🇦🇺Craig Tindale

🚨 JENSEN HUANG: “The amount of energy that we need for computing is probably 1,000x more than we currently have.”

Wait for it. Big improvement in resolving ocean currents!

🇦🇺 One Nation just hit 32% in Australia's Roy Morgan poll, the first non-Labor/Liberal party to lead since World War II. 6 months ago they were at 6%. Insane. 🟠 One Nation - 32% 🔴 Labor Party - 28.5% 🔵 Liberal Party - 16.5% 🟢 The Greens - 11.5% This is the Western anti-establishment wave hitting Australia. Immigration, cost of living, cultural anxiety. Voters are realigning. The 2-party duopoly held for 80 years. It may not survive this decade, and it's a trend growing fast among many countries. Source: Roy Morgan Research

The team you take to China to make trade deals. Trump will likely open investment channels between China and the US.

The IPCC model changes don't mean what people are telling you Based on the widespread misunderstanding of recent IPCC model changes, we have little hope of a rational public debate on climate risk. The new standard modelling framework, ScenarioMIP-CMIP7, represents a real and overdue correction in climate science. This entire essay below is based exclusively on the ScenarioMIP-CMIP7 scenarios and the Earth-system models that will use them. I've set out exactly what is wrong with new models. For more than a decade, RCP8.5 and its CMIP6 successor SSP5-8.5 were routinely treated as the default “business-as-usual” future. They were always very high-end emissions pathways. Their retirement as the central high-end benchmark is therefore justified. The world has moved on: the cost of renewables has collapsed, climate policy is now a permanent feature of the global economy, and the old assumption of unconstrained fossil-fuel expansion has become far harder to defend as plausible. That is genuine scientific progress. It fixes the emissions baseline. But fixing the baseline does not prove that climate risk itself has been downgraded. Far from it, though people are so determined to confirm the opinion they already have they don’t even read the models. They don’t understand the models. They don’t know what the model say but they’ve got an opinion on them them. In fact, I will argue that the new models, when examined honestly, make the case for serious systemic risk clearer and more urgent than ever. Climate risk is not a single smooth temperature curve we can simply “bend.” It is a network of tightly coupled complex systems, ice sheets with their hidden basal plumbing, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, cloud feedbacks, carbon-cycle responses, ocean deoxygenation, and industrial surface-layer effects, now under unprecedented industrial pressure. The shift to emission-driven modelling in CMIP7 is designed precisely to let those couplings speak for themselves. This essay explores what the new ScenarioMIP-CMIP7 framework actually tells us once we stop mistaking a more realistic baseline for a less dangerous world.