Maybe a good way to proactively begin mastery of higher sea levels is for the government to stop subsidizing peoples' choice to move into dangerous hurricane prone areas through federal insurance.
Somehow I think the catastrophists wouldn't like this suggestion.
Bryan, what is your theory of why someone as intelligent as a Paul Krugman makes these statements? I think that you don't like to speculate about motives but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a case of "don't let a crisis go to waste" thinking, even if you have to invent the crisis. What do you think?
So 'climate mastery' is mastery of the potentially harmful effects of the weather rather than mastery of--control over--the weather itself. I agree that 'adaptation' is too weak a term for this, but 'climate mastery' is hardly perfect, either.
You have to be careful about comparing the impact of the co2 abundance far in Earth’s history. While the Sun is on the mainsequence, the solar luminosity is inching up. It is about 50% more luminous today than it was when it landed on the main sequence. All other things being equal, a much higher CO2 abundance in the Earth’s atmosphere a few 100million years ago would have resulted in a much hotter surface on Earth. But if the Sun was a few percent less luminous, that would offset things a bit. In a billion years, the Sun will be too luminous for liquid water to survive on the Earth. 500Myr ago CO2 may have been 4x what it is today. If the forcing is 2.5K/doubling then the earth would be about 5K warmer. But since the equilibrium temp of the Earth was 3K cooler due to the Sun being less luminous, the net effect is more subtle.
Of course reality is a lot more complicated, but my point is that you can’t simply compare CO2 levels way in the past as a guide to present day impact.
The other issue is the speed of the change. Warming (or cooling) the globe a few degrees over a 100Myr is much easier for biosystems to adapt to than changing the temp of the globe a few degrees in 100 yrs. Like a lot of things, it isn’t just the delta that matters - delta/dt matters too.
This isn’t to say that the hysteria over climate change isn’t overblown or the anti fossil fuels fanatics aren’t irresponsible (it is and they are), but bad arguments (or at least sloppy) undermine the case.
I wonder if this drought gets reported as a climate/ weather disaster.
Probably close to $50 million is sitting here,” said Jeff Worsham, the port’s manager, as he stood high on a loading dock, looking out over the roughly 75 barges stranded in this small offshoot of the Mississippi.
I'm a bit confused about the point here. If it's just that the people predicting climate change is likely to be some kind of civilization ending apocalypse then of course that's true. Indeed, we can just look to the IPCC reports themselves to see that and I suspect doing so w/o citing this book about climate mastery would be more persuasive to the ppl who believe that. Tho, of course, unlikely extreme outcomes can contribute substantially to expectation.
OTOH if it's a question about the most important question: is the cost of averting climate change much greater than the cost of not doing so then this post (but maybe not the book) doesn't really address that issue.
I certainly agree that there is a problematic bait and switch (or motte-bailey if u prefer internet rationalist slang) going on in the rhetoric warning of climate change. Rhetorically we are given the impression of an existential threat but when pressed for specific details there is a fall back to a less extreme position.
But I fear the danger of making the same mistake the other way. For instance, the strictly factual claims in this post seem quite modest yet the rhetoric seems suggestive of: all that climate change worry is overblown nonsense. I understand the impulse but isn't the issue of ppl responding in this way what got us into the current rhetorical mess in the first place?
See, this is an important discussion. A very useful addition to the dialog. Why you spend so much more time whining about "wokeness" and straw-manning feminism is simply beyond me.
Let me suggest it's protection from the weather as much as anything. And there's no reason why we won't continue to have that protection after fossil fuels. Minus the air pollution and excess drought. Being outdoors will be less and less pleasant with elevating temps.
Maybe a good way to proactively begin mastery of higher sea levels is for the government to stop subsidizing peoples' choice to move into dangerous hurricane prone areas through federal insurance.
Somehow I think the catastrophists wouldn't like this suggestion.
Bryan, what is your theory of why someone as intelligent as a Paul Krugman makes these statements? I think that you don't like to speculate about motives but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a case of "don't let a crisis go to waste" thinking, even if you have to invent the crisis. What do you think?
So 'climate mastery' is mastery of the potentially harmful effects of the weather rather than mastery of--control over--the weather itself. I agree that 'adaptation' is too weak a term for this, but 'climate mastery' is hardly perfect, either.
We might be better of, but the animals surely aren't.
You have to be careful about comparing the impact of the co2 abundance far in Earth’s history. While the Sun is on the mainsequence, the solar luminosity is inching up. It is about 50% more luminous today than it was when it landed on the main sequence. All other things being equal, a much higher CO2 abundance in the Earth’s atmosphere a few 100million years ago would have resulted in a much hotter surface on Earth. But if the Sun was a few percent less luminous, that would offset things a bit. In a billion years, the Sun will be too luminous for liquid water to survive on the Earth. 500Myr ago CO2 may have been 4x what it is today. If the forcing is 2.5K/doubling then the earth would be about 5K warmer. But since the equilibrium temp of the Earth was 3K cooler due to the Sun being less luminous, the net effect is more subtle.
Of course reality is a lot more complicated, but my point is that you can’t simply compare CO2 levels way in the past as a guide to present day impact.
The other issue is the speed of the change. Warming (or cooling) the globe a few degrees over a 100Myr is much easier for biosystems to adapt to than changing the temp of the globe a few degrees in 100 yrs. Like a lot of things, it isn’t just the delta that matters - delta/dt matters too.
This isn’t to say that the hysteria over climate change isn’t overblown or the anti fossil fuels fanatics aren’t irresponsible (it is and they are), but bad arguments (or at least sloppy) undermine the case.
A 99.6% recovery rate is to Covid19 what Smog Warnings in North America being rare for almost 40 years is to climate change. @Cleanburningtechnology
I wonder if this drought gets reported as a climate/ weather disaster.
Probably close to $50 million is sitting here,” said Jeff Worsham, the port’s manager, as he stood high on a loading dock, looking out over the roughly 75 barges stranded in this small offshoot of the Mississippi.
What saved lives? Not oil but early warning. More on that report.
https://www.climatecentre.org/6129/wmo-climate-change-leads-to-more-extreme-weather-but-early-warnings-save-lives/
These guys who might know something don't seem to thing we're at the "mastery" stage.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/03/big-agriculture-climate-crisis-cop27
I'm a bit confused about the point here. If it's just that the people predicting climate change is likely to be some kind of civilization ending apocalypse then of course that's true. Indeed, we can just look to the IPCC reports themselves to see that and I suspect doing so w/o citing this book about climate mastery would be more persuasive to the ppl who believe that. Tho, of course, unlikely extreme outcomes can contribute substantially to expectation.
OTOH if it's a question about the most important question: is the cost of averting climate change much greater than the cost of not doing so then this post (but maybe not the book) doesn't really address that issue.
I certainly agree that there is a problematic bait and switch (or motte-bailey if u prefer internet rationalist slang) going on in the rhetoric warning of climate change. Rhetorically we are given the impression of an existential threat but when pressed for specific details there is a fall back to a less extreme position.
But I fear the danger of making the same mistake the other way. For instance, the strictly factual claims in this post seem quite modest yet the rhetoric seems suggestive of: all that climate change worry is overblown nonsense. I understand the impulse but isn't the issue of ppl responding in this way what got us into the current rhetorical mess in the first place?
See, this is an important discussion. A very useful addition to the dialog. Why you spend so much more time whining about "wokeness" and straw-manning feminism is simply beyond me.
https://www.losingmyreligions.net/
This is supposed to be something we should call "mastery"?
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/weather-related-disasters-increase-over-past-50-years-causing-more-damage-fewer
Let me suggest it's protection from the weather as much as anything. And there's no reason why we won't continue to have that protection after fossil fuels. Minus the air pollution and excess drought. Being outdoors will be less and less pleasant with elevating temps.