These anomalies will become more common and more extreme over the coming decades.
Honestly I'll ride it out but I do feel bad for people with kids.
Do you live near the coast? If so, "riding it out", might involve moving inland and paying insane property prices.
There are parts of the world that are already hitting wet-bulb temperatures that are lethal to humans. And this is all just the beginning.
The 90 year "Moctezuma" cycle (think dust bowl 1930's - much warmer than this year, 1840's, 1750's and conquistador records from 1660's) is combined with a peak 11 year solar cycle and an el nino, will subside.
overall warming will still increase, so 2110's will be brutal, but late 2020's should be awesome -- cooler summers and warmer winters, longer growing seasons, more snow, rain, skiing, cheaper food etc.
:)
The ratcheting upward saw toothing is a feature of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) pattern .. and the world is just now moving into the upturn phase.
Climate dynamics are akin to the tennis racket theorem - the uninterferred long term arc of the centre of gravity (gross parameters) is essentially deterministic, however the short term specific orientations of the tumblings along that arc resist exact prediction.
You can read more via:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/what-el-ni%...
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/e...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-climate-cycles-which...
Try this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunspot-cycle...
I'm sticking to the expected behaviour from climate scientists; sunspots and Aztec cycles aren't my department (see my peer comment on solar magnetic activity & climate quoting NASA scientists on their opinions re: .. )
There are lots of disagreements about whether it will be 2024 or 2025 that the ENSO cycle gets cooler but there is zero disagreement that solar radiation will start decreasing next year.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-021-00199-z https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/e...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/what-will-solar-cy...
> there is zero disagreement that solar radiation will start decreasing next year.
This is not supported by any of your three links; two are on ENSO, the third on solar magnetic activity (unrelated to the solar visible spectrum energy -> IR energy that drives climate change)
From the nasa solar link:
* “There is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity,”
( 'solar activity' referes to sunspots, flares, etc. NOT to radiant energy in the visible spectrum )
* But even if the Sun dropped into a grand minimum, there’s no reason to think Earth would undergo another Ice Age;
( NASA scientists do not believe that solar mag activity is related to climate changes )
* not only do scientists theorize that the Little Ice Age occurred for other reasons,
( again, the European "Little Ice Age" not related to sun spots )
* but in our contemporary world, greenhouse gases far surpass the Sun’s effects when it comes to changes in Earth’s climate.
Actual flucuations of the suns visible spectrum activity are very very small compared to other more dominant effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/med...]
This is a few years old, but: https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/screenhunt...
Often when I talk about climate cycles, it turns into I'm a climate change denier. I am not, I have been writing about climate change since the 90's. It's just not that this year, or next, are indicative of imminent disaster.
Within the next few hundred years the seas will rise around 100m. Nothing will stop that, nothing will save most island countries or coastal cities. We don't have the long term political will to stop that.
But that's centuries from now, not decades.
Do you have a reference for 100m?
When I came to the US in the 90s, one of my teachers was freaking out about peak oil and about how people shouldn't have kids because that would exacerbate the problem and those kids would have a bad life.
Joke's on him I guess. I suspect that at every single point of human history, someone was dismal about something and using it as a reason to not have kids.
If I had to bet, people having kids now are not going to regret it ever.
My grandfather lived through ww2 m, which was a HEAVILY predicted event filled with doomsaying right after WW1, and it was a point of debate.
It wasn’t a pleasant experience, lots of people didn’t make it and entire communities were destroyed, for them it was the end.
Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. It's a bad idea to plan on it.
I point it out only to say "somebody will do something to fix climate change, so don't worry about it" is not a sound position either. The economics predict there will be reactions, but they include a lot of suffering. Dealing with it sooner rather than later will reduce the suffering, and we've already lost a lot of time.
That wasn't his position though. His comment had specific context, your critique did not.
Otherwise I absolutely agree with you, my thinking is that humans should try precision in communications (more popularly known as "pedantry", except when scientists do it) about these wicked problems because what we're doing now seems to cause more harm than help, and as you say time is of the essence.
Dire warnings about things going on in Europe in the 1930s proved to be very true and incredibly costly and horrible for most everyone and from talking to people that had to deal with the aftermath.
So it sounds like they all made the right decision to procreate despite "reasons" not to.