* report in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Very shortly after Bush started using the term, activists like myself and Ralph Nader *immediately* in 2004, began countering Luntz's bullshit spin by pointing out that "climate crisis" was a far better term which fit the gravity of the emergency we are facing.
As a leading California climate organizer (and a trained messaging expert) I was already widely talking to thousands of environmental activists and scores of organizations by 2004, explaining Luntz's bs game, and recommending we use the term "Climate Crisis". Since I helped found the modern clean energy program movement in California in the mid 2000s (and since I brought up the problem in nearly every coalition organizing call, meeting, and email conversation in which the wiggle term "Climate Change" popped up) this meant that pretty much every California climate organizer was familiar with the term-shift to "Climate Crisis" and why it was important.
This awareness quickly spread nationwide and worldwide as national figures like Nader talked about it very publicly. Here is the link to a 2004 interview in Sierra Magazine with lefty messaging guru George Lakoff, in which he specifically recommends using the far better term "Climate Crisis" to describe the problem in order to deflect Luntz's deceptive messaging. (Sierra Magazine reaches millions of Sierra Club members all over the US.)
"Winning Words: George Lakoff says environmentalists need to watch their language" link:
https://vault.sierraclub.org/sierra/200407/words.asp
After this language change was sparked by Nader, Lakoff, myself and others, by the mid 2000s environmentalists everywhere were using the term "Climate Crisis". For example here's the link to a 2006 PDF annual report (to nearly two million members) from The Center for Biological Diversity which clearly uses the term. Search "climate crisis" at:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/reports/AnnualRpt2006.pdf
To show that I was indeed part of this messaging shift, here's a 2007 article I published locally in San Francisco criticizing so called "biofuels" in which I also use the term "Climate Crisis" in the fourth paragraph. (It's a really good exposé that is still relevant today, so I recommend reading the whole article.)
"The Terrible Illusion of Biodiesel" - Eric Brooks, 2007 - link:
https://beyondchron.org/guest-editorial-the-terrible-illusion-of-biodiesel
A pretty simple web search taking just a few minutes shows these and hundreds of other such links. Because you didn't do that simple search, you were off on the origin, and reasons, for the switch to the term "Climate Crisis" by a full 15 years.
Now you know better..
I never claimed that the term climate crisis was not used before the Guardian popularised it in 2019. I said it was 'hardly ever used' and that is true, if you bother to do your research. You and your environmental activist pals might have campaigned for its use but you had little impact overall. It was only after the Guardian popularised the term (along with other media outlets) and the shift to focussing on extreme weather events occurred that the term 'climate crisis' became widely known and used. Extreme weather was, supposedly, the physical manifestation of the unfolding crisis; it was the yardstick by which 'climate breakdown', the climate emergency or the climate crisis was measured. This necessitated of course the weaponisation of extreme weather which the media duly did, with gusto.
I know exactly what I am talking about and the extreme weather/climate crisis messaging is a phenomenon which has become dominant only in the last few years. Before that, allegedly 'catastrophic' man-made greenhouse gas radiative forcing of the climate was called 'global warming', then 'climate change' (because it wasn't warming as catastrophically or as quickly as the models predicted), then finally a 'climate crisis' as activists realised that they needed to communicate an existential, happening emergency, as supposedly evidenced by extreme weather events across the globe in order to effect the political change and public change in behaviour which they desired.
🤣🤣 To quote you verbatim: "critical thinking informs me that the Guardian invented the 'climate crisis' in 2019"
I don't need to do 'research' you ridiculous, uneducated, Fox/AlexJones brainwashed clown. I've worked directly, hands on, full time in the movement for four decades. The entire environmental movement has known that what's happening to the climate is a crisis since James Hansen called attention to it *as* a crisis in his 1988 congressional testimony on global warming.
What are you 12?
Because you've been utterly brainwashed by right wing corporate media manipulated by fossil fuel interests, you are hopelessly confusing the real crisis, which actually exists, with fake nonsense that WEF types like Bill Gates, Al Gore and Klaus Schwab are peddling to *hijack* the actual crisis and turn it into a cartoon caricature that they can use to control governments and populations. People like you are totally incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality, and real conspiracies from nutjob quakery.
Trying to talk with people like you about this stuff is like trying to explain algebra to a 3 year old.
Oh, and your comparison of the alleged 'joint climate and extinction crisis' of today with the Permian Extinction of 250 million years ago is utterly absurd:
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/apes-wolves-permian-extinction-rebellion
One of my obsessions is to track the monthly progressions of ENSO events. The current El Nino first appeared as a blip in the Nino 3.4 anomaly graph in April 2023. It passed the 0.5°C threshold around May 2023. By September 2023 it had reached about 1.4°C but it still looks puny relative to the 2015-16 El Nino which peaked at about 2.6°C. See https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Tropics/figt5.gif.
It looks to me as if Spencer and Christy are deluding themselves, but what do I know!
Jaime, I thought Roy Spencer was more open minded. Wouldn’t a real scientist be awed by Hunga Tonga instead of being so dogmatic. He has lost his curiosity to egocentrism. 😞
I hesitate to comment on why Dr Roy Spencer may have come to the conclusions he has. Perhaps he has done a lot more research behind the scenes, but on the face of it, his justification for dismissing Hunga Tonga and instead blaming the current El Nino for the 2023 spike in warming looks pretty shaky.
You know you hit the bullseye when the trolls come out to spill their vitriol.
Sucking fossil fuel cock is not going to look good on your résumé......
LOL. Really intelligent comeback there. Cutting edge scientific criticism. I'm just trying to conjure up a visual image of what sucking fossil fuel cock might look like . . . . . not very successfully I have to admit!
You obviously don’t do science, so I was trying to dumb it down.
You wouldn't recognise science if it bit you on on your fat backside.
Back under your bridge!
https://whyamerica2015.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/image.jpg
Oh, and mind your manners when addressing a lady!
You’re blowing smoke out your ass. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels is responsible for 80% of all GHG and more than of the eminent climate crisis.
You’ve got nothing but speculation and deflection. If you want to talk topic. I’m right here.
Go get another Covid jab...please
Not quite correct. Animal agriculture is number one at 51% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions. The other 49% comes from fossil fuel burning, other agriculture and land use change, etc. See:
"Livestock and Climate Change" - World Watch Institute
https://awellfedworld.org/livestock-climate-advanced
You're obviously a very unsophisticated and scientifically challenged troll and it would not be worth trying to engage with your dirt poor 'arguments'. So I won't. Just please keep your crude and insulting remarks to yourself.
Because you have no legitimate position. You are owned by the fossil fuel entities. Tell TL Winslow I said hello.🤣🖕
Because you have none. You wouldn’t know science if I smack you across the face.
Block him Jaime; no point in attempting to reason with such a one
🤣😂🤣 don’t let reality contradict your narrative
I just did.
Those 3 little dots don’t give me a block option. Just a report one. I so want to block him or whatever form of life he (it) is.
So have I
Very much looking forward to reading what you have to say. I would like to understand the implications of the Hunga Tonga eruption and be able to communicate it to others.
Same here. The brainwashing is very complete.
I find it curious that even climate change sceptics have largely backed off exploring this.