WHAT MAKES HUMANS HUMAN PAGE 2 - John Wawrzonek

WHAT MAKES SCIENTISTS UNABLE
TO TALK HUMAN

AND HOW THAT WILL LEAD TO THE CROCK POT
PAGE 2

The question, of course, after reading the New York Times August 1 magazine article, or one of thousands of articles before it in papers across the country, is why no one could grab the ball and run with it.

One cause is that it takes a pretty deep understanding of the difference between climate change and weather and, in this case the nature of the climate change.

The temperature of the atmosphere, oceans and ground keeps increasing because the output of CO2 keeps increasing. This in turn melts the tundra which releases methane which is 30 times more powerful a greenhouse gas which accelerates the warming and you have a positive feedback loop. This is catastrophic. The question becomes: If you stop emissions entirely, can the climate find another equilibrium temperature where the warming stops.

We have reached the point where the shut down must happen now. The Chinese have restarted building their coal plants. And the US is relaxinging all the rules and ouptut is increasing. If both of these are not stopped within a year or so we will likely get exponential runaway. That is what the New York Times was about and what is meant by "gargantuan" in the NYTimes story. And it must include negative emissions.

This explanation is too hard for a scientificly illiterate government and public to grasp. Trump needs to be replaced by a climate dictator and I do not have a clue how we would do that. We have flown into a box canyon. Every move, other than a supernational updraft and we are mush.

That is the story.

Our runaway technology made us confident we had conquered the world so we really didn't have do learn deeply, and that even goes (in a different way) for the scientists.

The problem with scientists is the way they talk. I am now reading a book on the detection of gravational waves called Gravity's Kiss. It is the most phenominal experiment in scientific history. It was the clearest signal you could image perfectly correlated from two sites.

Then they spent six months checking the data and another six months writing the paper and two months arguing about the title. Immeditely three Nobel prises. So follows an example from the New York Times. No layman will get it.

Here is a sample conversation:

“Will occur,” proposed Laurmann, the Stanford engineer.

“What about the words: highly likely to occur?” Scoville asked.

“Almost sure,” said David Rose, the nuclear engineer from M.I.T.

“Almost surely,” another said.

“Changes of an undetermined — ”

“Changes as yet of a little-understood nature?”

“Highly or extremely likely to occur,” Pomerance said.

“Almost surely to occur?”

“No,” Pomerance said.

“Will occur,” proposed Laurmann, the Stanford engineer.

“What about the words: highly likely to occur?” Scoville asked.

“Almost sure,” said David Rose, the nuclear engineer from M.I.T.

“Almost surely,” another said.

“Changes of an undetermined — ”

“Changes as yet of a little-understood nature?”

“Highly or extremely likely to occur,” Pomerance said.

“Almost surely to occur?”

“No,” Pomerance said.

All they had to say is "as sure as I am here talking to you." Blows away the scientific masturbation. And maybe add an example like your kid having to play at crockpot tempertures.

Powered by SmugMug Owner Log In