JAMTAM

tricky bit, I guess, is that hot models didn't used to work. maybe the physics is changing.

is our collective sense of understanding greater or less now compared to 10 years ago? I'm not convinced that measuring something is the same as understanding it.

wow a tree lined street. that is already quite fancy.

where is our collective understanding at?

accepting something like consciousness requires an ability to define it.

the academic pipeline involves successive filters. The survivors at the professorial / administrative level are about 99.99% pure.

science-like information curated specifically as an instrument for litigation undermines its credibility. tricky balance.

just an example from a sector that is much more experienced in operationalizing real-time data subject to change in a similar-ish scenario.

Grab fresh data points as they arrive, hold the past record steady without retroactive changes, and recalculate confidence intervals forward. Discontinuities accurately signal real revisions to historical data.

Real-time vintage or real-time data ensures that evaluations, forecasts, nowcasts, and policy assessments reflect only the information actually available at each historical point in time.

The standard and widely accepted practice among economists, central banks, and forecasters for handling GDP revisions in real-time analysis is to hold past data steady (i.e., "freeze" historical values at the time they were known), rather than retroactively overwriting them.

your dashboard is changing past predictions. that seems weird.

the pool of people actually involved in weather attribution seems surprisingly tiny compared with how heavily it’s relied on for political messaging and an instrument for global economic transformation.

Localization only works if raw materials are perfectly distributed and economies of scale don't exist. Neither is true.

In a globalized scheme all the same issues are still there. Some unrelated issue can threaten export bans from a global provider of essential goods.

Swapping gas imports with imports required to sustain a continuous clean energy grid renewal program might fix climate but it doesn't resolve geopolitical exposure. If we're turning our backs on globalization and relying on local resources only then this exacerbates conditions for war.

winning on environment while enduring mass suffering is a losing proposition.

Your chart clearly outlines how support for change happens after project implementation, so I believe it is not an unfair question.

if people don't know what's good for them until after you implement your ideas how does it work?

in other words govern by technocracy because the people don't know what's good for them until we show them.

China is on a path to very deliberately have foreign nations depend on their exports of RE energy infrastructure in their continuous capital renewal plans.

is the plan to replace 20% energy reliant on middle east import (raw fuel) with 50% reliance on chinese imports (continuous capital asset renewal)?

Dessler's obvious emotional stake in the matter makes it harder to see him as detached and objective.

Like seeing faces in clouds, the brain projects structure onto amorphous vapor.

as long as the global manufacturing hub for renewable assets in China remains stable.

any market upturn benefits those with bigger portfolios more than those with smaller ones. If the argument is that market upswings are bad because some people have bigger financial portfolios than others that seems not totally logical.

the fact that scientists have to rediscover this, or unlearn the primacy of temperature in ruling all things, is a bit disturbing.

this is the type of thing that climate fixation has completely overshadowed in environmental discourse. Yes global average temperature is a thing to think about, but it's a secondary or tertiary factor in things like wildlife decline and most other environmental indicators.

the weird part is that when scientists talk inwards to each other there is way more humility and openness about caveats and knowledge gaps. When facing outwards it's a totally different story.

Understanding and communicating property scale risk primarily through a lens of CO2 is where good intentions lead to bad outcomes.

The issue is that scientists get public grants on the premise that the money should generate real value. it's not just play time for your own personal satisfaction. If you want to be less productive and trying harder go drive an ox behind a plow instead.