As the difference between the policy objective and the actual delivery get wider apart, we begin to see this gulf causing a number of signs of panic show up. 2050 may still seem some way off, but the deadlines for earlier stages, such as the end of petrol and diesel vehicle manufacture are getting much closer. The article below gives a detailed look at this;
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/28/uk-has-made-no-progress-on-climate-plan-say-governments-own-advisers
ReplyDeleteWe all live in the same lifeboat. Consequences are there whether you acknowledge it or not.
Outdoor work is expected to get tougher in the future. Many parts of the world it is now a little more dangerous to be out in this heat.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/07/06/earth-record-heat-climate-extremes/
EXTREME WEATHER
Earth entering ‘uncharted territory’ as heat records quickly shatter
Scientists say to brace for more extreme weather and probably a record-warm 2023 amid unprecedented temperatures
Better safe than sorry isn't being applied in the models. Future financial damage is being underestimated.
ReplyDeletehttps://climatecrocks.com/2023/07/06/climate-economic-impact-underestimated/
Financial Times (Paywal):
Financial institutions often did not understand the models they were using to predict the economic cost of climate change and were underestimating the risks of temperature rises, research led by a professional body of actuaries shows.
Many of the results emerging from the models were “implausible,” with a serious “disconnect” between climate scientists, economists, the people building the models and the financial institutions using them, a report by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and the University of Exeter finds.
Companies are increasingly required to report on the climate-related risks they face, using mathematical models to estimate how resilient their assets and businesses might be at different levels of warming. The International Sustainability Standards Board last week launched long-awaited guidance for companies to inform investors about sustainability-related risks, including the climate scenarios chosen in their calculations.
For example, an assessment of global gross domestic product loss in a so-called “hothouse” world of 3C higher temperatures by a group of 114 central banks and financial supervisors, known as the Network for Greening the Financial System, did not include “impacts related to extreme weather, sea-level rise or wider societal impacts from migration or conflict”.
Conservative climate models lull us into a sense of safety. That just may not be true. Better safe than sorry on this issue. There is no going back once we pollute.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.axios.com/2023/07/05/crop-failure-climate-models
Study: Crop failure risk is underestimated in climate models
The trouble with computer models is that they are only as good as the data that is fed into them. As we saw from the COVID models they can be way out. All we really have to go on is the climate data that we collect now and that is not telling us that there is any need to panic. We must learn to live with the climate we get and not waste trillions of dollars trying to change it. Adaptation is the answer.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at this:
ReplyDeletehttps://climatescience.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-climate-science-tally-of-failure.html
None of it is peer reviewed science. Jo Nova does not contribute to climate science. If one is to discredit the work of scientists, it needs to be in peer reviewed science based in evidence. Blogs are not the format to prove your science chops.
ReplyDelete