Posts Tagged ‘1%’
“We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it”*…
One of the issues that vexes coordinated response is a paradox that lies at the heart of the phenomenon: Earth’s climate is chaotic and volatile. Climate change is simple and predictable. How can both be true? Joseph Howlett explains…
The Earth’s atmosphere is nothing but freely roaming molecules. Left alone, they would drift and collide, and eventually even out into a mixture that’s dynamic, yet stable and broadly unchanging.
The sun’s rays complicate things. Energy enters the Earth system in daily cycles, the bulk of it going to whichever half of the planet is tilted toward the sun (and experiencing summer). The molecules in that half acquire more energy than others, which sets the global atmosphere steadily swirling. Depending on the season and location, molecules in our atmosphere might traverse warm land, then cold seas. They might encounter a mountain range that forces them to high altitudes, where the air pressure is low and water condenses. Then they might become part of large-scale phenomena, such as currents, atmospheric rivers, turbulent jet streams and continental fronts.
These phenomena are erratic. They interact at every scale and manifest as weather, from clear sunny days to blustery blizzards and the anomalous events — from hurricanes and polar vortices to hailstorms and tornadoes — that are happening with increasing intensity. Any thought of stability is illusory; no patch of molecules dances in isolation.
The result, from seemingly simple inputs of molecules and energy, is emergent, incalculable chaos. Some individual molecule in the room you are sitting in is careening about blindly and colliding with its immediate neighbors. Zoom out — block to city, field to landscape, region to continent — and patterns appear and intermix. Complexity abounds and compounds. Nothing in the atmosphere is untethered from the rest of the global picture.
We live with this unpredictable mess of an atmosphere every day. We tote around unopened umbrellas, or refresh weather apps and watch our weekend plans dissolve. Anticipating conditions any further out than a week or two is a fool’s errand. The Earth is a complex dynamical system — an interwoven mass of moving parts, each of which requires a different branch of science to understand. Even with advanced knowledge, sophisticated algorithms and modern instruments, it defies and eludes us.
Yet this engine of chaos is now under our influence. It is incontrovertible fact that we are changing the Earth’s temperature by adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. We know exactly how we are changing it — that when we double the proportion of carbon dioxide in the thin layer that rests over the surface of the Earth, the planet will become 2 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer, overall, than it is today. This conclusion has remained essentially unchanged since 1896, when the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius arrived at an estimate of 2 to 5 degrees. (Using an extraordinarily simplified picture of Earth, he made a number of mistakes that, in the end, balanced out.) Some details may remain uncertain, some chaos untamable, but the basic conclusion is a matter of unwavering scientific agreement — 97% is a rare degree of consensus on almost any subject. We are nearly as sure of this as we are of the causes of infectious disease, or how stars form, or the fact that life evolves through natural selection.
oth things are true: The climate system is vastly complex, and we’re certain about what we are doing to it. How can we be so confident in a hundred-year projection when we can’t predict the weather with any reliability more than a week out?
“How can it be that both are true?” said Nadir Jeevanjee, an atmospheric physicist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, a leading institution for cutting-edge simulations of the atmosphere. “It’s a huge tension that’s lurking behind the whole conversation.”
It turns out that complexity can be a veil concealing more basic truths. An enormously complicated system can yield simple answers. You just have to ask a simple enough question…
Read on for Howlett’s fascinating– and important– explanation: “The Climate Change Paradox,” from @quantamagazine.bsky.social.
And for a reminder that this matters (as though we need one…): “Human-Caused Warming Tripled the Death Toll of European Heat Waves This Summer, New Report Shows,” from @insideclimatenews.org.
* Barack Obama
###
As face reality, we might recall that on this date in 1988, the #1 song in the U.S. was Bobby McFerrin‘s “Don’t Worry, Be Happy,” the first a cappella song to reach the top of the Billboard Hot 100 chart, a position it held for two weeks.
(Produced by Colossal Pictures, Directed by Drew Takahashi)
“Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better”*…
Further, in a loose fashion, to yesterday’s post: The Most Observed Animals and Plants (as reported on iNaturalist), from Randall Munroe and his wonderful xkcd (@xkcd.com)
* (attributed to) Albert Einstein
###
As we keep an eye out, we might recall that it was on this date in 1964 that US disc jockeys were sent boxes of animal crackers wrapped in promotional material touting The Animal’s second single, “The House of the Rising Sun,” which had just entered the UK charts. The gambit worked (though, of course, it didn’t hurt that the song was, as Cashbox described it, “a haunting, beat-ballad updating of the famed folk-blues opus that the group’s lead delivers in telling solo vocal fashion”); the tune reached #1 on U.S. pop charts.
“The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”*…
The end of the year approaches, and thoughts turn to retrospectives. In what has become a (Roughly) Daily tradition, today’s edition features a year-end recap from the estimable Tom Whitwell, who shares a full deck of fascinating things he learned in 2024. For example…
6. The London Underground has a distinct form of mosquito, Culex pipiens f. Molestus, genetically different from above-ground mosquitos, and present since at least the 1940s. [Katharine Byrne & Richard A Nichols]
7. Ozempic is a modified, synthetic version of a protein discovered in the venomous saliva of the Gila monster, a large, sluggish lizard native to the United States. [Scott Alexander]
22. In 2022, 55% of Macy’s income came from credit cards rather than retail sales. That’s fairly normal for US department stores. [Pan Kwan Yuk]
29. You can buy 200 real human molars for $900. [B for Bones, via Lauren]
32. In 1800, 1 in 3 people on earth were Chinese. Today, it’s less than 1 in 5. [Our World in Data, via Boyan Slat]
42. n the 2020s, over 16% of movies have colons in the title (Like Spider-Man: Homecoming), up almost 300% since the 1990s. [Daniel Parris]
46. Between the 1920s and 1950s, millions of ‘enemies of the people’ — often educated elites — were sent to prison camps in the Soviet Union. Today, the areas around those camps are more prosperous and productive than similar areas. [Toews & Vézina]
Many more fascinating factoids at: “52 things I learned in 2024,” from @TomWhitwell.
Previous lists: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023… and sprinkled throughout the December postings in (R)D over the years.
###
As we forage, we might recall that on this date in 1968 Marvin Gaye’s version of “I Heard It Through the Grapevine” was in the middle of its seven-week occupancy of the #1 spot on Billboard’s Hot 100.
A year earlier, Gladys Knight and the Pips had had a hit with the tune (#1 on the R&B chart; #2 on the Hot 100). Gaye’s version overtook its predecessor and became the biggest hit single on the Motown family of labels up to that point. The Gaye recording has since become an acclaimed soul classic. In 1998 the song was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame for “historical, artistic and significant” value.
“I was conscious that I knew practically nothing”*…
The estimable Nicholas Carr observes that “you don’t make friends by telling people they’re not as smart as they think they are. And you definitely don’t make friends by telling all of humanity that it’s not as smart as it thinks it is. That’s why the philosophical school of Mysterianism has never caught on with the public.” As an amateur Mysterian himself, he reprises a 2017 essay to spread the good word…
By leaps, steps, and stumbles, science progresses. Its seemingly inexorable advance promotes a sense that everything can be known and will be known. Through observation and experiment, and lots of hard thinking, we will come to explain even the murkiest and most complicated of nature’s secrets: consciousness, dark matter, time, the origin and fate of the universe.
But what if our faith in nature’s knowability is just an illusion, a trick of the overconfident human mind? That’s the working assumption behind a school of thought known as Mysterianism. Situated at the fruitful if sometimes fraught intersection of scientific and philosophic inquiry, the Mysterianist view has been promulgated, in different ways, by many prominent thinkers, from the philosopher Colin McGinn to the linguist Noam Chomsky to the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker. The Mysterians propose that human intellect has boundaries and that many of the mysteries of the cosmos will forever lie beyond our comprehension.
Mysterianism is most closely associated with the so-called hard problem of consciousness: How can the inanimate matter of the brain produce subjective feelings? The Mysterians suggest that the human mind is incapable of understanding itself, that we will never know how consciousness works. But if Mysterianism applies to the workings of the mind, there’s no reason it shouldn’t also apply to the workings of nature in general. As McGinn has suggested, “It may be that nothing in nature is fully intelligible to us.”
The simplest and best argument for Mysterianism is founded on evolutionary evidence. When we examine any other living creature, we understand immediately that its intellect is limited. Even the brightest, most curious dog is not going to master arithmetic. Even the wisest of owls knows nothing of the physiology of the field mouse it devours. If all the minds that evolution has produced have bounded comprehension, then it’s only logical that our own minds, also products of evolution, would have limits as well. As Pinker has put it, “The brain is a product of evolution, and just as animal brains have their limitations, we have ours.” To assume that there are no limits to human understanding is to believe in a level of human exceptionalism that seems miraculous, if not mystical.
Mysterianism, it’s important to emphasize, is not inconsistent with materialism [with theism or idealism]. The Mysterians don’t suggest that what’s unknowable has to be spiritual or otherwise otherworldly. They posit that matter itself has complexities that lie beyond our ken. Like every other animal on earth, we humans are just not smart enough to understand all of nature’s laws and workings.
What’s truly disconcerting about Mysterianism is that, if our intellect is bounded, we can never know how much of existence lies beyond our grasp. What we know or may in the future know may be trifling compared with the unknowable unknowns. “As to myself,” remarked Isaac Newton in his old age, “I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” It may be that we are all like that child on the strand, playing with the odd pebble or shell — and fated to remain so.
Mysterianism teaches us humility. Through science, we have come to understand much about nature, but much more may remain outside the scope of our perception and comprehension. If the Mysterians are right, science’s ultimate achievement may be to reveal to us its own limits…
On unknowable unknowns: Question Marks of the Mysterians, from @roughtype in his terrific newsletter, New Cartographies.
Pair with Flatland (here and here) and Godel’s second incompleteness theorem.
* Socrates (per Plato in Apology 22d)
###
As we wonder, we might recall that it was on this date (tough different sources offer different November dates) in 1966 that 96 Tears, the debut studio album by the American garage rock band ? and the Mysterians was released. The title single, which had been released some months earlier was at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100; the album joined the single on the charts for fifteen weeks; the follow-up single “I Need Somebody” charted for ten weeks.
“If you could build a house on a trampoline, that would suit me fine”*…
James Coleman on the next best thing: that staple of kids’ birthday parties, the bouncy castle (and its cousins)…
My son turned 8 years old earlier this month. We decided to host a birthday party in our yard with a bunch of his friends from school. As if creating several hours of entertainment for a crew of rambunctious boys wasn’t stressful enough, a week of heavy rain and an ominous forecast threatened the whole event. I did not want to have that conversation with the excited birthday boy.
Fortunately, the rain subsided just as the primary entertainment was delivered: an inflatable bounce house called The Challenge, which we rented from a local vendor. The kids had a lot of fun, and I did too, eventually, after the stress subsided. Once things wrapped up, I offered to help the vendor go through the labor-intensive process of rolling and storing a 200-kilogram inflatable. I can’t say it was good for my back, but the experience made me curious about the larger industry.
Most sources attribute the invention of the inflatable amusement to John Scurlock in the 1950s. Scurlock, who died in 2008, was an electrical engineer, physics professor, and NASA researcher who specialized in plastics. While designing inflatable covers for tennis courts, he came up with the idea for a “Space Pillow” that children could use for acrobatic play. It was little more than an air-filled bag with protective netting, but later he would use the same basic principle to create safety air cushions for fire-fighters and stunt performers. The Scurlock family still manufactures and rents amusements as Space Walk Inflatables. In 2014, they had two hundred branches and managed roughly 35,000 rentals per year. This would put them on the large end of inflatable amusement rental companies, of which there are thousands in the US.
With $20,000 and a truck, you can start renting inflatables. The low startup costs make it an attractive option for many, and there is no shortage of influencers willing to share basic business plans. But the work is arduous, with most weekends spent in a mad dash to clean and deliver amusements. (Stressed-out parents, like myself, are also no picnic.) Because there are so many small players, it is difficult to get estimates of how much money is being made in the market as a whole. Space Walk officials peg it at around a hundred million dollars annually…
More on how they’re made and how they’re tested at “Notes on Inflatable Amusements,” from @jamestweetz in @the_prepared.
* Alan Rickman
###
As we bounce, we might note that this was a momentous date in the history of another celebratory stalwart; it was on this date in 1995 that “Macarena”– more specifically, “Macarena (Bayside Boys Mix)”– hit #1 on Billboard‘s Hot 100 and remained on the chart for 60 weeks.
The original Los Del Rio recording of “Macarena” was a hit in Latin America but would not have gained much attention in North America if it weren’t for John Caride, a DJ at a Miami radio station. Having watched dancers’ enthusiastic reaction to the song at a club at which he was spinning, Caride wanted to add the tune to his radio playlist, but was refused by his program manager on the grounds that the station (WPOW– “Power 96”) didn’t put foreign language songs into rotation. Caride enlisted producers Carols De Yarza and Mike Triay to re-record the song with English-language verses and then remixed to make it (even more) “club-friendly.” It was this version– “Macarena (Bayside Boys Mix)”– that hit the top of the chart… and became the “No. 1 Greatest One-Hit Wonder of All Time” (per VH-1) and a staple of wedding receptions everywhere.
You must be logged in to post a comment.