I learnt several things from this article, including that in #California, insurers are banned from using #ClimateModels to estimate risk because it would increase premiums too much 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
When you mentioned the need for adaptation and (maybe) a new science discipline that focuses on it, I do think you hit the issue on target.
Broadly speaking the physics are known as you mentioned. The chemistry is broadly known. The biology as well. Etc etc.
I do believe the necessary baseline data and knowledge for a successful global societal adaptation exists. At least a start toward it (whatever that might be) exists.
@pjtn@Ruth_Mottram Here in Alaska everyone knows the environment is changing. We don't need more climate science in usual early 21st century meaning of term. Some mitigation work needs research, e.g. CO2 removal at scale. Respectfully disagree on the need for a new science: banning insurers from using climate change info is a policy issue that no amount of reframing as science issue changes. Adaptation at this point 100 percent political, IMO.
@Ruth_Mottram@pjtn The place for climate science today should be, IMO, helping with planning for extremes at the local to regional level. We need to be done with multi-decadal means at the continental to global scale. We know broadly where that's going: refining it is not helpful at this point.
@Ruth_Mottram Jesus, how awful. So lots of people will not get paid, and lots of insurance providers will go bust? They've created a sub-prime climate, great work.
@guacamayan@Ruth_Mottram you can imagine a 'new normal' progressively restricting what counts as an emergency. And considering the thorough gop sabotage of the federal state it'll be hard to scale up infrastructure for a while.
Add comment