An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as it
is.


https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726


--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On 14/08/2019 11:06, Norman Lynagh wrote:

An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as it
is.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726

" Become an FT subscriber to read:

Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change"


No. thank you. I for one do not wish to subscribe to the FT.


If one is going to refer to an article that is only available from
behind a paywall, it might be polite to quote the key points from it (as
well as give the link) , as not all readers will be able to access - or
be willing to pay - to access the original.

--
Spike

On 2019-08-14 07:06:06 +0000, Norman Lynagh said:

An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as it
is.


https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726

I am unable to read the article for which you provide a link but I
think it is safe to say that if we accept the problem of climate change
at face value, then the answer is so very obviously in the question.
That being so, what more needs to be said on the topic?

Spike wrote:

On 14/08/2019 11:06, Norman Lynagh wrote:

An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as
it is.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726

" Become an FT subscriber to read:

Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change"


No. thank you. I for one do not wish to subscribe to the FT.


If one is going to refer to an article that is only available from
behind a paywall, it might be polite to quote the key points from it
(as well as give the link) , as not all readers will be able to
access - or be willing to pay - to access the original.


Don't know the answer to that. I got into the article via a re-tweet
from Paul Beckwith. There was no paywall. Since your post I have gone
back to the re-tweet and tried again. This time I also get the paywall.
Unfortunately, I didn't save the article so I can't display it
elsewhere. I don't subscribe to the FT.



--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 10:04:17 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 14/08/2019 11:06, Norman Lynagh wrote:

An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as
it is.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726

" Become an FT subscriber to read:

Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change"


No. thank you. I for one do not wish to subscribe to the FT.


If one is going to refer to an article that is only available from
behind a paywall, it might be polite to quote the key points from it
(as well as give the link) , as not all readers will be able to
access - or be willing to pay - to access the original.


Don't know the answer to that. I got into the article via a re-tweet
from Paul Beckwith. There was no paywall. Since your post I have gone
back to the re-tweet and tried again. This time I also get the paywall.
Unfortunately, I didn't save the article so I can't display it
elsewhere. I don't subscribe to the FT.

I got into the article straight away, but when I went back it asked me to supscribe at £1 for 4 weeks. I went back a second time and it asked me to answer a 4 question survey. I did that, nothing to personal, and got back to the article, which I copied and pasted below.

But it begins:

"Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-9b9a-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726"

So I will only post my take on the article.

It is titled "Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change" and subtitled
"How will the world cope as more extreme weather becomes the norm?" by Simon Kuper

It begins
" I live in France, where last Friday was the hottest day ever recorded. In Gallargues-le-Montueux in the south, the temperature hit 45.9C. In Paris, where it was only 37C, people around me with asthma and eye allergies suffered terribly. My doctor told me the heat was aggravating his older patients’ cardiovascular problems. But, he added, it was dangerous for them to come and see him because his waiting room was boiling. He plans to install air-conditioning. That will worsen the climate further."

He then argues that the climate will become unbearable, but that the current politicians such as Trump, Boris and greenie Elizabeth Warren are incapable of solving the problem. They are proposing green growth. "Instead the world needs a new political class obsessed with climate and engineering. ... Once some engineering-savvy climate leaders emerge, we can finally start taking climate change seriously."

As I am an engineer obsessed by climate change, you might think I would agree, but I don't. The scientists are using outdated science, and have not been trained in dynamical systems, yet that is what they are trying to analyse. As I see it the climate is not going to get incrementally worse. What will happen is an abrupt change to new climate system similar to that which happened 10,000 years ago when the Arctic sea ice, which had spread into the North Atlanic during the Younger Dryas interstadial, suddenly retreated and temperatures soared. It is too late to stop that happening now.

On 14/08/2019 12:08, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 10:04:17 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 14/08/2019 11:06, Norman Lynagh wrote:

An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as
it is.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726

" Become an FT subscriber to read:

Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change"


No. thank you. I for one do not wish to subscribe to the FT.


If one is going to refer to an article that is only available from
behind a paywall, it might be polite to quote the key points from it
(as well as give the link) , as not all readers will be able to
access - or be willing to pay - to access the original.


Don't know the answer to that. I got into the article via a re-tweet
from Paul Beckwith. There was no paywall. Since your post I have gone
back to the re-tweet and tried again. This time I also get the paywall.
Unfortunately, I didn't save the article so I can't display it
elsewhere. I don't subscribe to the FT.

I got into the article straight away, but when I went back it asked me to supscribe at £1 for 4 weeks. I went back a second time and it asked me to answer a 4 question survey. I did that, nothing to personal, and got back to the article, which I copied and pasted below.

But it begins:

"Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-9b9a-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726"

So I will only post my take on the article.

It is titled "Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change" and subtitled
"How will the world cope as more extreme weather becomes the norm?" by Simon Kuper

It begins
" I live in France, where last Friday was the hottest day ever recorded. In Gallargues-le-Montueux in the south, the temperature hit 45.9C. In Paris, where it was only 37C, people around me with asthma and eye allergies suffered terribly. My doctor told me the heat was aggravating his older patients’ cardiovascular problems. But, he added, it was dangerous for them to come and see him because his waiting room was boiling. He plans to install air-conditioning. That will worsen the climate further."

He then argues that the climate will become unbearable, but that the current politicians such as Trump, Boris and greenie Elizabeth Warren are incapable of solving the problem. They are proposing green growth. "Instead the world needs a new political class obsessed with climate and engineering. ... Once some engineering-savvy climate leaders emerge, we can finally start taking climate change seriously."

As I am an engineer obsessed by climate change, you might think I would agree, but I don't. The scientists are using outdated science, and have not been trained in dynamical systems, yet that is what they are trying to analyse. As I see it the climate is not going to get incrementally worse. What will happen is an abrupt change to new climate system similar to that which happened 10,000 years ago when the Arctic sea ice, which had spread into the North Atlanic during the Younger Dryas interstadial, suddenly retreated and temperatures soared. It is too late to stop that happening now.


I don't see "The scientists are using outdated science, and have not
been trained in dynamical systems" being the case. They are fully aware
of positive and negative feedback dynamical processses etc.
What I've found , with experts in their fields including IPCC
participants ,eg areas such as polar sea states , or global ocean currents.
They will not venture out of the box, to questions like
Whats your take on ..(news item)..?
What if.....?
to people enquiring from outside their local group anyway.
A sort of herd mentallity perhaps or not wishing to put their heads
above the parapet perhaps

--
Monthly public talks on science topics, Hampshire , England
http://diverse.4mg.com/scicaf.htm

Norman Lynagh wrote:

Spike wrote:

On 14/08/2019 11:06, Norman Lynagh wrote:

An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as
it is.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726

" Become an FT subscriber to read:

Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change"


No. thank you. I for one do not wish to subscribe to the FT.


If one is going to refer to an article that is only available from
behind a paywall, it might be polite to quote the key points from it
(as well as give the link) , as not all readers will be able to
access - or be willing to pay - to access the original.


Don't know the answer to that. I got into the article via a re-tweet
from Paul Beckwith. There was no paywall. Since your post I have gone
back to the re-tweet and tried again. This time I also get the
paywall. Unfortunately, I didn't save the article so I can't display
it elsewhere. I don't subscribe to the FT.

I haven't given up! I tried doing a search on

simon kuper emission impossible? harsh facts on climate change

Clicking on the first link that came up took me directly to the article
with no paywall.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

Alastair B. McDonald wrote:


So I will only post my take on the article.

It is titled "Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change" and
subtitled "How will the world cope as more extreme weather becomes
the norm?" by Simon Kuper

It begins
" I live in France, where last Friday was the hottest day ever
recorded. In Gallargues-le-Montueux in the south, the temperature hit
45.9C. In Paris, where it was only 37C, people around me with asthma
and eye allergies suffered terribly. My doctor told me the heat was
aggravating his older patients’ cardiovascular problems. But, he
added, it was dangerous for them to come and see him because his
waiting room was boiling. He plans to install air-conditioning. That
will worsen the climate further."

He then argues that the climate will become unbearable, but that the
current politicians such as Trump, Boris and greenie Elizabeth Warren
are incapable of solving the problem. They are proposing green
growth. "Instead the world needs a new political class obsessed with
climate and engineering. ... Once some engineering-savvy climate
leaders emerge, we can finally start taking climate change seriously."

As I am an engineer obsessed by climate change, you might think I
would agree, but I don't. The scientists are using outdated science,
and have not been trained in dynamical systems, yet that is what they
are trying to analyse. As I see it the climate is not going to get
incrementally worse. What will happen is an abrupt change to new
climate system similar to that which happened 10,000 years ago when
the Arctic sea ice, which had spread into the North Atlanic during
the Younger Dryas interstadial, suddenly retreated and temperatures
soared. It is too late to stop that happening now.

I can certainly see that abrupt changes to the global climate are
possible and perhaps likely. Exactly what these changes might be is a
bit more speculative but I certainly agree with you, Alastair, that
whatever is now locked into the system will happen and there's nothing
we, the human race, can do about that. Mega disaster management looms
for later this century. Forget Brexit, forget the NHS, forget
everything that seems important today. IMHO managing the climate
catastrophe will be the only thing that matters later this century. As
I have said before, it won't be a case of 'save the planet'. It'll be
'save the human race'. The planet can look after itself and would
probably do so much better without the meddling humans.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

"Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-9b9a-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726"

Doesn't worry me - here's the article - someone please pay my fine!

I live in France, where last Friday was the hottest day ever recorded. In Gallargues-le-Montueux in the south, the temperature hit 45.9C. In Paris, where it was only 37C, people around me with asthma and eye allergies suffered terribly. My doctor told me the heat was aggravating his older patients’ cardiovascular problems. But, he added, it was dangerous for them to come and see him because his waiting room was boiling. He plans to install air-conditioning. That will worsen the climate further.

Days like this offer a glimpse of the future. Heatwaves will be twice as common by 2050, predicts the French weather agency Météo-France. It’s becoming clear that the world won’t act in time to cut emissions. Dangerous climate change will happen. Then we’ll need a new political class that makes climate its top priority.

All evidence suggests that global temperatures will rise by at least 1.5C to 2C — the limits targeted by the Paris climate accords. “Limiting global warming to 1.5C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,� said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year. Those changes aren’t happening.

The record year for carbon emissions was 2018. It’s true that the use of wind and solar energy rose by double digits that year, but renewables are still just 13 per cent of global energy consumption. Their share will increase, but fossil-fuel burning will increase too, as the world’s population grows, gets richer and consumes more energy.

No major carbon-emitting economy except India is doing enough to keep the rise in temperatures below 2C, says the Climate Action Tracker, a research group backed by environmentalists and the German government. Politicians and voters remain distracted by culture wars: two public pools in Grenoble shut mid-heatwave after aÂ*row over swimmers wearing Islamic burkinis.

Blaming inaction on climate deniers such as Donald Trump is a comforting way for liberals to absolve ourselves. However, new leaders such as Elizabeth Warren — for whom green is an add-on ideology — won’t save the planet either. It’s cheering that some Democratic presidential candidates want to make the US carbon-neutral by 2050, but even if they could get that through Congress and the Supreme Court, the commitment risks being downgraded when the next recession or terrorist attack hits. Anyway, proclaiming your country carbon-neutral is easy if you outsource your emissions. When the US imports a ton of cement from China, will it account for the 1.25 tons of CO2 emitted during production?

The harsh fact is that going carbon-neutral would be more painful than most greens admit, says Ross Douglas, founder of Autonomy, an urban-mobility conference in Paris. Many politicians are now promising “green growth�. Maybe one day we will indeed enjoy renewable-powered overconsumption. However, for the next two decades at least, until greener technologies arrive, cutting emissions will hurt. The US could go carbon-neutral fast if it rationed clothing, turned beef and flying into once-a-year luxuries, set a serious carbon tax, and banned fracking, coal mining and the Ford F-Series pick-up, the country’s bestselling vehicle for 42 years. But nobody gets elected president on a platform of economic decline. And given the lag time of carbon emissions, these measures would only ameliorate the climate some time next century.

Anyway, all this would be an almost pointless national sacrifice unless other countries followed suit. It takes global collective action to limit climate change. Conservatives enjoy mocking greens who own frequent-flyer cards, but there’s no point going carbon-neutral if everyone else carries on merrily while Brazil razes the Amazon rainforest.

Once temperatures rise, the problems of a hotter daily life will dominate politics: less water, more illness, lower productivity, unlivable regions and, in Europe, a permanent cordon of ships in the Mediterranean to stop climate refugees from the Middle East and Africa. All other political issues, from healthcare to housing, will become secondary. The role model for leaders will be Churchill in the second world war: nothing matters except victory in the existential struggle.

Recommended

Gideon Rachman
The perilous politics of climate change
Before long, political debate will revolve around which huge engineering projects to finance. Should one country, or a coalition of countries, unilaterally build a giant sunshade in the stratosphere to cool things down? Should we try to refreeze the poles? What forms of carbon-capture show most promise? Where should we build dykes and desalination plants? Which coastal cities to abandon?

Communications experts such as Trump or Boris Johnson obviously cannot handle these issues but nor can politicians like Warren whose lifetime’s focus has been inequality and corruption. Instead the world needs a new political class obsessed with climate and engineering. That will require quite a turnround: even China’s ruling class no longer consists of engineers. Of the seven members of the Chinese politburo standing committee, only President Xi Jinping got an engineering degree (before studying Marxist theory, ideological education and law).

Once some engineering-savvy climate leaders emerge, we can finally start taking climate change seriously.

Graham
Penzance

On 14/08/2019 16:29, Norman Lynagh wrote:
Norman Lynagh wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 14/08/2019 11:06, Norman Lynagh wrote:

An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as
it is.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726

" Become an FT subscriber to read:

Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change"

No. thank you. I for one do not wish to subscribe to the FT.

If one is going to refer to an article that is only available from
behind a paywall, it might be polite to quote the key points from it
(as well as give the link) , as not all readers will be able to
access - or be willing to pay - to access the original.

Don't know the answer to that. I got into the article via a re-tweet
from Paul Beckwith. There was no paywall. Since your post I have gone
back to the re-tweet and tried again. This time I also get the
paywall. Unfortunately, I didn't save the article so I can't display
it elsewhere. I don't subscribe to the FT.

I haven't given up! I tried doing a search on

simon kuper emission impossible? harsh facts on climate change

Clicking on the first link that came up took me directly to the article
with no paywall.

Thanks to you and all who replied with helpful comments, links, and
reposts of the article in question.

One can't get 'fined' for reposting a copyright article, but the owner
of it can sue for damages, which in this case would be zero as no-one
was willing to pay for it anyway, so there was no loss to pursue.

Unfortunately the article itself is essentially an emotional appeal, and
it's interesting to note that the climate change industry quickly moved
away from discussions of science - essentially when it was seen that the
models on which so much was based couldn't predict anything worthwhile -
to the socio-political sphere where nay-sayers were shouted down, had
their funds withdrawn, and were subjected campaigns of abuse. But it
seems like that is now old hat too, and we now have, like this article
and others that have recently been mentioned on this group, an appeal to
the emotions. It's not worth reading, and the FT has hardly done itself
any favours here.


--
Spike