Typhoon Tip

I have a hypothesis growing ... one existentially based/anecdotal, but hey, ideas gotta start somewhere. Basically, we've already lost winters to global warming along the 45th parallel/ E of ORD. Zomb! Firstly, that doesn't mean it can't snow - don't panic just yet. Though such a future is unavoidable some years to decades in the future, for now it just means that the averages are already now breaching a base-line that is too warm to support cryo months. Most run-ins with cold and concomitant snows are going to be more pattern specific...thus, ephemeral in nature. We have to remember, there are no neat and tidy boundaries in the atmosphere. Climate zones are moving N; we know this is true as it is being empirically shown, and, these emergence' fit climate models - both primitive and more recently sophisticated. Be that as it may that does not mean it won't snow and get brutally cold, if perhaps spanning ever shorter duration(s) south of the perceived climate transition "boundaries" - virtual in nature...etc, etc. That all said, my hypothesis is that a climate transition virtual boundary has already shifted north of the Mid Atlantic and New England regions from central latitudes and S. Part of that is formulated by the personal observation that more and more ... we seem to not get cryo-supportive events/air masses S of the 45th parallel across the conus and locally, *unless* there is an antecedent -EPO. It seems to be we are whittling away other teleconnectors that were always capable of doing it. The negative North Atlantic Oscillations seem less effectual in delivering cold - though they are rarefied in recent decade as a separate matter. The PNA can be positive, yet we're throwing up raining coastal storm types along the eastern seaboard, and also...as papers are publishing recently, the mean storm tracks are observed(ing) migrating N; these +PNA's are delivering more "Lakes Cutter" type tracks. Also a warmer trajectory for the TV-eastern OV/NE regions. The East Pacific Oscillation domain space is very high in latitude, up over the Alaskan sector and adjacent lower Beaufort sea and N Pac/ NW Territories of Canada, and in fact, ...overlaps the Arctic Oscillation domain space. When that field is negative ( i.e., blocking heights and or directive cold loading into N/A), it is sort of like "the last of the cold delivery teleconnectors" to go. The larger scale geological/geographical circumstance in the way N/A is situated and immediately relays off the Pacific, "encourages" the EPO to bulge, and tap cold - if we look at the last 240 months of NASA averages, we see a relative cool offset over N/A for this reason. With the PNA and NAO seemingly reducing efficacy, the EPO has become much more the primary effective cold loading Canada and point south over the continent. The PNA and NAO, both seemed to to be less proficient in doing so within their own index correlations. These ladder indices share much more domain space with mid latitudes - particularly true in the PNA. The NAO is similar to the EPO, but ...the western limb of NAO's domain space is over a region of Canada that has been experiencing elevating temperatures even in winter months - so in the means..there's plausibility for research there, that perhaps the -NAOs are not as effective as they used to be at delivering cold to 40 N ( ORD-BOS). I have noticed that we are either partial/below normal temperature distribution/anomalies therein, with -EPOs, or... we seem to go right back to a new rest state that features vastly above normal temperatures. It's like one or the other, with less "normal" days in between. Normal days in climate ...they are almost as rare as any given departure, because they are just numbers that precipitate out of arithmetic means... But, the scatter plots are showing greater departures/extremes - and that is more like the new normal. If we took the EPO's out entirely? I think we have 60 to 70 F winters.

And I want folks to note that cool relative offset region over N/A. I've noted some 2/3rd of the months since 2000 have features a relative cool region somewhere over our continent, and more the majority of that ~ 2/3rd have had said region over SE Canada and NE conus regions. It's enabling in a way... We are still in the top 3 contributors to anthropogenic gassing off all industrial peers on the planet, and we are consummately being protected from the "edge" extremes of warming. I find that fascinating. It's almost like ( being artsy and fun here...) Gaia can't get through to us, so she/he/it is turning up the oven to "Clean" while we are safe here outside the planet incinerating.. Can't sterilize the planet if it's chief asshole constituent toxifiers are in on it, so we get protected while the mass extinction bite species' dust -

Fwiw - https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2913/2019-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-tied-for-second-lowest-on-record/

It's worth it to mention it because when in the weeds of any crisis for that matter, the general human tendency toward histrionic reactionary thinking is primordially driven - in other words, as the individual integrates the society, et al, said society cannot help but react first, then, dust off. Unfortunately, that doesn't lend to seeing the field above the weeds, which is a perspective that happens later, but is one that is needed now. The reality is, there are technologies that can make all these environmental toxicity dilemmas, Earth, Air and Sea a thing of the past. That's incontrovertible ... yet, excuses and rationalism start churning out of the "inability-to-acceptance" engine. And that spin-machine has the advantage in this sorely needed enlightenment battle - they are anchored in the status quo. If people from all walks and ranks of society could be made aware that they really don't have to sacrifice ( that much ...perhaps a little at first) of their current way of life in order for all to achieve the quasi utopic/harmonious coexistence with natural states, ... but they are being blocked from seeing that. It's fascinating "soft conspiracy," and how it is evasively dodging that awareness from even getting a toe-hold. And this soft conspiracy I call it, .. basically when common interests works toward a convergent goal, more so than anything paranoid or orchestrated by fine cigar smoke strata over top posh leathery dens of the cabal, they masterfully make the alternatives scary. You know where the real fear is? The real fear is the owners of big industry ...and next of economic kin peering down the ladder. It's their fear. They fear their gravy boats being emptied by a necessary redress in the the ways and means of a society they've also relied upon ignorance and assumption to exploit. That which they've luxuriously presided over, no longer favors the pot-liquor they'll need to make their gravy. They know that. We really are in some way living the end days of that cinema .. where the opulence realizes it's over, or denies that it must be. That's the infuriating aspect. From A G W, to plastic-ocean paradigms, and blah blah blah ... these are all directly a result of the Industrial Revolution and profligate blithe, all geared together by an ambitions everyone bought into spanning generations. Conned into thinking they, too, could win that American dream... And these are the societies that led the way when the IR occurred; they immediately channeled economic ambition, nothing else. It's not so funny; the proportions are essentially correct. Closed combustion engines and/or the panoply of advancing chemistry ensued zero-gap conclusion: "we are going to make a fortune." It wasn't, we are going to advance medicine in ways that extend human life so long and ubiquitously, we don't need to overpopulate. It wasn't ambitions in science in general, ...discovery truths. You know, I've over heard it expressed that organized religion got in the way of the advancing evolution of society ... I'd say money is just as powerful of a God. Which all that of course took place with zero checks-and-balances - can't have those getting in the way of the mighty dollar. Formulation/projection of ethics in the exploitation of natural resources ( necessary to power the Industrial Revolution ) along the way? That had zero chance of taking place once IR tapped into money-reward-circuitry. I don't even know if this is cynicism toward humanity, either. Honestly, you almost give the page turner generation a pass, because countless generations suffered and died young and tragically through the millennia. Sensing the advantages of the IR, from every day access to basic provisions, to fending off diseases ... and just the gestalt for favoring outlooks in general: it was almost avenging the ghosts of those that never had those advantages. So we leaped, and the party went nuts! These ramification were yet to come, yet be discovered. All there was at the time was improving survival odds. Nature is like that ... it doesn't invent things for the sake of invention, such that we do among our many charms. Nature only emerges out of necessity. What part of the natural setting and Darwinism ever required asking if eating a turkey sandwich when one is starving now, might lead to a some calamity in a year. These so called checks-and-balances, they were always administered by the limitations of the ecology. We come along with these powers of ingenuity, and have really outpaced those limitations. But that's not going to last forever. And once the detrimental discoveries were evidenced and continue to do so, to persist along said detrimental course, I don't know what you call that - "collective sociopathy?" It's both.. There are captains of industry that are completely consumed in self and this mantra that they'll be dead in 100 years so it won't matter - they presently are the ballast of "string puller" movers and shakers, too. They could not be more self-centered and clearly failing baser moral culpability. Yet, because they operate within the confines of the societal norm to do so, they are not perceived that way? That's partial in being the weeds. Then there are those that just don't know any better, because the cause-and-effect of the A in the A G W ...is just too untenable to their comprehension, so it is easier to just rely upon traditional nationalism, toe-the line and listen to the marketing that always gave comfort - that same social force that is put on the captain's cheerleaders and lobbyists, and special interests in general. For the rest of us, we just watch the hands on the Doomsday clock tick closer to midnight, powerless to stop it. Now that humanity is evolved technologically enough ... many of that profligate ways and means used to power the industrial-complex ...and sate the greed-economic engine that generations spanning a time in history got to benefit and live like kings and queens, are no longer necessary. Industry can be motivated by 'green' tech, to the extent that any reliance whatsoever upon the old fossil-fuel model can be so minor that the natural background geological/biological processes of this planet can absorb and make negligible. Yet, we won't do it, or, if we are, that adaptation is most likely too slow. Nope, sate greed first or die - that's the epitaph of Humanity should this "non-sustainability" dictate policy.

Yeah, I believe you and I discussed this a bit over a month ago regarding the "thermal residence/memory" - this year seemed to smack of some of that if you recall, in that there was a late 'time-relative' occurrence of the 2019 numbers slipping lower than 2012 post the annual nadir. It's always nice when we see other sources corroborating our own observations.

that's because those right side lines go off the top edge ... i.e., but clearly you studied it for awhile to tried and use your mind, so I say we are making progress.

why... they said the climate science is settled... what do you think that means Look your a either a troll, simply put ( and not even a rankably clever one) or are just not even mentally capable of this discussion so best of luck

Well... that's all I need to hear

An important logical flaw in "the climate doesn't cause " arguments is that it seems the denier is too myopic and linear-dimensional in their cause-and-effect grasping. Perhaps it's a mental capacity ... Or a moral one. "Climate" does not maintain an operational presence in the daily dynamical interactivity that takes place in the environment. There is a population ballast that cannot seem to make the next leap of reasoning. Climate used to simply be 100 day, 100 temps, sum(t)/n-terms = the temperature climate across that hundred days. But here's the rub ... that number doesn't tell you anything about the 'character' of your data, whether those temperatures are trending up, or down .. the nature of the extremes ( anomalies) etc. What climate is now, is a description of those tendencies - and it is patently clear this latter aspect is untenable either by personal choice, or personal limitation is said ballast. Because not only is it rising, that rise is no longer linear.. It's curved upward. IF the frequency of big anomalies in a system is also increasing, and, that increase naturally connotes thus the probability of those events are also, and MATCHES what is presently happening ( yet exceeds) it must therefore be statistical significant. By and large - and this can be at times the writing of the scientist, sure - when one mentions the term climate in deference to wild fires, flood food or famine ...tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards and so forth... they are not saying the climate "caused" the event, they are saying: You are in a climate that favors these things happening - more over ... a NEW one ( ding ding: what do we call that, class!?)

Let me ask you something, when a given set of statistic that looks sorta like this ... what do you see?

Speculatively ? Yes. Certitude mm ...certainty is a difficult word for scientists. I think last year had some legit bad luck - if you will. We can get a lot of nickle and dime events out of fast flows in an overall speed rich environment, but the storm track last year averaged ever so slightly too far NW - which unfortunately is prescribed in the EXC model.. But, it can slip back SE all of 200 miles and still satisfy both worlds.

As this is a tedious exercise in subjectivity ... I'm sure this will roll-eyes in the same vane, but I agree with that Dr. Dew user. That warm March in particular in 2012 was a truly extraordinary event, considering the preceding some 200 years of both reanalysis and/or empirical-based climate construction(s). That should be on the list, imho - One particular reason that is important for me is that it was one of the few examples spanning the last 20 years ... when mid latitudes of N. America experienced the type of anomalies that have become more common place abroad. I think that's an important distinction. Our above normals seem to not be in the best of the best ... save that event, and perhaps the heat wave in the mid west to mid Atlantic later that summer. I think the specter of 2015's February should also rank highly but it gets and a question for two reason: a, it was more local to SNE and N. M/A.... and b, the snow was a lower pwat anomaly, which sort of 'inflated' depth. From there drill down to specific events... obviously very few using this past-time/social media would probably rank 1953 Worcester Tornado but that's a high ranker. Then, 1978 February... etc etc..

I don't mind a back-loaded winter idea ... Hate it, but can see intellectually why one may assess things that way - if they are considering the latest school of what's happenin' now. The Hadley Cell ( ambient tropical height bulge that extends some latitude N/S of the equatorial trough ...usually terminating in the subtropical band(s) ) has been expanding over recent decades: Birner, T., S. M. Davis, and Dian J. Seidel, 2014: The changing width of Earth’s tropical belt. Physcis Today, 67, 38–44, doi:10.1063/PT.3.2620. Why that is important: It may be over a lot of readers heads in here ? ( seems that way... but I don't know ), but, when you have a surplus thermal energy source in a system that relies upon systemic circulation/integrated with thermodynamics to remove it, that is going to take more time than when/if said region does not have said surplus. This happened last year. As late in the season as early February ... NCEP noted that the atmospheric circulation in the broader scope and scale was not demonstrating that it was coupled to the ENSO state... In simple terms, the El Nino - regardless of its form - was irrelevant. A mild warm ENSO event will not couple to the atmosphere as readily during an expanded Hadley Cell, as it will when said tropical circulation is less expanded. The reason for that is "integrate-ability" ... You need gradient to do that... When the Hadley balloons, the gradient which is where the Hadley Cell kisses the Ferral Cell latitude, slips too far N or S of the ENSO latitudes and that's kinda of a geo-physical ball-game. So,... long about early mid February... the "deflating" processing had elapsed long enough that the gradient crept south and then... boom, we triggered more atmospheric response. The only problem is... February is a spring month already for the kiss-latitudes of the HC and FC circulation eddies of the large scaled general circulation of the atmosphere... Anyway, if a given ENSO event is more intense, that may 'trigger' earlier in this sense.... to which this ain't that. We are supposedly in a modest warm anomaly that is < +.5 and should fit all safe a snug inside the confines of the HC... and the surrounding atmosphere's of the mid levels/latitudes will remain blissfully unaware because of it... I could see that lasting similar to last year... As an after though, it may be why the flow has at times looked more NINA -like despite. But ... this isn't absolute. Anomalies relative to anomalies happen too - we could be right about all this and still clock a 30" juggernaut on December 10, just before going back to the same mildish ennui. And everyone would claim this circuitry of reasoning above isn't true because of that storm ... of course.

how about "notsnowmeggetin ' " does anyone ever have the plumbs to make that call ?

Mm ... From what source.. ?

This graph inspires some speculative ideas ... Like, seeing the present curve cross the 2012, per date, means we are setting a time-relative record... so that much is more empirical. I still think it interesting... how it's a under-the-radar achievement. Don and I discussed this a month or so ago, how that behavior in its self is probably just as important as the actual bottom of the curve. But the other more speculative wonder is whether the onsetting solar minimum, together with black-body feed-backs, could have something to do with that nadir falling shy of 2012. The present heavily advertised 'super minimum' was not yet that far along in 2012, so this year's total insolation might be some critical fraction less than 2012 ... less implying less melt now. Again... speculation .. but, melt temperature for sea-ice is a discrete temperature ... It's not like oh, it's 3 warmer but it doesn't feel like a melt day.. heh. At the point of seasonal loss, that temperature is being influenced very delicately by outside influence, wither it is quantum sufficient in energy to flip phases - and not all those influence may be Terrestrial in origin. There are other factors that are more important, though ( probably ). Like days with cloud cover/increased albedo not allowing as much solar energy reaching the darkening sea/ice interface... Or just the vagaries of the wind and weather patterns happened to chance 2012 with more delivery long-wave radiation air masses to/at high latitudes... or this, or that ... and on and so on. I guess at the end the day, it really comes down to the fact that although that gap looks pretty coherent there in that graph, we're really talking about almost imperceptible variations from the orbital polar stereographic view.

Probably sooner than people think at that... a year with "as much" ice as 2012 will become the anomalous summer - Eyes roll .. ones with dim electrical circuitry in the brain box they serve, but this list of ice loss years provided by Bluewave ? I am pretty sure they were all ahead of early forecasts ... Please correct this if I am wrong - no ego to bruise here - but I was under the impression that we're witnessing acceleration over the earlier scientific reasoning/prognostics from years ago. And if so ... it would be illogical to assume we won't keep accelerating - not without sufficiently compensatory and cogently veracious reasons to do so.

I was talking to Don about this last week - I think - ...about how 'less relevant' the specific comparison is to 2012 or other notable nadir years, vs the general distinction - which is more indicative of the status. It's a logic principle... but, it's important for conveying to a public hell-bent on using any means plausible to bend/rationalize this into being something else. Being a little sarcastic there/here ... But, the point I was making then - as is illustrated above - is that it is less important that 2019 did not absolutely bottom out below 2012, as much as it is important that it fits snugly along a trend line that is going to hell ... This record above, is just as achieving in paving that course -

It's all tedious really ... I mean, not to dissuade others from keeping track. But, this level of detail seeking ... ( not to mention if they are veracious - we are always finding out that a clad data set is found to be flawed, passe' ) it's all stuff that seems more appropriate to those stationed out upon a slab of faux Terra Firma, just slightly too big to actually be defined as a mere ice-floe, with portable sat-dishes and a battery, jerry-rigged to send current in AC to a lap-top. They're scrambling to get one last empirical data set entered before their scheduled hilo's arrive and whisks them away before the the PV's cryo hell engulfs the setting. These kind particulars will resonate to those walking sectors of society - and of course are important for discrete sciences back in labs and University desks and white-boards and what have you. We in here, we're internet junkies finding free publications of their findings, to repackage surrounding our own hypothesis - okay, but for what? Here's a thought: There's a tendency toward a microcosm of what goes on out there, just colored differently when we play a hedging game with decimals, in here. The reality is that we are obsessing over serrated elevated points and dips along a curve that's descending clearly to hell - no matter how we cut it up and look at it. The fact that we do, strikes me as a kind of bargaining tact. It's same shit that is happening out there is society overall. How? Those that are finally coming out of the auto-pilot, knee-jerk denial stat and are accepting that there is a problem, there is a tendency to fall-back rely upon this invented notion, that it is somehow "unclear that Human's are the cause," .. Um, no. That's bargaining. It's just taking on a different form/color. I don't want to say the word appropriate, because that sounds stilted, and almost toeing the line, and not questioning authority and ...well, for better or worse, I'm too maverick at the core to do that, either. However, keeping it 100,000 mile perspectives, is the appropriate conclusion nonetheless. Because, delineating lost ice as less than 2012 given the reality, absolutely should not allay the concerns, certainly not the gravitas ( that is real ) of the problem of a climate change that is highly probably caused by anthropogenic forcing ... Not even by decimal amounts of fear for that matter. I don't wanna be out of line? I just would hope there is not a "bargaining" thing going on here, where one might even be less aware they're doing it. It's where if 2019's data is less than 2012 that somehow, in some deeper way enters a plausible justification for "phew, that was close" - I mean... close to what? Irrelevant ... It's not stopping an inevitability to 'make sure' 2019 is decimals less. ha ha. Ultimately it doesn't matter... Fact of the matter is, for all the work that's being published to this site's social media depot, I could not locate one general populate out among the provincials to the bourgeoisie, in a random sampling, that [most likely] even knows it exists. Ha ha. It's kind of funny - doing endlessly, something, that makes no difference. Hm. Kinda flirts with the old insanity definition, huh. But, we engage in this shit because we are hobbyists, and well.. concomitantly we have an interests. And that's fine, too -

It's the behavioral difference that tell the character of the field imho - These statistical comparisons and variance as elaborated upon, they are very useful as gateways into a deeper realm of "arctic-introspection" - it is only there where the 'gestalt' reveals what is really going on... The fact you elucidated above - to me - is a fine expose on a way in which the arctic is shrinking/in crisis, both faster and worse than mere numbers suggest. Because when the edges start receding earlier springs, and the recuperation is being delayed - and allowing further melting while in wait - in autumns, let's consider: It really is a matter of time before the instraseasonal melting factors of 2012 will in greater proportion, recur/redux ( I would argue they did not this year; we are just further alone in the assault crisis on the arctic domain so we may be converging on a similar look in that sense). But when the former does - while there retarded recuperation and earlier erosion dates taking place - that's a synergistic acceleration effect, right there - and it would not be necessarily something suggested by these linear statistical comparison very well. As well, tell the real story. Not you per se/personally .. .but "people" in general don't get that synergy, or 'more than the sum of identifiable/constituent parts' is an emergent property of complex systems. They are not allows evidence-able. But when they are, they can have striking presentations. It just offers another layer in the communication issue/denier political diplomacy headache, in that getting folks around to admitting a problem ( be that by force or not...) is one thing; try then explaining that, 'oh, by the way, this is going to be far worse'

ah ha ... -1 + + 1 = 0

I guess the devil's in the semantics, huh I mean, what is meant by "very" in that context. As in ... almost never? Or how about, once. Or, even if just rare, really, we are not capable of comprehending how truly vast the cosmos is. Rare could be 1 per galaxy. Well, there are uncountable numbers of galaxies - and whenever cosmologists get to a consensus re how many there may be ( give or take exponents ) there's a trend of having to up that count by additional exponents ever couple of decades of ever refining deep field, astronomical observation technologies. The impetus being... who know how many their are, but the numbers is really too vast - so vast in fact that to even consider it a limited number escapes all practical meaning and therefore we can get into whether any such limit actually exists ( more a philosophy ). But, each galaxy that can be studied, there is estimated to average hundreds of trillions of stars ... Yes, the Milky Way alone has 200 trillion stars, all of which are - presently scienced and considered to be gravitation anchors for planets ... which are also gravitational wells that concentrate potentially volatile chemistry and the building blocks of life as we know it - not to mention the hypothetical bio-chemistry ... to which the adage amid scholars and scientists of the cosmological field often refer, "if you can imagine it ... the odds are, the Universe is doing it somewhere." No imagine having to multiply all that latter intrascale galactic factoidal array by a an 'incomprehensible to the point of essentially escaping all effective meaningly' large number and well ... you get something like quasi-infinity. Rare, ironically... becomes a huge number Something else - simple logic would beg - must be going on to limit the observation of other advanced civilizations. I read a lot. I get exposed to lots of hypothesis and counter-hypothesis in the yin and yang of speculation in these matters.. It seems to me that dumb luck plays a role too. Hell, for all we know,... there really is "A Galaxy Far Far Away ..." that has species interacting like the 401 outside of Los Angeles. We just happen to be circumstantially distanced like a Baluga hunter's bivouac Igloo ... ephemerally set out upon a glared white landscape too desolately removed and blinded by other lights to know or even know how to see that a proverbial 401 exists.. That would be funny premise for some sort of sci fi... We are, at long last, encountered by a transgressing extraterrestrial exploring species that's like, " where are your constituencies...?" "Pardon - constituencies?" "Wait.. your species has none... as in 0 contacts?! How is that possible" Through it all .. one thing that always struck me is, we can see the light from distantly red-shifted structures .. these objects that only came into exposure after putting a telescope fixated on a previously black region of interstellar space, for hundreds of hours... slowly capturing sparse photon at a time.. to finally create an image of galaxies some 13 billion light years away. Yet, we cannot detect the after glow - assuming these species obey the same physical laws that appears the entire Cosmos has to... - of these outre worlds. We should be able to hear their song long after they've evolved and or annihilated away. Throw a rock in a lake on a glassy still morning and the water returns to that same mirror reflecting serenity with no echo, signifying nothing took place there ... Yet the wave permeates a mile or more arcing outward away ... To any detecting source that may be that mile away, the arc arrives and it carries a message of something that appears to have just happened. Yes yes ..we all know this ... But, there are no rings - the point being, did the stone ever happen in the first place. That's less the annihilation thing, and more the Fermi paradox..and that, despite having the technological capacity to detect red shifted objects, in deep field Astronomy, that are 13 billion light years away there's nothing else but that light. It's definitely a head scratcher. The other aspect .. this could all be moot if the little green men ( and women ) are communicating with some other form of aggregate electromagnetism ..or even if something more sci-fi were involved.

Yup... agreed on the bold HUGELY. I have a personal hypothesis that relates: The modern conveniences of the Industrial Revolution are creating a society of apathy, which ultimately leads to partial failure in accessing the intellects of its population precipitates, along with 'putting to sleep' the morality that is believed to be emerged from the consciousness rooted in executive higher mental functions - those that are needed in a more cooperative/cooperating landscape. This is a particular con in the total pros and cons assessment of the IR - and there are pros ( I'm not meaning to damn the IR ). It is/has forced changes in how Humanity engages both at the individual, but in the collective sense, however. Cooperation suffers... The last million and half years of an evolutionary process that many don't even believe occurred, much less are aware, created a species uniquely dependent upon one another to survive. That's abruptly, instantaneously on a geological scale, become less needed - IR has effectively cut those requirements. And, nature abhors a vacuum. In the absence of those cooperative circuitry's .. how do the minds of the denizens get wired? I dunno - ask Columbine? We are unwittingly IN a vast sociological experiment - i.e., an evolutionary turn..etc etc etc. It's not that clear and cut, though, either. I mean, obviously... we are not all nut-jobs. But it really is a human failing ( IR or not ), where we try to put boundaries and definitions ...overtly quantize Nature into nice neat, tidy police work concepts and disciplines... when reality is actually more like "the Cloud" Seamlessly interacting probability curves. IR's over provision is, despite being a distinction that is non-ubiquitous among all humans, increasing the probability of errant vectors in the population. The latter stuff you mention is intriguing. Your content reminds me of that which circulates the Sci-Fi underground, the "kill-switch" hypothesis ... You used the term 'agency,' which is a loaded jest ha. But, agency could also mean that no species is allowed to exceed this "Civilization 0" rank. Kill-switchers believe we must be flirting with doing so, perhaps driven to do so, in fulfillment of that over-arcing Cosmic theme. There are more philosophical approaches. Take, the "Fermi Paradox" for example. The simplified - maybe - mutilated version goes: If the Universe is so favorably organized in such a way to promote the evolution of life, ... where is everybody ? Wiki' actually has a decent entry ...though I would not recommend anyone use that source as gospel by any stretch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

We can't ... His use is/was a common vocal-contextual trope - "human beings" in that context doesn't mean were damning all to hell for some unredeemable limitation... It usually means 'the majority'? I don't have a problem with that based upon evidences. "People" (same idea..) need examples ... ones that appeal, directly, to one of the five major senses before they believe any kind threat is real ( more of psychological take there but a good one, because the individuals integrate the modes of the mean). If they don't get that tactility, they 'tend to' be like that typical water-cooler head nods and lip service politeness thing - "yeah yeah, right - sounds true. Interesting" I agree that it shouldn't be as assessment applicable of ALL who walk under shade or sun but I don't believe that was the intent ... if he was precise, which titling contexts seldom are, he might have said people too often tend not to be wired for - I agree that people have trouble with larger specter ( if they even can see it for that matter) of what the issue is about - it's almost like they hear what it will mean, and since they don't get why, and don't directly sense the evidences ( above ), they knee jerk deny. The 'whys' requires component analytic decomposition into constituency aspects, such that one can then see how it all fits together -.. heh, not many folks engage in that sort of mathematical processing as a general rule. That's part of the "untenable" nature of it right there, tho. Some can, few do, save one or two... and they get ignored. Humanity ignoring it's own pathway to destruction might be a road paved long before modern treks ever walked - it happened when evolution chose the great brain experiment. Being a bit spacious if not even specious-for-fun in that description, admittedly. But still, that's what is meant by not wired to see it. If we were born with a gene for it, we would be compelled not to buy plastic, burn paper with chemicals that make the smoke look black. Gas and oil technologies would have be vetted for consequence before accessing their stored chemical energies in a rush for profit. We just would have emerged different tech along the way - unwittingly, in concert with the gestalt of Gaia-health, perfunctorily. Most have to study math and complain while doing it...and are happy to have survived their B.A. (if they get that far or beyond). To that end, that is what Dr. Gupta is talking about - it's not as tenable to the commoner as we ( unfortunately) need it to be, and even many who rank "above" the hoi polloi for that matter are either having problems doing so, or ... ..that's the moral/ethic arm of the denier stuff. Which is related to your monetary interest thing. Some are just flat out self-centered to the point where they fight is really against god - speaking euphemistically. They are really pissed at the finality of life and flip the bird to reality and the universe for ending theirs at the end of 80 or 90 years if they're lucky, so they're burning all their bridges and partying one way or the other.. That's all rhetoric for this "it won't happen in my life-time" mantra you come across once in a while.

Dr. Sonja Gupta recently put up an op ed on CNN ... wanna side four months ago at this point? But it fascinatingly discussed the untenable nature of Global Warming .. which probably the difficulty in accepting AGW is thus directly-causally related/precipitating. "...Human beings are just not wired to understand global warming..." This may or may not be true, but I wonder if what this Nakamura is writing is what happens when we mash-up greater than average I.Q. and mental faculties with that untenability - you get this sort of product. Wrong ... yet well-delivered, and thus what's ( interestingly untenable) is how the lay-person's inability to appropriately think critically, on-the-fly, when his information passes inside. There are a lot of dubious disconnects in these statements - ...it's like instead of conflating ( the usual mistake in the denier narratives/mantra), he takes the opposite tact and well ... these systems are less effectually influencing one another.