Roger: in your early morning presentation you referred to the IPCC list of potential impacts and possible atribution. It was a much more concise table than the one in AR6. Is it available in some pdf form. We are in our small town in BC now under a council with a 3:2 activist bent (5 councillors). They are currently tilting at the legal windmill at the behest of "SueBigOil" lawyers. You can google it.
Many of us are suggesting a more sober, factual consideration of the usual "the world is on fire" and "extreme weather evensts are killing us" rhetoric. Your work has already been advanced, along with others, to counter this drive to long-term legal action.
Roger--I caught most of the first session but none of the later due to a schedule conflict. Do you know if either will be available for replay? Thank you!
I didn't have a chance to watch the panels but thank you for posting the information! Meanwhile, I am wondering if you are going to do a Q&A again any time soon? I have some questions about forecasting (how is it possible to model 'climate' out tens of years, even centuries, when near-term weather forecasting is still such a crap shoot?) and the carbon saturation controversy, which I confess I don't understand and am seeing pieces go both way (i.e., the atmosphere is saturated already and more CO2 won't make a difference to -- still -- CO2 lasts nearly forever in the (upper?) atmosphere and we all have a lot to worry about decades from now. Hope you do a Q&A soon! Meanwhile, kudos to you and keep at it. Maybe one of these days it will be okay to have scientific disagreements about politicized issues again! Thanks much.
Dear Roger, there is a study getting some attention which predicts that by 2049 a 19% reduction in world income growth is already "committed", or baked in, due to present emissions. The study is "The Economic Commitment of Climate Change" by Max Kotz, Anders Levermann and Leonie Wenz, published online in Nature, Vol. 628, on 18 April 2024, pp 551-571. I notice the big scary calculations are coming from RCP 8.5. Have you had a chance to look at this piece? If so, how does it look to you?
Watched it live, Roger. Very good slides on the scenario "space". I submitted a question but very few from e-mails. Here is one of my long term concerns: the coopting of young, normally female students to front the climate activist movement. It has hapened in my own town. My comment/question was: "I advise local government on these issues. In discussion with friends yesterday I learned in Calgary, Alberta young students are given a list of “sources to avoid” in "acceptable" climate change debate (THB is probably in there, but do not have the list).
Sigh, risk by association ... a long-winded London-accented gent claims a volcano increased global vapor by 10%? add some ENSO and sunspots and hey presto 3 sigma no prob? Yikes. You deftly managed to decline to fail to at least gesture at that, but a whole necessary and sane discourse can be dismissed as discredited if either "side" gets to tout its talking points in a normative voice and go under-challenged. Well, it's a room, and high people with their hefts, couldn't be read from the YouTube vantage. Lots of sense was made.
As usual, an optimistic view but well said. The future holds the truth, so we shall see which view is the more warranted then. I wait with bated breath.
Sorry...thought I had replied. But thanks. A much more effective chart for the message for most folks.
Excellent work, an approach that might actually help 🤞
Roger: in your early morning presentation you referred to the IPCC list of potential impacts and possible atribution. It was a much more concise table than the one in AR6. Is it available in some pdf form. We are in our small town in BC now under a council with a 3:2 activist bent (5 councillors). They are currently tilting at the legal windmill at the behest of "SueBigOil" lawyers. You can google it.
Many of us are suggesting a more sober, factual consideration of the usual "the world is on fire" and "extreme weather evensts are killing us" rhetoric. Your work has already been advanced, along with others, to counter this drive to long-term legal action.
HI All, You can now view both panels on YouTube from the links in the post or directly here:
Optimism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UfANP9QRe4
Disasters (but really a lot of discussion of carbon pricing), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ6wwJ1E5oM
Roger--I caught most of the first session but none of the later due to a schedule conflict. Do you know if either will be available for replay? Thank you!
I didn't have a chance to watch the panels but thank you for posting the information! Meanwhile, I am wondering if you are going to do a Q&A again any time soon? I have some questions about forecasting (how is it possible to model 'climate' out tens of years, even centuries, when near-term weather forecasting is still such a crap shoot?) and the carbon saturation controversy, which I confess I don't understand and am seeing pieces go both way (i.e., the atmosphere is saturated already and more CO2 won't make a difference to -- still -- CO2 lasts nearly forever in the (upper?) atmosphere and we all have a lot to worry about decades from now. Hope you do a Q&A soon! Meanwhile, kudos to you and keep at it. Maybe one of these days it will be okay to have scientific disagreements about politicized issues again! Thanks much.
Dear Roger, there is a study getting some attention which predicts that by 2049 a 19% reduction in world income growth is already "committed", or baked in, due to present emissions. The study is "The Economic Commitment of Climate Change" by Max Kotz, Anders Levermann and Leonie Wenz, published online in Nature, Vol. 628, on 18 April 2024, pp 551-571. I notice the big scary calculations are coming from RCP 8.5. Have you had a chance to look at this piece? If so, how does it look to you?
Watched it live, Roger. Very good slides on the scenario "space". I submitted a question but very few from e-mails. Here is one of my long term concerns: the coopting of young, normally female students to front the climate activist movement. It has hapened in my own town. My comment/question was: "I advise local government on these issues. In discussion with friends yesterday I learned in Calgary, Alberta young students are given a list of “sources to avoid” in "acceptable" climate change debate (THB is probably in there, but do not have the list).
How do we bend that curve?
Well done, interesting to hear.
Sigh, risk by association ... a long-winded London-accented gent claims a volcano increased global vapor by 10%? add some ENSO and sunspots and hey presto 3 sigma no prob? Yikes. You deftly managed to decline to fail to at least gesture at that, but a whole necessary and sane discourse can be dismissed as discredited if either "side" gets to tout its talking points in a normative voice and go under-challenged. Well, it's a room, and high people with their hefts, couldn't be read from the YouTube vantage. Lots of sense was made.
Absolutely love this approach. Well done!
Superb, Roger. Esp. love the IPCC time machine and the Paris Agreement and Substack zingers.
so we now have earth day once a year and sun day once a week ......
As usual, an optimistic view but well said. The future holds the truth, so we shall see which view is the more warranted then. I wait with bated breath.
Fantastic. Good news and a great conversation with past IPCC and past Roger. Everybody looks so young.