I think it’s important to emphasize that regardless of all possible outcomes, humans will adapt, but the natural world as we know it, may not be the same.
Hi Quico, the issue here is how we understand the precautionary principle. With planetary reflectivity having already fallen by more than 2% this century, and the speed of decline appearing to double each decade on Ceres data, restoring albedo should be a sensible precautionary principle to prevent tipping points
why does your substack article redirect trying to make a comment? forcing relogin and updating my profile which i do not want to do? ——- anyway »> Your point -- "scrupulously reporting on very sophisticated attempts to forecast insanely complex processes that actively resist being forecast" is itself a definition of insanity.
Trying to predict forecast tipping points or the timing of them is a fools errand. It's plain foolsih to even try. It's looking for answers to the most ridiculous questions humans could ask. Golly, what's going to happen to the AMOC? A stupid question. If you could by some miracle know the answer to that it would make no difference to anyone or humanity. Knowing it would change nothing.
The most critical questions for humanity and the worlds ecosystems in need of answers are what are you doing now today that is wholesome rational life enhancing behavior? The rest is a waste iof time. Most climate science output today, and all the voluminous commentary about it, and all the IPCC and UNFCCC COP processes and institutions are a waste of time and the result of a collective insanity driven by mindlessly doing the first line above.
Moral is we'll all lose playing climate craps. The house is burning🔥. No time to speculate and even say your eyes deceive you. We need more fire fighters and fire prevention ( in a higher sense ).
What’s the point of forecasting based on RCP8.5 which was never plausible and has officially been declared so by the panel that originally created it? It’s like scientists trying to develop treatments for Alzheimer’s based on Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s fraudulent work that forced him to resign from Stanford.
And it’s funny how the only solution offered by the forecasters is to go back in time and reduce past emissions. Science not really worth following.
I’m all for marine CDR and getting control of CO2, but the whole tipping points thing is almost pointless. Plotting 80 years into the future is a fools errand, and using current modeling technology plotting 600 years into the future is the height of doctoral thesis hubris. Many terrible and many wonderful things we can’t even imagine will happen in that time frame.
We might have an asteroid push us into a different orbit and that would make a massive change, or the sun could go crazy and strip our atmosphere, but I can’t spend much time worrying about it.
It seems they’ll have to happen before we get scared of them and as you describe there’s no going back even if we did cool things down with a geoengineering project.
Trust your gut folks… will me be maturing as a species in the next decade? Americans willing to pay significantly more taxes?
If you are interested in this field you will know exactly what we’re talking about when we say… What DANGEROUS geoengineering project significantly cools land/ocean surface temps within a decade and the developing world can afford it on their own without rich world help?
There’s just one answer and it’s the only thing that might prevent SOME threshold events (AMOC/Ocean Acidity is beyond it’s control)
NO ONE is suggesting we implement a geoengineering project now but the moment the developing world threatens it out of desperation the conversation shifts significantly in the rich world.
I think it’s important to emphasize that regardless of all possible outcomes, humans will adapt, but the natural world as we know it, may not be the same.
Hi Quico, the issue here is how we understand the precautionary principle. With planetary reflectivity having already fallen by more than 2% this century, and the speed of decline appearing to double each decade on Ceres data, restoring albedo should be a sensible precautionary principle to prevent tipping points
why does your substack article redirect trying to make a comment? forcing relogin and updating my profile which i do not want to do? ——- anyway »> Your point -- "scrupulously reporting on very sophisticated attempts to forecast insanely complex processes that actively resist being forecast" is itself a definition of insanity.
Trying to predict forecast tipping points or the timing of them is a fools errand. It's plain foolsih to even try. It's looking for answers to the most ridiculous questions humans could ask. Golly, what's going to happen to the AMOC? A stupid question. If you could by some miracle know the answer to that it would make no difference to anyone or humanity. Knowing it would change nothing.
The most critical questions for humanity and the worlds ecosystems in need of answers are what are you doing now today that is wholesome rational life enhancing behavior? The rest is a waste iof time. Most climate science output today, and all the voluminous commentary about it, and all the IPCC and UNFCCC COP processes and institutions are a waste of time and the result of a collective insanity driven by mindlessly doing the first line above.
R. Pielke works on developing policy under deep uncertainty. Also, he’s realistic about what is, and what is not, feasible.
Moral is we'll all lose playing climate craps. The house is burning🔥. No time to speculate and even say your eyes deceive you. We need more fire fighters and fire prevention ( in a higher sense ).
But, God is on TV so who cares?
What’s the point of forecasting based on RCP8.5 which was never plausible and has officially been declared so by the panel that originally created it? It’s like scientists trying to develop treatments for Alzheimer’s based on Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s fraudulent work that forced him to resign from Stanford.
And it’s funny how the only solution offered by the forecasters is to go back in time and reduce past emissions. Science not really worth following.
I’m all for marine CDR and getting control of CO2, but the whole tipping points thing is almost pointless. Plotting 80 years into the future is a fools errand, and using current modeling technology plotting 600 years into the future is the height of doctoral thesis hubris. Many terrible and many wonderful things we can’t even imagine will happen in that time frame.
We might have an asteroid push us into a different orbit and that would make a massive change, or the sun could go crazy and strip our atmosphere, but I can’t spend much time worrying about it.
I’d welcome a future post about your analysis of “Limits to Growth” and the Workd3 model.
YES… threshold events.
It seems they’ll have to happen before we get scared of them and as you describe there’s no going back even if we did cool things down with a geoengineering project.
Trust your gut folks… will me be maturing as a species in the next decade? Americans willing to pay significantly more taxes?
If you are interested in this field you will know exactly what we’re talking about when we say… What DANGEROUS geoengineering project significantly cools land/ocean surface temps within a decade and the developing world can afford it on their own without rich world help?
There’s just one answer and it’s the only thing that might prevent SOME threshold events (AMOC/Ocean Acidity is beyond it’s control)
NO ONE is suggesting we implement a geoengineering project now but the moment the developing world threatens it out of desperation the conversation shifts significantly in the rich world.
I like the commitment vs realization language - really clear differentiation, also important in today's flattened discussions. Sharing this in response to your point that tipping elements are really not all the same - EXACTLY! https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/response-to-climate-tipping-points-depends-on-regional-monitoring-by-jessica-seddon-and-manjana-milkoreit-2025-11