Nate you have completely misrepresented the Hansen paper. The paper does advance the idea that the ultimate climate response to the GHG levels likely to be reached is 10 degrees C IF THEY REMAIN ELEVATED OVER THE LONG TERM , but the paper also emphasizes that the climate response time to those levels is longer than previously thought giving more time to lower GHG levels BEFORE that level of change is reached. His contention is not that level of warming is inevitable, but that it is even more urgent than people think to address GHG levels. I cite the following quotations from the paper: From the abstract: "The essential requirement to "save" young people and future generations is return to Holocene-level global temperature. Three urgently required actions are: 1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions, 2) purposeful intervention to rapidly phase down present massive geoengineering of Earth’s climate, and 3) renewed East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs." And two quotations from p,33 "We need to reduce human-made climate forcing before it exerts its full influence on the climate system. It will take time to halt and reverse growth of GHGs, so it is important to understand response times of the climate system." "Fast EEI response - faster than global temperature response - has a practical effect: observed EEI understates the reduction of climate forcing required to stabilize climate. Although the magnitude of this effect is uncertain (see Supporting Material), it makes the task of restoring a hospitable climate and saving coastal cities more challenging. On the other hand, long climate response time implies a potential for educated policies to affect the climate outcome before undesirable consequences have occurred." www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/PipelinePaper.2022.12.22.pdf f I grant that the paper is 49 pages long and very difficult, but it is worth trying to read through. It also contains much material that is categorically not climate model based, as well as much that is.
The recurring thought that I have is the realization that homo sapiens are very "late-comers" on a 4 billion-year-old symbiotic "symphony" of LIFE that WE call EARTH. In the relatively brief time that WE have been "passengers" here, WE - and WE alone - have managed to jeopardize EVERYTHING. And yet WE have egotistically convinced ourselves that the Earth and life itself is all about US. The ancient Greeks may have coined the term "hubris" but WE have refined that concept into lethal concentrations.
WE are not separate from all other life on earth. There is a direct genetic link from you, me and every other human back to the very beginning of life on earth. If it turns out that WE cause the greatest mass extinction in history, WE’RE not to blame. It’s obvious to me that WE’RE just not smart enough to deal responsibly with the massive and fairly easily accessible energy in fossil fuels. A three year old child is not to blame if he burns a house down playing with matches. When our very recently evolved (and, I would argue, still childlike) cerebral cortex meets fossil fuels under the rule of the Maximum Power Principle there will likely be unintended negative consequences. WE should stop blaming ourselves, it’s karma.
Not in the Torah. The Hebrews were stewards of the land, kept sabbath, central was breaking bread. The narrative of Exodus is so incredibly profound, it offers a path toward a simpler way of being.
@@jjuniper274 Not by my reading of the Torah. "Go forth and multiply" sounds a lot like species hubris. All I can see in Exodus is an incredibly capricious and vindictive deity of enormous cruelty. Putting whole nations to the sword or enslaving them. Not profound but just bronze age barbarity.
So here is a story that could be a model... (& I second your motion to henceforth always pronounce that word like Erica does)... Say, we don't continue on this path... perhaps we get so annoyed by these machines and systems that we up and throw them at the wall where they lay in a jumbled pile, slightly smoking, because our anger at them is such that there should be smoke... and while we contemplate the mess we made, we notice the door and remember that it sticks because it is hanging slightly crooked. And now we have free time because we just killed the machine, so we may as well fix the door. So we tidy away the machine mess, get out a screwdriver and tighten the hinges, adding a bit of grease for good measure. And then we notice that the windows really need cleaning. So we go get newsprint and vinegar and give them a good shining. And then we can see the porch again and notice that it needs sweeping. So we do that. And by now we are quite hungry. So we decide to make cornbread. And after we've prepared the pan and dumped the flours in a bowl we realize that there are no eggs. So we waddle next door to see if the neighbors might have eggs about their person... And they say "Yes, indeed! The hens are laying far too many for us. Take a dozen. And by the by, what are you baking?"... And when they hear, they brighten up and say "Why, we're making green chile stew and it simply must have cornbread. Please, you and your cornbread, do come for dinner." And you agree that that would be lovely and go to make your cornbread. You also thaw that second pumpkin pie you made last fall because you made too much filling... this seems a good way to finally get that out of the freezer.... But when both households are all together you all realize that no room between you can fit you all, so you take all the chairs outside and eat in the grassy place in front of your houses... And as you are merrily eating, the old widower from down the block shuffles by on his evening walk, head down, all alone. So you call to him, asking if he'd like cornbread and green chile stew and pumpkin pie. And a smile warms his face as he decides, and of course he joins you all. And while he eats, he mentions that he's noticed your woodwork and window trims need painting and since he has time on his hands, he might do something about that, if you could provide the paint. And you are so surprised by this generosity that you give him a hug and tell him you would gladly buy paint... for the entire neighborhood! And now it's a party. And you all talk about all sorts of everything... And you all laugh because this party began when we tossed the machine at the wall... And we decide that we really don't like machines and there is no point to keeping them around when they just interfere with all this joy. And we remember that we are actually quite good at doing for ourselves. We are clever and creative. We don't need the Machine. We have all this... and cornbread... There is no reason we can't follow this path. It is actually quite a likely one. And yet no model has us going here...
You are talking about shutting down systems in a way that greatly reduces the aerosol masking effect which we all witnessed during 2020. There are models that show how global temps are affected by the loss of aerosol masking. We do indeed need to address these models because they are being used as a reason for keeping industrialization at its current pace and adding more masking via geo-engineering which she said is new but has been talked about if not done already to some extent for about a century. On a related note, we would need to add the cost to our health and to the ability of plants to grow with less sun if we do more geo-engineering than we are currently just by burning FFs.
I like your scenario though and think it is really where we need to get to if we want thriving ecosystems and communities. I’m not sure what to do about densely populated cities that depend on food being shipped and trucked in for the most part. Changing agriculture practices takes a lot of time that we may not have on our side.
@@stefc7122 It's not that we need to go here. In truth, I'm not sure that "we" or "need" can be defined globally. But, at ground level in many places, this is what contraction and collapse have looked like in history, and logically this is probably what will happen again. In any case, my point was that this is a "model-story" that is quite statistically likely and yet is generally ignored
Thanks so much for the interview and discussion. Changes that are afoot are destabilizing. The changes appear to be moving towards less variety, fewer choices and generally more stress for much of earthly creation. Those outcomes are not considered against our indulgences and wants. We want our variety. Our choices lead to more entropy for everyone and everything else. That is our value to the planet.
How much does the atmosphere expand, per degree of warming, with respect to the ideal gas law? Given that expansion, what is the change in the rate of radiation with respect to the larger surface area?
I got a laugh (in a good way) when she mentioned that she was looking for a feminist epistemology of modeling. A lot of her phrasings, framings, and avoidance of easy tropes reminded me a lot of listening to Mary Harrington. That and, TBH, when it's applied to skepticism of really lazy / overly-reductionistic types of technocracy it's quite refreshing and welcome, we need more holism in the right contexts and that's never more true than in complex systems analysis (hopefully we'll be seeing more economists taking this frame as well).
Thank you both for this thoughtful discussion. Book added to list. I am, though, very skeptical about ground up solutions being able to reign in the lifestyles and policy influence of top 1%, in terms of affluence, which is like gravel in the gears of progress. But can't see autocracy working either.
If you read the autobiography of Richard Feynman, you will see that science was already full of nonsense, even in physics. It goes to show that a healthy dose of skepticism is always appropriate.
@@paul1862well, depending on what you mean by "heavy" that can be a good thing or a very bad thing. If it means throwing yourself in the arms of conspiratorial thinking and following the advice of people that quite simply don't believe or think in scientific terms at all then that's really much worse.
Some things cannot be modeled well at all. I challenge anyone to develop a model, for example, of the development of general artificial intelligence. We see the development of artificial intelligence happening right in front of our eyes, but like many other changes, there is too much positive feedback with far too many uncertainties to really predict it accurately. And we must not forget that AI requires massive amounts of energy too, so how will that play into it? Will it help us develop nuclear fusion in a timely manner? Even if it does, how long will it take to create thousands of reactors in time to power our world which is heading toward degrowth? AI is very important but is a case where data about our past is not really applicable to an accurate prediction of its development.
I got a basic physics book out of my library and was able to follow a calculation that showed the kinetic energy of hydrogen isotope nuclei required to overcome the electro repulsive forces of the nuclei, so they are close enough for fusion to occur , is Answer: 150 million degrees...it used the kinetic theory of gases for the temp - ave velocity relationship. I have no confidence in a technology that requires a 150 million degree input to kick start the process to boil water.. but I'm no expert.
Following on from this conversation, I can highly recommend the work of Ella Saltmarshe around the subject of purpose. th-cam.com/video/AbBAphBBM-4/w-d-xo.html
I noticed that too. He dresses funny, but he seems more stable than in recent years, albeit, he needs to temper his enthusiasm at times. The panel discussion of Exodus is outstanding and I'm not a religious person, but I can appreciate any wisdom from ancient texts I can find. The symbolism of that book is outstanding, to me the discussion is coming very close to Wilbur and Spiral Dynamics at times too. How can we evolve to serve each other and all the creatures on it, before it's too late?
If you truly believe in evolution , I mean to the core of your being then it predicts that a closed system would evolve no matter how much you regurgitate earth. Now if you think selection is just 30, 40, 60% or 100% or not we aren't subtracting anything away from out arragantly subject human centric modeling. We have to much emphasis on ourselved and our place here on earth and in the universe to not be subtracting things from it. For every fluctuation a counter would be selected. That goes for humsn lungs down to the oceans filtration. The biosphere equilibrium to our social and technical changes. If the sun accounts for 70% of our climate through cause and effect secondary actions from geological activities with orbit and precession accounting for another 30% it really leaves little to do with human activity . What do you believe in dictates the answer but we only allow one type of mindset to control the input.
We have lost science of the present for the benefit of the future by analyzing the past. Only as good as the input your using and its not very good data. issac Newton's set a good definition but its been abandoned the moment enstien standardized time for choo choo trains. A great tool for us inside our light cone but Since then it has added limitations that have corrupted how we all view the world and universe. Entropy of time rather than entropy of decay , mutation or fusion which we actually test and observe. Trying impose upon every field has crested brick walls that everyone has beat there head on. Recruitment through the education that has prohibitions that filter out Isaac Newton's and seek more Einstein's is what we've done. So all assumptions and inputs of any model or cosmology and climate is one of such a Hawkins mindset and world view. No one is able to be a jack of all trades like Isaac Newton that knows when to move on to things that can be obtained in step by step building physics. Taking one new learned lesson then seeing where it can advance the next.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Nate you have completely misrepresented the Hansen paper. The paper does advance the idea that the ultimate climate response to the GHG levels likely to be reached is 10 degrees C IF THEY REMAIN ELEVATED OVER THE LONG TERM , but the paper also emphasizes that the climate response time to those levels is longer than previously thought giving more time to lower GHG levels BEFORE that level of change is reached. His contention is not that level of warming is inevitable, but that it is even more urgent than people think to address GHG levels. I cite the following quotations from the paper:
From the abstract:
"The essential requirement to "save" young people and future generations is return to Holocene-level global temperature. Three urgently required actions are: 1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions, 2) purposeful intervention to rapidly phase down present massive geoengineering of Earth’s climate, and 3) renewed East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs."
And two quotations from p,33
"We need to reduce human-made climate forcing before it exerts its full influence on the climate system. It will take time to halt and reverse growth of GHGs, so it is important to understand response times of the climate system."
"Fast EEI response - faster than global temperature response - has a practical effect: observed EEI understates the reduction of climate forcing required to stabilize climate. Although the magnitude of this effect is uncertain (see Supporting Material), it makes the task of restoring a hospitable climate and saving coastal cities more challenging. On the other hand, long climate response time implies a potential for educated policies to affect the climate outcome before undesirable consequences have occurred."
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/PipelinePaper.2022.12.22.pdf
f
I grant that the paper is 49 pages long and very difficult, but it is worth trying to read through. It also contains much material that is categorically not climate model based, as well as much that is.
I’ve invited him on to explain but he’s waiting for peer review before doing public talks. Thanks for clarification
@@thegreatsimplification That would be really good. I hope you are able to get him on.
Nah!
Nate and Erica. Thanks for an informative and articulate discussion. Well done.
What a gorgeous woman ! The speed at which she started answering Nate’s questions , , ah….. Thanks Nate mate, you are the bees knees.
Glamour model: a mathematical model whose sole purpose is to look pretty. Frequently found in mainstream economics.
Simplified day! Thanks Nate!
Great interview. Very interesting, definitely will get the book.
The recurring thought that I have is the realization that homo sapiens are very "late-comers" on a 4 billion-year-old symbiotic "symphony" of LIFE that WE call EARTH. In the relatively brief time that WE have been "passengers" here, WE - and WE alone - have managed to jeopardize EVERYTHING. And yet WE have egotistically convinced ourselves that the Earth and life itself is all about US. The ancient Greeks may have coined the term "hubris" but WE have refined that concept into lethal concentrations.
Nonsense
WE are not separate from all other life on earth. There is a direct genetic link from you, me and every other human back to the very beginning of life on earth. If it turns out that WE cause the greatest mass extinction in history, WE’RE not to blame. It’s obvious to me that WE’RE just not smart enough to deal responsibly with the massive and fairly easily accessible energy in fossil fuels. A three year old child is not to blame if he burns a house down playing with matches. When our very recently evolved (and, I would argue, still childlike) cerebral cortex meets fossil fuels under the rule of the Maximum Power Principle there will likely be unintended negative consequences. WE should stop blaming ourselves, it’s karma.
Not in the Torah. The Hebrews were stewards of the land, kept sabbath, central was breaking bread. The narrative of Exodus is so incredibly profound, it offers a path toward a simpler way of being.
@@jjuniper274 Not by my reading of the Torah. "Go forth and multiply" sounds a lot like species hubris. All I can see in Exodus is an incredibly capricious and vindictive deity of enormous cruelty. Putting whole nations to the sword or enslaving them. Not profound but just bronze age barbarity.
Models in mental health nursing require serious remodeling!
💜
So here is a story that could be a model... (& I second your motion to henceforth always pronounce that word like Erica does)...
Say, we don't continue on this path... perhaps we get so annoyed by these machines and systems that we up and throw them at the wall where they lay in a jumbled pile, slightly smoking, because our anger at them is such that there should be smoke... and while we contemplate the mess we made, we notice the door and remember that it sticks because it is hanging slightly crooked. And now we have free time because we just killed the machine, so we may as well fix the door. So we tidy away the machine mess, get out a screwdriver and tighten the hinges, adding a bit of grease for good measure. And then we notice that the windows really need cleaning. So we go get newsprint and vinegar and give them a good shining. And then we can see the porch again and notice that it needs sweeping. So we do that. And by now we are quite hungry. So we decide to make cornbread. And after we've prepared the pan and dumped the flours in a bowl we realize that there are no eggs. So we waddle next door to see if the neighbors might have eggs about their person... And they say "Yes, indeed! The hens are laying far too many for us. Take a dozen. And by the by, what are you baking?"... And when they hear, they brighten up and say "Why, we're making green chile stew and it simply must have cornbread. Please, you and your cornbread, do come for dinner." And you agree that that would be lovely and go to make your cornbread. You also thaw that second pumpkin pie you made last fall because you made too much filling... this seems a good way to finally get that out of the freezer.... But when both households are all together you all realize that no room between you can fit you all, so you take all the chairs outside and eat in the grassy place in front of your houses... And as you are merrily eating, the old widower from down the block shuffles by on his evening walk, head down, all alone. So you call to him, asking if he'd like cornbread and green chile stew and pumpkin pie. And a smile warms his face as he decides, and of course he joins you all. And while he eats, he mentions that he's noticed your woodwork and window trims need painting and since he has time on his hands, he might do something about that, if you could provide the paint. And you are so surprised by this generosity that you give him a hug and tell him you would gladly buy paint... for the entire neighborhood! And now it's a party. And you all talk about all sorts of everything... And you all laugh because this party began when we tossed the machine at the wall... And we decide that we really don't like machines and there is no point to keeping them around when they just interfere with all this joy. And we remember that we are actually quite good at doing for ourselves. We are clever and creative. We don't need the Machine. We have all this... and cornbread...
There is no reason we can't follow this path. It is actually quite a likely one. And yet no model has us going here...
Brilliant! Thanks for sharing. ✌️
Lovely!
You are talking about shutting down systems in a way that greatly reduces the aerosol masking effect which we all witnessed during 2020.
There are models that show how global temps are affected by the loss of aerosol masking.
We do indeed need to address these models because they are being used as a reason for keeping industrialization at its current pace and adding more masking via geo-engineering which she said is new but has been talked about if not done already to some extent for about a century.
On a related note, we would need to add the cost to our health and to the ability of plants to grow with less sun if we do more geo-engineering than we are currently just by burning FFs.
I like your scenario though and think it is really where we need to get to if we want thriving ecosystems and communities.
I’m not sure what to do about densely populated cities that depend on food being shipped and trucked in for the most part.
Changing agriculture practices takes a lot of time that we may not have on our side.
@@stefc7122 It's not that we need to go here. In truth, I'm not sure that "we" or "need" can be defined globally. But, at ground level in many places, this is what contraction and collapse have looked like in history, and logically this is probably what will happen again.
In any case, my point was that this is a "model-story" that is quite statistically likely and yet is generally ignored
Don't forget you have listeners/viewers globally, so, in my neck of the woods its good evening.
Thanks so much for the interview and discussion. Changes that are afoot are destabilizing. The changes appear to be moving towards less variety, fewer choices and generally more stress for much of earthly creation. Those outcomes are not considered against our indulgences and wants. We want our variety. Our choices lead to more entropy for everyone and everything else. That is our value to the planet.
Nate, we should build that comprehensive model!
How much does the atmosphere expand, per degree of warming, with respect to the ideal gas law? Given that expansion, what is the change in the rate of radiation with respect to the larger surface area?
I got a laugh (in a good way) when she mentioned that she was looking for a feminist epistemology of modeling. A lot of her phrasings, framings, and avoidance of easy tropes reminded me a lot of listening to Mary Harrington. That and, TBH, when it's applied to skepticism of really lazy / overly-reductionistic types of technocracy it's quite refreshing and welcome, we need more holism in the right contexts and that's never more true than in complex systems analysis (hopefully we'll be seeing more economists taking this frame as well).
Another Wonderful, Brilliant, Excellent💯👍👏 woman! Wise, intellectual, kind! Thank❤🌹🙏 you, dear Erika Thompson and Nate! 🥀🌏🌍🌎🌹
Speaking of Wales, have you considered inviting Dave Snowden, creator of the Cynefin Framework, onto the program?
Thank you both for this thoughtful discussion. Book added to list. I am, though, very skeptical about ground up solutions being able to reign in the lifestyles and policy influence of top 1%, in terms of affluence, which is like gravel in the gears of progress. But can't see autocracy working either.
If you read the autobiography of Richard Feynman, you will see that science was already full of nonsense, even in physics. It goes to show that a healthy dose of skepticism is always appropriate.
COVID turned me from someone who trusted science to a heavy skeptic of just about everything
@@paul1862well, depending on what you mean by "heavy" that can be a good thing or a very bad thing. If it means throwing yourself in the arms of conspiratorial thinking and following the advice of people that quite simply don't believe or think in scientific terms at all then that's really much worse.
Some things cannot be modeled well at all. I challenge anyone to develop a model, for example, of the development of general artificial intelligence. We see the development of artificial intelligence happening right in front of our eyes, but like many other changes, there is too much positive feedback with far too many uncertainties to really predict it accurately. And we must not forget that AI requires massive amounts of energy too, so how will that play into it? Will it help us develop nuclear fusion in a timely manner? Even if it does, how long will it take to create thousands of reactors in time to power our world which is heading toward degrowth? AI is very important but is a case where data about our past is not really applicable to an accurate prediction of its development.
I got a basic physics book out of my library and was able to follow a calculation that showed the kinetic energy of hydrogen isotope nuclei required to overcome the electro repulsive forces of the nuclei, so they are close enough for fusion to occur , is
Answer: 150 million degrees...it used the kinetic theory of gases for the temp - ave velocity relationship.
I have no confidence in a technology that requires a 150 million degree input to kick start the process to boil water.. but I'm no expert.
Following on from this conversation, I can highly recommend the work of Ella Saltmarshe around the subject of purpose. th-cam.com/video/AbBAphBBM-4/w-d-xo.html
Interesting how close exxon's models were 40 years ago. See AAAS Science
Kinda hate to say it but this has a lot of overlap with J Petersons recent discussions on climate
I noticed that too. He dresses funny, but he seems more stable than in recent years, albeit, he needs to temper his enthusiasm at times.
The panel discussion of Exodus is outstanding and I'm not a religious person, but I can appreciate any wisdom from ancient texts I can find. The symbolism of that book is outstanding, to me the discussion is coming very close to Wilbur and Spiral Dynamics at times too. How can we evolve to serve each other and all the creatures on it, before it's too late?
This lady should be heading-up the climate change solution.
If you truly believe in evolution , I mean to the core of your being then it predicts that a closed system would evolve no matter how much you regurgitate earth. Now if you think selection is just 30, 40, 60% or 100% or not we aren't subtracting anything away from out arragantly subject human centric modeling. We have to much emphasis on ourselved and our place here on earth and in the universe to not be subtracting things from it.
For every fluctuation a counter would be selected. That goes for humsn lungs down to the oceans filtration. The biosphere equilibrium to our social and technical changes.
If the sun accounts for 70% of our climate through cause and effect secondary actions from geological activities with orbit and precession accounting for another 30% it really leaves little to do with human activity .
What do you believe in dictates the answer but we only allow one type of mindset to control the input.
Quantization error.
We have lost science of the present for the benefit of the future by analyzing the past. Only as good as the input your using and its not very good data.
issac Newton's set a good definition but its been abandoned the moment enstien standardized time for choo choo trains. A great tool for us inside our light cone but Since then it has added limitations that have corrupted how we all view the world and universe. Entropy of time rather than entropy of decay , mutation or fusion which we actually test and observe.
Trying impose upon every field has crested brick walls that everyone has beat there head on.
Recruitment through the education that has prohibitions that filter out Isaac Newton's and seek more Einstein's is what we've done.
So all assumptions and inputs of any model or cosmology and climate is one of such a Hawkins mindset and world view.
No one is able to be a jack of all trades like Isaac Newton that knows when to move on to things that can be obtained in step by step building physics. Taking one new learned lesson then seeing where it can advance the next.
"Effective ultraism" is a grift. Sam Bankman Fried was into "effective ultraism".
All models are bad. But many are useful.
Please interview climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry.
models are boring. AI is boring. Combine the two and you force ethics and biases on everyone. Let's get back to reality.