7 ms·
Okay, I'd like to respond to this, "... you should be more scared," Can you reason to that position? Here is how I see it, and perhaps that will make my positi
by ChuckMcM 5y ago
Okay, I'd like to respond to this, "... you should be more scared,"
Can you reason to that position? Here is how I see it, and perhaps that will make my position more clear.
I'm going to die (so are you). Every year, the probability that I'm going to die in the next year goes up bit by bit. I don't expect to read articles that continually harp on "look how close to death you are, are you sure you don't want to eat at Cracker Barrel even ONCE before you die?"
And yet, I'm not anxious about dying. I accept that I cannot live forever and I do everything that I can do to live a long and happy life but there are things that other people do that can kill me. If Russia tosses a nuke into Silicon Valley, I'm dead, if a drunk driver crosses into my lane and crushes my car, I'm dead, if a clot in my bloodstream decides to take out a critical part of my brain, I'm dead. Nothing I can do to prevent that.
Should I be more scared of dying? How about just scared enough to do everything I can do minimize my risks? I am always open to good science that informs me and helps me make good choices about risk with respect to my mortality. I exercise, I don't smoke, I wear my seatbelt, I look both ways when I cross the street, the list goes on.
Unless you haven't been paying attention, the most recent IPCC report basically says, "We're fucked, its gonna happen now no matter what." And that sucks because in an imaginary universe where there was some sort of world government that could tell everybody on the planet what to do and enforce it if they didn't then maybe it wouldn't happen. But we don't live on that planet any more than I live on a planet that can infinitely extend my life, no matter how much I wish it.
So I point out, the planet doesn't care. Big extinction event? No big deal, been there done that, look forward to seeing what the new apex predator looks like kinda not caring.
What is even sadder, is that no credible climate scientist will say "If you do this, you'll avert disaster and it will all be well." Because we AFFECT the climate but we don't know how to CONTROL the climate. That part would require us to take actions, look at the result, and then adjust to figure out what each of the levers does and what sort of pull we might have on it.
I got into a long email discussion with one of IPCC contributors who worked on the clouds aspect of the model. Because the atmosphere is warming, it holds more moisture, and that moisture becomes clouds when you hit the dew point. Clouds can form at all levels of the atmosphere but where they form changes their impact on local weather. The cloud model shows that if we get more clouds in the stratosphere it will increase surface temperatures, if they form in the troposphere the decrease surface temperatures. It was the latter that guided the "nuclear winter" hypothesis. But we haven't gotten there yet so we don't know where they are going to start showing up (and it can be different in different parts of the world). All the science tells is that there is more energy available for things like hurricane and cyclones which are powered by the difference between surface and atmospheric temperatures, and there is more water available for things like clouds and precipitation.
You can play with the current IPCC model, change where the clouds form, and get an ice age. Pretty amazing right? But it represents the limit of our understanding in how things proceed.
But that hasn't stopped any number of groups to weaponize anxiety to encourage action on their particular idea of what's "best." Some are well meaning but others, like the nuclear industry, are really trying to convince folks that you have to start massive reactor projects right now, no matter the cost, to avert calamity. Is that accurate? No. The science says the calamity is locked and loaded. Is it effective at getting more money for nuclear? Absolutely.
"Being scared" and "being anxious" isn't productive (and it reduces your life expectancy to boot!) Being proactive about the things individuals can do is good as long as all good ideas get equal treatment, rather than pushing a single agenda (whether it is nuclear, bicycles, electric cars, or high speed rail).
That is the context of my annoyance at what I see as fear mongering headlines and articles trying to steer resources to one and only one cause.
- pdonis 5y ago> the most recent IPCC report basically says, "We're fucked, its gonna happen now no matter what." More precisely, that climate change is going to happen no matter what. Yes, that's true. But the report does not say we cannot adapt to climate change. It only says we can't stop it from happening. We should be thinking about how to adapt--which is just the large scale equivalent of you wearing a seat belt, looking both ways before crossing the street, etc., to adapt to the fact that there are whackos out there who don't drive carefully.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y agoWhile you're not wrong regarding adaption, to quote a fictional chaostician: "If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories, and crashes through barriers painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh, well, there it is." That change is going to probably hurt a lot more than looking left or right.
- pdonis 5y ago> That change is going to probably hurt a lot more than looking left or right. It would hurt less if we'd spent the last couple of decades thinking and talking about adaptation, and taking steps in that direction, instead of wringing our hands. Or, for that matter, if more coastal cities and nations had acted like the Netherlands, who have been managing sea level rise for more than four centuries now (an excellent example of what adaptation can accomplish), instead of like, for example, the city of Miami, which has had drainage issues for decades and has done nothing about them.
- pdonis 5y ago> All the science tells is that there is more energy available for things like hurricane and cyclones which are powered by the difference between surface and atmospheric temperatures Actually, they're powered ultimately by the difference between polar and tropical temperatures, correct? A cyclone is basically just a big thing that transports energy from the tropics to the poles to equalize an imbalance. And warming affects the poles more than the tropics, so the difference between polar and tropical temperatures, and hence the energy available for cyclones, should be decreasing, not increasing.