We warmed at 0.55 deg C over the last 10 years. I would hazard a guess the RoW will continue to accelerate "faster than expected". We ain't seen nuthin' yet.
We now have ANOTHER hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Nobody has even remotely recovered from the last one. I have a premonition that weather disasters will now be a regular feature in our heated up world. The economic damage is not just from the destruction. Imagine what the new insurance rates will be. And not just in Florida and California. Who would have thought a Florida hurricane could devastate North Carolina? I think there are disasters coming that we have not even considered yet. Who's going to pay for all rhis destruction? We are spending all of our excess capital making the world safe for freedom and Democracy. While FEMA is broke. No money for Americans. No. We send the money to continue wars. For freedom and Democracy. Yep.
I had one family member and one friend yesterday say "it's sure hot." I'm in Northern AZ. The sleeping are stirring. I mentioned the dire nature of the situation to my family member probably to be ignored. Most people I don't bother because maybe ignorance is bliss for them. I water my plants. Save what we can is what I've heard some biologists say.
Wonderful effort, Richard! Part of our problem with a slurry of differing numbers is the lack of a common baseline average, so I prefer the C3S 1991-2020 baseline, and their "Climate Pulse" page. In their 6-5-24 article: "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", they give the figure of 0.75 degC ave. global temp increase this decade to mid 2024, so 0.214 degC ANNUALLY and on a trend line which we can (?) extrapolate into the future. So, 1.65 + 0.428 = (rounded) 1.7 + .4 = 2.1 degC increase by 2027, and another 1 degC increase every 5 YEARS, so 3.1 degC by 2032, and so on to a 6 degC ave. global temp increase over the 1991-2020 baseline by 2047.
This is how I like to report it: any child born today may well celebrate (?) his/her 23rd BD in a 6 degC hotter nearly unlivable world, and rue the day their hapless parents brought them to the party way too late for a healthy, happy life.
Thanks, again, for all of your efforts, but we need to find a standard data source for our reporting, and I'm stickin' with the publicly supported EU's C3S. Have a blessed day! I will have to take my daily stroll down to a favorite swing looking over the Muskingum River by 9:30, or the wet bulb temp. will be too hot and require an extended cool down in the AC when I get back to my little student apt. on Oct. 6th, 2024.
Hey again. Just wanted to confirm that my doomer nightmare mode worst case napkin math was approximately the same. I assumed a much faster jump to 1C per decade+ too. 4.5 to 6.5 by 2050-2060.
Richard your work is intense. May I ask a question: What is the most important thing you needed to, must say, to the world about the content of this data rich article? Ponder that. Then maybe, step back and write a prose article about your thoughts and feelings surrounding that ONE thing you really need to say and then simply use this article here as your supporting reference point. Just an idea. May or may not work for you. Me I am still struggling to find my 'voice' on this topic. I struggle badly. Best wishes.
It has been quite apparent 1.5 is dead for the last 18 months. Not surprisingly that we amateurs are the ones tasked with calling out the truth. The system doesn’t want us to become unruly. Good work, Richard.
Your data is impressive, and you seem to be good at understanding the factors that are driving the data towards Climatastrophe. That still leaves plenty of room to grapple with understanding more about the human predicament.
The “moderate faction” of climate scientists was always beholden to its masters, and so no one should be surprised at the pro-corporate bias shown by a censored, consensus non-power-holding international body of researchers. A decently-staffed body of analysts without that bias could easily have concluded back in the 70s that fossil fueled civilization was going to lead to collapse, but only a few voices could make themselves heard. It was always going to be “far off in the future, and we’ll figure something out by then” that reigned over the intelligentsia and the populace.
While this “safish” crowd was and is fantastically deluded, so was and is the “we must radically change society to stop emissions” crowd. Humanity society is run by an ultrasocial supersystem of power, and that power has become fossil fueled. Emissions have gone up and up.
It’s up to us to understand, and with so much and so many to blame, there really is no use for that blame other than to feel an overriding sense of tragedy.
Martin thanks for the really terrific summary. You are so spot on there. I agree with all of it. I have had the same building frustrations of nigh on15 years now -- I used to make excuses for the climate scientists 'need for conservative' findings -- until the scales fell from my eyes. A little over 5 years ago I finally gave up all hope anything will change - with the cabal of "in group" authoritative GCM ego-ivory tower climate scientists (Mann et al) the IPCC controlled "in group" system, or anything else like crazy UNFCCC COP meetings LOL
Sure, there was a lot of,deep, informed commentary in that rundown. However, my problem is with the source, Hagens, who,has zero familiarity with sociology, specifically the sociology of the cross-institutional power that resides in the trans-national corporate model.
There is no “we” that exists contrary to the argument, only the institutional “they” of profit-seeking extraction and production powers. Hagens’ dreams repeat the mistakes of the hippie back-to the-landers who did not, could not contend with the far greater power of mass global technology corporations that drive economic inequality, war, pandemics, mass despair, dying ecosystems, etc.
I just saw some news go round that said regression on palaeoclimate data yielded a ca. 8⁰ ECS. My suspicion is that even a number of sources who deem the IPCC too compromised to follow their projections likely need to revise their estimates further upward. I suspect that's because there's been quite a bit of hedging from what looks like not wanting to shoot too far above the most widely accepted source.
Lately all I can do is cry...Thank you for continuing your work that helps us understand and at least be as mentally prepared as possible...
We warmed at 0.55 deg C over the last 10 years. I would hazard a guess the RoW will continue to accelerate "faster than expected". We ain't seen nuthin' yet.
We now have ANOTHER hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Nobody has even remotely recovered from the last one. I have a premonition that weather disasters will now be a regular feature in our heated up world. The economic damage is not just from the destruction. Imagine what the new insurance rates will be. And not just in Florida and California. Who would have thought a Florida hurricane could devastate North Carolina? I think there are disasters coming that we have not even considered yet. Who's going to pay for all rhis destruction? We are spending all of our excess capital making the world safe for freedom and Democracy. While FEMA is broke. No money for Americans. No. We send the money to continue wars. For freedom and Democracy. Yep.
I had one family member and one friend yesterday say "it's sure hot." I'm in Northern AZ. The sleeping are stirring. I mentioned the dire nature of the situation to my family member probably to be ignored. Most people I don't bother because maybe ignorance is bliss for them. I water my plants. Save what we can is what I've heard some biologists say.
Wonderful effort, Richard! Part of our problem with a slurry of differing numbers is the lack of a common baseline average, so I prefer the C3S 1991-2020 baseline, and their "Climate Pulse" page. In their 6-5-24 article: "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", they give the figure of 0.75 degC ave. global temp increase this decade to mid 2024, so 0.214 degC ANNUALLY and on a trend line which we can (?) extrapolate into the future. So, 1.65 + 0.428 = (rounded) 1.7 + .4 = 2.1 degC increase by 2027, and another 1 degC increase every 5 YEARS, so 3.1 degC by 2032, and so on to a 6 degC ave. global temp increase over the 1991-2020 baseline by 2047.
This is how I like to report it: any child born today may well celebrate (?) his/her 23rd BD in a 6 degC hotter nearly unlivable world, and rue the day their hapless parents brought them to the party way too late for a healthy, happy life.
Thanks, again, for all of your efforts, but we need to find a standard data source for our reporting, and I'm stickin' with the publicly supported EU's C3S. Have a blessed day! I will have to take my daily stroll down to a favorite swing looking over the Muskingum River by 9:30, or the wet bulb temp. will be too hot and require an extended cool down in the AC when I get back to my little student apt. on Oct. 6th, 2024.
Hey again. Just wanted to confirm that my doomer nightmare mode worst case napkin math was approximately the same. I assumed a much faster jump to 1C per decade+ too. 4.5 to 6.5 by 2050-2060.
😬😞
Richard your work is intense. May I ask a question: What is the most important thing you needed to, must say, to the world about the content of this data rich article? Ponder that. Then maybe, step back and write a prose article about your thoughts and feelings surrounding that ONE thing you really need to say and then simply use this article here as your supporting reference point. Just an idea. May or may not work for you. Me I am still struggling to find my 'voice' on this topic. I struggle badly. Best wishes.
Excellent idea.
And yes, it IS difficult to find a voice for all of this.
It has been quite apparent 1.5 is dead for the last 18 months. Not surprisingly that we amateurs are the ones tasked with calling out the truth. The system doesn’t want us to become unruly. Good work, Richard.
Your data is impressive, and you seem to be good at understanding the factors that are driving the data towards Climatastrophe. That still leaves plenty of room to grapple with understanding more about the human predicament.
The “moderate faction” of climate scientists was always beholden to its masters, and so no one should be surprised at the pro-corporate bias shown by a censored, consensus non-power-holding international body of researchers. A decently-staffed body of analysts without that bias could easily have concluded back in the 70s that fossil fueled civilization was going to lead to collapse, but only a few voices could make themselves heard. It was always going to be “far off in the future, and we’ll figure something out by then” that reigned over the intelligentsia and the populace.
While this “safish” crowd was and is fantastically deluded, so was and is the “we must radically change society to stop emissions” crowd. Humanity society is run by an ultrasocial supersystem of power, and that power has become fossil fueled. Emissions have gone up and up.
It’s up to us to understand, and with so much and so many to blame, there really is no use for that blame other than to feel an overriding sense of tragedy.
Martin thanks for the really terrific summary. You are so spot on there. I agree with all of it. I have had the same building frustrations of nigh on15 years now -- I used to make excuses for the climate scientists 'need for conservative' findings -- until the scales fell from my eyes. A little over 5 years ago I finally gave up all hope anything will change - with the cabal of "in group" authoritative GCM ego-ivory tower climate scientists (Mann et al) the IPCC controlled "in group" system, or anything else like crazy UNFCCC COP meetings LOL
cheers
ABOUT - "That still leaves plenty of room to grapple with understanding more about the human predicament. "
Would this help as an intro to the "issues" involved?
Tales from the Carbon Energy Pulse
https://substack.com/home/post/p-149955421
Sure, there was a lot of,deep, informed commentary in that rundown. However, my problem is with the source, Hagens, who,has zero familiarity with sociology, specifically the sociology of the cross-institutional power that resides in the trans-national corporate model.
There is no “we” that exists contrary to the argument, only the institutional “they” of profit-seeking extraction and production powers. Hagens’ dreams repeat the mistakes of the hippie back-to the-landers who did not, could not contend with the far greater power of mass global technology corporations that drive economic inequality, war, pandemics, mass despair, dying ecosystems, etc.
Yes. We all do have our limitations, that much is true. And we're all learning, well many of us are at least. TY
I just saw some news go round that said regression on palaeoclimate data yielded a ca. 8⁰ ECS. My suspicion is that even a number of sources who deem the IPCC too compromised to follow their projections likely need to revise their estimates further upward. I suspect that's because there's been quite a bit of hedging from what looks like not wanting to shoot too far above the most widely accepted source.
Nadia, my like-minded friend from Dis..... before they kicked me off Nate's channel. Peace! Hope you're well. :-)
It may be time to just make popcorn.