While there is universal consensus that we experience climate change there is much more uncertainty about how much this will impact economic growth and output.
The above is how XR would explain the guilty past (a most Christian thought). Not that western middle classes do that much to curb their own emissions unless they're subsidized. This ex-XR UK member gives clear insights into the motivations (and culthisness) of XR:
'How accurate climate change models were already in the early 1980s'
They were able to make general predictions about temperature reacting to having more CO. But they couldn't - and still can't - tell what exactly is natural and what is human impact.
The IPCC iin 2001:
IPCC technical rapport TAR3 TAR Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
On page 771 it says: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
Obviously that never returned in following reports.
Many oil majors were modelling and modelled the same outcomes. Oil companies did not (have to) hide their conclusions. And why would they? First of all: they modelled what the early climate scientists also modelled so it's not as if they hid some important fact/prediction from academia. (And if they did, imagine what that would have meant for our trust in the quality of the work of those climate academics...).
Second, In the early 80s (and deep into the 90s) there absolutely was no virulently anti 'Big Oil' climate. So no reason to be so secretative. Models of Exxon and Shell for instance predicted that temps would begin to have an impact around 2010. Good luck to the politician who would have wanted to act on that in 1983...
Some companies, especially American, did spend a lot of money on promoting their own industry and countering climate scientist's predictions. If you look at the results of all the hysterical predictions that have been made since the late 80s and that have in no way come true, they weren't entirely wrong.
'Modelling' tipping points (TP's are Johan Rockstrom's raison d'etre) is ridiculous since they are a 100% future projection. Contemporary models can't even accurately model clouds. Remember last year's alarm about a very crappy study that said the Gulf stream was going to possible collapse soon? Or was that the AMOC? Or the AMO? Media got it complete mix up. Just like they mixed up ground- and air temps during last year's Cerberus heatwave. On average that's a 10C difference. (Here's the AMO btw: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo).
Here's an excellent 7 minute take down by pretty reliable physicist - and funny lady - Sabine Hossenfelder:
Stop blaming fossil fuel companies – Climate Change is our own fault
This below is a MIT study from a few weeks ago. A revolutionary find: light can evaporate water. Until now it was understood we needed heat for that. Since water vapor is by far the most abundent green house gas, and since we understand clouds so little - the article also goes into clouds - you'll get how important a find this is. (Don't expect too much noise in your news outlets though. You know why).
How light can vaporize water without the need for heat
Surprising “photomolecular effect” discovered by MIT researchers could affect calculations of climate change and may lead to improved desalination and drying processes.
“We’re exploring all these different directions. And of course, it also affects the basic science, like the effects of clouds on climate, because clouds are the most uncertain aspect of climate models.”
“The observations in the manuscript points to a new physical mechanism that foundationally alters our thinking on the kinetics of evaporation,” says Shannon Yee, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Georgia Tech, who was not associated with this work. He adds, “Who would have thought that we are still learning about something as quotidian as water evaporating?”
“Climate change is propelling enormous human migrations as it transforms global agriculture and remakes the world order — and no country stands to gain more than Russia. It hopes to seize on the warming temperatures and longer growing seasons brought by climate change to refashion itself as one of the planet’s largest producers of food.“
However, it is always difficult to predict what Russia will do in any situation as they tend to do things that go against them. However, all countries closer to the North Pole will be the biggest beneficiaries. There will be a massive migration from southern countries to Canada, Northern Europe, and maybe even Greenland if it eventually melts.
The above article mentions a history of migration: "Around 3,000 years ago, a drought in central China drove Mongol herders a thousand miles north into the steppes of Khakassia, in Siberia, where they remained raising horses and sheep for centuries. The likelihood of that process repeating as the climate warms is now inevitable.”
Agreed. The countries that stand to gain the most from Climate Change are Russia, Canada and countries like Norway.
But the main problem is going to be migrant flows. I didn't think of the Mongol herds as an analogy, though. That is a really good one since some people already see the herds coming to Europe and the US today.
Yes, the migration flow will be the biggest problem largely driven by food insecurity. I believe that in most cases, history is a good way of looking at this or any problem. I largely agree with the below:
"Everything’s been done before. The scenes change but the behaviors and outcomes don’t. Historian Niall Ferguson’s plug for his profession is that “The dead outnumber the living 14 to 1, and we ignore the accumulated experience of such a huge majority of mankind at our peril.” The biggest lesson from the 100 billion people who are no longer alive is that they tried everything we’re trying today. The details were different, but they tried to outwit entrenched competition. They swung from optimism to pessimism at the worst times. They battled unsuccessfully against reversion to the mean. They learned that popular things seem safe because so many people are involved, but they’re most dangerous because they’re most competitive. Same stuff that guides today, and will guide tomorrow. History is abused when specific events are used as a guide to the future. It’s way more useful as a benchmark for how people react to risk and incentives, which is pretty stable over time."
The above is how XR would explain the guilty past (a most Christian thought). Not that western middle classes do that much to curb their own emissions unless they're subsidized. This ex-XR UK member gives clear insights into the motivations (and culthisness) of XR:
Climate Activism Has a Cult Problem
https://bit.ly/3ZFec3h
'How accurate climate change models were already in the early 1980s'
They were able to make general predictions about temperature reacting to having more CO. But they couldn't - and still can't - tell what exactly is natural and what is human impact.
The IPCC iin 2001:
IPCC technical rapport TAR3 TAR Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
bit.ly/3KeQ42y
On page 771 it says: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
Obviously that never returned in following reports.
Many oil majors were modelling and modelled the same outcomes. Oil companies did not (have to) hide their conclusions. And why would they? First of all: they modelled what the early climate scientists also modelled so it's not as if they hid some important fact/prediction from academia. (And if they did, imagine what that would have meant for our trust in the quality of the work of those climate academics...).
Second, In the early 80s (and deep into the 90s) there absolutely was no virulently anti 'Big Oil' climate. So no reason to be so secretative. Models of Exxon and Shell for instance predicted that temps would begin to have an impact around 2010. Good luck to the politician who would have wanted to act on that in 1983...
Some companies, especially American, did spend a lot of money on promoting their own industry and countering climate scientist's predictions. If you look at the results of all the hysterical predictions that have been made since the late 80s and that have in no way come true, they weren't entirely wrong.
'Modelling' tipping points (TP's are Johan Rockstrom's raison d'etre) is ridiculous since they are a 100% future projection. Contemporary models can't even accurately model clouds. Remember last year's alarm about a very crappy study that said the Gulf stream was going to possible collapse soon? Or was that the AMOC? Or the AMO? Media got it complete mix up. Just like they mixed up ground- and air temps during last year's Cerberus heatwave. On average that's a 10C difference. (Here's the AMO btw: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo).
Here's an excellent 7 minute take down by pretty reliable physicist - and funny lady - Sabine Hossenfelder:
Stop blaming fossil fuel companies – Climate Change is our own fault
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMOzaudSe8
For those interested in learning why she left academia (it's one big hunt for funding):
My dream died, and now i 'm here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiBlGDfRU8&t=187s
As for settled science:
This below is a MIT study from a few weeks ago. A revolutionary find: light can evaporate water. Until now it was understood we needed heat for that. Since water vapor is by far the most abundent green house gas, and since we understand clouds so little - the article also goes into clouds - you'll get how important a find this is. (Don't expect too much noise in your news outlets though. You know why).
How light can vaporize water without the need for heat
https://news.mit.edu/2024/how-light-can-vaporize-water-without-heat-0423
Surprising “photomolecular effect” discovered by MIT researchers could affect calculations of climate change and may lead to improved desalination and drying processes.
“We’re exploring all these different directions. And of course, it also affects the basic science, like the effects of clouds on climate, because clouds are the most uncertain aspect of climate models.”
“The observations in the manuscript points to a new physical mechanism that foundationally alters our thinking on the kinetics of evaporation,” says Shannon Yee, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Georgia Tech, who was not associated with this work. He adds, “Who would have thought that we are still learning about something as quotidian as water evaporating?”
I remember reading the article below (https://www.propublica.org/article/the-big-thaw-how-russia-could-dominate-a-warming-world) a few years back, which said
“Climate change is propelling enormous human migrations as it transforms global agriculture and remakes the world order — and no country stands to gain more than Russia. It hopes to seize on the warming temperatures and longer growing seasons brought by climate change to refashion itself as one of the planet’s largest producers of food.“
However, it is always difficult to predict what Russia will do in any situation as they tend to do things that go against them. However, all countries closer to the North Pole will be the biggest beneficiaries. There will be a massive migration from southern countries to Canada, Northern Europe, and maybe even Greenland if it eventually melts.
The above article mentions a history of migration: "Around 3,000 years ago, a drought in central China drove Mongol herders a thousand miles north into the steppes of Khakassia, in Siberia, where they remained raising horses and sheep for centuries. The likelihood of that process repeating as the climate warms is now inevitable.”
Agreed. The countries that stand to gain the most from Climate Change are Russia, Canada and countries like Norway.
But the main problem is going to be migrant flows. I didn't think of the Mongol herds as an analogy, though. That is a really good one since some people already see the herds coming to Europe and the US today.
Yes, the migration flow will be the biggest problem largely driven by food insecurity. I believe that in most cases, history is a good way of looking at this or any problem. I largely agree with the below:
"Everything’s been done before. The scenes change but the behaviors and outcomes don’t. Historian Niall Ferguson’s plug for his profession is that “The dead outnumber the living 14 to 1, and we ignore the accumulated experience of such a huge majority of mankind at our peril.” The biggest lesson from the 100 billion people who are no longer alive is that they tried everything we’re trying today. The details were different, but they tried to outwit entrenched competition. They swung from optimism to pessimism at the worst times. They battled unsuccessfully against reversion to the mean. They learned that popular things seem safe because so many people are involved, but they’re most dangerous because they’re most competitive. Same stuff that guides today, and will guide tomorrow. History is abused when specific events are used as a guide to the future. It’s way more useful as a benchmark for how people react to risk and incentives, which is pretty stable over time."