[“Experts” ~cr]
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Global heating could become “catastrophic” for humanity if temperature rises are worse than many predict or cause cascades of events we have yet to consider, or indeed both. The world needs to start preparing for the possibility of a “climate endgame”.
This is according to an international team of researchers led by the University of Cambridge, who propose a research agenda for facing up to bad-to-worst-case scenarios. These include outcomes ranging from a loss of 10% of the global population to eventual human extinction.
In a paper published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers call on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to dedicate a future report to catastrophic climate change to galvanise research and inform the public.
“There are plenty of reasons to believe climate change could become catastrophic, even at modest levels of warming,” said lead author Dr Luke Kemp from Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.
“Climate change has played a role in every mass extinction event. It has helped fell empires and shaped history. Even the modern world seems adapted to a particular climate niche,” he said.
“Paths to disaster are not limited to the direct impacts of high temperatures, such as extreme weather events. Knock-on effects such as financial crises, conflict, and new disease outbreaks could trigger other calamities, and impede recovery from potential disasters such as nuclear war.”
Kemp and colleagues argue that the consequences of 3°C warming and beyond, and related extreme risks, have been under-examined.
Modelling done by the team shows areas of extreme heat (an annual average temperature of over 29 °C), could cover two billion people by 2070. These areas not only some of the most densely populated, but also some of the most politically fragile.
“Average annual temperatures of 29 degrees currently affect around 30 million people in the Sahara and Gulf Coast,” said co-author Chi Xu of Nanjing University.
“By 2070, these temperatures and the social and political consequences will directly affect two nuclear powers, and seven maximum containment laboratories housing the most dangerous pathogens. There is serious potential for disastrous knock-on effects,” he said.
Last year’s IPCC report suggested that if atmospheric CO2 doubles from pre-industrial levels – something the planet is halfway towards – then there is an roughly 18% chance temperatures will rise beyond 4.5°C.
However, Kemp co-authored a “text mining” study of IPCC reports, published earlier this year, which found that IPCC assessments have shifted away from high-end warming to increasingly focus on lower temperature rises.
This builds on previous work he contributed to showing that extreme temperature scenarios are “underexplored relative to their likelihood”. “We know least about the scenarios that matter most,” Kemp said.
The team behind the PNAS paper propose a research agenda that includes what they call the “four horsemen” of the climate endgame: famine and malnutrition, extreme weather, conflict, and vector-borne diseases.
Rising temperatures pose a major threat to global food supply, they say, with increasing probabilities of “breadbasket failures” as the world’s most agriculturally productive areas suffer collective meltdowns.
Hotter and more extreme weather could also create conditions for new disease outbreaks as habitats for both people and wildlife shift and shrink.
The authors caution that climate breakdown would likely exacerbate other “interacting threats”: from rising inequality and misinformation to democratic breakdowns and even new forms of destructive AI weaponry.
One possible future highlighted in the paper involves “warm wars” in which technologically enhanced superpowers fight over both dwindling carbon space and giant experiments to deflect sunlight and reduce global temperatures.
More focus should go on identifying all potential tipping points within “Hothouse Earth” say researchers: from methane released by permafrost melts to the loss of forests that act as “carbon sinks”, and even potential for vanishing cloud cover.
“The more we learn about how our planet functions, the greater the reason for concern,” said co-author Prof Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
“We increasingly understand that our planet is a more sophisticated and fragile organism. We must do the math of disaster in order to avoid it,” he said.
Co-author Prof Kristie Ebi from the University of Washington said: “We need an interdisciplinary endeavor to understand how climate change could trigger human mass morbidity and mortality.”
Added Kemp: “We know that temperature rise has a ‘fat tail’, which means a wide range of lower probability but potentially extreme outcomes. Facing a future of accelerating climate change while remaining blind to worst-case scenarios is naive risk-management at best and fatally foolish at worst.”
JOURNAL
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI
ARTICLE TITLE
Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
1-Aug-2022
How does this sort of rubbish get printed?
It’s politically motivated. The famous “spy school” Cambridge long known to have been infiltrated by Communists who wanted to destroy the West so they could take over. Now it is decades since the fall of the Soviet Union but the ideas live on. Like a golem or Frankenstein’s Monster. Green is the new Red.
Not at all surprising that warmunism began right after the soviet union collapsed. They needed a beard.
Cambridge featured in the Trump Russia Russia fairytale.
NAS is hot on alarmism, putting big bucks into geo engineering “studies” so they welcome this junk.
I was thinking did Griiff the doomster get published?
The boast: PNAS is one of the world’s most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scientific journals.
The favorite words are extreme/s, catastrophe/catastrophic and risk/s.
They have used “text mining” to find data.
They are targeting risk managers to push their agenda.
The peer reviewers are anonymous.
This looks like a research proposal with justification (and appeal) for financial support.
The media love papers like this that they can simply summarize without having to do some proper research and ask hard questions e.g. see the Guardian, “Climate endgame: risk of human extinction ‘dangerously underexplored’”
Conclusions There is ample evidence that climate change could become catastrophic. We could enter such “endgames” at even modest levels of warming. Understanding extreme risks is important for robust decision-making, from preparation to consideration of emergency responses. This requires exploring not just higher temperature scenarios but also the potential for climate change impacts to contribute to systemic risk and other cascades. We suggest that it is time to seriously scrutinize the best way to expand our research horizons to cover this field. The proposed “Climate Endgame” research agenda provides one way to navigate this under-studied area. Facing a future of accelerating climate change while blind to worst-case scenarios is naive risk management at best and fatally foolish at worst. (My emphasis).
In this case “ample evidence”, consists of nothing more than a couple of activists declaring that it might happen.
I’ve heard that Global Warming COULD cause hemorrhoids
Sounds like a pain in the a$$ to me
And the heartbreak of psorisis.
and in the next winter the roids go away, lol.
“Ample Evidence”?
Was Adam Schift a co-author?
And yet it is the climate change AGENDA..
that is destroying once great economies around the world.
How does one get “robust decision-making” from fantastical dreams of impossible futures? I assume there is lots of money in it for the dreamers.
“systemic” appears to have become a favored word of the MSM, politicians, thought leaders, influencers and the rest of the nattering class.
PNAS has become the clown car of scientific journals. A decade or so ago, they switched to “pal review” where authors could suggest who should review their papers. Of course, the authors pick friends who agree with them, and so the review process consists of mutual back scratching. Many papers now published in PNAS are little better than editorials and advocacy pieces. But MSM still treat it and anything it publishes as sacred science.
Of course the usual suspects still insist that these “journals” are superior to places like WUWT, because they have “formal” “peer” “review”.
The words ‘Experts say’ and ‘a new study’ should be massive red flags to anyone reading anything that is not deliberate satire.
Part of the problem is the experts themselves, who have gate kept and self regulated themselves into positions where everyone else is clearly unqualified to even point out spelling errors, but the other is lazy journalism who simply copy/paste the summary without question.
When you do actually question and bother to look at these ‘new studies’ it is difficult to believe they are actual proper studies.
There was one back about 4 years ago mentioned here in WUWT that claimed Global Warming would destroy the internet. Procrastinating from the Day Job I actually looked it up.
The paper first established the premise that Global Warming and massive sea level increases were real and cited the MSM news reports.
Okay… define your base assumptions… I guess.
The researcher then used a website that openly described itself as a conspiracy theory website to identify where the submarine cables across the Atlantic came ashore. Then the hubs (for want of a better term) were shown to be near the coast, and since sea levels were rising it was easy to show rising sea levels would swamp them… eventually… at 1mm a year or whatever the current reported rate is…
Therefore rising sea levels would destroy the submarine cable infrastructure and the internet would collapse. Hence Climate Change(tm) was a threat to the internet.
This was a published paper.
The logic process and level of research used was of a similar level to that one might have used to win an argument at 11pm on a pub night. In the real world if you threw up that level of analysis to your manager he would probably find an empty meeting room for a quick talk about performance expectations. If you base your argument on a core assumption (say – if it rains tomorrow) then your conclusions ONLY apply when that core assumption is in affect.
ie – If it rains tomorrow the outdoor function will be ruined is NOT the same as saying the outdoor function will be ruined regardless of how many graphs showing ruined table settings you dig up. Rain still needs to happen.
Higher Education is junk.
It would be relatively inexpensive to set up a large dome experiement for a few years increasing the temperature and CO2 to examine the effects on plants and trees growing in the dome.
While it is impossible to simulate all the factors one finds in nature, I suspect this experiment would prove raising the temperatures by 3-4C and increased CO2 concentrations – with the provision of adequate water – will not impede flourishing growth.
However, repeated experiments would be likely to discredit the models and embarrass the experts. Now we cannot have that can we?
Already done by glass hothouse owners to improve fruit productivity.
Every time they do anything like this plant productivity and drought resilience go up.
It would be better to test and perfect Musk’s Starships and then utilise them to get rid of the planetary left. Give them their Eden and let them get on with it.
Think Golgafrinchans
Yes, then we could enjoy the short term utopia of a slightly warmer limited without the idiots telling us how “bad” its going to be.
As George Carlin’s “Al Sleet,” the “Hippy Dippy Weather Man” put it –
“And remember, if you don’t like the weather, MOVE.”
S/b ‘slightly warmer climate,’ autouncorrect strikes again.
Agree, but, if I may suggest:
Make it a double dome, with another with temperture and CO2 concentration of “pre-industrial era”, as they say. Then compare after a few years.
Plant’s and trees grew much bigger with higher CO2 levels for example during the Jurassic geologic period. Thousands of ppm CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused these to grow large enough to eventually feed huge dinosaurs that ruled the Earth.
Climate heating…..a new term that will help scare those who are already scared witless. It’s publications such as this (the paper/study) that cause civil unrest, violence, etc.
The carbon they want to reduce is us….
A plague on these mollycoddled grant invested ex spurts. Why don’t they go and spurt in China or Russia?
Because Putin and Xi have a history of disappearing those who get in the way of oligarch’s making money.
We’ve thought of a new thing to panic over.
Please send money, and lots of it
The temperature can do 1 of 3 things: go up, stay roughly the same or go down. Why is it that these nutjobs want to explore unfeasably hotter and hotter scenarios whilst completely ignoring more likely scenarios of reduced temperatures? Throughout the 40 odd year history of climate change, the dangers of renewable energy boondoggles with colder temperatures have been completely ignored. Not just downplayed, ignored. If they want funding for their fun ‘n’ games computer playtime, get them to do some serious research first.
and speaking of ‘fat tales’…
Are those the fantasies that Al Gore used to recite?
Gregory, I dare not mention that to my wife. That would raise “in hot water” to a whole new level.
What’s dangerously unexplored is the understanding that ‘climate experts’ are not self-less saints, they are rather salesfolk whose salary is dependent on the gravy train continuing until they retire….
“Global heating will not be “catastrophic” for humanity even if temperature rises are higher than many of their duff models predict”
“the University of Cambridge” – famous for its Footlights and infamous for its quintet of traitors; Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Harold “Kim” Philby, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross.
It’s also famous [now] for its woke values. – “Cambridge University promotes academic who tweeted ‘white lives don’t matter’ to professor”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11957331/cambridge-uni-backs-academic-tweeted-white-lives-dont-matter/
So why do I find Cambridge less than trustworthy – like most UK educational establishments?
“CAMBRIDGE University has been named as one of the worst UK institutions for promoting free speech after a series of “no platforming” controversies and a growing “cancel culture”.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1373560/cambridge-university-free-speech-cancel-culture-no-platform-woke-movement-civitas
If you can’t speak freely…
Cambridge University is notorious for the funding it receives from China. The attached
https://www.cam.ac.uk/a-global-university/china/our-funding-partnerships-with-china
does not include the funding that individual colleges have with China.
Jesus College is probably the worst but not the only one to be populated by China’s “useful idiots”.
https://www.jesus.cam.ac.uk/research/global/china-forum
.
https://unherd.com/thepost/why-jesus-college-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-uyghurs
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinese-donor-in-fraud-inquiry-made-a-fellow-at-jesus-college-cambridge-389s6w7zm
It seems that as time goes by, we are reading a futuristic tale much like what Dr. Seuss wrote in “And to Think That I saw it on Mulberry Street” Dr Luke Kemp and others like him are modern day Marcos producing evermore outrageous tales to impress their audience. Only Marco decides to tell the truth. So far, Dr Kemp and the mob that he belongs to have decided otherwise.
Increased crop production from elevated CO2 levels, GM technology accelerating plant adaptation, improved irrigation, widespread nuclear energy, controlled migration etc.
And doesn’t the IPCC tell us most warming will be in the hemispheres leaving equatorial regions largely untouched? Does the IPCC also not inform us that it’s likely to be T-Min to rise rather than T-Max, mostly in winter and overnight?
How does anyone expect to reach a balanced conclusion when only the cataclysmic possibilities are considered. Even as a layman I understand there are nuances to climate fluctuations other than running round with my hair on fire whilst plotting a linear temperature rise graph by simply adding several ºC to scare the populace.
Climate science really is the pits. We know Richard Horton of the Lancet condemned medical science as up to 50% junk. Climate science can’t get close to medical science on the rigour of it’s inquiry, so we’re probably around the 5% – 10% levels of quality.
Just nonsense.
And doesn’t the IPCC tell us most warming will be in the hemispheres leaving equatorial regions largely untouched? Does the IPCC also not inform us that it’s likely to be T-Min to rise rather than T-Max, mostly in winter and overnight?
__________________________________________________________
IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 Page 750
Obliged Steve, but is it page 75 rather than 750?
Such bullshit cannot be constrained to a few pages. 750 is correct, but it might as well be 75,000 or 750,000.
Click on the link as you will find there are only 100 pages.
If you’re talking about ” mainstream” climate “science,” 5% -10% is far too generous…
Luke Kemp – Research Associate
Luke looks at the past (civilization collapses) and future (climate change and emerging technologies) to guide policy in the present. He is an honourary lecturer in environmental policy at the Australian National University (ANU), holds a PhD in international relations from the ANU and was previously a senior economist at Vivid Economics.
https://www.cser.ac.uk/team/luke-kemp/
So not a scientist, just another rent-seeker.
At lease he’s very handsome for a leftist.
So he’s one of the ANU’s? Makes a great deal of sense now.
“While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”
Genesis 8:22
Although I’m an atheist, I agree wholeheartedly.
From the paper:
“There are feedbacks in the carbon cycle and potential tipping points that could generate high GHG concentrations (14) that are often missing from models. Examples include Arctic permafrost thawing that releases methane and CO2 (15), carbon loss due to intense droughts and fires in the Amazon..”
A warmer AMO and Arctic is normal during a centennial solar minimum, as are increased El Nino conditions drying the Amazon.
“The rise of large-scale, urbanized agrarian societies began with the shift to the stable climate of the Holocene ∼12,000 y ago (42). Since then, human population density peaked within a narrow climatic envelope with a mean annual average temperature of ∼13 °C.”
Fairy tales, the globe has cooled since 6000 years ago. The Holocene has several climatic boundary events before and after then, with expansions of civilisations in high solar periods and collapses in low solar periods.
As for mass extinctions, they happen during ice ages, and the Late Bronze Age Collapse was during the longest pair of centennial solar minima for the last 4000 years, from 1360 BC and from 1250 BC.
80 seconds of non climate scientist Luke Kemp getting it all backwards:
No mention of Man’s technological advancements and food crop improvements since starting agriculture. Even if average temperatures increase (climate moderation) Man will effectively adapt. Academics (especially activist ideologues) don’t understand what goes on in the real world.
Aliens might invade and body snatch us all and it hasn’t been scientifically studied …. please send money for research.
I have a model that shows the outcomes when the inhabitants of our hollow earth emerge, take over the world and enslave all of humanity. Why will no-one give me funding to finish this vitally important work?
Quote:”Put simply, the emperor has no clothes. The establishment simply has no message for voters in the face of hardship. The only vision for the future it can conjure up is net zero – a dystopian agenda that takes the sacrificial politics of austerity and financialisation of the world economy to new heights. Actively campaigning for boiler bans, 15mph speed limits, and speculative green bubbles may seem like madness.
But it is a perfectly logical programme for an elite that has become unhinged from the real world.
Unhinged being the operative
here
Just read the comments and have little to add except that I turned off when I read “modelling”! Anyone can make a model that will fulfil their desires, as they choose the parameters to include, and exclude anything that reduces the catastrophic effects they are seeking.
But why should one be surprised (assuming some are…) Look at Prof Michael Mann, still respected many years after his “hockey stick” idea was shown to be invalid. Wish fulfillment, I think!
The science is settled, send more money.
Climate change did cause empires to collapse as they failed to adapt to the changes. We are far better placed to adapt these days if only we were not wasting trillions on stupid ideas to change the climate that don’t work. It is also a bit inconvenient to mention that the collapses and hard times coincided with cold spells.
You don’t understand how “Climate” works then, lol. A “long lasting civilization” is about a 1000 years. Climate changing is barely noticeable in that short geologic time span. Yet just like modern Commie/Fascist left academic you have already made your conclusion and it is wrong.
So they claim climate change has helped “fell empires”? Well, aside from proving that which is far from proven, let’s assume for the moment that climate change has indeed felled some empires.
Well, what happens when an empire falls? Well, another empire, or some other culture, rises in its place. It’s always been thus. The ancient “sea peoples” in the Mediterranean fell, the ancient Egyptians and Hittites arose in their place. Which one do do most people remember or celebrate, and produce movies and casinos to commemorate – the Egyptians, or the “sea peoples” who preceded them? The Egyptians and Hittites eventually fell, were replaced by the Persians and Greeks who gave us our modern culture today .. the Persians and Greeks fell and were replaced by the Romans .. who eventually fell and were replaced by the Germanic and Slavic cultures who have dominated Europe every since.
And so here we are – the modern world, in spite or, or even a product of, climate change.
And the warmunists still claim that climate change is inherently bad, indeed “evil”. Like, life was so much better during the last glaciation 16 KYA? Right.
Good grief. Who has any credibility in forecasting future climate? I cannot get any accurate weather forecasts except perhaps 24 hrs beforehand. I viewed the YouTube video, “The Dimming.” This sort of action (geoengineering) is dangerous since they really have no idea what the unintended consequences might be. It’s the same with using models to generate these “alarmists” forecasts and the unintended consequences which we are witnessing in the EU, Australia, Sri Lanka and other countries that have adopted this rubbish. Germany is realizing the folly of its green energy decision. You cannot fix stupid.
You cannot fix profiteering from fearmongering.
Yes you can. Its called Capitalism and that is WHY it is the supreme monetary system for the INDIVIDUAL.
Proof if proof were needed that the whole thing is a religion
Echoes of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Book of Ezekiel) who brought sword, famine, wild beasts, and pestilence.
“And behold, there came Four Horsemen and their names were Harry Stuhldreher, Don Miller, Jim Crowley, and Elmer Layden. And, lo, they laid waste the teams of Michigan and Ohio State.” – Book of Knute (4:13)
I assume that future peoples will view these Leftist apocalyptic visions the same way we now view the Bible Apocalypse.
Hopefully sooner rather than later
Not even close, lol. The future will see the Commie/Fascist left Puritans the same way we see the Salem Witch Trial Puritans… An evil pathetic religion run by ignorant little girls.
Spectacular wind turbine fire sends clouds of black smoke across Hull, city in the UK
video available at
https://twitter.com/i/status/1554724279773810689
Must be a test of the de-icing system. Nothing to see here, move along.
I suspect that the probability of invasion by the Klingon Empire is also dangerously underexplored. Qapla‘!
Nice Star Trek reference.😀
“Only a fool fights in a burning house.” The more global warming, the less likely a Klingon invasion!
What do I tell our grandson aged 11?
More of what these scholars guess at?
Or the reality that today, the UAH temperature for Australia shows no warming trend over the last 10 years?
Poor grandson has not really felt any global warming, yet is expected to hop on board the apocalyptic gravy train? Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/uahaug2022.jpg
Well, a “no Australian temperature increase” will have to go another 7 years to serve as another invalidation of the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models. The almost 19-year Super Pause went beyond the warmunists’ self-imposed 17-year window of no warming to invalidate the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models. Point this out and you get … silence.
It really is time to just shut down all the universities. They mutated from diploma mills to ignorance factories to lunatic asylums.
What a great comment. You are so right.
Experts? Huh! The self-appointed kind, no doubt…
The “Ive got a gender studies degree from Wellesley so I’m an expert at all things” crowd…
Eric Worrall posted an article here a couple of days ago on the BBC’s … “reporting” (?) of this paper, which is similar but different to the “EurekAlert” angle you point to here.
A selected extract I posted under Eric’s take on Kemp et al :
Go for it guys. Shred the last little bit of your credibility.
The CACW ship sailed a long time ago
If Dr. Kemp wants to study existential risk, all he has to do is look in a mirror.
Nothing more than the usual apocalyptic science FICTION…
The CCP is using this scam to empower themselves. All these maggot leftwits are going to hate it when their CCP over-lords put them in Nike factories 19 hours a day.
Referenced in Luke Kemp’s “Climate Endgame” paper is https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/ 2022EF002876 in which the abstract reads (my bold):
”We focus on how different global temperature increases represented in IPCC reports have shifted over time. While the first four assessment reports had a roughly equal focus on temperatures above and below 2°C, the more recent fifth and sixth assessment reports have a considerably stronger focus on warming below 2°C. This is concerning as warming above 2°C is more likely given current emissions trajectories and is more influential on climate risk assessments.”
It seems that even the IPCC is not being hysterical enough for these clown.
Also in that (Jehn et al, 2022) paper :
From the Liu & Raftery paper :
If they “concluded” that the USA has a 2% probability of “meeting their NDC” while China has a 16% chance of meeting theirs then I think their “methodology” needs to be checked by some other “peer reviewers” …
Yep, in the CliSciFi world China’s commitment to reducing greenhouse emissions intensity by 2030 means that “For China, this means reducing emissions by 60% from 2005 to 2030.” Do you wonder why I think our governments are lying to us?
From the article–
Fig. 2 “Fragile heat: the overlap between state fragility, extreme heat, and nuclear and biological catastrophic hazards. GCM model data……” I have engineer friends that provide me information. The Bent summer 2022 issue, from the Engineering Honor Society, in response to a previous article on “Decarbonizing the Atmosphere, despite one short letter on equity, similar one on a serious magnitude error, has a page long letter carefully destroying the narrative with factual material, along with two other shorter ones.
In contrast Civil Engineering, January/February issue, with a frightening cover of “Making Infrastructure Resilient to Climate Change” has ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) statement urging UN action on Climate Change, and an article on courses about solutions for global crises which ends in “Lives not grades…We want to be known for the lives of students we touched.” They have only one letter, that on the necessity of engineering educators to have practical experience. ASCE publications have been a valuable source to many disciplines, including environmental. I have used their publications a lot, maybe better recheck now.
I suppose that it is easy if you have nothing better to do than making heat fragile, but not so much if you actually have to engineer it.
[Global heating could become “catastrophic” for humanity if temperature rises are worse than many predict or cause cascades of events we have yet to consider, or indeed both. The world needs to start preparing for the possibility of a “climate endgame”.]
Please to stop lying to the public.
The planet warming has made climate less extreme with less deaths caused by severe weather, increased greening of the world and less winter deaths. That is huge benfit to us all and we should thank not having near dangerous low levels of CO2 that the planet had 1000’s of years ago before the interglacial period began.
What is the mechansim for climate endgame? None of the activists/alarmists have explained how this whould actually happen. Explantions like huge rises in sea levels are BS at the highest level. Arctic sea ice is not disapearing anytime in at least the next few decades and this still would not be a problem if it did.
The warmest climates in the world will have the least warming if any and the coldest regions that need the most warming for it to be bearable are having modest warming. Still far too cold for most of the planet away from the Tropics to live without clothing and shelter, risking death. No matter how much warming there will be it will never be as warm as the Tropics anywhere else. The planets average temeprature was around 14c before recent warming so the planet having an average temperature of 17c if even this was possible will not be a problem and actually be benificial. The planet warms in zones, meaning a 1c rise will move the climate zone North about 150 miles. Acticvists/alarmists calling out end of time, when it would be like moving South for a few hundred miles or so like on holiday, are seriously deluded.
The only dangerous endgame I see is the time running out for the activists and elite relying on huge amounts of money that is driven by greed. Hoping to dictate what the people should and shouldn’t do while being hypercrites themselves.
Funny, I keep hearing from one of our WUWT denizens that scientists don’t make claims like this.
“Dangerously unexplored”?!?!? HA! HA! That’s all they have been exploring for decades, they keep crying WOLF! WOLF! and we ignore them.
As they said in the Soviet Union: They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work. Nobody believes that climate disaster shit but they mouth it to support the narrative. Cynicism worldwide is on the rise and it will not end well. Especially since another huge recession is in the works.
It’s the butterfly effect. A butterfly flaps its wings causing a disastrous weather event on the opposite side of the Earth. The first sentence gives it away, they don’t know. So why publish such a thing? Now mild weather is to be feared. Coffee time.
Warming of 3 C at ground level requires 16 more watts of IR heat from somewhere. At present the net IR leaving the ground is about 50 watts. Increased CO2 back radiation can’t provide enough IR heat for that.
Plus increased evaporation of water provides more clouds, more albedo, that reflects incoming SW sunlight during the day while reducing heat loss from ground to outer space at night….in balanced proportions to maintain the planet’s heat balance and average surface temperature.
So Kemp, Rockstrom, et al are the usual technically challenged myth-believing paper-publishing- opportunists and doom-cultists.
DMackenzie, could you please show the S-B calculations for the 3 ℃ increase resulting in 16 W/m^2? I saw it somewhere but forgot where. Its pretty basic stuff to be ignored by CliSciFi practitioners.
Once upon a time, there was a little boy who cried “Wolf” …
…who then grew up to become an overpaid ‘climate scientist’. And he laughed and laughed all the way to the bank.
…and inspired others to become climate communication experts, climate psychologists, peer review manipulators, and climate priests.
English language a requirement for Cambridge journalists are not.
Seems like the news release was written by a student of Yoda. One wonders if any other Star Wars characters have professorships.
We are currently in an inter-glacial period right now. Future warmth is not the problem we are facing.
I can see it now. In a hundred years the Commie/Fascist left will demand everyone drive a 1973 Buick for at least 8 hours a day just to keep the temp from falling catastrophically.
Did these jokers present any real scientific work? All I saw was models and guessing, why on earth would someone get paid for this kind of lazy work?
Quality control is off in a lock box somewhere if it actually exists anymore.
Bob, did you ever work for the government?
No, unless you count the Army.
The Army is the lowest level Govt employee. You weren’t used to save your country you were used to enforce the wishes of the global elite.
This is impressive for its extreme level of stupidity and detachment from current disaster movie theme projecting on climate change.
This is during a land war in Europe, saber rattling in east Asia, much worry over threats in Scandinavia, and terror reorganizing in Afghanistan. No wonder every stick of property in America is overpriced by foreign investment and refugee running on the Mexican border is more lucrative than the million pills a week of fentanyl from the drug cartel affiliate operations and Biden working on new border wall sections.
how do I get a job at the Center For Study of Existential Risk ?
Meanwhile in Paris…..
Cold showers, no lights: Europe saves as Russian gas wanes | AP News
“…international team of researchers led by the University of Cambridge, who propose a research agenda….” i.e. Send us money
I think the change in average temperature of ale in English pubs due to Climate Change™ is dangerously underexplored.
This urgent. Where do I apply for a grant?
If there had been a prehistoric AOC running around 20,000 years ago she would have been screaming;CO2 is rising, the temperature is rising , ice is melting, we’re all gonna die. And she would have been right about the first 3. ( Although mankind did not cause any of those things. They were completely natural) But she would have been totally wrong about the dying part. Instead of death the warmer temperature ushered in the Holocene era which has been extremely beneficial for life and mankind in particular. Virtually all of civilization developed during the Holocene. The mile thick ice sheets that covered most of Canada and the northern part of the U.S. were replaced by lush green forests teeming with life and later fertile farmlands where much of the world’s food is grown.
How do functioning societies plan for a “climate endgame?” Especially given that the authors resort to intersectionality: Their “rising inequality and misinformation to democratic breakdowns” (all current Leftist buzzwords).
Any far-fetched worldwide disaster scenarios these amateurs can ejaculate from their mental masturbation pale in comparison to humanity’s long and fine tradition of fictional apocalyptic stories. I’ll go with authors and screenwriters paid to produce such crap, not low-rent bureaucrats on the government dole.
Notice how you never read stories saying “Man From New England flies to Phoenix and Immediately Dies Because He Changed Climate Zones”…
🤔
OTOH Global warming could become beneficial for humanity if temperature rises are less than many predict or cause cascades of (beneficial) events we have yet to consider, or indeed both. The world needs to start preparing for the possibility of a “climate paradise”.
We are in a climate paradise RIGHT NOW. The Commie/Fascist left cant allow that anymore.
I think l that is REALLY inadequately explored!
The only thing “dangerously unexplored” is how much of what is touted as ‘science’ is actually garden variety bullshit.
There must be one extremely indoctrinated leftwit downvoting everyone, lol. The emotion is the actual problem of the modern left.
These Commie/Fascist leftwits are the real enemy of Humanity. Not our planet.