Eddie, I’ve read enough of your posts to know that you’re pretty on the level and interested in facts over political positioning. I’m the same way on this issue, at least in my estimation. Nobody can really say with absolute certainty what is going to happen, but the evidence is not looking good.
A lot of what I’ve read from experts whose job is to follow this closely and daily are proposing a lot more dire scenarios faster than people expect, but are hesitant to publicly declare it. Those are very detailed and complex explanations of the various inputs, what they’ve seen so far on the outputs, and things that have surprised them (largely negatively to the downside) and their explanations of the complications of the models that are not fully understood and still cause a fair amount of uncertainty. I hope they’re wrong, but I put more stock in what they’re saying than non-experts.
There have been major climate swings over the millenia, but what we’re dealing with is a most rapid acceleration of heating that human activities have contributed to significantly, and continue to. The result is not likely to be pretty. Bottom line is, the climate doesn’t care what we think of its changes, it’s going to do its own thing anyway. It would benefit us and our successors to try to limit the impacts at a much faster rate than what we’re doing now.
All I can say is that climate change is real and ongoing, and in the long term does represent what I’d call an existential crisis for homo sapiens….but…it’s very difficult to parse out the real short term (say next 79 years to the end of the 21st century). We will see some negative effects of climate change, but I doubt our existence as a species will be seriously threatened in that time frame.
The difficulty in getting at the truth is at least partly made more difficult because of the amount of well-intentioned but misguided perversions of the science that finds willing publishers, and the willingness of the scientific community and the lay press and social media to report any and all bad news, ascribe every bad weather event to climate change and to generally take up political campaigning as opposed to just getting out the best information.
As always, it does help to look at the actual data, before being fooled by some biased bit of research. The data since the IPCC started keeping track is following the mid-range models fairly well over 30 years time. That’s the best we got.
Could something happen to change the speed of climate change ? Sure……but so far the most feared causes for an acceleration of climate change have not turned out to be nearly as bad as some predicted a decade or more ago. I’m talking specifically about methane. Certainly the loss of the arctic sea ice is scary…..and there are limits to how long the oceans can keep absorbing heat…I’m not unworried. Just unwilling to take the journalism out there at face value.
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
There will be plenty of celebrities attending as they love to virtue signal.
The usual form of travel: private jet, stepping over to a lambo, and the last mile in a horse drawn carriage to show their commitment.
But I digress. The event will be visited by heaps of what you would call high consuming types, and as a consequence large emitters of greenhouse gases.
But hey, there also covid in town, so let’s say 10% will catch covid as they toast champagne, and 10% out of those will unfortunately succumb to it.
That alone will result in a substantial cut in greenhouse gas emissions, and that will the effect we can count on.
FromBrussels
2 years ago
…at least they seem to be having a good time… first to Rome in private and chartered empty planes, bringing the wifies and/or mistresses along,five star wining and dining, then Glasgow…. is Glasgow a nice place ? Dunno, but there must be more interesting places, like rrrmm, Sydney maybe? Better than Glasgow anyway… and what about Buenos Aires , got a nice ring to it, refining tango skills in the typical milongas, yep that s a good idea for COP 27 … climate conferences must be great, all things well considered….
RonJ
2 years ago
“I don’t want my granddaughters to grow up and say that the planet is hell and I didn’t do enough to avoid it.”
The planet has always been hell. The ancient European Empires attacked each other. The Romans had gladiators fight to the death for entertainment. Gengis Khan got some 40 million people killed. The Black Plague. The Spanish Conquistadors rampaging through Central American Empires. The American Revolution/Civil War/Indian Wars. World War 1/The Great Depression/World War 2. Two years of Covid-19.
Big money and Joe Manchin are going to ensure that very little gets done, at least in the next decade. They have their secluded escape estates all ready to go.
A few years back, the maga cult and supporters tried to make fun of the reality community by latching onto the warning that there were about 12 years before the damage became nearly impossible to reverse from longer term damage. So they bleated that we were saying the world was all over and done with in 12 years, ha ha stupid libtards. Typical ignorance and intentional disinformation from the conspiracy crowd.
I don’t have a lot of optimism that this will be solved to a degree that will prevent major upheaval, starvation, and migration disasters as things worsen over the coming many decades. So I just try to minimize my impact and encourage all to vote for the pro-democracy/pro-living environment party (Dems) while they still can. Who knows, maybe a miracle is still in the works. Slow motion crises are not easy to deal with, especially among the doubters or those whose fortune depends on it. Some of the things I’ve read by highly credible experts are not at all comforting, but I’ve no need to repeat them when the alarm will be widely dismissed anyway. Have to spend my limited time on trying to stop red state legislatures from stealing the next elections and installing a federal autocracy in the meantime.
Another alarmist headline from a cherry-picked study, this one out of Rutgers, and based on some rather shaky assumptions that predict far worse outcomes than even the IPCC. Judith Curry, working for people who actually pay money for honest assessments, debunked it months ago now.
As in most things these days, you can’t just use journalism to get at the truth, because most journalists are really campaigners.
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Nothing meaningful is going to happen from these accords. If we do manage to cut back emissions it’s going to be because technology has become sufficiently advanced to allow us to use alternate sources of energy.
It’s basically impossible to get the average person to do more than lip service about the Co2 future when they need to put food on the table and heat/cool their home today. Only after all that is satisfied and secured for today and the immediate future will the average person start to do more than lip service.
Eddie_T
2 years ago
I view Greta Thunberg as a convenient poster child for the more radical climate campaigners, like Extinction Rebellion’s Roger Hallam, which is unfortunate. He is not somebody I view as reality based……although in a world under the heavy influence of social media, he is an outsize influence, as is Greta.
But fwiw Mish, Greta Thunberg is apparently smart enough to get the big picture. She doesn’t see it much different than you do.
In an interview shortly before the 2021 in Glasgow, Thunberg, asked how optimistic she was that the conference could achieve anything, responded “Nothing has changed from previous years really. The leaders will say ‘we’ll do this and we’ll do this, and we will put our forces together and achieve this’, and then they will do nothing. Maybe some symbolic things and creative accounting and things that don’t really have a big impact. We can have as many COPs as we want, but nothing real will come out of it.”She called Chinese president “a leader of a dictatorship” and said that “democracy is the only solution to the climate crisis, since the only thing that could get us out of this situation is … massive public pressure.”
Greta is manufactured. Nothing more to say about her except that she is living the high life and will say and do anything to stay in it.
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Not making use of available energy just laying there ready to be used, when people are straight up starving specifically because they lack access to sufficient energy, is an awful lot less likely, than all the “nuclear powers” just deciding the world would be a better place without nukes, so they all destroy them. Or starving guys in coastal cities not fishing, just because overfishing is a problem on a global scale. Neither of those happened. Neither will not burning ready made fuel. Every drop of oil not burned by some Tesla driving San Franciscan, will instead be burned by some African militiaman. Or Asian woman whose kids are about to freeze to death.
Downside is, if the latest scare about decomposable-if-thawed matter in the arctics currently trapping enormous amounts of carbon turns out to be real, it cold get a god but hotter before things stabilize.
Of course, the upside is: Life on earth got by perfectly well with jungles in Alaska. And it’s not as if progressives dumb enough to fall for the trivial nonsense that central banks serve some sort of positive purpose, is nearly as advanced a lifeform as the dinosaurs who cruised around making plenty more sense back then.
“Life on earth got by perfectly well with jungles in Alaska. “
Of course, it will. The earth will support multicellular life for another 800 million to 1 billion years. The question is what happens to human civilization, whose existence is predicated on the assumption that we don’t see any drastic climatic change.
“The question is what happens to human civilization….”
It ended. Couldn’t survive the utter destructiveness of the theft experiment referred to as central banking.
“…whose existence is predicated on the assumption that we don’t see any drastic climatic change.”
So much for for flexibility and adaptability….. Humans, not just as in different members of humanity, but indeed the same darned humans, currently travel from the tropics to the poles; seemingly thriving in both environs. It would take some real serious climate change to end humans as a life form. And since there simply exist no less civilized way of organizing possible human societies than the financialized progressivism of today…. : As long as there are humans, the “civilization” part of “human civilization” will at least not be any less existant than it is today. Some degrees plus or minus the summer of ’68 have precious little bearing on anything.
Stay Informed
Subscribe to MishTalk
You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.
Of course, it will. The earth will support multicellular life for another 800 million to 1 billion years. The question is what happens to human civilization, whose existence is predicated on the assumption that we don’t see any drastic climatic change.