Quicken

I think a fall is coming now, but couldn't call the size or speed of it. Just saying a big crash would be much more than back to 2018 imho. That'd be a mild correction. We've been in a mega bubble since 2000 or so and an alice-in-wonderland economy since 2008. ZIRP might finally be ending. Interesting times indeed.

Nope. A hell of a crash would get back to 2000 prices.

Desperately hoping for the lesser spotted soft landing.

Oh I don't know. Wild swimming is massive these days. It would probably be classed as therapy.

I voted 0.5%. Follow the leader. So so sad that I'm feeling a bit excited about a rise to a piffling 1.25%. Emergency rates since 2008. I see debt zombies, everywhere.

Excellent Smithers. Release the hounds.

Watch us bring the hike, watch us bring the hike, watch us bring the hike... HIKE!

Any amount needed to combat global warming, naturally. Along with the associated mass extinction, global warming is the defining challenge of this century.

I agree. Every post carries the subtext - but what about my pension?

But what if we think Russia is ultimately not going to win? The US lost Vietnam. Russia/USSR lost Afghanistan in the 80s.

There is uncertainty in the sensitivity. It's fine to hope for the best but always plan for the worst. So if the likely range of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is 2-4, plan for 4 (or 5).

Yeah, it's not a final version so it's pretty dense stuff. I read that then started on the technical paper (90 something pages). It's actually an easier read as it expands on the Summary for Policy Makers. Filled with annoying watermarks though.

Please stop digging. The central claim of the Coe et al. paper is an extraordinarily low climate sensitivity value - 'just stop worrying and love coal'. The citation was presented in the context of supporting an emerging consensus challenging the older IPCC value range. Only it was a lie.

They cited the 2020 paper (not another one) and they cited it falsely. If you were aware of the results from the other paper, were you also aware that Coe et al. had cited it falsely? You don't need to understand the technicalities to see the basic problems here. First, no authors who were both honest and competent would have made such a false citation. This isn't a review paper with 300 references and it isn't a little side issue but central to their main, extraordinary claim. So it's a lie. Second, no reviewer would have missed such a false citation so it would never get into a peer-reviewed journal. Hence, this paper was not peer reviewed, which ties in with Staffsknot's point about the publisher (which you have ignored). SPG are the kind of spam-scam publishers that used to regularly spam my work emails inviting me to publish in some random journals, most likely with algorithmically generated names.

A simple answer is because the paper you linked is fraudulent, but I'll try to explain a little further. Coe et al. cite very little other literature, but one paper they do cite is this one by Wijngaarden and Happer, 2020: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098v1.pdf They cite this paper in support of this specific claim: "More recent work, however, suggests ECS values of less than 1degC" Is that true? Did Wijngaarden and Happer show ESC values of less than 1 degree C? No they did not. Wijngaarden and Happer reported 2.2 K (a very far cry from 'less than 1') and in general agreement with the IPCC numbers. See section 7.5 and table 5 in the paper above. Note, they were also using the HITRAN dataset. That is a blatant lie on the first page of Coe et al. and is a standard disinformation approach to give the appearance of controversy. Big tobacco used the same approach for years.

Well, it's a proxy war on one side, with no actual soldiers of other nations involved but everyone from Finland to Canada arming the Ukrainian defenders.

Nonsense. Finland and Sweden could suddenly join Nato. Poland could annex Königsberg. Boris could actually clean up the London laundromat (stop laughing at the back!).

This. The Soviet-Afghan War went on for ten years.

That Coe et al. paper fails to even explain current warming using their model. Quote from the article: Pure climate denialism. Edit to add: Figure 13 is extremely convenient.

The Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) AR6 report is out in draft form today. Fill your boots: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

AR6 WG1 results are out now. They are improving the sensitivity estimates. Very likely over 2 degrees. You can read the summary for policy makers here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

Putin's trial, dramatised:

West to cut some Russian banks off from Swift https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60542433

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/vladimir-putin-ukraine-attack-antisemitism-denazify In the 2019 election, the Ukrainian far right was humiliated, receiving only 2% of the vote.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60522421 Sign of the times. The slow death spiral of high street retail continues.