What you have outlined without actually saying it, is that the “climate change“ that we have experienced in this current Modern Warm Period, has been greatly beneficial. If one studies climate history, though, this should come as no surprise. Every previous one, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods to name the last three, have produced the same result. During the Medieval Warm Period for example, agricultural production exploded, and population increased 500% in Europe. Unfortunately, every previous warm period has ended in a cold snap. The Medieval Warm Period ended in the Little Ice Age, the Roman Warm Period ended in the Dark Ages Cold Period and the Minoan Warm Period ended in a cold period that contributed to the late bronze age collapse. So the moral of this story is be careful what you wish for. Warmer equals wetter equals more prosperity. Colder equals crop failures, famine, war and chaos. Enjoy the warmth while we have it. It won’t last forever.
I've got a different take on adaptation. For water resource folks, natural resource folks, farmers, and the allied academic disciplines.. climate is one of many things we are adapting to, and have been adapting to, as part of our normal way of doing our work. For example, droughts have always existed. We have ways of dealing with them. At what point does our work cross the line into being "climate" adaptation?
And in what sense is the anti-adaptation movement about keeping climate funding in certain disciplines' pockets (modelers, solar and wind) and out of ours (plant breeders, water resources and so on)?
I was a bit surprised that DWW made such a claim based on only one paper — a paper that seemed like a good example of tactical science as RPJ recently described.
This was a good paper, thank you, and points to an important concept. Your definition of adaption sequences is succinct and unarguable.
“we estimate whether the sensitivity of a range of societal outcomes to a fixed change in climate has changed over time”
Mr. Wallace-Wells and his ilk show us a classic case of “decision-based evidence making” (my new favorite phrase in the climate world). I do not understand how any one could look at the evidence of dramatically reduced death tolls from extreme weather events, improved life expectance, improved food security, and extended life span and say, with a straight face, “it’s largely fictional.”
Adaption is not a yes/no or even the (interesting) four-point scale of the post.
The policy question is are we investing in adaption to climate change such that the expected NPV of the marginal investment -- given the changing environmental risks -- is zero? Were there investments that would have reduced the expected value of the damage cost effectively?
This is a case by case question, but one's suspicion is that there were. If so, were the expected values of the damage mis-estimated or were there other reasons? And if the other reason was lack of funds for investment, isn't it ironic that the lowest cost policy for reducing future risks -- a tax on net emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere -- would have generated funds for NPV > 0 investments in adaption?
A question: why do you suggest adaption to climate change is purely economic? Equating investment to NPV would imply this. Isn't the purpose of adaption to first survive, then to improve that survival? An analogy I've used in the past is the three little pigs, and that big bad climate change wolf. Each pig adapted, as it were, but with varying measures of success. Piggy number 3 did pretty well! His "investment" value was his brick home, his livelihood, etc.
We see much improved building and architectural standards in areas prone to extreme weather. If I follow your math (and I could be easily incorrect, let me know) if a person builds to new standards and his home is still damaged, it is a negative investment, regardless if the home is still standing?
With due respect sir, I don't think the question can be validly reduced to one dimension. Perhaps in certain examples, yes, but not necessarily as a policy question. There is a direct benefit to improved adaption skills, but then there are secondary and cumulative benefits that must also be accounted for that aren't necessarily solely economic in value (continued standard of living, for example).
I cannot answer because I do not know who "we" is?
A large number of nations are so preoccupied with internal strife they must cope with more immediate issues. China is acting as if those in charge know there is no problem now or in the future from the use of fossil fuel.
Others have administrations totally committed to what they are calling "net zero" which is infuriating the fundamentalist Greens who want "total zero", a return to no source of energy outside of human and animal muscle power and maybe water wheels.
Most of the rest pretend to subscribe to net zero because the term of office of incumbents is short enough to get away with faking it.
I personally value the wisdom attained during 80+ years as a natural scientist and accept that the climate of the planet is altered by the interaction of solar and planetary cycles, that sea temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide have been proven to rise and fall together with the sea temperature leading by centuries. In addition I accept the data which suggests we have already entered a Grand Solar Minimum cooling event and am proud that the scientists who present this work do not boast that they can know whether it will be severe or mild cooling for the next 35 years.
It seems there are 4 knobs, relative and real data, timeline, and CO2 PPM. Let me use any of those as I wish without any research discipline and I can present any apcolyptic future world you’d like to imagine.
>>>So that's an 88% increase in output for a given +1°C variation! However, the paper’s methodology defines sensitivities as being relative to each decade. Since 11% is larger than 5%, it concludes that we have become less adapted to climate change over time. <<<
>>>Investigating the question of whether relative sensitivities for adaptive capacity are changing over time is a fine exercise for an academic paper<<<
As a scientist, I hate how common this practice is. What the average NYT reader walks away with is ultimately the idea that we are catastrophically failing to adapt to climate change. The story the column tells is a bit different, the story that the paper tells is significantly different, and then the story that the data itself tells is entirely different. It's depressing.
Additionally, as you recognize in the quotes above-- there potentially is some value in studying these relative sensitivities. It is valuable to understand that agriculture, despite still improving overall productivity, is prone to larger output deviations in sub-optimal growing conditions. The scientists are ultimately doing good work, although maybe stretching their discussion section a bit to secure grant funding. It would be easier to "debunk" or argue against if they were purely bad actors and frauds. This point, that the research is potentially valuable, is what makes appealing to normal people so hopeless; few non-science-types are able to navigate this nuance.
The average citizen is not really proficient with math and science beyond the most basic concepts. Almost no one, even amongst education & intelligent people, is proficient in navigating the "Scientific Establishment". In my personal life, I see very intelligent/successful lawyers, doctors, and businessmen fall for the most basic dishonest practices of the "Scientific Establishment". Probably with a "Believe Science" sign outside their house, not understanding how that two-word phrase doesn't even make sense.
Humans doing what humans have always done to deal with challenges must be defined as negative. Why? Because humans=bad in their simplistic formulation.
Interesting! Two questions: one, what is the difference between "moderate" and "extreme," if not subjective? Two, why? Doesn't make rational sense; one would think a reasonably prudent man would seek appropriate shelter.
What you have outlined without actually saying it, is that the “climate change“ that we have experienced in this current Modern Warm Period, has been greatly beneficial. If one studies climate history, though, this should come as no surprise. Every previous one, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods to name the last three, have produced the same result. During the Medieval Warm Period for example, agricultural production exploded, and population increased 500% in Europe. Unfortunately, every previous warm period has ended in a cold snap. The Medieval Warm Period ended in the Little Ice Age, the Roman Warm Period ended in the Dark Ages Cold Period and the Minoan Warm Period ended in a cold period that contributed to the late bronze age collapse. So the moral of this story is be careful what you wish for. Warmer equals wetter equals more prosperity. Colder equals crop failures, famine, war and chaos. Enjoy the warmth while we have it. It won’t last forever.
Especially since the warming is predominantly in the higher latitudes, and less significant in the lower latitudes, where it isn't as welcome.
I've got a different take on adaptation. For water resource folks, natural resource folks, farmers, and the allied academic disciplines.. climate is one of many things we are adapting to, and have been adapting to, as part of our normal way of doing our work. For example, droughts have always existed. We have ways of dealing with them. At what point does our work cross the line into being "climate" adaptation?
And in what sense is the anti-adaptation movement about keeping climate funding in certain disciplines' pockets (modelers, solar and wind) and out of ours (plant breeders, water resources and so on)?
Thank you for your service.
I was a bit surprised that DWW made such a claim based on only one paper — a paper that seemed like a good example of tactical science as RPJ recently described.
This was a good paper, thank you, and points to an important concept. Your definition of adaption sequences is succinct and unarguable.
“we estimate whether the sensitivity of a range of societal outcomes to a fixed change in climate has changed over time”
Mr. Wallace-Wells and his ilk show us a classic case of “decision-based evidence making” (my new favorite phrase in the climate world). I do not understand how any one could look at the evidence of dramatically reduced death tolls from extreme weather events, improved life expectance, improved food security, and extended life span and say, with a straight face, “it’s largely fictional.”
Adaption is not a yes/no or even the (interesting) four-point scale of the post.
The policy question is are we investing in adaption to climate change such that the expected NPV of the marginal investment -- given the changing environmental risks -- is zero? Were there investments that would have reduced the expected value of the damage cost effectively?
This is a case by case question, but one's suspicion is that there were. If so, were the expected values of the damage mis-estimated or were there other reasons? And if the other reason was lack of funds for investment, isn't it ironic that the lowest cost policy for reducing future risks -- a tax on net emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere -- would have generated funds for NPV > 0 investments in adaption?
A question: why do you suggest adaption to climate change is purely economic? Equating investment to NPV would imply this. Isn't the purpose of adaption to first survive, then to improve that survival? An analogy I've used in the past is the three little pigs, and that big bad climate change wolf. Each pig adapted, as it were, but with varying measures of success. Piggy number 3 did pretty well! His "investment" value was his brick home, his livelihood, etc.
We see much improved building and architectural standards in areas prone to extreme weather. If I follow your math (and I could be easily incorrect, let me know) if a person builds to new standards and his home is still damaged, it is a negative investment, regardless if the home is still standing?
With due respect sir, I don't think the question can be validly reduced to one dimension. Perhaps in certain examples, yes, but not necessarily as a policy question. There is a direct benefit to improved adaption skills, but then there are secondary and cumulative benefits that must also be accounted for that aren't necessarily solely economic in value (continued standard of living, for example).
I cannot answer because I do not know who "we" is?
A large number of nations are so preoccupied with internal strife they must cope with more immediate issues. China is acting as if those in charge know there is no problem now or in the future from the use of fossil fuel.
Others have administrations totally committed to what they are calling "net zero" which is infuriating the fundamentalist Greens who want "total zero", a return to no source of energy outside of human and animal muscle power and maybe water wheels.
Most of the rest pretend to subscribe to net zero because the term of office of incumbents is short enough to get away with faking it.
I personally value the wisdom attained during 80+ years as a natural scientist and accept that the climate of the planet is altered by the interaction of solar and planetary cycles, that sea temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide have been proven to rise and fall together with the sea temperature leading by centuries. In addition I accept the data which suggests we have already entered a Grand Solar Minimum cooling event and am proud that the scientists who present this work do not boast that they can know whether it will be severe or mild cooling for the next 35 years.
It seems there are 4 knobs, relative and real data, timeline, and CO2 PPM. Let me use any of those as I wish without any research discipline and I can present any apcolyptic future world you’d like to imagine.
>>>So that's an 88% increase in output for a given +1°C variation! However, the paper’s methodology defines sensitivities as being relative to each decade. Since 11% is larger than 5%, it concludes that we have become less adapted to climate change over time. <<<
>>>Investigating the question of whether relative sensitivities for adaptive capacity are changing over time is a fine exercise for an academic paper<<<
As a scientist, I hate how common this practice is. What the average NYT reader walks away with is ultimately the idea that we are catastrophically failing to adapt to climate change. The story the column tells is a bit different, the story that the paper tells is significantly different, and then the story that the data itself tells is entirely different. It's depressing.
Additionally, as you recognize in the quotes above-- there potentially is some value in studying these relative sensitivities. It is valuable to understand that agriculture, despite still improving overall productivity, is prone to larger output deviations in sub-optimal growing conditions. The scientists are ultimately doing good work, although maybe stretching their discussion section a bit to secure grant funding. It would be easier to "debunk" or argue against if they were purely bad actors and frauds. This point, that the research is potentially valuable, is what makes appealing to normal people so hopeless; few non-science-types are able to navigate this nuance.
The average citizen is not really proficient with math and science beyond the most basic concepts. Almost no one, even amongst education & intelligent people, is proficient in navigating the "Scientific Establishment". In my personal life, I see very intelligent/successful lawyers, doctors, and businessmen fall for the most basic dishonest practices of the "Scientific Establishment". Probably with a "Believe Science" sign outside their house, not understanding how that two-word phrase doesn't even make sense.
Humans doing what humans have always done to deal with challenges must be defined as negative. Why? Because humans=bad in their simplistic formulation.
Extreme heat or cold, which kills you first?
Interesting moderate cold kills more people than extreme cold.
Interesting! Two questions: one, what is the difference between "moderate" and "extreme," if not subjective? Two, why? Doesn't make rational sense; one would think a reasonably prudent man would seek appropriate shelter.