MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Climate Change
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
JP Morgan warns of end to human life in climate report
An explosive new report sees economists at the bank calling for a global carbon tax
JP Morgan warns of end to human life in climate report
The human race could cease to exist without massive worldwide action to tackle global warming, economists at JP Morgan have warned in a hard-hitting report on the "catastrophic" potential of climate change.
In an alarming document sent to clients, they said that deaths, immigration and conflicts will soar as the planet heats and water supplies dry up. Famines will increase and species will be wiped out.
All this will have a devastating impact on economic growth and the stock market, the report's authors David Mackie and Jessica Murray said.
The impact of climate change has been massively underestimated, they said, adding: "Something will have to change at some point if the human race is going to survive."
JP Morgan economists warn of 'catastrophic' climate change
JP Morgan economists warn of climate 'catastrophe'
In a hard-hitting report to clients, the economists said that without action being taken there could be "catastrophic outcomes".
The bank said the research came from a team that was "wholly independent from the company as a whole".
Climate campaigners have previously criticised JP Morgan for its investments in fossil fuels.
The firm's stark report was sent to clients and seen by BBC News.
While JP Morgan economists have warned about unpredictability in climate change before, the language used in the new report was very forceful.
"We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened," JP Morgan economists David Mackie and Jessica Murray said.
Carbon emissions in the coming decades "will continue to affect the climate for centuries to come in a way that is likely to be irreversible," they said, adding that climate change action should be motivated "by the likelihood of extreme events".
Climate change could affect economic growth, shares, health, and how long people live, they said.
An explosive new report sees economists at the bank calling for a global carbon tax
JP Morgan warns of end to human life in climate report
The human race could cease to exist without massive worldwide action to tackle global warming, economists at JP Morgan have warned in a hard-hitting report on the "catastrophic" potential of climate change.
In an alarming document sent to clients, they said that deaths, immigration and conflicts will soar as the planet heats and water supplies dry up. Famines will increase and species will be wiped out.
All this will have a devastating impact on economic growth and the stock market, the report's authors David Mackie and Jessica Murray said.
The impact of climate change has been massively underestimated, they said, adding: "Something will have to change at some point if the human race is going to survive."
JP Morgan economists warn of 'catastrophic' climate change
JP Morgan economists warn of climate 'catastrophe'
In a hard-hitting report to clients, the economists said that without action being taken there could be "catastrophic outcomes".
The bank said the research came from a team that was "wholly independent from the company as a whole".
Climate campaigners have previously criticised JP Morgan for its investments in fossil fuels.
The firm's stark report was sent to clients and seen by BBC News.
While JP Morgan economists have warned about unpredictability in climate change before, the language used in the new report was very forceful.
"We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened," JP Morgan economists David Mackie and Jessica Murray said.
Carbon emissions in the coming decades "will continue to affect the climate for centuries to come in a way that is likely to be irreversible," they said, adding that climate change action should be motivated "by the likelihood of extreme events".
Climate change could affect economic growth, shares, health, and how long people live, they said.
“Clearly humans and other animals have adapted to live in pretty diverse parts of the world with very different climates. The issue now is the pace and magnitude of the upcoming change in the climate. Due to the impact of human activity, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing at a faster pace than ever seen before and the climate is responding accordingly. Although precise predictions are not possible, it is clear that the earth is on an unsustainable trajectory. Something will have to change at some point if the human race is going to survive.”
[JPM] Risky Business: The Climate and The Macroeconomy
[JPM] Risky Business: The Climate and The Macroeconomy
- Climate change is a slow-moving process, but it is no less dangerous for that. It is likely to be one of the key defining features of the coming decades. The longer action is delayed the more costly it will be to deal with the issues. Moreover, a delayed policy response opens us up to potentially catastrophic outcomes, which might be impossible to reverse.
- This report examines climate change in three sections: the mechanics of climate change; the impact of climate change; and the response to climate change.
- The mechanics of climate change considers the journey from human activity to CO2 emissions, from CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 concentrations, from atmospheric CO2 concentrations to the global temperature and from the global temperature to the global climate. The climate system is complex, non-linear and dynamic. There is considerable inertia in the system so that emissions in the coming decades will continue to affect the climate for centuries to come in a way that is likely to be irreversible. Uncertainty is endemic, not just about modal effects but also about the shape of the probability distributions, especially how fat the tails are.
- The impact of climate change is broad based covering GDP, the capital stock, health, mortality, water stress, famine, displacement, migration, political stress, conflict, biodiversity and species survival. Uncertainty is endemic here as well, trying to evaluate the impact of a climate that the earth hasn’t seen for many millions of years. Empirical estimates based on the variability of the climate in recent decades likely massively underestimate the effects.
- The response to climate change should be motivated not only by central estimates of outcomes but also by the likelihood of extreme events (from the tails of the probability distribution). We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened.
- To contain the change in the climate, global net emissions need to reach zero by the second half of this century. Although much is happening at the micro level, it is hard to envisage enough change taking place at the macro level without a global carbon tax.
- But, this is not going to happen anytime soon. Developed economies, who are responsible for most of the cumulative emissions, worry about competitiveness and jobs. Meanwhile, Emerging and Developing economies, who are responsible for much less of the cumulative emissions, still see carbon intensive activity as a way of raising living standards. It is a global problem but no global solution is in sight
Erickson, P., van Asselt, H., Koplow, D. et al. Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter. Nature 578, E1–E4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1920-x
Jewell, J., Emmerling, J., Vinichenko, V. et al. Reply to: Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter. Nature 578, E5–E7 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1921-9
Jewell, J., Emmerling, J., Vinichenko, V. et al. Reply to: Why fossil fuel producer subsidies matter. Nature 578, E5–E7 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1921-9
Global warming is the biggest load of BS i have ever heard in my life, more ways for the government to set up commities (its friends) and pay them millions to investigate and take action on a non-existent problems.
The unfortunate thing is, and tests have proven this, 90% of the people will believe anything the tv tells them, the media has wormed its way into a position of trust in the hearts and minds of the people. Contradict the tv and 90% of the people will hate you for the rest of your life.
There is an old saying: Do not believe everything you read in the papers. And it is very much true.
The governent knows it can do anything it wants, then just put some crap on the tv about how polititians work tirelessly and endlessly for the benefit of the country, you are living in a democracy. The media is not impartial.
Please listen, the Government does not give a damn about you , they care about cash, nothing else.
Look at the way they are putting fluoride and heavy metals in the water supply, causing cancer, then selling you the cure, a worldwide problem they started.
Fluoride is in group seven of the perodic table. The periodic table is universally accepted by every school, college and university in the world. The elements in the table are placed into groups of similarity, so that all the elements in any particular group behave in a very similar physical and chemical manner.
WIKIPEDIA: " The columns, called groups, contain elements with similar chemical behaviours. "
Fluoride is in the same group and chlorine, used to disinfect swimming pools and the active ingredient in bleach - pure poison.
Fluoride is in the same group as bromine, a proven cancer causing agent. In fact if you search you will see group seven contains some of the most dangerous elements in the world.
They are putting this crap in the water, then saying to you: drink more water, it keeps you flush. WHAT! Is the body supposed to be like a toilet.
If you do not believe me on any of this do a search and find out more about how the periodic table works. Do it for yourself. Do it for your children. Do it for your family.
The unfortunate thing is, and tests have proven this, 90% of the people will believe anything the tv tells them, the media has wormed its way into a position of trust in the hearts and minds of the people. Contradict the tv and 90% of the people will hate you for the rest of your life.
There is an old saying: Do not believe everything you read in the papers. And it is very much true.
The governent knows it can do anything it wants, then just put some crap on the tv about how polititians work tirelessly and endlessly for the benefit of the country, you are living in a democracy. The media is not impartial.
Please listen, the Government does not give a damn about you , they care about cash, nothing else.
Look at the way they are putting fluoride and heavy metals in the water supply, causing cancer, then selling you the cure, a worldwide problem they started.
Fluoride is in group seven of the perodic table. The periodic table is universally accepted by every school, college and university in the world. The elements in the table are placed into groups of similarity, so that all the elements in any particular group behave in a very similar physical and chemical manner.
WIKIPEDIA: " The columns, called groups, contain elements with similar chemical behaviours. "
Fluoride is in the same group and chlorine, used to disinfect swimming pools and the active ingredient in bleach - pure poison.
Fluoride is in the same group as bromine, a proven cancer causing agent. In fact if you search you will see group seven contains some of the most dangerous elements in the world.
They are putting this crap in the water, then saying to you: drink more water, it keeps you flush. WHAT! Is the body supposed to be like a toilet.
If you do not believe me on any of this do a search and find out more about how the periodic table works. Do it for yourself. Do it for your children. Do it for your family.
Last edited:
As anthropogenic climate change continues the risks to biodiversity will increase over time, with future projections indicating that a potentially catastrophic loss of global biodiversity is on the horizon. However, our understanding of when and how abruptly this climate-driven disruption of biodiversity will occur is limited because biodiversity forecasts typically focus on individual snapshots of the future.
Here we use annual projections (from 1850 to 2100) of temperature and precipitation across the ranges of more than 30,000 marine and terrestrial species to estimate the timing of their exposure to potentially dangerous climate conditions. We project that future disruption of ecological assemblages as a result of climate change will be abrupt, because within any given ecological assemblage the exposure of most species to climate conditions beyond their realized niche limits occurs almost simultaneously.
Under a high-emissions scenario (representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5), such abrupt exposure events begin before 2030 in tropical oceans and spread to tropical forests and higher latitudes by 2050. If global warming is kept below 2 °C, less than 2% of assemblages globally are projected to undergo abrupt exposure events of more than 20% of their constituent species; however, the risk accelerates with the magnitude of warming, threatening 15% of assemblages at 4 °C, with similar levels of risk in protected and unprotected areas.
These results highlight the impending risk of sudden and severe biodiversity losses from climate change and provide a framework for predicting both when and where these events may occur.
That was golden
The wikipedia part with the period table thing in particulat was really well done
BodyMechanic
Well-known Member
You're another one full.of shit. If you or your kind were right we already are supposed to be under water (Cough cough Al) We aren't. Go peddle your religion elsewhere.
Last edited:
Trisos, C.H., Merow, C. & Pigot, A.L. The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2189-9
As anthropogenic climate change continues the risks to biodiversity will increase over time, with future projections indicating that a potentially catastrophic loss of global biodiversity is on the horizon1,2,3. However, our understanding of when and how abruptly this climate-driven disruption of biodiversity will occur is limited because biodiversity forecasts typically focus on individual snapshots of the future. Here we use annual projections (from 1850 to 2100) of temperature and precipitation across the ranges of more than 30,000 marine and terrestrial species to estimate the timing of their exposure to potentially dangerous climate conditions. We project that future disruption of ecological assemblages as a result of climate change will be abrupt, because within any given ecological assemblage the exposure of most species to climate conditions beyond their realized niche limits occurs almost simultaneously. Under a high-emissions scenario (representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5), such abrupt exposure events begin before 2030 in tropical oceans and spread to tropical forests and higher latitudes by 2050. If global warming is kept below 2 °C, less than 2% of assemblages globally are projected to undergo abrupt exposure events of more than 20% of their constituent species; however, the risk accelerates with the magnitude of warming, threatening 15% of assemblages at 4 °C, with similar levels of risk in protected and unprotected areas. These results highlight the impending risk of sudden and severe biodiversity losses from climate change and provide a framework for predicting both when and where these events may occur.
Scientists Unanimous on Anthropogenic Global Warming in 2019
In Powell (2019), I reported the results of a survey of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019. I found none that rejected anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In that article, I reviewed briefly the history of efforts to gauge the consensus on AGW, showing why the most reliable measure is the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the number of rejections.
At the suggestion of colleague Dr. Edward Maibach, I have extended this survey to include all of 2019, using the same methodology. Now with a combined database of 20,813 peer-reviewed articles, still none reject AGW, and the consensus, now on even firmer ground, remains 100%.
I draw the following conclusions.
First, any scientist who had publishable evidence against AGW, or evidence that supported an alternative theory, would be sure to publish the finding and would have no trouble finding a journal to do so. It follows that there is virtually no evidence against AGW.
Second, the nearly 21,000 articles from 2019 have an estimated 60,000 authors who hail from every corner of the Earth. Given that science prizes dissent, it is rare to find an entire body of scientists in unanimous agreement. This further belies the false and dangerous claim that AGW is a hoax. If it were, the hoax would have to involve the entire establishment of science including the scientists themselves, the journals, research funders, universities, and so on. On this absurdity, our leaders endanger humanity
Powell J. Scientists Unanimous on Anthropogenic Global Warming in 2019. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2020:0270467620922151. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Powell, J. (2019). Scientists reach 100% consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 37(4),183-184. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
In Powell (2019), I reported the results of a survey of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019. I found none that rejected anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In that article, I reviewed briefly the history of efforts to gauge the consensus on AGW, showing why the most reliable measure is the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the number of rejections.
At the suggestion of colleague Dr. Edward Maibach, I have extended this survey to include all of 2019, using the same methodology. Now with a combined database of 20,813 peer-reviewed articles, still none reject AGW, and the consensus, now on even firmer ground, remains 100%.
I draw the following conclusions.
First, any scientist who had publishable evidence against AGW, or evidence that supported an alternative theory, would be sure to publish the finding and would have no trouble finding a journal to do so. It follows that there is virtually no evidence against AGW.
Second, the nearly 21,000 articles from 2019 have an estimated 60,000 authors who hail from every corner of the Earth. Given that science prizes dissent, it is rare to find an entire body of scientists in unanimous agreement. This further belies the false and dangerous claim that AGW is a hoax. If it were, the hoax would have to involve the entire establishment of science including the scientists themselves, the journals, research funders, universities, and so on. On this absurdity, our leaders endanger humanity
Powell J. Scientists Unanimous on Anthropogenic Global Warming in 2019. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2020:0270467620922151. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Powell, J. (2019). Scientists reach 100% consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 37(4),183-184. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
May 2020 was the planet's warmest May since record keeping began in 1880, said NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) and NASA on Friday, June 12. NOAA rated May as tied with 2016 for warmest May on record, while NASA put May 2020 ahead of May 2016 by 0.06°C. Minor differences in rankings often occur between NOAA and NASA, due to the different techniques they use to handle data-sparse regions such as the Arctic.
The year-to-date period of January-May ranks as the second warmest such period on record, just 0.06°C behind the record set in 2016. According to NCEI's outlook for annual temperature, the year 2020 has more than a 99.9% chance to rank among the five warmest years on record, and a 49% chance of being the warmest year on record. If so, each of the past seven years (including 2020) will have been among the seven warmest years on record.
NASA classified May 2020 as having the 17th-highest monthly temperature departure from average for any month in the 1,684-month record, dating back to 1880: 1.02°C (1.84°F) above the 20th century average. All five months of 2020 rank in the top 20 for warmest of any month on record.
Similar threads
