The world is still on track for a catastrophic 2.6C increase in temperature as countries have not made sufficiently strong climate pledges, while emissions from fossil fuels have hit a record high, two major reports have found.
Even – even – they are saying disaster has been averted and we can all calm down now. Which is good, no?
That this always was the correct answer is another thing…..
I’m pleased to see the Aussie Liberal party is following the Nationals and (more or less) dumping Net Zero. Needless to say, I’ll be happy to give them my vote.
It’ll be entertaining to see whether the bulk of the electorate will agree with a white haired old bastard like me, or whether they’ll vote in Labor and the Greens to give us higher ‘leccy prices from more and more windmills.
If you turn your thermostat up by 2.6C does your house explode?
being as we are already half way there, another 1.3°C over 80 years is not exciting news.
The Grundy then goes on to repeat all the standard lies about coal reef loss, wildfires, storms, dead polar bears, etc.
Are polar bear numbers still at record levels? I remember reading that, when the Doom Goblin was just a climate hysteric, that she’d been originally motivated by heartbreaking footage of a starving polar bear. Of course, this footage was the fakest of fake news, a dying beast on its last legs, and the stupid little cow was entirely taken in.
Polar bears are doing just fine.
They’re doing exactly what they’ve always been doing: being polar bears…
You see the “poor dears” swimming “because of the Retreating Ice” , with them not telling you those bears can easily swim 30 miles, and can actually *sleep* in the water, floating like a sea otter…
“But they are so skinny!!!”
Yes…. That’s what a wet polar bear looks like when they’re not fattened up for winter.
Depending on sex and age, that’s 300-500 pounds of unadulterated muscly menace, able to outswim, outrun, and outsmell and outhear you.
The reason they tend to be in a bit of a hurry is because they share their habitat with Orcas..
And those do not mess about when having the opportunity to strike a bit of competition from the roster…
Nor are the seals they prey on helpless snacks in the water….
TBF, most kids would be. That’s why you don’t put kids in positions of authority over adults.
Most of that rise probably occurred 130 years ago in any case. We have largely been treading water temperature wise for the last century.
This is my issue: why are the most expensive wines from France still from the same places they were around 1850? We have price lists, we know there were classifications for Burgundy and Bordeaux written at that time and the names like Chateau Margaux and Domaine de la Romanee Conti were in there.
Now, sure, there’s the wine grower skill, there’s having an established name. But also, has red growing moved at all? You need more warmth for red than white. But red also pays better. And I don’t think that’s moved in the slightest, despite the fact that greed pig capitalists should do that. Start planting a bit more pinot noir, a bit less riesling.
Do we have any evidence, any evidence at all of greed pig capitalists changing behaviour over the past century because of climate change? And I don’t mean because of some subsidy.
I’m not sure they can move. The system from what I remember says “You can only call it wine X if it’s made from grapes grown in this area.”
Said area hasn’t moved. I think an application to move the area would make a fair bit of fuss.
But the point is that we haven’t seen the rise in quality / price from the areas just to the north of the established AOCs, nor the decline i quality (but perhaps not price due to prestige, established name, etc) from the premier cru houses.
Two things with that. Firstly, if you get outside AOC and into VDP, the rules are laxer. Secondly, the AOCs have been subject to change over time.
We could probably ask the same thing about parts of the world without classification systems. Has production moved much in New Zealand or the USA?
I do not think there is a single wine region where they’ve had to ditch production or make radical changes. Warming hasn’t forced Burgundy to swap pinot noir for syrah, for example.
Historic global temperatures….
As someone once famously said – I’ll take this seriously when they do. From this morning’s Speccie news letter:
Yeah, when Obama sells his beach house I might think about it.
2.6 degrees is roughly the difference between Leeds and London.
Now, never having been to Leeds, I can’t say for sure if the weather is catastrophic compared to London, but I don’t recall seeing too much about it on the telly. Perhaps I missed it……….
It is grim up North, although Leeds (barring Harehills/Chapeltown) is much nicer than Bradford, Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield and Keighley.
As Sherlock Holmes said “Do not go into Chapeltown at night, when the powers of evil are exalted.”
And so, with global warming, the climate in the North is improving and the area should become a more pleasant place to live, and attract escapees from the overheating South of England.
Oh, wait…
I’ve been in Leeds and the north a few times recently and was there yesterday and it was quite mild. The main reason I settled in Dorset is the darkness in winter, the weather is a bit colder & wetter but not much.
Well they’re wrong as usual. It’s going to be far, far worse than that. My pet budgie tells me it’s going to be 2.7C…
Any forecast/estimate that has figures down to decimal places can be ignored. They are there to make it look rigorous when it’s more akin to astrology.
A world at 2.6C means global disaster,” said Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics. A world this hot would probably trigger major “tipping points” that would cause the collapse of key Atlantic Ocean circulation, the loss of coral reefs, the long-term deterioration of ice sheets and the conversion of the Amazon rainforest to a savannah.
“That all means the end of agriculture in the UK and across Europe, drought and monsoon failure in Asia and Africa, lethal heat and humidity,” said Hare. “This is not a good place to be. You want to stay away from that.”
Kill him, Sheba!
Sheba:
Steve, if you crossed that with a honey badger we might have something to work with.
Climate
AnalyticsPropaganda. FIFY.Wasn’t a world at 2.6ºC about that of the Roman Warm Period? Obviously, Rome itself was a desert, which is why the Romans were growing grapes in Scotland. And grapes were growing in Greenland.
Yes…. And with most of the glaciers melted from Greenland the Atlantic Current seems to have mysteriously held up nicely….
But, of course, that was *different* ….. because Reasons….
This is inconvenient, too:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/5f55e55f-a734-4545-8fb1-9fbc0582ecf7
significant fossil finds confirming that the island was once much greener and supported boreal and tundra forests
Why does nobody ask the question, is my back room, which faces south and is 2.6 degrees warmer a lot of the time, dangerous?
Actually, the collapse of the Gulf Stream would mean the UK would be much cooler. So if climate change is really a problem, there’d be no real change in Britain’s temperature.
Y’know, there’s so much fuss about this that maybe I’ll finally get around to buying an airconditioner.
Of course, my dear sister doesn’t take me too seriously. She says I’ve been dithering around about this for the last thirty years!!!!
“A world at 2.6C means global disaster”
Note how they changed the measure to make it more scary. Remember when it was 2 degrees of warming, because it was measured from 2000? Now it’s 2.6 degrees because they’re going from pre-industrial. Or in other words, because we’ve had 1.3 degrees of warming already, it’s 1.3 of more warming by 2100. 2 degrees isn’t fucking happening. But they can’t say “chill the fuck out, take the Chevy Corvette out this weekend”.
I don’t like to throw the word “Orwellian” around but this is literally what Winston Smith does at the Ministry of Truth:
As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a ‘categorical pledge’ were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.
You reset the point when global warming starts and you get a bigger number.
“That all means the end of agriculture in the UK”
What the fuck is he on about? Global temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees already, since pre-industrial levels. So, let’s assume another 1.3 degrees. Now, what’s the temperature in Devizes today? It’s 15 degrees. What’s the temperature in Avignon where they grow tomatoes, melons, nectarines and wine grapes? It’s 21 degrees.
1.3 degrees means more orchards around Shropshire. Maybe it gets a bit hot to produce wine in Sicily.
Now I’m sure they’ll say “oh, it’s more complicated than that” and when I ask how they’ll call me a denier, but you just read that stuff and it’s tapping into a load of Old Testament and Ragnarok shit.
This is the most robust evidence to me that this is all an utter scam.
Great post, WB.
Do any of the doom and gloom enthusiasts ever visit the rest of the world, (travelling there in a non polluting, environment friendly manner.) I wonder. The planet is producing more food than ever before, and they haven’t noticed. Here, in Australia, where we have every thing from freezing to over 40, droughts to floods, monsoon season to drought, and most of the country is desert, we produce huge amounts of food, as does the rest of the world, regardless of climate.
.
Big up to countries like Australia that stop their main rivers reaching the sea: thereby producing food and wine and also reducing the rate of sea level rise.
The Tay and the Congo need to step up.
Measured how? We cannot measure today’s Global Mean Temperature. We have no fucking clue what Global Mean Temperature was in 1850. In 1900, 4 continents and the world’s oceans had no weather instrumentation at all.
It seems likely that in Britain, today’s numbers are less reliable than in the 19th century. Anyway, asking for measurement is denial. Look at the gap between these two made-up numbers, ye mighty, and despair!