All countries in the world urgently need to adapt to climate change but are not yet in a good position to do so. It’s urgent because we are not even adapted to the present climate. This fact is underscored by recent weather-related calamities, such as flooding in Central Europe and heatwaves over North America. It’s also urgent because the oceans act like a flywheel, making sure that cuts in emission of greenhouse gases will have a lagged effect on global warming.
Climate change adaptation was addressed in the Paris Agreement from 2015, the Climate Adaptation Summit in January 2021, and will be one of four key priorities during the upcoming COP26. Proper climate adaptation of course needs meteorological and climatological data for mapping weather-related risks to prepare us for future extreme weather. However, I would argue that the climate research community has not had a visible presence during any of these meetings. Instead the summits have been dominated by politicians and NGOs.
Climate scientists can help policy-makers by explaining the risks and opportunities. We already have useful information based on past trends, current status and future projections, all of which require good data and models. There have been vast resources invested into brilliant knowledge hubs such as Copernicus C3S and NASA, so why not use it for all it’s worth? It’s also important to use the best information in the right way, and climate scientists can help with that. There is always a risk of misinterpreting the numbers.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently published its Working Group 1 report on physical climate change, and the report from Working Group 2 on impacts is due early next year. Such reports provide a summary of the state of our knowledge, but are not sufficiently specific for climate change adaptation. Policy-makers come from different backgrounds, and may read and interpret the IPCC’s reports differently, so climate scientists still have a role in explaining what the implications are in each particular case.
Our understanding on how regional climates will unfold in the future is very limited and the outcomes are uncertain. More uncertainty leaves more room for interpretations. Regional climate modelling, involving downscaling of global climate models, is still riddled with challenges and unsolved problems. Hence, there are different opinions regarding the best way to calculate regional climate outlooks, as I’ve explained in a recent discussion paper. Nevertheless, it’s a key part for climate adaptation.
The research by climate scientists is often coordinated through the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), which aims to facilitate activities to produce better regional climate information for society. This network, however, is both unfunded and very slow because its members have to dedicate much of their time to other funded activities.
The WCRP stages the COrdinated Regional Downscaling EXperiment (CORDEX) for advancing the science underpinning regional climate modelling. In some ways it has been a success, but there are some shortcomings. Most of CORDEX’s activities are still geared towards improving methods, while the questions about what information to use and how to use it are still unsettled. In that sense, CORDEX is still thinking in traditional ways, but needs to involve more statisticians to extract the best information from all the numbers.
There are different ways to use model results for adaptation, and climate adaptation needs inclusive and comprehensive science discussions about regional climate data, social science and the use of statistics. In other words, climate adaptation needs an inclusive bottom-up approach rather than top down.
We can move forward with a stronger presence of climate scientists in climate summits and by supporting WRCP so that the scientists working on climate modelling can dedicate more of their time on making progress in terms of regional climate modelling, data rescue and distilling crucial information for climate adaptation.
In summary, we have little time, climate change adaptation must involve climate scientists, and the climate science community needs to get up to speed. So far there has been a contrast between the message of urgency and the resources dedicated to dealing with climate change.
First, cease calling this stuff ” funding for clean energy projects” Clean energy is an “investment” that will pay for itself far faster than the rich investing in the fossil industry which is just a black hole currently “funded” by our tax $$$ to survive. Port Townsend has a brand new middle school that has been plumbed and wired for solar PV. Just waiting for an investment for an array. Perhaps even community solar that brings a few % back to the investors. Make it grow. Then we could invest in electric school busses, and healthier children. Along with that we get Grid stabilization as those busses sit idle much of the day and most of the summer. The longer one thinks about it, the more savings to us taxpayers materialize. To your credit you do mention a few, however when you say “funded” people think higher taxes. Not “investments” in the future GREEN AWAKENING ECONOMY that benefits ALL, not the “parasitic capitalistic economy” that bleeds society with a thousand cuts.
The problem is that GOPpers have been successful at defining the definitions of the words we use to debate. For example, “capitalism” says NOTHING about freedom or work or pulling oneself up. In fact, “Capitalism” is the opposite. It is all about being the laziest leech possible: “Let your money work for you”.
Tell me, where is the link between the glories GOPpers ascribe to “Capitalism”, such as “the free market” and “Capitalism” itself?
The logic escapes me
Everyone is now understanding the effects of Climate Change . There are n’t enough solutions to solve the problems of Carbon Emissions. USA, CHINA AND INDIA have got abundant sources of coal . They depend on coal to produce electricity to serve industries, commercial establishments and households . These countries are reluctant to shed their attachments to coal. ,unless an alternative and a viable method of producing electricity is discovered , All the renewable energies need storage facilities . Storage batteries need Lithium and Cobalt which are n’t available in abundance .Nuclear power is totally avoided after the breakdown of the Nuclear Power
Plant in Japan . Carbon Capture and Storage projects are very costlier . The problem is n’t having an easy solution
Yes, it does. Do you not see your error? No system change, no lifestyle or socioeconomic or political change, just electrification?
it seems possible to contend that, aside from lingering uncertainty, the models have done a good job of identifying the direction we’ve taken, and that it’s been an increasingly dangerous direction. I’ve asked and will ask again here if the problem might be less a matter of scientific uncertainty than a matter of unwillingness to make the changes required for a change of direction
“…the problem might be less a matter of scientific uncertainty than a matter of unwillingness to make the changes required for a change of direction…”
Personally, I don’t think there’s any question whatever: that is IMO certainly the case.
With mitigation failing, adaptation is the name of the game.
But if it is adaptation, there should be less incentive to exaggerate climate change given the extra CO2 emissions in any overcorrection (steel, concrete, etc.)..
The way I see it is that mitigation is the most important task, but also that adaptation is necessary because the climate has changed and we are not longer attuned to it. Also, when climate change adaptation measures become visible, that can make more people realise that climate change is really something that is neither abstract nor remote, but something physical near you.
You see it oddly. It makes no sense to think of the two as separate. They are one and the same.
Mitigation and adaptation choices are completely co-dependent.. if one understands regenerative design, or as I prefer to call it, ecological engineering.
Where do you put a building? Where the water ain’t and won’t be under any reasonable time frame (centuries.) What does it cost to protect NOLA? Hmmm… First ask, can we? Then should we? If not, then what?
It all depends on SLR. And we always start with energy: Wind, solar, water. This is just what you do. Mitigation? Adaptation? Really, it’s just a matter of good regenerative decision-making, and you can’t bifurcate that.
I’m probably reading things too literally again, but I don’t think so.
If they were “the same” than “the same” word would be used for “one and the same” thing.
My understanding (which is almost certainly wrong !) is that :
“Mitigation” = “Measures taken to prevent [ X amount of ] warming from happening in the first place”, and
“Adaptation” = “Measures put in place, in advance or afterwards, to deal with warming [ of X°C ] after it has occurred”.
There is some overlap in the two, e.g. “Mitigation against +5°C” and “Adaptation in the +2°C to +5°C range”, but boldly stating “they are one and the same thing” is (maybe ?) going a step too far.
I find it most useful to think in terms of risk analysis. Risk is the probability of an adverse outcome multiplied by the negative consequences (Cost) should it occur:
R(O)=P(O)xC(O)
Mitigation can work by reducing either probability or consequences. We reduce the probability of occurrence by decreasing the warming, since adverse outcomes increase as we warm. However, we can also try to reduce the cost–e. g. by decreasing impervious surface to accommodate increased impulsive precipitation events.
Adaptation essentially takes the probability of occurrence as 1 and concentrates on reducing the consequences. This is essentially the approach the FAA takes in assessing avionics in airplanes–assume the fault will occur regardless of its probability and ask how the avionics will handle it.
Unfortunately, there are some outcomes where the consequences are too dire to even contemplate allowing them to occur. Reducing the probability of occurrence is the only reasonable mitigation option.
So, adaptation is actually a subset of mitigation.
Ray Ladbury said:
Have to consider that all commercial & military avionics has risk mitigation in terms of fault tolerance and component redundancy along with other backup strategies. See our book on a practical formal analysis
“Modeling for Reliability Analysis: Markov Modeling for Reliability, Maintainability, Safety, and Supportability Analyses of Complex Systems” (Wiley, 1998)
There is a similar redundancy possible with respect to climate change mitigation, referred to as the “No Regrets” policy. The expectation is that we follow all the plans for a renewable energy transition knowing full well that it will not fail due to the backup strategy in place. What’s the backup? Well, that’s the certainty that fossil fuels are a finite & no-renewable resource that we have to transition away from in any case!
This is what’s called a no-brainer can’t fail strategy that the original commenter Robert Bradley would probably hate. Remember that this is the same Robert Bradley that was the chief speech-writer for Ken Lay of ENRON and who runs pro-FF sites called Master Resource and Institute for Energy Research. Know thy opponent
https://www.desmog.com/robert-l-bradley-jr/
Mark, I think you stated it exactly right.
And I think, as I may have said once or twice here, that the unwillingness of many to just stick to consistent (simple) definitions is one of the reasons we do so poorly in communicating on climate, and why the Denialists get to confuse people with little effort.
I would suggest that both Ray and Paul are making it way more complicated than the reality warrants. Airplanes crash when the redundancy fails on a specific critical function, or there is a cascading loss of control due to pilot insufficiency.
Perfect dead-stick landings on the Hudson River are really not useful examples of “adaptation”.
Paul, the day fossil fuels run out will be way too late… the potential catastrophic disruptions that would result from BAU would happen way before that.
Thanks, Paul, for pointing out that the commenter is Robert Bradley, a career AGW-denialist. He currently has a gig with Heartland Institute. He’s also got his own CEO gig, defending the Koch Klub of carbon capitalists (“Let me add that Charles Koch is a principled entrepreneur of a great company.”) He should not be confused with another Robert Bradley, employed by the World Resources Institute. Heartland-Koch’s Dr. Bradley is an expert in specious lukewarmism on behalf of “free market” ideology. One presumes his occasional provocative comments on RC are strategic. For the sake of the (perhaps mythical) uncommitted lurker, then:
“With mitigation failing, adaptation is the name of the game.”
Mitigation is hardly failing. Why, the levelized cost of energy for new electricity from wind and solar sources has already fallen below that for “combined-cycle natural gas”, the cheapest new fossil-fueled power. That’s attributed to a virtuous cycle, a “green vortex” driven by collective mitigation actions taken around the world, including carbon taxes as well as public investment in renewables development, such as subsidies, tax breaks and national R&D laboratories. Collective (i.e. government) action by the US has been limited due to the intractable AGW-denial of too many voters, sustained by a well-funded public disinformation campaign employing the skills of Dr. Bradley. Public acceptance of climate science seems to be growing with every headline-making heatwave, nonetheless.
Assuredly, adaptation to new normals and ranges for extreme weather is unavoidable, and already happening. Yet without mitigation of the cause of the warming, we’ll be forced to adapt to ever rising, acidifying seas and repeatedly-surpassed record weather events. IMHO mitigation, i.e. decarbonization of the global economy, is a cost-effective alternative to open-ended disaster. As for:
“there should be less incentive to exaggerate climate change”
This is merely a tu quoque tactic, with Bradley’s own incentive to discount climate change plain. He’s entitled to his opinion, of course, even if he’s being paid for it. Yet however impressive his credentials may appear, there’s no mistaking his motivated rhetoric. Consider the source, and follow the money.
Yes, this commenter named Rob Bradley has posted on blogs regularly over the years. I keep an eye out and when I see him comment, I like to remind others reading the comments of his sordid history.
“I would suggest that both Ray and Paul are making it way more complicated than the reality warrants. “
The No Regrets Policy is simple, described in the IPCC year after year. It even applies to the situation where the climate science is wrong! Watch this 47 second video explaining it.
https://youtu.be/l6dKyoHgvFA
This is clearly difficult for non-regenerative systems people to grasp, but not if you understand the systemics involved, both the physical and the design-related. Let me try to simplify this:
* Part of the problem is those two terms existed before The Perfect Storm, but are inadequate to the task of discussing said storm.
* In a context of constant, rapid change, what is the difference between mitigation and adaptation? We, permaculturists, e.g., don’t ask if we are mitigating or adapting because everything is both. do we place a new building where it will avoid seasonal flooding, or SLR, or storm surge? All of the above. So, if that new building ends up half a mile further inland is it mitigation or adaptation?That is just designing to context. It’s neither mitigation nor adaptation because it is both. Good design is always maximizing functions and minimizing risks.
We design to context. the context is climate change, ecosystem destruction. Further, what is the safe level of CO2? 300. Earth never went signifcantly above that during the Ice Age, @ 2.7million years, until we made it do so. That’s your only known safe level. Anything above that is an educated guess. Even a very educated guess, but still a guess, not a fact. 300 is a fact of history. Were we to target 300 ppm, would that be mitigation of adaptation? What if even 315 (about the forcing that got the ASI melting) could lead to long-term cascading failures? Sure, the sientists would likely all say that’s not just highly unlikely, but impossible, but as a climate scientist recently said changes they once thought would occur at +4C are happening now. What is safe? What is mitigation vs adaptation?
The practical risk of bifurcating the two is there are actions people will take for adaptation alone that are antithetical to a regenerative future, while anything we do *regeneratively* in the name of mitigation also improves our ability to adapt because we design to the context. However, building out a “renewables” energy grid large enough power a world that could survive 2C, 3C, 4C would only reinforce those numbers being reached because of the ecosystem destruction that level of resource consumption would require.
Worse, if policy is set to adaptation, believe me the resources will go there and not to mitigation because adaptation is what the rich, the corporations (redundant), governments (redundant) and the powerful (redundant) want because it locks us into the system we have now, essentially forever. By the time that build-out is completed, temps will be at least 2C. As I have long said, the view (belief?) we will stop climate change at 2C is a very dangerous game to play, and, IMO, completely at odds with a sane risk assessment. I do not doubt the scientific findings suggest this and that this is a competent conclusion, but I doubt very much it is accurate. (I have posted why many times so will only list: lack of hystereses; rates of change; comprehensive, concurrent debilitation of every ecosystem on the planet, past underestimates of effects – not to imply the model averages/ranges were wrong, but only that the effects of the concommitant changes have been very underestimated.) There is virtually no doubt in my mind 2 gets us 3, 3 gets us 4, etc.
In this context mitigation *is* the only adaptation that matters. And, no matter what, we already know species are being lost, coastlines will be dramatically different, etc. In fact, only mitigation can minimize those. Adaptation *accepts* them and risks the cascade I suggest above. it is not hyperbole to suggest focusing on adaptation = acceptance of collapse and a high risk of extinction.
<– 300 ppm is the only sane choice.
Zebra’s definition of “way more complicated than it needs to be”:
It has an equation.
Ray Ladbury,
It may be difficult for someone with APS (acute pontification syndrome) to come to grips with, but yes, responding to Mark’s very reasonable definitions by bringing up some irrelevant equations is in fact counterproductive.
I’m actually answering Mark, not trying to impress people. Words are all that is necessary. If he wanted equations, he would have asked for them.
@zebra
“… responding to Mark’s very reasonable definitions by bringing up some irrelevant equations is in fact counterproductive”
Ray’s equation, combined with his explanatory text, was relevant.
@Ray Ladbury
“… since adverse outcomes increase as we warm”
It depends where you are on the “temperature versus time” curve. I believe Richard Tol, amongst others, has some alternative ideas on just where the inflection points are.
“So, adaptation is actually a subset of mitigation.”
I persist in thinking of it more like the classic two-circle Venn diagram.
Using my “definitions” (/ “equations”, seeing as I included the equals symbol in my OP …) “adaptations BEFORE warming has occurred” are in the “intersection” of the two circles, while “adaptations AFTER warming has occurred” often don’t include any “mitigation” elements.
Once you start adding more and more concrete examples I don’t think you can maintain the “pure subset” conjecture for very long.
Mark BLR
But so far I haven’t seen any concrete examples.
Equations in the abstract or related to non-congruent analogies are in themselves not useful.
I would be interested in hearing what real-world activities you think fit in your two circles.
“But so far I haven’t seen any concrete examples.”
A “concrete” example of “pure adaptation” would be “building a 2 metre high set of sea-wall defences instead of a 1 metre high set”.
That act would have ZERO “mitigation” effects (how high your sea-wall is doesn’t reduce either GMST or SLR values), so falls outside Ray’s “adaptation is actually a subset of mitigation” assertion.
An “intersectional” example would be “throw a lot more money onto thorium / SMR nuclear fission research, plus the “ITER + DEMO + PROTO” program and stellarator (e.g. derivatives of the Wendelstein 7-X) fusion options, with the goal of helping transition to electrically powered heating and transport instead of the current fossil-fuel (natural gas and oil respectively) versions”.
Mark, I agree on the seawall but I don’t see any element of adaptation in the example you label as “intersectional”… replacing fossil fuels with nuclear is simply mitigation, going by the definition we seem to agree on.
A better choice might be building better-insulated houses in Texas, for example. You could perhaps argue that better insulation would be an adaptation to higher temperatures and the occasional polar vortex, which in principle should affect energy consumption.
But I think even Ray would be hard-pressed to do any kind of real-world quantitative analysis to sort out what is really a subjective interpretation. Are we doing it to adapt, or are we doing it to mitigate?
Not saying better insulation is a bad idea, of course, but the distinction would probably end up as a matter of political spin… it’s not science.
“… replacing fossil fuels with nuclear is simply mitigation”
The most extreme form of “simple” mitigation is “shutdown all coal and CCGT power plants [ by 2030 / by 2025 / this weekend / … : Delete according to level of insanity ], and don’t replace them with anything“.
Milder forms of this “simple” mitigation strategy are given labels like “demand reduction” (or similar).
“Replace coal with nuclear to reduce CO2 emissions” = “Mitigation”.
“Replace coal with nuclear so we can keep the lights on” = “Adaptation”.
“Replace coal with nuclear” = “Mitigation intersection Adaptation”.
Mark,
“Replacing coal with nuclear to keep the lights on” is like my example of “insulating houses to stay comfortable with rising temperatures”.
Neither fits into an exclusive category of pure adaptation to begin with. You could also keep lights on and run the AC by finding and burning more coal.
This is the classic problem for people who say “build more nuclear”; there’s no economic incentive for building more nuclear as long as we can build coal and natural gas plants. Nor, as we see in the US, is there economic incentive for building energy-efficient houses… people will pay insane amounts for stick-built McMansions (which may also happen to be located in a flood-plain or wildfire zone, of course….).
So, the two tracks are in fact separate.
1. There is mitigation.
2. There is adaptation to the effects that aren’t prevented by mitigation.
There is adaptation to the effects of mitigation. I think that would be contained in 1, not an intersection with 2.
“There is adaptation to the effects of mitigation.”
My head hurts … ;-)
Mark,
Ahhh, the words every teacher loves to hear….. it means we are making progress. ;-)
“Ahhh, the words every teacher loves to hear …”
Assumes assignment of “teacher” and “student” roles.
I think the phrase ” [ attempting to determine who is ? ] first among equals” is more appropriate.
Having taken some paracetamol I’ve come up with the notion that it is possible that we are trying to shoehorn 3 distinct phenomena into only 2 words.
How about avoiding “false dichotomy / binary thinking” and coming up with different words for the following three options ?
1. There is MITIGATION, i.e. concrete actions taken to reduce CO2 emissions (and thus, in-directly, GMST and SLR and more extreme weather events and …).
2. There is ADAPTATION to the effects that aren’t prevented by mitigation, i.e. adapting to what actually ends up happening (or is predicted to happen “soon” with high likelihood) in the real-world.
3. There are changes in behaviour in response to various “mitigation” policies being enacted, which would not have occurred under “status quo / BaU” conditions.
I don’t think “we” can shoehorn 3 into a “subset” of either 1 or 2.
“We” need a term other than “adaptation” or “mitigation” … but when I try to find one my headache starts up again …
Any suggestions ?
Killian
What is co- dependent is not one and the same..
You are teaching and arranging your own icomplete and invalid understanding for others.
Also schoss er messerscharf dass, nichts sein kann, was nicht sein darf.
It seems that you are also one of those fameous old prussian uniforms who never had to understand the difference between normative and descriptive., who were given strict prussian diciplinary orders of that the norm is what also deswcribes fully all what vthere is…..
……and that there is nothing else in Prussia, nor in the very Universe.
Driit-støvvel, “Boots”, shit boots, fæces boots, we call them.
They were dressed up in Uniforms with LOGO Brass and labels and they instructed linguistics also.
That style or “bloody Boots” may still have a chanse way out there in the provinces in the States, because the province is very conservative and lagging berhind
, But we have had them from 1940 to 45 allready here where I live, and were really fed up by those radical progressive troops and forces. that came to teach and to save us because we had not learnt yet and did not understand ourselves and our own thoughts and situation and proper languages. They only whished us the very best and were so kind and undertanding.
I have examined the same on suspect behind the late iron curtain as long as it stood, and that was frappingly similar along with description. They were also really fed up by it in Ceskoslovensko!
And now it seems to be on again over there in the states. The Dictatorship of Dillettantism.
.
Barking words.
Hr Killian
I have a recent example in the area of permaculture and regenerative living and even Waterrstaat and cathastrophic floods, and our earth is not flat.
We had a cellar- flood again because of AGW that is clearly following the keeling curve here, as long as I lived.. And our mitigation and adaptation did fail again, despite of all out of re- cycled components and perhaps war surplus eleents.
Our apples outdoor and tomatoes and even autentic vino is less problematic, and perennials.
Ørsteds discovery and Kirchoffs rule in combination with Ohms Law the analytical way did clear up the situauion, It was an old loose screw contact of mine from ages ago, ERRARE HVMANVM EST. It was my and only my fault this time also.
The ladies are screaming and doing their very best.
Early NASA and National Semiconductor quality seems to keep and not to corrode. But I cannot like the new digital meters. The traditional turning coil analogue galvanometers are much more phaenomenologically congruent to electromagnetism.
Science also has also got its problems you see, when will you take to it and better discuss that?
Hr Killian
I have a recent example in the area of permaculture and regenerative living
No, you don’t.
You seem to be saying you design for shit, and that’s science’s fault. As ever, barking words.
@Rasmus – “One important art of climate change adaptation…”
Climate protection, mitigation and adaptation naturally have to be thought together – but in an emergency, – isn’t the correct answer to “warming” first “cooling”? in terms of geoengineering ???
Some of the most serious problems of climate change such as:
1. – Rapidly expanding deserts with forest and species extinction
2. – accelerated, rising sea levels and earth temperature
3. – groundwater levels falling in many places, drainage of the regions and continents
4. – Drought periods with temperature records and heavy rain events
!…are all associated with the presence or absence of water !
Trying to remedy these problems quickly with fewer CO² emissions – is simply idiotic.
So the question how to adapt to these problems imho is more like:
– How do we bring falling groundwater levels in many places, the worldwide phenomenon of water scarcity and rising sea levels together?
– What specific measures, changes and infrastructure will protect us from drought, flood events and further increases in earth temperatures in the future?
A question to which climate science has not yet come up with an answer – or has not even asked itself.
Logically, only measures that influence the earth’s water cycle can help here.
The so far unsuccessful efforts to tame the carbon cycle will be complemented in a meaningful way.
How such a concept for lowering sea level rise and cooling the earth temperature could look like can be read here: https://climate-protecion-hardware.webnode.com/english/
Recent studies show also the strong influence of additional or absent water and evaporation rates on cloud formation, temperature and radiation balance etc. in the observed regions.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.00245/full
The simulated, desired “water cooling” of the planet earth consists in the assumed fact that a volume of water with the size of the yearly SLR (1335km³ = 3.7mm) is retained from the global river discharge and transformed over the land areas in ! additional ! irrigation, evaporation, clouds and albedo.
Since some commentators here in the forum (e.g. @MAR / BPL / BL, …) stubbornly claim that additional evaporation and clouds would have a warming effect on the global temperature
– I would like to read some clarifying sentences from @Rasmus. – Thanks
M Shurly says don’t worry about reducing emissions, just stop sea level rise by storing water on land. I would note that if we just go on emitting CO2 all the ice sheets will melt, that is 75 metres of sea level rise to store on land. Jesus christ bananas, does that look feasible as a first instinctive assessment? Looks a little bit problematic to me.
Even one metre will cost trillions of dollars to somehow store on land. Who is going to pay? Is Shuley going to write out a cheque? No he is just the “ideas man”.
The money would be much better spent on stopping emissions.
M Shurly also says evaporate water to make clouds to cool the planet. We have already been evaporating the oceans quite substantially, due to buring fossil fuels warming the planbet, and has this stopped global warming? No. Instead its accelerated.
Enough of crazy, stubborn arm chair cranks. They are entertaining, but start to get a bit irritating.
@nigelj
White men bursting with stupidity, arrogance and narcissism are the fundamental main evil and cause of climate change. (A. Einstein: Estimating the infinity of the universe compared to infinity of human stupidity)
No Mr. Shurly does NOT say that CO² could continue to be emitted without hesitation – on the contrary – he always describes his concept for lowering SLR & global temperature as an ! additional ! climate protection strategy that also promises ! additional ! remove of 5-10Gt/y Co² from the atmosphere.
You complete idiot answer for the 5th time now with always the same brain-burned arguments (75m SLR / trillions of $). You are probably too stupid to read – too stupid to recognize the grade of emergency – too stupid to understand the physical properties of clouds and bathtubs (oceans) – too stupid to understand desertification and water scarcity.
@killian
water is the base of nature & life ! ?
Your ideas about carbon storage and terra preta in the soils complement each other perfectly with mine, since such soils then also increase their abilities as water storage.
And don`t forget, that photosynthesis needs 1m³ of water for each 1-2kg carbon fixed in plants and trees.
@ray ladbury & H.L. Mencken
Wikipedia / HLM: – “Some of the terminology in his private diary entries has been described by some researchers as racist and anti-Semitic” // “War is a good thing,” he once wrote,…”
Good to know that you belong to the circle of white stupidity described above – the people who put on white gloves to wank –
Yes, Crankshaft-worthy, IMHO.
M Shurly
“White men bursting with stupidity, arrogance and narcissism are the fundamental main evil and cause of climate change.”
You have described yourself perfectly. I know this because I did some psychology at university, although I have a degree in another subject.
“No Mr. Shurly does NOT say that CO² could continue to be emitted without hesitation – on the contrary – he always describes his concept for lowering SLR & global temperature as an ! additional ”
No you haven’t always described things that way in posts I’ve read. At best you have been ambiguous.
“You complete idiot answer for the 5th time now with always the same brain-burned arguments (75m SLR / trillions of $). “You are probably too stupid to read – too stupid to recognize the grade of emergency – too stupid to understand the physical properties of clouds and bathtubs (oceans) – too stupid to understand desertification and water scarcity.”
Obviously climate change is an emergency but solutions have to make sense. Trying to store vast quantities of water on land would involve massive costs that just address the SYMPTOM. Much better to spend the money on reducing emissions, the cause. The best you could hope for is storing water on land might be a very small wedge measure. Anything else is obviously impractical.
Your answer to my points about evaporation and clouds is to evade the issue I raised, indulge in personal attacks and vague generalities. You loose the debate completely when you do that.
No. Why do that when we can use simplification and nature-based solutions?
“For every complex problem, there is a simple solution–simple, easy to understand and wrong”–H. L. Mencken.
““A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works” — John Gall, from Systemantics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gall_(author)#Gall.27s_law
e.g. Twitter is also bloody simple, starting from a concept of a triple-store.
Jesus… you almost certainly **cannot** adapt to a world where mitigation is abandoned. We have never seen these conditions, these time frames *ever* in the history of Earth. Ever! Scientists can claim they know when we will hit 2C, but they are making educated guesses, not definite calculations of known future changes with known future data.
As one climate scientist wrote recently, things we see today were only a short time in the past thought not to be on the table till we hit 4C.
Ten years ago, Antarctica wouldn’t be losing mass till around 2070, but it is already well underway.
Rasmus cannot tell you 2C will not lead to 3C, will not lead to 4C, will not lead to 6C, will not lead to 10C. He can tell you they *think* such a cascade won’t happen, but he cannot claim it with enough certainty to risk collapse > extinction. Past climate changes were 1000k times slower. The difference is like setting up a massive design with dominoes on a gym floor and setting the first one in motion vs setting them up on an earthquake shake table and setting the table in motion.
In terms of risk analysis, giving up on mitigation and restoration is no different than accepting suigenocide.
In climate science, uncertainty is not your friend.
Since most politicians and the business owners propping them up, the oiligarchs running the human world, don’t really want to understand what is going on with man-made climate-gas-emissions – they just want to greenwash their business as extremely usual – no adaptation anywhere near the necessary is going to happen, and certainly not any kind of real climate mitigation. It’s simply a question of ideology, and the central piece of the overwhelmingly dominating ideology is the neoclassical economic theory, in which ecology, climate etc. is just “externalities”. Every business just look on it’s own bottom line, the stockholders don’t care about anything else, except for the shining surface, that’s simply what laissez-faire economics is all about. And the shining surface is kept by the media show, which has very little and still less to do with reality. Reality has since long become a reality show/virtual reality. They will just pump out loads and loads of empty, abstract, fine words like here fx.: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a01c5f4a-e833-42da-9387-830fcb024046/Recommendationsoftheglobalcommissiononpeople-centredcleanenergytransitions.pdf – “The global commission on people-centered clean energy transitions”… blablablabla. They have left the reality long ago. As long as the ground isn’t being washed away beneath their luxury feet, their wood isn’t burning etc., as long as it doesn’t cost them really heavy money, they just don’t care, except for the fine words.
@ Benestad
This is perhaps the voice of Norway @ Met.Inst. No at Blindern, Oslo.
It is exeptionally warm at the moment. My measure is the potatoes out in Frogn that must be taken up before 10th of november. By frost in the mornings and sunshine during days, leaves becoming yellow dependent on which tree..
Our teacher was from Hamar, and did teach the same.
I have withnessed an all to optimistic and lazy peasant. His very acker of cabbage froze at 12th of october down to -10 celsius, thawed again 2 weeks later, and it all smelled H2S. That is the mercaptans and vitamins of all the strong cabbages and the reason why we use them. Cabbage can take quite a few degrees and sustain, but not that deep blue frost to -10 and below. .
All day around frost is 20th 0f october along with my measures and experiences.
This year it has hardly been frost. The Vitis vinifera is especially sensitive but the good apples still hang and represent.. There has hardly been ices on the pools but some frost on the car- roofs and windows in the mornings.
My impression is that it is obviously a week or 2 or 3 warmer now than when I went to school, but it is also very variable, so it is quite a challenge for all good gardeners and peasants.
We take Met. inst. no for serious as allways. They hardly know better than this.
When was it? There was a series of Fimbul- winters in 1968 and onward. Jens Bjørneboe wrote about his car in the winter and stated “Saturnus is in Aqvarius!”. I can remember deep frost from october to april both with or without snow.. Personally I do not like it. Rumors went about a new ice age.
Thanks. One important art of climate change adaptation involves charting the local climate, which can be considered as ‘weather statistics’, describing how often there is frost on the ground – and how likely it will be in the future. Then it’s possible to plan with calculated risks. It’s also important to take into account what else also may happen, be it weather-wise or other events.
Problem? Can’t be charted. With the rates of change we are seeing it’s all wild-ass guesses. I suggest it might be more effective to 1. use climate zones as your rough approximation and 2. shift out of annuals as much as is humanly possible as perennials are far more hardy, far less work.
Perennials take center stage in effective regenerative design. A nice bit of kitchen stuff can be grown in the house/buildings. Every site is different though, so specific recommendations cannot be made.
About Killian
I have shifted to perennials ages ago, for several reasons. That is nothing new. Less work, but also because of the short growing season in Norway.
In semi- arid areas like the mediterraneans with winter rain and very long hot and dry summers, crops like oranges vino and olive compeat because of deeper roots that can take the winter rain for the rest of the year.
But will we resign on pumkins water melons cucumbers potatoes paprica and tomatoes?
The very solanaceæ are rather perennials, only that in my temperate climate with winter frost there is quite much work and care to bring them trough the winter, and there is pre- culture indoor and greenhouse culture needed, that really takes a lot of electric or gas oil or coke- heating that also really should be discussed. And the alternative is long freight with packing freight and distribution, not to speak of grocery cheating betraying and prophit.
Killian never mentions that as the true problem of it all…
Killian hardly mentions imperialismj monopoly capitalism and colonialism…. He is not able to think in such terms yet, or does not dare to betray it..
My solution and idea, that is traditional and probably the best one also being propagated, is to consume and to eat better along with the season and not expect to have anything at any time anywhere, free choise on the free supermarkets worldwide, because that may be what really costs.
Today, we are being offered fishes and beefs and cheeses , beers and wines from worldewide at free choise in the free supermarkets. No- one mentions the transport and building costs. They only complain that they are short of money by higher frees than anytime.
I hate it.
That system violates our wild strawberries blueberries gooseberries raspberris cherries plums and apples and our salmons mackrels herrings flatfishes and all our local codfishes. Our whales, moose, and reindeers also. That are even more exotic.
In France they eat snails and frogs and hate the americans.. There they show some national character at least.
My favourite Phyton is light salted herrings macrels or sprats more or less seasoned.
Swedish Surströmming that comes on the net, is an original russian recepy where they had no salt. Only for inaugurated in the tribe and the best way to keep alian enemies of the regine at distance.. It smells graveyard at long distance
I could serve Svartadaudir ( the black death or plague) for New Age Yoga astrology and Vegetarans in Holland, they did adore it and wanted it again next day.
Whereas Killian is too delicate and stuffy for all that and all that we serve him, and gives us the blame.
Killian never mentions that as the true problem of it all…
Killian hardly mentions imperialismj monopoly capitalism and colonialism…. He is not able to think in such terms yet, or does not dare to betray it..
Hahahahahah! Troll. You have no idea, apparently, how ridiculously wrong your comments are.
I thought you had the little ankle biter on ignore as of 311a.m., didn’t you? 90 minutes is a pretty short time out!
@Hr. Kohlenstoffberg
“My solution and idea, that is traditional and probably the best one also being propagated, is to consume and to eat better along with the season and not expect to have anything at any time anywhere,”
My solution and idea, is to transform wind-, solar- and hydropower into strawberries, salads and storable heat. A heating system with negative emissions (CO²), which on an industrial scale in an 80m high building absorbs about 2000 times as much CO² as the same ground area of natural forest.
https://www.lumen-laden.de/products/coolmac-300-1500w-grow-chamber/
Btw, with my water-cooled LED technology, I am the world champion in energy efficiency of lamp systems. The coolest light in our solar system is developed and produced by me. This technique was ultimately the starting point for my concept for water-cooled lowering of the earth’s temperature and sea level.
If you buy PV modules, a water boiler with a heat exchanger and LED chips
(~$ 1000,-/KWp) and own a drill and metal saw, you can easily build this heating system with negative emissions by yourself. – basicallyNO inverter, voltage regulator, battery storage or grid connection is required. In summertime I use it to cool down my apartment.
“Hahahahahah! Troll. You have no idea how ridiculously wrong your comments are..”
Oh yes, Troll.
Trolls are just not so aquainted to and aware of todays use of Seismics, georadar, and x- ray, may be even nuclear spin resonance, to find out what is there, inside of the smaller and the larger trolls.
I think not only I, but also many of our readers, who also know about such special mapping and picturing and analytical methods in combination, from several sides are beginning to realize a deeper structure now.
Putins theorem: “It takes one to know one,…” An old russian proverb.
I published it here quite recently and explained the best I can why that may be frappingly true here and there..
jgnfld says
4 Nov 2021 at 7:49 AM
I thought you had the little ankle biter on ignore as of 311a.m., didn’t you? 90 minutes is a pretty short time out!
But he was being especially stupid with assumptions and logical fallacies worthy of Trump, so…
What’s sad is, they are obvious, but you don’t call him out for being a troll, you nip at my ankle – a literally perfect example of an internet troll.
Just to understand more of what I’m talking about, read this: “Forecasts by economists of the economic damage from climate change have been notably sanguine, compared to warnings by scientists about damage to the biosphere. This is because economists made their own predictions of damages, using three spurious methods: assuming that about 90% of GDP will be unaffected by climate change, because it happens indoors; using the relationship between temperature and GDP today as a proxy for the impact of global warming over time; and using surveys that diluted extreme warnings from scientists with optimistic expectations from economists. Nordhaus has misrepresented the scientific literature to justify the using a smooth function to describe the damage to GDP from climate change. *Correcting for these errors makes it feasible that the economic damages from climate change are at least an order of magnitude worse than forecast by economists, and may be so great as to threaten the survival of human civilization.*” (My exclamation marks, KJ). You find the article (“The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change” by Steve Keen) here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2020.1807856 .
Rasmus, sorry if this is off-base to your intent) speak with Gavin and this recent seminar. They raised many pertinent issues regarding what I think you are seeking, hope to achieve. (?)
Virtual Forum: Alliances for Climate Action – Day One/of 4 – Our Future Vision
Tackling the growing impacts of climate change will require a massive and unified effort.
Where are we now? Where do we go next? How do we ensure we’re working together?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9sD7Wq7108
involved with
https://www.fema.gov/business-industry/resilient-nation-partnership-network
https://alliances-for-climate-action.heysummit.com/
eg Gavin 48:30
… we just rolled out sea-level data
and predictions that came from the
ipcc report that Ko was involved in.
that’s now all available on the nasa sea
level portal it’s point and click you
can go uh wherever you are and see what
the projections are under different
scenarios and see what the different
elements of those predictions are the
the local subsidence the regional sea
level rise the global sea level rise, we’re
working on similar things for matching
up the socio-economic data with the
geophysical data through processes
through efforts like our socioeconomic
data center where we’re trying very very
hard to take the data to where people
are as opposed to just having the data
there and having them come and find it
and that kind of that last mile so to
speak in the data delivery part is
something that nasa um is is very
conscious of um and is working uh
tremendously hard to kind of close the
gap
AND
In support of Karstens main points above, I recommend (implore) you make Ecological Economics a key principle and a guide. such as shown here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327671597_Structural_Loop_Analysis_of_Complex_Ecological_Systems
and https://twitter.com/profstevekeen et al
Acknowledging the critical importance of understanding evolutionary human psychology and prevailing belief systems in relation to adaption needs and urgency is critical to knowing how to help, and know the barriers, e.g.
Think global act local still applies. Common sense and local knowledge still reigns supreme or should/could given a chance. Before building down-scaled regional climate models, might be better to ask the locals what they actually need or might want from you and others? That video above with Gavin specifically addresses this point … e.g the Madison WI Mayor.
ALT approach – everyone gets a new boat and a big red firetruck from Santa this Xmas.
Thanks for your comment. Both mitigation and adaptation. Yes, we need to think global and act local. Also, local actions at different places need to be connected. The discussions need to include both the people and the scientists. The UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) provide a good framework, that also include nature and economy. My main point was that we should not forget the climate science when we start with climate change adaptation.
In support of Karstens main points above, I recommend (implore) you make Ecological Economics a key principle and a guide.
Why he recommends this, I do not know. Why would we continue to engage in the same economic fantasies we have for the last 150 years, those that got us here? While Ecological Economics *sounds* like a huge change from classical, neo-classical and neo-liberal policies, fundamentally it is not. There is nothing at the foundational level that is different. It’s #greenwashed Capitalism. It retains growth, businesses, corporations, centralized decision-making all while paying mere lip service to putting Nature first. You can’t put profits *and* Nature first.
I thought Reality Check understood this. Perhaps he is taking on the “I don’t care what’s sustainable, we must do the practical, even if it will kill us all” perspective?
Both mitigation and adaptation.
From a societal/community design perspective, these are one and the same. It only confuses things for people to keep repeating the false dichotomy.
Yes, we need to think global and act local.
This is logically incorrect. I cannot design for people thousands of miles from me, nor vice-versa. The correct form for this is, “We must act locally-to-bio-regionally.’ Doing that automatically addresses global conditions. Bioregions, not globe. Bio-regions must come to function within their own ecosystem limits and design to them. People have long been able to do this as evidenced by humans being present on six of the seven continents for a minimum of 18k years, and possibly even in the Americas for 30k years based on substantial new research.
Intra-bio-regional exchanges should be limited to excess renewable resources only, and primarily for meeting wants only after needs have been met sustainably.
Sustainability is ultimately local. Please stamp this in your memory and recall it every time you start talking about managing anything at the global level.
The discussions need to include both the people and the scientists.
I’ve asked the scientists here for over a decade to behave in this manner. Where have you been all that time? Still, I disagree. Just as we see in this thread, climate scientists are not trained in the design and management of regenerative systems and should not be speaking on mitigation and adaptation until and unless they are. I do not talk about how to make a climate model because I do not have that expertise. Why do you think you should be speaking in place of people in my field without the requisite knowledge and training?
The great work of the climate science community yet lies ahead: Finally speaking clearly and forcefully about the risks, the extremes, the changes to day-to-day life that worst-case scenarios are bringing and likely will continue to for at least another 5 to ten years given the slow rate of change in human behaviors.
To illustrate why you may want to focus on the risks and not the solutions, you say, “…SDGs) provide a good framework,” yet this is patently untrue. They provide a framework that people who are comforable with current economic models are comfortable with, but they have no sustainable characteristics among them. They are not based on the measured ecosystem service of the planet – and to the extent they might claim to be, the fact that is not even possible should warn you you are dealing with #greenwashing, not a viable outline of a sustainable response to The Perfect Storm.
SDG 8, in particular, promotes the current economics and governmental structures that we have today, and those got us where we are. SDG 8 is nonsense ecologically speaking. The SDGs dominance in climate discussions is a very dangerous state of affairs that is leading to too much of our reponse being utterly unsustainable. SDG 8 is opposed to a regenerative future.
My main point was that we should not forget the climate science when we start with climate change adaptation.
But that is not what you are saying. What you are saying is people who don’t have standing in the field of regenerative design should be shaping policies around regenerative design. Those of us who do ecosystem design/restoration would find your concern odd: How can you design a resilient homestead, neighborhood, village, town, city, region or bio-region without planning for future changes? Prior to climate change this meant things like natural disasters, population changes, slow changes to hardiness zones, zoning changes, things your neighbors do, etc. Adding climate to the list doesn’t change the process. It’s just another external issue, what we call “Sectors.” And we’ve already been adjusting to climate for decades, so maybe we already have some pretty clear ideas on what mitigation/adaptation looks like?
I invite you to greater humility and to reach out to me or other regenerative professionals to learn what we already know and see if it doesn’t affect the constructs through which you view these issues. If you are open-minded and take on the knowledge from a tabula rasa perspective, it almost certainly will significantly shift your views on current, woefully maladaptive, mitigation efforts.
Killian. You demand humility while showing none yourself. At no stage did the writer suggest scientists be in charge of designing mitigation systems. Such a thing is obviously multidisciplinary. Scientists are not designers so their role is informing the design process.
Yes. Mr.Killian rather behaves like a great warlord with magnificant plans but with no troops and followers no bulldozers and cavalery and no big guns and ICBMs
, whishing to become in charge.
I have mentioned The Drunken Sailor TDS many times. That is my hypothesis about him. It disturbs qualified and possible organized planning and work.
Maybe chain him up and set him to shale potatoes a more humble way.
Tradition on board is to set them to take the rudder and stay on steady course as soon as possible. We do that with the children as soon as they can see where they are and stay responsible.
That special training may be what has gone wrong when they become amateur politicians. and eventually drunken sailors at adult age.
Nothing I said was arrogant, ankle-biter. Nor did I say scientists say or are in charge, you damned fool.
Learn to fucking read.
Can anyone here help Killian to his rights?
“Fucking read” what is that?
the word is another old norse fucking diffusion and instruction onto the bluddy brittes.
Å fike… that is to smash with flat hand in peoples face when they cannot listen and have to wake up.
Fike, to whip is the original, but that is not appropriate upwarming for copulare. German Ficken is copulare. They better discuss “Geschlechtsverkehr” and “Balzverhalten”. I have learnt.
Here again, the provincials over there in the states may have mis- understood a lot of things, especially due performance and manners.
The rooster take them in their neck, step on them, and take them from behind, He does not Fikk or Fuck for that.
And due hens make themselves flat for it. They invite for it and adore it.
Thus it comes when Darwin is on INDEX 0ver there in the states. Such basic things get confused and miscvonsceived.
The only concern I have about this is that it would seem to leave the door open to some bioregion ‘managers’ not behaving properly. How would bioregional quotas be harmonized to ensure that global parameters were within spec? How would disagreements about management/policy be addressed?
(Asking, not arguing.)
If a bio-region is functioning regeneratively, it is, by definition, not exceeding *any* parameters.
I’m not sure why this is not obvious, Kevin?
I should also add, in my conception of a regenerative governing model, the decision-making is egalitarian, the responsibilities are defined by scale, not hierarchical authority. I.e., there is no authority hierarchy, so there is no “bio-region manager”, only the people of the bio-region making decisions as a whole. (Every person on a bio-region council comes from a neighborhood, right?) And, very important, in my model it is explicitly stated that one scale of decision-making must be harmonized with the others. Since decision-making is egalitarian, there are no presidents, governors, mayors, political parties, etc., this should be easy to achieve. Of course, it requires the adoption of this model, but once adopted your concern is mitigated against in multiple ways. (Principle: Every function is supported by multiple other elements.)
Besides this is what Nature looks like: Nested systems. A pond is an ecosystem within a tributary’s watershed within the primary watershed within/defining a bio-region, right?
I see no other way to manage bio-regions effectively.
The problem with Killian here and elsewhere is that he is teaching on systematics where he is not qualified.
You get it on vulgar level mostly belown you in the grades, and that is typical liturgy of the adolph and soviet union state religion, namely what you are supposed to submit to and to be tolerant and to obey under first, in order to be accepted and able to advance and get further along with and lifted up from our miseries by.
. That is typical Dictatorship of dillettantism.
That also knows from courses of progressive procedures and inaugurated self confidence and sales promotion how to label itself by science and progressive peoples will, and logics, thought, and reason, and all that..
Even humbleness and teaching us to be more “humble”. because we are misconsceived, and we are “barking”.
The problem with Killian here and elsewhere is that he is teaching on systematics where he is not qualified.
The problem here is you have no idea what I am talking about, or what *you* are talking about. You don’t address any point I raise, you just drool your spittle all over the place.
Barking words.
If you think you have something worthwhile to say, barker, say it rather than drooling and barking. Otherwise, these are serious times for serious people, and your personal attacks to encourage denial of solutions is immoral, so STFU.
Killian. Let me remind you of what you said: “My main point was that we should not forget the climate science when we start with climate change adaptation. But that is not what you are saying. What you are saying is people who don’t have standing in the field of regenerative design should be shaping policies around regenerative design.”
It certainly looked like you were suggesting scientists shape regenerative design. If not scientists, who are you referring to?
Your use of language is utterly confusing to me and clearly to many other people here judging by what they say. This is surely not so great for an english language teacher.
Regardless of whether you are right or wrong if everyone cant figure out what you are saying, you have a problem that YOU have to fix. I always try to explain things very simply and unambiguously in plain language.
Zebra is just the same. Confusing.
In any event you are shoving words in the writers mouth.
Carbo’s drunken sailor description is pretty apt.
Regenerative design = achieving sustainability.
Obvious.
Because you can’t get to a regenerative aka sustainable future via… non-regenerative design.
Obvious.
Your use of language is utterly confusing to me
Yes. Hard to understand things you refuse to learn.
PS on Adaption?
Don’t cut corners.
Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change
Martin L. Weitzman
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/fattaileduncertaintyeconomics.pdf
aka the so-called ‘‘dismal theorem’’ – the olden day version of doomism? :)
Rasmus: “It’s urgent because we are not even adapted to the present climate.”
So true that. Could we please go back to 310 ppm CO2 and the 1950s instead?
Or at least learn as much as possible from the collective failure of others before proceeding too far down this new climate modelling track?
For example the many insights in :
Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104
Such as : … a common thread that emerges across the reviewed literature is the central role of power, manifest in many forms, from a dogmatic political-economic hegemony and influential vested interests to narrow techno-economic mindsets and ideologies of control.
Because when you say this Rasmus :
“Instead the summits have been dominated by politicians and NGOs. Climate scientists can help policy-makers by explaining the risks and opportunities”
… you are say “Policy-makers” you are not so much dealing with “Politicians” but with all the behind scenes orgs and people who actually WRITE the POLICY and push the LAWS in many jurisdictions – you are in fact dealing with pointy end of POLITICAL LOBBYISTS and mega-powerful Corporations, Industry Bodies, Neoliberal Conservative Think Tanks — the most Powerful vested interests there are.
Taking a much more realistic practical approach, being prepared and forearmed could only help, versus the naivety of the last 30 years!
The authors insights of doing the review paper may also be useful to you – e.g. Kevin Anderson here : https://youtu.be/Nc0aXyRINtg?t=1884
———-
Tthis caught my eye too “….and climate scientists can help with that. “
Definitely. But can something be done about properly funding these activities and operations over the long term so the work can be done properly and sustainably to meet the actual needs???
Without burning out climate scientists volunteering all the time or relying upon already stretched underfunded institutions having to help them out to keep such critical help getting to local regional government staffers, the counties and businesses and farmers et al.
Given the shortcomings/failure of UNFCCC / IPCC funding and support structures for working climate scientists and data services has been a load of BS bordering on inhumane treatment / expectations of scientists…. maybe starting out differently this time makes better sense.
So true that. Could we please go back to 310 ppm CO2 and the 1950s instead?
Not good enough. That started the ASI melting.
Hr R. Check
“Three decades of climate mitigation, why havent we bent the global emission curve?”
I see several results that were acheived. Elements of environmental understanding and care has obviously come into our local legislation and administration and clearly to my advantage. The emission curve has also obviously been bent on land at least here where I live. And at the same time “developing countries” have rather been heating up, so the summa summarum becomes practically zero.
But what I think is that if some responsible and “developed” nations can show that this climate mitigation actually makes you more rich and that you get a better living standard by it, such as a cleaner world and more blue sky and more green local communities, better beers and fishes. and better local fruits and vegetables, more polite people and that it all also compeats better on the free market,…, then those bold masses lagging behinde will be obsolete and conquered out.
A clear signal of the same has been the Covid 19 that still goes on. There the successes of nations are widely different, and that does follow certain patterns at least roughly. Virus and hygiene denialism and disaster seems to go hand in hand with environment and climate denial and disaster as if it was one and the same thing. Only that Pandemias have a very much higher initial rate than global climate misery and disasters.
Both things have the same basic cause I believe, namely too high wear on the biosphere, due to the flat earthers as if their sculls were also flat..
How long did it take here to bend the Covid 19 curve? 1 1/2 week I think. And how long did it take in Italia, Germany GB and in the USA? The Germans took the Koch insatitute for serious and we had the National Health and the honourable old Vet.inst.no. The sweedes had Karolinska Sjukhuset and the Linnaean institute in Uppsala. But much tougher national socialists populistic thinktanks. Italia and Spania had Mussolini and Franco and Mafia- heritage into it. Wityh 4 different police corpses in the same area it gets difficult
1, the POLIZZIA,
2, the Carabinieri,
3, the Mafia, and
4, the Church.
They had to simplify and make a choise there first but not untilo the fruneral capacity was overloaded. The same could be seen in the US.
Maybe that made the Mafia change their mind both places.
Because over there in the States they had King Donald Grozny into it.
I hope he could be simplified.
then the chanses also improove.
One formula is that the old comrades from the peoples liberation front must retire and be taken care of, hospitalized. And given their due rents as promised by Stalin. That is free Vodka Kaviar and Salami for lifetime. Further that the Opium- traffic must be canalizedv into there and not out from there.
First then, younger and more healthy brain substance can take over.
Because models don’t resolve to regional level, adaptation to present conditions is the most efficient course to take at the moment. Sea walls, moving roads, motivating moves inland, etc. For the moment! This would amount to an asterisk in the fiscal accounts of rich countries, and a minor percentage of what is spent on international assistance.
It is not enough. It is the right place to begin.
That’s a non-sequitur rationale.
Dr. T. Fuller
Models is one thing, and today it may mean anything, due to peoples upbringings with artificial plastic industrial LEGO.
Understanding and possible valid abstractions that are appliciable to the “concrete” and natural situations is another thing.
Maybe LEGO- models and “virtual reality” is sinful?
Mose` 10 commandments §2 might entail just that.
Find and read it in original again and again and again until it is understood.
There it looks like a fiery and very fierceful threat and warning against virtual reality….
…and with a frurther promise and guarantee of sustainable successful entreprice and permaculture in more than 1000 gererations, if you can just resign on model thinking and virtual reality,
That instructional theory rules and regulations is seemingly more relevant and accute than ever,……
….. and not just back in those arid rocky and sandy deserts with shortage of water, that was supposed to be the holy land.
You don’t need models. Decisions on infrastructure are made decades in advance, always. All that is needed is a viable risk analysis and that doesn’t require detailed modeling: If 3C by 2100 is even a slight possibility, that’s what you design to.
Secondly, you never start with giving up. At the very least, do both concurrently. That said, there is no distinction between mitigation and adaptation in effective regenerative ecological engineering.
I agree that much more needs to be done re extracting practical information from modelling to assist adaptation. I’ve been working in a fairly modest way on helping coffee farmers adapt to climate change (e.g. https://coffeeandclimate.org/).
Modelling has used long term means in temperature & ppt to project changes, mostly to 2050. Neat colourful maps are produced, of low resolution showing how coffee zones will change. The problem is that these maps are of little practical use and may be counterproductive because practitioners are not concerned with 2050.
The models fail to project changes in extremes, e.g. days >30C, length of droughts, VPD extremes etc. Nor regional CC due to deforestation – coffee prices have roughly doubled over the past year because Brazil has been suffering droughts, high temperatures and frost. Is this just a blip exacerbated by CC or is it the start of a new normal as regional weather patterns change? There is scant discussion of this, let alone any serious research.
There is an urgent need to advise farmers and the rest of the supply chain on material risks, adaptation/survival pathways etc. but now firms are focusing more on carbon-zero/neutral mitigation/insetting that will sequester only small amounts of carbon at great cost, taking up a lot of institutional time that might better be spent on adaptation including disaster prepping.
Hear hear!
“There is an urgent need to advise farmers and the rest of the supply chain on material risks, adaptation/survival pathways etc …”
My suggestion is to not ask a climate science modeller for that kind of advice. Because they are theoretical physicists!
They are not applied physicists/scientists, not regenerative farmers or agriculturalists nor engineers or your local bureau of meteorology. Horses for courses.
Nope. For every complex problem there are bazillions of simple answers that won’t work. So what? Generally there IS a simple and elegant solution that becomes obvious to the open-minded and attentive if and only if they are exposed to the idea and happen to grok it.
Mencken was looking at the wrong distributional tail. Yep. Dummies are everywhere. Who cares?
Sentient scum who will use said dummies as pawns, that’s who. Which pisses me off. My highest adoration goes to grocery baggers. They exude joy. Compare and contrast them to any GOPpish “leader”.