Drought

[timisimaginary]

Makes me sad, nature/wildlife pays the ultimate price for human greed and ignorance.

humanity will pay the ultimate price eventually: extinction.

after that, nature and wildlife will recover and be better off without us. might take a few hundred or a few thousand or a few million years, but the planet will be fine in the end.

Until the sun goes red giant and the first three planets are swallowed up in the process

not if a rogue planet slams into the earth and sends it careening out of the solar system first.

[Iguru]

In all seriousness, I think humans will make the planet uninhabitable long before any cosmic event will.

[12ersRule]

My plan is to be cryogenically frozen and then be awakened just as this is happening, so I can watch that! I'll wake up Ted Williams for that one too.

Frozen and stored on Mars then? Or is the plan to go out in a (literal) blaze of glory?

Yes, watching from as close enough as is 'safe'. Maybe from Titan or Io?

[Bale]

My plan is to be cryogenically frozen and then be awakened just as this is happening, so I can watch that! I'll wake up Ted Williams for that one too.

If you wake Ted, I’d like his autograph. Red Sox fan from Utah here.

[ker0uac]

False equivalency. There are a ton of things we don't know/understand. That in no way diminishes the confidence in the processes we do understand.

The climate is observable and we understand it's functioning from first principles (i.e. physical laws and math). Earthquakes are underpinned by large-scale processes that are incredibly challenging to measure with our current technology, so we don't understand it well enough to make predictions.

Climate models from 2004 predicted the following 16 years of global temperatures with remarkable accuracy:
ClimateModels.JPG

That's true, for instance, today we can genetically modify organisms and make crops more resistant to parasites, so we understand the underlying processes there. But that helps us in no way to understand SARS-Cov-2. In fact, we have a vast understanding of coronaviruses, and viruses in general, and yet we were stunned by SARS-Cov-2. Science is inherently faulty, it relies on heuristics and proofs by logical contradictions. That's not a criticism of Science, it is an appreciation of Science. As those who have pursue a career in academia/research would agree, Science begins with the most simplified version of reality that can be understood by our current body of knowledge. As that body of knowledge progresses, we account for additional complexities that had been removed or unbeknownst to us, and/or test heuristics that had been previously used. For instance, I wonder how many people know that their weight isn't the same everywhere on earth? In fact, your weight in Denver is technically lower than your weight in Los Angeles. By how much? Ridiculously negligible amount. But there was a time in our history when we didn't know that because we assumed gravitational forces were the same around the planet - without proof, i.e. a heuristic. Without such tools, Science cannot move forward. Perfection is the worst enemy of progress. You can never know everything. Even when you use statistics to preface statements, there is still a chance you might just get lucky. When I drop an apple off my window, I can say with 100% confidence that the apple will fall.

I am sure there are people reading this now and foaming at the mouth. I will bring up Laplace's demon. Laplace, an incredibly mathematician and physicists and many other things, was also a victim of the causal determinism that plagues pop-culture-science. He said:

“We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.”

He believed that any need to speak in probabilistic terms stemmed from ignorance. So by Laplace, climate science is nothing more than an incomplete and imperfect understanding of reality. If you don't like Laplace, maybe his diff equations annoyed you in grad school, then let's bring up Lorenz. Lorenz system is a mathematical model for atmospheric convection created by a mathematician studying climate science. "The Lorenz system is deterministic, which means that if you know the exact starting values of your variables then in theory you can determine their future values as they change with time. Lorenz demonstrated that if you begin this model by choosing some values for x, y, and z, and then do it again with just slightly different values, then you will quickly arrive at fundamentally different results". We don't know the origins of so many phenomena but we believe we can determine their future? We don't even understand the interior workings of the planet (e.g. earthquakes) yet we believe we understand the future of the planet beyond a doubt?

Climate science is like those hikers who think they are mountaineers just coz they finished the 58s. Climate science is less than 100 years old. In the realm of sciences, climate science is the new kid in the room. Physics has been trying for millennia to fully understand the world hidden from our eyes and we still do not. Progress has been made surely, but in Physics, there's always someone questioning "what if that's wrong? let me prove it". In my short stint in academia, I spent most of my research replicating previous studies to confirm their validity. So, theories and theories for unified field have been proposed, some debunked, others not well accepted, others being studied, etc. Climate science lacks devil's advocates to keep everyone on their toes. It is such a politicized field that those within climate science are more interested in making predictions that can become headlines than they are in testing/confirming their understanding of climate. I think climate science needs to do some soul searching and find out where it went wrong and why it struggles so much to get traction in the broader society. It seemed that climate scientists decided to take the route of screaming louder and louder and making more and more apocalyptic predictions to become heard, but that only made things worse. Just google history of wrong climate predictions, you will get a loooong list.

The green revolution doesn't have to be a pill that we have to swallow otherwise some apocalyptic prediction will become true in X years. Maybe it is just out of a need to modernize and progress. I am far from a vegan. I have no qualms with eating animals. But I care about my health, so I actually eat some plant-based meats. Again, nothing to do with being green. I would love to have an electric car that caters to my needs and wants, not bc I am a tree hugger, but bc of the convenience of "pumping my tank" at home. I don't want to fly for work 2x week, not bc of my carbon footprint but bc I hate airports. Etc. Etc. Science breakthroughs often, if not always, move towards processes that are more efficient, safer and with fewer by-products. I doubt there are capable Scientists out there researching processes that are less environmentally friendly. "Humm, how can I design an engine that spits out even more CO2?". Domestic appliances are greener than they were 30yrs ago. Across party lines, if you bought an appliance within the last 30yrs, that appliance is greener than the one used by your grandparents. Same with your light bulbs. Get some perspective. Progress doesn't move at your desired speed. The world doesn't revolve around your need to go hiking right now. You can't order progress like you order food from Doordash. Just because you happen to be caught in the climate-science-friendly side of the algorithm doesn't make you more enlightened than anyone else, damn! You aren't more enlightened than previous generations, you are just simply more brainwashed by either side of every divisive argument, and thus less able to think for yourself.

Earth is about 4 billion years old. Human kind has been here for 300k years only. Fossil fuels have been in use for less than 200 years. Get some perspective. Your hysteria isn't helping AT ALL. It is only helping politicians.

[12ersRule]

My plan is to be cryogenically frozen and then be awakened just as this is happening, so I can watch that! I'll wake up Ted Williams for that one too.

If you wake Ted, I’d like his autograph. Red Sox fan from Utah here.

Only his head got frozen, so will have to find him a new body. I assume his signature will be the same, but it'll probably take him some practice.

[12ersRule]

The green revolution doesn't have to be a pill that we have to swallow otherwise some apocalyptic prediction will become true in X years. Maybe it is just out of a need to modernize and progress. I am far from a vegan. I have no qualms with eating animals. But I care about my health, so I actually eat some plant-based meats. Again, nothing to do with being green. I would love to have an electric car that caters to my needs and wants, not bc I am a tree hugger, but bc of the convenience of "pumping my tank" at home. I don't want to fly for work 2x week, not bc of my carbon footprint but bc I hate airports. Etc. Etc. Science breakthroughs often, if not always, move towards processes that are more efficient, safer and with fewer by-products. I doubt there are capable Scientists out there researching processes that are less environmentally friendly. "Humm, how can I design an engine that spits out even more CO2?". Domestic appliances are greener than they were 30yrs ago. Across party lines, if you bought an appliance within the last 30yrs, that appliance is greener than the one used by your grandparents. Same with your light bulbs. Get some perspective. Progress doesn't move at your desired speed. The world doesn't revolve around your need to go hiking right now. You can't order progress like you order food from Doordash. Just because you happen to be caught in the climate-science-friendly side of the algorithm doesn't make you more enlightened than anyone else, damn! You aren't more enlightened than previous generations, you are just simply more brainwashed by either side of every divisive argument, and thus less able to think for yourself.

I brush my teeth twice a day, not because I care about tooth decay, but because I LOVE the taste of toothpaste!

[Barnold41]

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/eagle-va ... 630-acres/

A former boss of mine lives up Bruce Creek, scary stuff. Avon and Edwards were hazy last night.

[ker0uac]

I'll draw a parallel to the improvement of sanitary conditions that happened in early 19th.

"With increasing urbanization of the population in the nineteenth century, filthy environmental conditions became common in working class areas, and the spread of disease became rampant. In London, for example, smallpox, cholera, typhoid, and tuberculosis reached unprecedented levels. It was estimated that as many as 1 person in 10 died of smallpox. More than half the working class died before their fifth birthday. Meanwhile, "In the summers of 1858 and 1859 the Thames stank so badly as to rise "to the height of an historic event … for months together the topic almost monopolized the public prints'." (Winslow, 1923) London was not alone in this dilemma. In New York, as late as 1865, "the filth and garbage accumulate in the streets to the depth sometimes of two or three feet." In a 2-week survey of tenements in the sixteenth ward of New York, inspectors found more than 1,200 cases of smallpox and more than 2,000 cases of typhus. (Winslow, 1923) In Massachusetts in 1850, deaths from tuberculosis were 300 per 100,000 population, and infant mortality was about 200 per 1,000 live births. (Hanlon and Pickett, 1984). The nineteenth century marked a great advance in public health. "The great sanitary awakening" (Winslow, 1923)—the identification of filth as both a cause of disease and a vehicle of transmission and the ensuing embrace of cleanliness—was a central component of nineteenth-century social reforms. Sanitation changed the way society thought about health. Illness came to be seen as an indicator of poor social and environmental conditions, as well as poor moral and spiritual conditions. Cleanliness was embraced as a path both to physical and moral health."

I wonder if the sanitary revolution was triggered by an army of social activists, pop-science followers, snowflakes, partisan scientists and politicians screaming apocalyptic predictions about the end of earth and human-kind. No, here is an example of how it happened:

"Edwin Chadwick, a London lawyer and secretary of the Poor Law Commission in 1838, is one of the most recognized names in the sanitary reform movement. Under Chadwick's authority, the commission conducted studies of the life and health of the London working class in 1838 and that of the entire country in 1842. Chadwick documented that the average age at death for the gentry was 36 years; for the tradesmen, 22 years; and for the laborers, only 16 years. (Hanlon and Pickett, 1984) To remedy the situation, Chadwick proposed what came to be known as the "sanitary idea." His remedy was based on the assumption that diseases are caused by foul air from the decomposition of waste. To remove disease, therefore, it was necessary to build a drainage network to remove sewage and waste. Further, Chadwick proposed that a national board of health, local boards in each district, and district medical officers be appointed to accomplish this goal. (Chave, 1984)"

So simple. Imagine if Chadwick had said "based on computer simulations, I can say with 95% confidence that foul air from the decomposition of waste will annihilate human kind by July 3, 1921 if nothing is done to remedy the situation. On top of that, the trash will accumulate in the streets and will eventually reach the moon and destroy the entire solar system by July 8, 1921"

And more...

"Inspired in part by Chadwick, local sanitary surveys were conducted in several cities. The most famous of these was a survey conducted by Lemuel Shattuck, a Massachusetts bookseller and statistician. Shattuck collected vital statistics on the Massachusetts population, documenting differences in morbidity and mortality rates in different localities. He attributed these differences to urbanization, specifically the foulness of the air created by decay of waste in areas of dense population, and to immoral life-style. He showed that the poor living conditions in the city threatened the entire community. "

This is specially pertinent here:

""Even those persons who attempted to maintain clean and decent homes were foiled in their efforts to resist diseases if the behavior of others invited the visitation of epidemics. Shattuck considered immorality an important influence on susceptibility to ill health—and in fact drunkenness and sloth did often lead to poor health in the slums—but he believed that these conditions were threatening to all. Further, Shattuck determined that those most likely to be affected by disease were also those who, either through ignorance or lack of concern, failed to take personal responsibility for cleanliness and sanitation of their area."

Although at the time, this was framed as a public health issue, the measures taken were actually meant to help clean the environment. In the 1800s, human waste was dumped directly onto the Thames in the middle of London. Their main concern wasn't with all that s**t ending up in the oceans and killing the turtles. Regardless, the improvements made did help with that.

[ker0uac]

The green revolution doesn't have to be a pill that we have to swallow otherwise some apocalyptic prediction will become true in X years. Maybe it is just out of a need to modernize and progress. I am far from a vegan. I have no qualms with eating animals. But I care about my health, so I actually eat some plant-based meats. Again, nothing to do with being green. I would love to have an electric car that caters to my needs and wants, not bc I am a tree hugger, but bc of the convenience of "pumping my tank" at home. I don't want to fly for work 2x week, not bc of my carbon footprint but bc I hate airports. Etc. Etc. Science breakthroughs often, if not always, move towards processes that are more efficient, safer and with fewer by-products. I doubt there are capable Scientists out there researching processes that are less environmentally friendly. "Humm, how can I design an engine that spits out even more CO2?". Domestic appliances are greener than they were 30yrs ago. Across party lines, if you bought an appliance within the last 30yrs, that appliance is greener than the one used by your grandparents. Same with your light bulbs. Get some perspective. Progress doesn't move at your desired speed. The world doesn't revolve around your need to go hiking right now. You can't order progress like you order food from Doordash. Just because you happen to be caught in the climate-science-friendly side of the algorithm doesn't make you more enlightened than anyone else, damn! You aren't more enlightened than previous generations, you are just simply more brainwashed by either side of every divisive argument, and thus less able to think for yourself.

I brush my teeth twice a day, not because I care about tooth decay, but because I LOVE the taste of toothpaste!

Yea, I know you are mocking me but that's my point. For children, we make toothpaste and cough syrup taste good so they look forward to doing the things we need them to do, instead of saying "child, brush your teeth now or else you will die in 5 years!!" Maybe we need to take the "bubble-gum flavored cough syrup" route to deal with other problems too.

[Jorts]

Is there a specific point you're trying to make with all this verbose prose?

The suggestion that climate science is inherently faulty because it is less than 100 years old is inaccurate. Think about all the engineering and societal progress that has been made in the last 100 years as a result of advancements in science: antibiotics, lasers, commercial air travel, radiology, etc. etc.

Climate science, like other sciences, can be and is tested. Science is callous and unfeeling. There are not devil's advocates and proponents of the science itself, but only of the conclusions drawn from the science and evidence. Hypotheses and theories are constantly being refined based on new evidence.

Skepticism is fine except for when one rejects evidence because it lies contradictory to one's preconceived conclusions. Climate models have been back tested and are constantly being refined. Your invocation of Laplace and Lorenz alluding to chaos theory and how it leads to shortcomings in weather prediction are not directly germane to climate science. WTF.

[Jorts]

Found this one fascinating… an extreme weather event that rather than just being “more probable” with climate change was found to have been impossible without climate change.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/so ... f/-char/en