via Things Break
Birmingham AL, 1 AM, January 29, captured by traffic web-cameras.
Pipeline failure animation via Dr. Richard Stover
Unsurprisingly XKCD nails it, but head on over there to read the mouseover text, I am sure it perfectly describes more than a few Planet3.0 readers (and writers!). And we wouldn’t want it any other way.
Someone on the Facebook group “Global Warming Fact of the Day” (GWFotD to its Friends) brought up the famous and excellent Greg Craven video, and wondered why nobody had ever really answered Greg’s question.
So, what really IS the worst that could happen? Shouldn’t we calibrate our actions against that? Shouldn’t science try to answer that question?
This is especially true given the appearance of a community of people who believes that a climate-driven catastrophe is so imminent and so enormous that humans will be literally extinct within two decades. (Yes, some people apparently believe this so deeply that they express contempt for those who do not.) Can we refute them?
It turns out that it’s sort of an ill-posed question.
It’s certainly true that the whole ball of wax is at risk of being utterly ruined by humans. There’s some disagreement about how close to the edge we are and how much we can do about it. That it’s within our capacity to do that is no longer in doubt.
But there isn’t really a scientifically sound way to answer the question of what the worst case is.
For complex questions, rigorous thought is best done statistically. Are you talking about 99-to-1 bad news or 999999 to 1 bad news? The worst thing that can happen? 99999999999 to 1? Who knows? Complex science is weakest at these fringes exactly where traditional physics is strongest.
But we have good ways to think about the last percentile, or the last decile. The more extreme the outlier, the weaker our ammunition. To the most extreme question, the “worst case”, there is no really rigorous answer.
Regarding near term extinction, humans are now thriving in a way that no species known ever anywhere has previously. To suggest that a globally dominant population of seven billion specimens would go extinct in less than a generation is what, a 0.9999999 event? It seems more likely to be caused by a rogue asteroid than by anthropogenic climate change in any case. Right now, we have enough to worry about with the more-likely-than not scenarios, which really is Greg’s point.
Yeah, basically. You can quibble here and there but this is more right than what most people think.
(h/t The Disaffected Lib)
Confusion is definitely centered in the Republican quadrant. Via Dan Kahan who wants us to focus on the rainbow effect. But to me the most striking thing about this pattern is the rarity of deep confusion outside the top left quadrant. Cover that quadrant with white paper and mentally extrapolate. Then look at the data again.
The IPCC has released a very snazzy video that summarizes the fifth assessment report.
A summary of the IPCC report in 4 minutes
This video taken at 6am on Friday 8 November as Typhoon Hayian hit Hernani in Eastern Samar shows how quickly and intensely the storm surge hit.