JP Morgan economists warn of climate crisis threatening human species

[Paul72]

+ 1,4 ° C in France since 1900, it does not seem negligible to me (source meteofrance) ...

As for petroleum, I would like to know where you get these figures from. The conventional peak has passed around 2008, the unconventional one is to come in the next years or the next decades, which means that beyond that, production declines and that if demand continues, supply will not follow ( and prices will inevitably rise = repeated crises). that's a basic thing in economics ...
Oil is the main factor of stability in the world economy. coal is (unfortunately ...) not a limiting factor as the reserves are considerable.

[izentrop]

the last glaciation was generated 115000 years ago by a minute cooling due to a slight change in the inclination of the earth, but which caused a snowball effect - it is the case - over several thousand 'years, by gradual decline in boreal forests leading to an increase in albedo. Here we are talking about such upheavals, affecting the atmosphere, the oceans, the biosphere (forests) over such a short time (a hundred years) that it is impossible to predict with certainty how far the change of state may go.

"over several thousand years". And even a tiny change in tilt is also tens of thousands of years. All the energy produced on Earth by humans would be insufficient to change the tilting axis of the Earth even over thousands of years. We are not in the same register with CO2 as with a change in inclination over millennia.
It's less of a snowball effect that you seem to be talking about, than of a butterfly effect that we know in earth science as a huge joke.

Mmm no! it is the conjunction of natural phenomena explained by Milankovitch, due to the precession, the elliptical orbit of our celestial body and the albedo which makes tilt the climate towards an ice age.

The zumains (of which you are not a part) are in the process of tipping her into a stable and life-threatening area.
We are starting to have fairly precise figures https://www.statistiques.developpement- ... 2019_0.pdf

[ABC2019]

+ 1,4 ° C in France since 1900, it does not seem negligible to me (source meteofrance) ...

As for petroleum, I would like to know where you get these figures from. The conventional peak has passed around 2008, the unconventional one is to come in the next years or the next decades, which means that beyond that, production declines and that if demand continues, supply will not follow ( and prices will inevitably rise = repeated crises). that's a basic thing in economics ...
Oil is the main factor of stability in the world economy. coal is (unfortunately ...) not a limiting factor as the reserves are considerable.

well in this case if the production of oil stings soon it is that we are not in the scenarios at 4 ° C ... and the coal is not there as much as it does either.

[izentrop]

well in this case if the production of oil stings soon it is that we are not in the scenarios at 4 ° C ... and the coal is not there as much as it does either.

and what does inertia do to you? The phenomenon is much more complex than you would like to believe.

The backlash is clearly starting to be felt and the future will certainly tell us that we had to react already in the 70s, when the Club of Rome made its alarming observation.

Perhaps stopping all burning of fossils right away could still prevent the worst, but it has to be done.

[ABC2019]

well in this case if the production of oil stings soon it is that we are not in the scenarios at 4 ° C ... and the coal is not there as much as it does either.

and what does inertia do to you? The phenomenon is much more complex than you would like to believe.

oh well then according to you it is useless to lower the emissions?

The backlash is clearly starting to be felt and the future will certainly tell us that we had to react already in the 70s, when the Club of Rome made its alarming observation.

Perhaps stopping all burning of fossils right away could still prevent the worst, but it has to be done.

It depends, if you have proven that the consequences of stopping the fossils were lower than those of the warming they produce, yes you have to do it.

If not, don't do it.

Currently words are in favor of the first hypothesis, but actions are in favor of the second. Even when you continue to use the Internet.

Besides, Meadows' work in 70 was much more interested in the consequences of a scarcity of resources than in RC which was not yet fashionable at the time - it is therefore good that eliminating the consumption of resources it also has effects on society!

[Ahmed]

It's great, let's stop thinking, wait for the experts to finally agree and, once it's too late, we won't even have to make a decision!
It was the slogan of a politician of the Third Republic (whose name I have forgotten) which thus justified his inertia: "there is no problem which, over time, does not turn into a solution".

[Christophe]

+ 1,4 ° C in France since 1900, it does not seem negligible to me (source meteofrance) ...

Viticulturalists and oenologists have already noted and exploited it: the alcohol content of wines is constantly increasing ... Hips!

There are Bordeaux wines at 14.5 ° ... unthinkable in the 80s!

[ABC2019]

It's great, let's stop thinking, wait for the experts to finally agree and, once it's too late, we won't even have to make a decision!

too late for what?

after me I want to stop everything, but then we should start with computers and the internet, right?

[ABC2019]

+ 1,4 ° C in France since 1900, it does not seem negligible to me (source meteofrance) ...

Viticulturalists and oenologists have already noted and exploited it: the alcohol content of wines is constantly increasing ... Hips!

There are Bordeaux wines at 14.5 ° ... unthinkable in the 80s!

the question is not whether there has been global warming (there has been one), or whether it is due to anthropogenic CO2 (surely, at least in part). The question is whether it is really the main problem of humanity, and if it is really worth it to stop all civilization because of it.

There are many other disadvantages than RC to industrial civilization; car accidents, obesity, pollution, disappearance of species ... does all of this justify arresting it, in your opinion, or not?

[Paul72]

+ 1,4 ° C in France since 1900, it does not seem negligible to me (source meteofrance) ...

Viticulturalists and oenologists have already noted and exploited it: the alcohol content of wines is constantly increasing ... Hips!

There are Bordeaux wines at 14.5 ° ... unthinkable in the 80s!

the question is not whether there has been global warming (there has been one), or whether it is due to anthropogenic CO2 (surely, at least in part). The question is whether it is really the main problem of humanity, and if it is really worth it to stop all civilization because of it.

There are many other disadvantages than RC to industrial civilization; car accidents, obesity, pollution, disappearance of species ... does all of this justify arresting it, in your opinion, or not?

This is a major political question ... We have to make decisions, weigh them against them, prioritize ... and above all anticipate the long-term effects which is far too little the case in politics precisely (a little more in economics at the limit, since there are issues of economic sustainability)
Scientists in the various specialties linked to the climate and the biosphere only give facts, reconstruct present and past processes and estimate those of the future. The IPCC is a tool for supporting political decision-making by bringing together the maximum amount of scientific data on these subjects and by drawing up summaries of the observed facts, diagnoses, projections and the possibilities of making the "earth" system evolve. in a direction which is the least harmful possible. So, knowing if a warming to + 3 ° C will have more or less human consequences than a collapse or at least a big collapse of the economy to stay at 1,5 ° C is a bug of a good question. ..