Climate Change and Existential Threats I Warming Future I Climate Adaptation I Climate in 2025

[00:00:00] Dr. Daniel Swain: The outcome of the COP30 climate conference, at least in terms of progress toward leveling out and reducing emissions, did not go so well. There is also a contingent of voices of folks who are just arguing that the end is nigh, that climate scientists are lying. They're in the pocket of big oil, which is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. The total amount of carbon entering the atmosphere that matters, and that is increasing at a record pace right now. Exceeding 1.5, as we will, I don't really think is a failure relative to realistic expectations. I replace classroom teaching and graduate student supervision with the public-facing work. My classroom is the state of California. It is the wider world. Using AI to solve wildfire is a term that I hear over and over again. One of the things that frustrated me so much about the recent Bill Gates memo, which seems to sort of fundamentally discount the really disproportionately adverse effects of climate change eventually reduced to near zero the net emission of carbon in the atmosphere, which would solve the underlying problem of the warming itself. But because, as we talked about, we're not going to do that overnight, there will be additional warming. There will be additional harm. How much remains to be told, but I can guarantee you, unfortunately, it will be considerable. We have neighborhoods burning down, and we have people losing their lives, and people breathing in toxic amounts of smoke. So that's the problem. [00:01:29] Speaker 2: Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of Science Talk. I'm your host, Dr. Mohamed Tifak. Today is Friday, and this is December, last few weeks of 2025. Today, in this episode, I invited many of you who are already familiar with his work, Dr. Daniel Swain, to talk about his work around extreme climate events, climate change, and more. A little bit about his background. Dr. Daniel Swain, he has a PhD and a climate scientist, mostly focused on the dynamics and impacts of extreme events, including droughts, floods, storms, and wildfires on a warming planet. As you all know, it's warming. Maybe not all, but many of us do believe, and that is important. Daniel is also formerly, he has been working prior, before his current position, he worked for as a climate scientist for the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA. But right now, he's a climate scientist, mostly as associate researcher, more accurate title, in the California Institute of Water Resources, which is housed in the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the acronym goes UCANR, which is kind of important. We talked earlier a little bit. Dr. Daniel, thank you so much for doing this, and welcome to Science Talk. [00:02:51] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Thanks so much for having me. [00:02:52] Speaker 2: So, it's December, right? We all know. How would you characterize, how would you describe 2025, when it comes to climate change? [00:03:00] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Oh man. Well, you're certainly not the first person to ask me a similar question about sort of what has transpired in this year. And, you know, it's important, partly because it's a bit of a marker. We're, you know, within a few weeks of being a quarter of the way through the century. And, Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. And 2026 sounds like an awful futuristic date, and yet it's three weeks away. Less than that, two and a half weeks from today. So, and then also, you know, in this country, in the United States, it's also been a really consequential year for so many reasons, but also among them, in the context of, you know, Dr. Daniel Swain: of climate and the environment and the things that those, those topics touch, which I would argue is everything else. You know, just, just this week, you know, we've seen big moves within the U.S. EPA, for example, to really, I, Dr. Daniel Swain: for lack of a better term, so disinformation regarding the causes of climate change, essentially removing from the public facing websites, for example, Dr. Daniel Swain: the actual cause of observed contemporary climate change, which is the human caused emission of heat trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Just as one example of how things have changed in this country. You know, we just last month saw the outcome of the COP30 climate conference, which I think by, Dr. Daniel Swain: by most metrics, at least in terms of progress toward leveling out and reducing emissions did not go so well. And this is, you know, this will probably end up Dr. Daniel Swain: that being either the second or the third warmest year on record second only to last year or the year before globally in, you know, and every passing Dr. Daniel Swain: month has essentially brought that, you know, it can be lost in the noise of everything going on in the world right now, but, but really quite alarming Dr. Daniel Swain: climate related extreme events, whether they're floods or record breaking heat waves or wildfires, just so many, you know, I think back that it's hard for me to believe actually that the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles were still Dr. Daniel Swain: technically occurred this year, this calendar year. It's still been less than 12 months. Dr. Daniel Swain: So just, you know, that's far from a comprehensive overview, but it's, it's been a, it's been a big year. And it's also kind of a landmark year, just given where we are, you know, a quarter of the way through the century when Dr. Daniel Swain: A lot of the future predictions about the way the world would be began. Now, you know, we're living in the future of the that was predicted. Dr. Daniel Swain: In the past we're far enough in the 21st century that predictions made in the 1990s and the 2000s are now, you know, we can either validate them or not because we're living it at that point. Dr. Daniel Swain: In time and as a scientist, it's nice to see when scientific predictions from from theory or from modeling are proven correct from a scientific perspective, because it means that we Dr. Daniel Swain: Do understand, in fact, what's how the way things work, but it's actually quite alarming as a human being who lives in the world to see some of these climate predictions actually come true in the present moment, because it's not good news for for for the rest of us. [00:06:09] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: So yeah, I think that it's very interesting point, because if we want to see scientists happy, we want to make a progress. But on the other hand, scientists also are very happy when their projections and, you know, are being corrected. But it's not like we take a pleasure. Dr. Daniel Swain: To see that it's just the data we can't we don't control that right these are the projections based on the real time observations and the data we are collecting real time every single day. Dr. Daniel Swain: And then you analyze the data and you come to the conclusion and that's not their fault. It's like actually the fault of somebody else's and our job is to analyze. Dr. Daniel Swain: And tell where we are going in terms of, you know, these temperatures and rising sea levels and all that. So yeah, I think, on the other hand, I, I did not grow up in the US, but I studied here. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's been like eight years since I lived in the US and it's, it is very hard to put our head around what is going on, you know, at the federal level state levels in terms of climate policies and the decades of work scientists have produced. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's going just and through the toilet, technically, honestly speaking, there's no other way to see it because you I saw the long, you know, thread you posted on blue sky about the recent changes in the EPA. Dr. Daniel Swain: And my worry is always it's like, you know what, we all it's very divisive issue. Unfortunately, it is it is very political issue. We all know. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I, I asked this question recently to somebody is like, how could Democrats not see that this is coming? Dr. Daniel Swain: And did not do anything to, you know, restore preserve and move this data, which is fundamentally important, can save billions of dollars, you know, financially, not to see more hurricanes and floods and droughts and you know, wildfires and they didn't do much. Dr. Daniel Swain: And now all we see is just like, you know, I don't know, maybe a fake outrage or something from Democrats too. Dr. Daniel Swain: And both sides are here to blame, not just one, of course, one is more horrible, but I think politically, it's very sad. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I, I try not to talk much about it. I'm, I'm, I always tell like, I'm not a super brave person, you know, who's not worried about consequences. Dr. Daniel Swain: What comes and the universities are not protecting scientists these days, tenured professors are being fired if you say something about these things. Dr. Daniel Swain: So leave that on our side. But so 2025, you know, has not been great year for, you know, in terms of climate, we all see that. Dr. Daniel Swain: But what is the current trajectory? Where do you see things are going? Because there are a lot of discussions about 3C, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8. Dr. Daniel Swain: Like degree Celsius, we already reached 1.5 is the third year, maybe sounds like between 1.4 to 1.5. Dr. Daniel Swain: We still there at since 2023. Where do you see the trajectory? Where are we heading? Because when we talk about progress, Dr. Daniel Swain: And I'm going to ask you that question to about, you know, Paris Agreement, it's been 10 years and some of many of the scientists are happy, others are not, and it's just a modest progress. Dr. Daniel Swain: And all the time when I see the discussion, like what's the best outcome of that conference in Paris? It's like the energy, like, you know, Dr. Daniel Swain: renewable energy demand is increasing and cost is being low. And that's the only thing I heard. Dr. Daniel Swain: There is no other thing because, you know, temperature is increasing, emissions are going up. What other things we are celebrating from Paris Agreement? Dr. Daniel Swain: I want you to kind of shed a little bit light on that. And also, like, where is our trajectory? Where are we heading with the temperatures? [00:09:54] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Oh, these are all really important questions that have been, to be quite honest, Dr. Daniel Swain: For many of the reasons that you just described have been difficult to talk about. Dr. Daniel Swain: Even in some scientific circles, but certainly, you know, in a more, you know, more public facing setting this year. Dr. Daniel Swain: And it's not just for the reasons that you might expect. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's not just that there's sort of this partisan political response that, you know, it's politically inconvenient to talk about the reality of climate change and its consequences. Dr. Daniel Swain: But it's also interestingly, and I found this to be especially true in the last 12 to 18 months, Dr. Daniel Swain: There is also a contingent of voices of folks who are just arguing, not climate scientists, notably, but other people who have very large audiences on social media and elsewhere, that the end is nigh. Dr. Daniel Swain: The climate scientists are lying. Dr. Daniel Swain: They're in the pocket of big oil, which is one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Dr. Daniel Swain: But essentially the point being that there are also people in addition to a large number of politically influential people who are claiming that climate change either isn't real, it's natural, or that it's not a big deal, which, by the way, are mutually exclusive possibilities. Dr. Daniel Swain: So it's not even internally, logically consistent. Dr. Daniel Swain: There is also a growing contingent of folks who are saying that it's so bad that there's no point. [00:11:13] Speaker ?: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. [00:11:13] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: We're all going to literally, you know, that it's the end of civilization or the end of humanity, the end of the earth. Dr. Daniel Swain: There's no indication that any of those things are true. Dr. Daniel Swain: And the problem with saying that there is, is that it once again gives a deeply misleading sense of where we are. Dr. Daniel Swain: Now that's not, I'm not trying to reassure people at all. Dr. Daniel Swain: We're fine, we're not, but yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: Usually my job is to scare the pants off of people, but to do so constructively in a way that actually maybe improves the path that we're on. Dr. Daniel Swain: So I think it's critically important to be honest about where we are and also honest about the uncertainties regarding where we're headed, which are considerable. Dr. Daniel Swain: One could even call them large. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think the challenge is that we're kind of stuck right now where it's, it's very unpopular to, to have nuanced conversations about anything in the public sphere. Dr. Daniel Swain: You know, I'm, I'm very comfortable with breaking things down into sound bites and tweetable increments and, and, and, you know, but I also think that there is a point at which you cannot fully characterize the situation that we're currently in, in a sentence. Dr. Daniel Swain: And the headlines are never enough because it just is genuinely complicated in a way that it is important. Dr. Daniel Swain: Does it need to be a hundred page dissertation describing it? Dr. Daniel Swain: No, I think, you know, you can describe in a paragraph or two, which I'll try and do next sort of where we are and the uncertainties within that. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I do think it's important to realize that a lot of the voices that we're hearing online right now are I are on very extreme ends of the spectrum. Dr. Daniel Swain: And as you alluded to, I don't think they're equal and opposite by any means. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I do think it's harmful both to have this complete dismissal of climate change on the one hand, and then these geophysically unmoored opinions from people who do not have domain expertise in climate, Dr. Daniel Swain: who are very influential and are making claims that are simply quantitatively wrong also on the other end of the spectrum. Dr. Daniel Swain: So where are we? Dr. Daniel Swain: Well, in terms of the multidecadal perspective, which is kind of the relevant apples to apples number for comparison. Dr. Daniel Swain: We talk about Paris Agreement targets or IPCC warming levels. Dr. Daniel Swain: Those numbers are usually meant to be sort of the average warming over a period of a couple of decades, let's say 20 years, not the individual year temperature level. Dr. Daniel Swain: So last year, for example, we did experience global temperatures above 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, which is a lot. Dr. Daniel Swain: That does not mean that we hit the 1.5 C level of warming globally early, though. Dr. Daniel Swain: In fact, we have not hit it yet, according to the apples to apples, the most relevant number for intercomparison with Paris Agreement target, for example, Dr. Daniel Swain: because that was that was essentially a sustained exceedance of 1.5 over a 20 year period. Dr. Daniel Swain: So we are still below that level for perspective. Dr. Daniel Swain: And so there's a lot of folks saying, well, we breached 1.5 so much faster than we expected. Dr. Daniel Swain: And of course, but the answer is, in fact, we have not done so yet, according to the if you're going to use those numbers, you got to use like for like comparison. Dr. Daniel Swain: So one one reality is that we are getting very close to 1.5, even in a multi year multidecadal context. Dr. Daniel Swain: That is true. Dr. Daniel Swain: We may get there a little bit on the early side relative to some estimates from 10 or 15 years ago. Dr. Daniel Swain: That is also true. Dr. Daniel Swain: And we are definitely going to blow past it. Dr. Daniel Swain: And that that I do think is is is pretty incontrovertible at this point. Dr. Daniel Swain: There is no plausible future where we do not even using that that that that more lagged definition of warming where we don't go well past 1.5 degrees Celsius. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think there were a fair number of scientists who kind of held on to that for longer than was reasonable, frankly, from it from a communications perspective. Dr. Daniel Swain: In fact, I would even argue that, you know, in the moment of the Paris Agreement talks, it was extraordinarily unlikely, even at that time, that we were going to plausibly be in a world where we did not exceed 1.5 degrees eventually. Dr. Daniel Swain: Just not not because it was geophysically impossible, necessarily. Dr. Daniel Swain: If we halted all carbon emissions, you know, the day the Paris Agreement was signed, I think we, you know, it probably would have been geophysically possible. Dr. Daniel Swain: But of course, that outcome was never geopolitically possible. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think the divergence between what we sort of aspire to in these very lofty kinds of conversations and the reality of the way the world works were very much in conflict, even at the time. Dr. Daniel Swain: So I don't think it's bad to have high ambition. Dr. Daniel Swain: In fact, I think it's actually very good to aim high, because if you aim high and then you don't achieve your goal. [00:16:11] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, 100%, but at least 80, 90%. [00:16:14] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, I mean, hopefully you've pushed yourself in the right direction, right? Dr. Daniel Swain: And it's true that exceeding, you know, 1.5 degrees of warming, once we do so, you know, on a multi-year, multi-decadal basis, will be, for some people and some ecosystems and some ways of life, an unacceptable amount of warming. Dr. Daniel Swain: That is absolutely true. Dr. Daniel Swain: Is 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees or whatever the warming level is an existential threat? Dr. Daniel Swain: Well, yes, it is, but not necessarily to humanity or civilization, but it certainly is for individual communities, even individual countries, especially low-lying countries, island nations. Dr. Daniel Swain: Is it for individual ecosystems? Dr. Daniel Swain: Undoubtedly, we're already there for some ecosystems. Dr. Daniel Swain: Is it for some individuals? Dr. Daniel Swain: Are there people who will unfortunately die in events that who would not have died but for that amount of warming? Dr. Daniel Swain: There already have been. Dr. Daniel Swain: And so I think the question is for whom and in what context is climate change an existential crisis? Dr. Daniel Swain: By many appropriate definitions, it already is. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I do think it's important to differentiate that from sort of the seemingly sort of prevalent view right now, which is that, you know, once we hit a specific level of warming that everyone on earth just somehow drops dead. Dr. Daniel Swain: Not only is that not true for a variety of reasons, but I think the reason why it's important to understand that that's not the case is because it's actually a more insidious problem than that. Dr. Daniel Swain: And this is where, you know, there's some popular culture, you know, in the 90s, there were, you know, and depending on who your listeners are, maybe you've seen these movies, maybe you haven't, maybe they're old movies by this point. Dr. Daniel Swain: But the disaster movies, the meteor impact, the asteroid impact, the giant volcano, sort of these, you know, humanity faces a truly singular existential threat. Dr. Daniel Swain: And the most, I guess the most recent version of this might be the, and it was a comedy that was, you know, it was, but it was a dark comedy, obviously directly in reference to climate change, which is Don't Look Up. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yes. Dr. Daniel Swain: And the idea here, and I think the only real, well, maybe the logical extension of the, you know, the climate change threat in that fictional universe is that it was, in fact, in that case, a singular threat. Dr. Daniel Swain: It was, I believe, a comet that was going to literally destroy the earth. Dr. Daniel Swain: So something that really was an existential threat that was something you could point to in the night sky, a specific thing that threatened everyone simultaneously. Dr. Daniel Swain: And in some ways, you know, I'm glad we don't face immediate extinction from a comet, but in some ways it might actually be easier to address the problem if it was some obvious singular threat, because climate change is not that. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's not, yes. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's precisely because it isn't going to result in the end of everything. Dr. Daniel Swain: It actually is making it really difficult to point out that it will mean the end of things that a lot of people care about. Dr. Daniel Swain: But it's easier to deny that that's true because you look out the window and you don't see, well, most of the time, although there have been some people who have had this experience, you don't see fire in the sky, right? Dr. Daniel Swain: You don't see these plumes on average. Dr. Daniel Swain: And so it's easier to dismiss it. Dr. Daniel Swain: But the reality is we're on a path. Dr. Daniel Swain: So to answer your question about where we're headed, we're on a path to greatly exceed 1.5 degrees of warming. Dr. Daniel Swain: We're on a path to blow past 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Dr. Daniel Swain: And right now, best estimate is that we're is that on our current path, we would we would end up somewhere between two and a half and three degrees centigrade of global mean warming. Dr. Daniel Swain: Now, here's the problem with that. Dr. Daniel Swain: A, that's a whole hell of a lot of warming still to come. Dr. Daniel Swain: Absolutely. Dr. Daniel Swain: First of all, that's more than double the amount of warming. Dr. Daniel Swain: This is the other reason why it's important to be careful about how we define our benchmark, because we haven't seen anything yet if we're on that kind of path in terms of where we are. Dr. Daniel Swain: Because using apples to apples, we're at about 1.3, 1.4 multidecadal average. Dr. Daniel Swain: So apples to apples, 2.5 to 3 is at least double that. Dr. Daniel Swain: The impacts from double the warming are going to be a lot greater than than double the impacts. Dr. Daniel Swain: In fact, we see that the some of the processes involved are nonlinear, not so much with the warming itself, but everything that stems from the warming. Dr. Daniel Swain: And so therefore the consequences. Dr. Daniel Swain: But here's the problem. Dr. Daniel Swain: That's sort of a median estimate based on consensus climate science. Dr. Daniel Swain: And there are some, well, there's really two big classes of uncertainties there. Dr. Daniel Swain: One is the human uncertainty. Dr. Daniel Swain: What do we do with our emissions over the next 30, 40, 50 years? Dr. Daniel Swain: We're just guessing. Dr. Daniel Swain: We don't know. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I don't think that we're very good at that, guessing that kind of thing. Dr. Daniel Swain: In fact, the empirical evidence that we're not is that I don't think too many people would have predicted the geopolitical trajectory post Paris. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: Who would have predicted that in late 2019 a novel virus would emerge and really be globally transformative in its disruption? Dr. Daniel Swain: The specific sequence of geopolitical conflicts that followed. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, there's a major war in Europe now. Dr. Daniel Swain: There's, there are multiple wars that weren't occurring, at least in active form in the Middle East now. Dr. Daniel Swain: And Africa too. [00:21:31] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. [00:21:32] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: And Africa. Dr. Daniel Swain: And there's new instability in Asia. Dr. Daniel Swain: That wasn't the case either. Dr. Daniel Swain: So we and all of and they happen to be coinciding in many places in geographies and political arenas that are very relevant from a global oil perspective. Dr. Daniel Swain: And so the landscape has changed and our ambitions have shifted elsewhere. Dr. Daniel Swain: COVID kind of distracted us and I'm, you know, and for better or for worse, I'm not sure that we could have done much better in terms of letting us, you know, letting it not distract us. Dr. Daniel Swain: That truly was an unexpected global shock. Dr. Daniel Swain: But the geopolitical conflicts, the specific ones maybe weren't foreseeable, but the notion that the world essentially hasn't gone according to, you know, our best laid plans, that itself probably should have been predictable. Dr. Daniel Swain: I can't tell you exactly how it's going to go off the rails, but usually things don't go exactly as we hope geopolitically as much as I wish that were the case. [00:22:28] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: I think not only geopolitically, but like 1.5 2015. Dr. Daniel Swain: I don't think even it was possible technologically or financially because who would have predicted like, you know, the renewable energy would go that low in next 10 years or China would install this much within six months or something. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think not only geopolitically, but technologically or even financially. Dr. Daniel Swain: If we talk about that, that might not have been possible because, yeah, you're talking something about now, but it's going to take decades to get implemented. Dr. Daniel Swain: Right. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's just not like you turn off this or turn off the switch or something. Dr. Daniel Swain: Right. [00:23:05] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: And you just can't flip those switches overnight. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, in some ways, the transition in the electrical sector in a lot of countries has been incredibly rapid. Dr. Daniel Swain: And yet, and yet it is only a small piece of what needs to happen. Dr. Daniel Swain: And it has been, as you say, in some ways, the greening of the electrical grid in some countries has been has been fantastically fast, much faster even than predicted, you know, at the Paris agreement era. Dr. Daniel Swain: And yet we have blown past virtually all of the Paris targets in terms of increase, still increasing emissions. Dr. Daniel Swain: This year will probably have the highest global carbon emissions on record again for the nth, you know, year in the last, in the last decades. Dr. Daniel Swain: So, so, yes, I agree. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think the challenge to the messaging that this was something that was actually achievable to stay under 1.5. Dr. Daniel Swain: Again, the notion that it was geophysically possible, you know, in sort of almost using essentially magic to bring emissions to zero almost immediately. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's a useful thought experiment in the sense that, you know, the good news is, if we solve this, you know, we'll actually fix the problem. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, that's, that's, that's sort of the good news embedded in this. Dr. Daniel Swain: The real world reality check is that for those who were really thinking about it, it was really clear that that was not something that was even, Dr. Daniel Swain: not just something that was unlikely, but something that probably wasn't practically possible, even looking forward from that juncture. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: So in that sense, exceeding 1.5, as we will, I don't really think is a, is a, is a failure of relative to realistic expectations. Dr. Daniel Swain: Unfortunately, it was something that was virtually certain to happen even at this point. Dr. Daniel Swain: And this was a point of contention, you know, among some climate folks and including some of my colleagues at the time. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I was personally frustrated by some of the language that we can keep it under 1.5. Dr. Daniel Swain: Not because it's bad to have that ambition again, but because I think it's set unrealistic expectations. Dr. Daniel Swain: And now that we are certainly going to blow right past it, a lot of folks are, I think, have understandably gleaned from that, that, that this was unexpected. Dr. Daniel Swain: That somehow the system is behaving very differently than anticipated, whereas I don't actually think that's true. Dr. Daniel Swain: So where are we headed? Dr. Daniel Swain: You know, 2.53 maybe. Dr. Daniel Swain: But the challenge is, so there's this one big uncertainty, as we talked about, emissions. Dr. Daniel Swain: What will we do next? Dr. Daniel Swain: I think I've probably said enough about that. Dr. Daniel Swain: There's a wide range of what we could do, but so far our track record is not very good. Dr. Daniel Swain: We're not doing a lot of what we, despite major success in some sectors. Dr. Daniel Swain: There's major non-success in other key sectors that are driving net increase in emissions. Dr. Daniel Swain: And again, what matters ultimately is how much additional carbon is entering the atmosphere. Dr. Daniel Swain: The atmosphere does not know about our ambition. Dr. Daniel Swain: It doesn't know about our carbon intensity. Dr. Daniel Swain: So our, you know, our carbon emitted per economic unit or whatever. Dr. Daniel Swain: Even as the amount of energy per capita decreases, the amount of carbon emissions per capita decreases. Dr. Daniel Swain: That's an important intermediate step, but ultimately it is the total amount of carbon entering the atmosphere that matters. Dr. Daniel Swain: And that is increasing at a record pace right now. [00:26:10] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think whenever like I at least. Dr. Daniel Swain: I know you do mostly monologues and you talk and hold virtual office hours, which I love the most. Dr. Daniel Swain: So you can like schedule and people know what time is going to be, but I do like recently mostly talking with experts like you and many others. Dr. Daniel Swain: And when I hear from them, all they talk about is just energy efficiency or energy renewable energy. Dr. Daniel Swain: There is no other talk about like how to kind of, you know, solve or how to go to reduce emissions, because every single person talks about energy and that is also mostly electricity. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I get that to certain extent that's the fundamentally most important because our energy is coming from oil and gas and coal and we have to stop burning that. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I think fundamentals are I'm not by myself by training. Dr. Daniel Swain: I'm not a climate scientist, but I'm a motor climate communication person. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I see the messaging that you as a scientist should understand that you know that the warming which we are seeing it's just not what I'm going to emit now and it's going to go. Dr. Daniel Swain: Like, you know, immediately in the atmosphere, but what I have emitted in the past five years is going to continue. Dr. Daniel Swain: You know, the warming is just not like right now and it's going to start from today. Dr. Daniel Swain: But like people who thought in 2015 that we can stay below 1.5. Dr. Daniel Swain: They should have thought like what we have done in the past 10, 15 years, the warming continue, you know, in 2025 or 2030. Dr. Daniel Swain: Well, even if we stop at that day, it was still like at least warm for several decades. [00:27:42] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Well, this is an interesting science communication question because I've actually seen major news outlets in their headlines get this wrong, like objectively wrong quantitatively. Dr. Daniel Swain: And it actually comes down to interpreting time series plots. Dr. Daniel Swain: The interesting thing is often what's plotted is the rate of emissions. Dr. Daniel Swain: So what is the actual carbon in tons or whatever, you know, megatons carbon equivalent in a given year? Dr. Daniel Swain: And you see sort of what that number looks like over time. Dr. Daniel Swain: And obviously it increased and it's been increasing. Dr. Daniel Swain: Recently, it's still increasing, but at a lesser rate. Dr. Daniel Swain: So the annual actual additional increment of carbon entering the atmosphere is starting to get close to stabilizing. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I have had so many people, including journalists say, great news, we've almost solved this. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I have to reorient people and say it would be absolutely catastrophically bad news for the climate if we stabilize that particular time series at our current level. Dr. Daniel Swain: Because what it would mean is we stalled out at a record high level of emissions looking forward in time, because what that curve needs to do is rapidly decrease back to zero. Dr. Daniel Swain: So it depends very much what the quantity is. Dr. Daniel Swain: And this is sort of like a basic like a quantity versus its derivative, its rate of change over time, which is misunderstood, I think, in many, many circles. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think this is a really fundamental climate communication and science communication challenge that we need to be really thoughtful about when we talk about quantities, what they are. Dr. Daniel Swain: Is the quantity itself a rate of change? Dr. Daniel Swain: Because what I prefer is to show, you know, a time series of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Dr. Daniel Swain: So, you know, a shortcut to that is the parts per million. Dr. Daniel Swain: So that the Keeling curve essentially because it does correctly show you that we have this essentially nonlinear increase in the quantity that matters or in the radiative forcing essentially the net aggregate warming effect. Dr. Daniel Swain: And that just continues to increase over time, by the way, even that curve would be bad news if we flatline because it still means that there's additional warming every year. Dr. Daniel Swain: So, you know, I know it's it's a real challenge because, you know, we see sometimes mislabeled plots in newspapers or on the TV about what these quantities are. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think it even extends to some communicators in some context. Dr. Daniel Swain: So this is, you know, this is another challenge, too, is that I do think like I wish there were far more science communicators. Dr. Daniel Swain: I think we desperately need more people who have roles like this. Dr. Daniel Swain: We also need more. Dr. Daniel Swain: I think, you know, as a domain of practice and research, which is what you're in, I think we need more people who are who are sort of objectively looking at how people are approaching this problem and how to, you know, do it better, which we also don't have enough people doing. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I think the fundamental challenges in a lot of spaces, we expect science communicators to be generalists in a way that is unfair and unreasonable. Dr. Daniel Swain: It would be great. And I think the most effective science communicators in general are those who actually do have fairly deep domain expertise in some particular domain, some particular topical area. Dr. Daniel Swain: And they don't, you know, you don't restrict yourself to like a dissertation, you know, narrowness of scope. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: You know, I can talk about lots of things about the weather and the climate that I have never published a paper on personally, for example. Dr. Daniel Swain: Absolutely. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I'm not, you know, I'm not going to go on air and talk about vaccines. [00:31:09] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: No, absolutely. No, I think that that that was the problem when I see like a lot of communication professor, even though they're health communication or climate or science communication, they like have their own silo and bubbles and stay within that community. Dr. Daniel Swain: And like the climate hardcore scientists who do modeling, you know, there are people, there are people who kind of look at more projections and analyze them. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think there was a fundamental disconnection between, you know, generalistic community communication and the scientists that leads us here to the problem that we kind of like see each other fundamentally doing different things and never talked about that and never kind of reach each other's domain. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's like, hey, let's collaborate, talk about it and like being, you know, public facing person like you've been doing. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I wanted to ask you because honestly, I mean, there's a very less, you know, incentive in those kind of things where you do mostly public facing writing or outreach work. Dr. Daniel Swain: The fundamental design in the US for promotions and tenure and all that is still like publication citations, you know, external funding and less of the incentive to go out and give a public talks. Dr. Daniel Swain: For example, you're a weather climate scientist, and if you go to a local library and talk about that, you know, like a local, you know, drought or, you know, you know, other extreme events. Dr. Daniel Swain: They don't see it much they don't see much value and that's what i'm seeing a fundamental problem with the university traditional systems that you need to incentivize and have. Dr. Daniel Swain: More engaging public facing scholarship to talk about it and like kind of see the value in it, and I think netherlands is doing great job some of the universities get rid of you know couldn't go like you know high ranking. Dr. Daniel Swain: You know high impact factor journals or citations and this we want to see the impact in our society, what are you doing for the society that is more important than publishing a paper, you know, in a top journal. Dr. Daniel Swain: But looking at that on that side note, but I just want to ask you, you hold virtual office hours. Dr. Daniel Swain: And you're publishing, you know, pretty good amount of publications and you're doing this, how do you manage your work and how do you see kind of your school your university seeing the value of that work. Dr. Daniel Swain: And do you think like more like we need to do this kind of you know work in the future looking at disinformation looking at misinformation looking at lack of contextual information out there and these digital platforms. [00:33:47] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, you really kind of hit the nail on the head there and unfortunately this seems to be an almost universal shared experience among people in the science communication world which is this that it the I think it is so dramatically undervalued by the institutions that that should value it much more greatly and in particular universities. Dr. Daniel Swain: remarkably, despite that universities probably are still the best place the most obvious home for it and yet they they don't come anywhere near to adequately supporting it. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, just a you know, a few data points here, you know, I I, in addition to what you just mentioned, I also engage really extensively with the the media to the point where I've really personally witnessed it's it's unfortunate decline over the past decade in a lot of in a lot of areas. Dr. Daniel Swain: I still give though around 200 to 250 news media interviews per year. So I I will speak on average to a journalist every working day and it's usually cluster like yesterday, I had, you know, eight interviews and today I have none scheduled but on average, it's literally in the hundreds per year that alone takes up a significant amount of time. [00:34:56] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yes, time and everything. Yes. [00:34:59] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, and it also requires, you know, fostering sustained relationships because you build these trusted relationships. Dr. Daniel Swain: You know, a lot of those interviews are sometimes with the same journalists on different topics on different occasions. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yes. Dr. Daniel Swain: So you it's relationship building as well and you can sort of multiply your impact that way because, yes, I'm speaking to a couple hundred individual people there, but then they're reaching audiences at at least thousands and in some cases millions. Dr. Daniel Swain: Right. Dr. Daniel Swain: That's a very effective way to multiply reach, but just, you know, so there's that there's these these virtual office hours on YouTube, which have become really popular and I think are a really good use of time because it's really nice. [00:35:35] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: It's like coming from very like, oh, we hold office hours, you know, as academic by like virtual office hours for climate and health on YouTube, which is like climate and weather. [00:35:44] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, yeah, I think it's a it's a good model. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I am actually surprised that there aren't more academics doing it, but I say surprised I'm not really that surprised because a academics, you know, are expected to be like eight different things. Dr. Daniel Swain: Now you're expected to be a teaching undergraduate. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: So, you know, the quote unquote butts in seats course teaching where you actually show up in person to a classroom with people or hopefully people show up in person to a classroom these days. Dr. Daniel Swain: And and you're doing that and then you're also if you're if you're a you know, if you're a professor at a research university, you are also supervising graduate students, which is a considerable. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yes. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, that's that's a major responsibility. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, truly. Dr. Daniel Swain: So even if you only have a few graduate students, you're expected to have postdocs, which is a little bit less responsibility usually, although not always. Dr. Daniel Swain: And then you're also expected to be, you know, on any number of the ballooning number of administrative committees, you're also expected to be leading your own research. Dr. Daniel Swain: and publishing it. Dr. Daniel Swain: And then maybe if there's time, you know, at 10pm or on a Sunday afternoon, you're expected to Oh, yeah, you're supposed to do public facing work and community outreach. [00:36:52] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: Or there are reviews is just a couple of journals sent you to review a paper. Dr. Daniel Swain: Oh, yeah. [00:36:57] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: And then there's the unpaid peer review process. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, there's there's so many different things. Dr. Daniel Swain: So it's an it not only is it is it unfair. Dr. Daniel Swain: I think it just is simply the the math doesn't math as they say these days. Dr. Daniel Swain: There's simply are not enough hours in the day for for a traditional tenure track or even tenured in some cases these days academic to meaningfully engage. Dr. Daniel Swain: Can you do some nice things? Dr. Daniel Swain: Can you do some useful things? Dr. Daniel Swain: Sure, absolutely. Dr. Daniel Swain: And some of my you know, some of my mentors and my colleagues who I deeply respect managed to find that time even on top of that. Dr. Daniel Swain: But it is necessarily limited just just out of a pure concert continuity of time constraint. Dr. Daniel Swain: You cannot create. Dr. Daniel Swain: This is not Harry Potter, you cannot create more more hours in the day than there are. [00:37:43] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: I wait sometimes literally I know evening I wish there are more than 24 hours, but. [00:37:48] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: And so the challenge really is that institutions then don't have very rarely, I should say, have roles that actually accommodate meaningful engagement. Dr. Daniel Swain: So I have been somebody who has been extremely fortunate in many ways that I have. Dr. Daniel Swain: I have also I've been very obstinate is the other piece of this. Dr. Daniel Swain: I have just refused to actually take the advice that some of my very respected. Dr. Daniel Swain: mentors and advisors who generally gave advice that for in most cases was absolutely correct, I will say, and I ignored it at my own risk, and it was a considerable risk. Dr. Daniel Swain: And have really pushed through and just insisted that there has to be a way to make this work. Dr. Daniel Swain: I have not pursued tenure track roles because I essentially view I replace classroom teaching and graduate student supervision with the public facing work. Dr. Daniel Swain: My classroom is the state of California, it is the wider world. Dr. Daniel Swain: You know, the people who I'm who I'm working with as frequently as a as an advisor might work with their graduate students or their postdoc postdocs. Dr. Daniel Swain: That's journalists for me, I am constantly every single day engaging with them. Dr. Daniel Swain: And so these public office hours I thought were a natural kind of extension like well if I'm not doing office hours for the students in the actual classroom. Dr. Daniel Swain: If my role is public facing, I probably should be doing this in similar format for the public and that turns out to be a model that has worked pretty well. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I've been lucky and an obstinate that I've sort of wound my way through various institutions and found myself today, you know, as you mentioned in the introduction. Dr. Daniel Swain: At University of California, agriculture and natural resources or UC ANR, which is essentially the extension program, the public knowledge extension program of the University of California, it's not attached to a particular physical campus. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's co located in Davis near UC Davis, but it's not actually part of the UC Davis campus, it is a network wide role. Dr. Daniel Swain: Even within that institution. Dr. Daniel Swain: And you know, I am extremely fortunate that the current leadership has essentially decided just unilaterally to support me in this. Dr. Daniel Swain: So this, this was a, this was a decision by multiple people who currently are in leadership roles there to just say, we think this is important and we will find a way to make it work, which is actually. Dr. Daniel Swain: Just an incredible vouch of confidence that I was very grateful for that and remain so because quite honestly, had that not occurred when it did. Dr. Daniel Swain: I don't think I would be employed by a public university at this point, given the way things were going previously. Dr. Daniel Swain: Absolutely. Dr. Daniel Swain: So it's both great news for me personally. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's not a tenured role. Dr. Daniel Swain: There's no guarantee. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's still, you know, it's still a term, you know, and I'm, I'm optimistic that it will continue because it seems to be working really well. Dr. Daniel Swain: And this seems to be a more obvious home for this kind of work because it's, it's an extension public facing work is part of the bread and butter of it. Dr. Daniel Swain: And yet, even in that setting, all the practical impediments that you mentioned, promotion, valuing, you know, what, what is, what is a net media reach in the hundreds of millions per year? Dr. Daniel Swain: What is that actually, how do you quantify that in an ecosystem that is valuing, you know, peer reviewed papers published, you know, I'm, which I'm still doing, but. [00:40:57] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, I know you're doing. [00:40:59] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: So how do you value that? Dr. Daniel Swain: And even in the extension context, you know, I had, I've only been there for about a year, for example, I just, I just wrote up some of my own sort of self evaluation process. And a lot of the examples are, well, how many acres of almond orchard did you improve the water efficiency on this year? Dr. Daniel Swain: And so like, well, that's not really the right metric. Dr. Daniel Swain: I can see how it very much could be for other extension advisors. Dr. Daniel Swain: But so I sort of, I'm sort of navigating that from, from scratch. Dr. Daniel Swain: And there are precious few roles like this. So I'm both extremely lucky to be in the position that I'm in that allows me to do this. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I'm also such an extreme outlier in the space that there, when people ask me, how do you, how do we replicate your path? Dr. Daniel Swain: Well, the answer is usually with considerable personal professional risk, but also, I don't even know that it's replicable in any systematic way. Dr. Daniel Swain: And that's a very frustrating response to give to the hundreds of people from high school level through. [00:41:53] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: Early career scientists or postdocs and who want to do not to do just traditional academic route and do something different. [00:42:00] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, yeah, I mean, I get I get and sometimes even from people who have tenure at places who want to do more of this and like, you know, I'm kind of frustrated with the system, but I want to stay in this world and I want to produce more public impact. Dr. Daniel Swain: Absolutely. Dr. Daniel Swain: Where can I go? Dr. Daniel Swain: And the answer is, I don't always have good answers. Dr. Daniel Swain: And so we're working on it. Dr. Daniel Swain: You know, there's some things going on behind the scenes. [00:42:19] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, absolutely. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's very successful. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think it's hard to manage. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I just want to ask you for the people who watch you, you know, during those office hours and watch you live and after recording. Dr. Daniel Swain: When I see like where it's coming from and how much work, you know, it takes and how much preparation and everything. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yes. Dr. Daniel Swain: It takes. Dr. Daniel Swain: So thank you for that. Dr. Daniel Swain: And also, I want to ask like, not on the optimist side, but like, how do you see, you know, the US is like right now, there's so many crazy things, but AI hype is everywhere data centers. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I was reading, I'm actually like writing a script for another video monologue on the data centers impact on health, especially rare cancer and asthma and polluting, you know, waters. Dr. Daniel Swain: There are cases in Oregon, there are cases in Mississippi, there are cases in, you know, many other places. Dr. Daniel Swain: And now Virginia, my home state is like kind of installing hundreds of data centers. Dr. Daniel Swain: How do you see the role of these tech bros? Dr. Daniel Swain: I know you had a conversation about Bill Gates, but you know, overall, AI boom is crazy in terms of, you know, looking at billions and the trillions of dollars investment. Dr. Daniel Swain: On the other hand, laying off people and making money and polluting our air and water and you know, kind of these things. Dr. Daniel Swain: How do you see? Dr. Daniel Swain: I think once Jon Stewart, like kind of play a small clip of Mark Zuckerberg saying like, oh, I can solve climate change. Dr. Daniel Swain: Like how? Dr. Daniel Swain: So like, how do you see these tech bros and these AI boom and data centers in the climate environment world? [00:44:01] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, man, you've hit on all the all the big questions in this hour. Dr. Daniel Swain: So if we had three or four hours, we could dig into it more. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, and legitimately, these are these are good questions, I think. Dr. Daniel Swain: So my relationship with the tech world is a little bit interesting because, you know, as you may know, I do have a PhD from Stanford and I got it in sort of peak. Dr. Daniel Swain: One could call it VC Largess era where there was a lot of money floating around Silicon Valley and a lot of, quite frankly, bad and ridiculous ideas that were getting millions and even billion dollars of funding. Dr. Daniel Swain: And, you know, some of that has dried up these days, but there's still, you know, now it's now it's all sort of being redirected into AI world. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I will also say that I have, you know, I've engaged with this. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I've advised a number of startups and come and continue to do so. Dr. Daniel Swain: I'm very selective in doing this, by the way, because I think that there, you know, there is a lot of, for lack of a better term, BS and then also a lot of quite harmful stuff going on. Dr. Daniel Swain: I think a lot of it does stem from sort of an overconfidence, again, in people well outside of any given domain to be able to operate successfully and meaningfully Dr. Daniel Swain: and safely within any number of domains. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, if it would be as if I, as a climate scientist who studies the the atmospheric science, atmospheric dynamics decided that I was going to have a meaningful, you know, career in in virology or something. Dr. Daniel Swain: It would just be ridiculous because I, you know, the last human biology course I took, I think, was in high school. Dr. Daniel Swain: So that that would be completely unreasonable. Dr. Daniel Swain: And yet it would, you know, this is kind of how some of the the the tech world has operated where is not only is is is tech a solution. Dr. Daniel Swain: To everything kind of solution hearing maybe is the term. [00:45:57] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: They present they present it as a solution to everything. Dr. Daniel Swain: And that is, I think that's the challenge. [00:46:02] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: It's a very myopic view, and it's not to say that I'm, you know, I'm not a believer that there are technological solutions to things. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, personally, the great irony is that ultimately the solution to climate change is through technology. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's it's just not necessarily the technology in the way that people expect it to be. [00:46:22] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: Mostly in the news or the hype, yeah. [00:46:24] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: It is ultimately something we do need to. Dr. Daniel Swain: We do need new discoveries. Dr. Daniel Swain: We need to implement, you know, cutting edge tech that exists today for that kind of thing. Dr. Daniel Swain: And, you know, things like human health. Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean, I'm somebody with weird genetic inflammatory, you know, illness. Dr. Daniel Swain: I'm excited about the potential for tech to advance medical science in the coming decades. Dr. Daniel Swain: And yet also, I think that so in that sense, I'm far from a pessimist about those sorts of things. Dr. Daniel Swain: But I also think that there is this real misunderstanding among a lot of very influential people in this field, Dr. Daniel Swain: Including people who have started and who currently lead very successful multi-billion or these days, multi-trillion dollar companies and industries who fundamentally do not understand how a lot of specific domains work on the ground. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I see this, for example, you know, we talk about AI, we talk about data centers. Dr. Daniel Swain: Even if you look at something as narrow as wildfire, for example, using AI to solve wildfire is a term that I hear over and over again. Dr. Daniel Swain: If you talk to people who actually understand ecosystems and wildfire, wildfire isn't even a problem that needs to be solved. Dr. Daniel Swain: Fire is a natural part of ecosystems. Dr. Daniel Swain: We cannot remove it completely from those ecosystems. Dr. Daniel Swain: We shouldn't. Dr. Daniel Swain: We've actually seen what happens when we do and it's a problem. Dr. Daniel Swain: Part of the reason why we have the problem we do today. Dr. Daniel Swain: But the problem instead, it needs to be redefined as we have neighborhoods burning down and we have people losing their lives and people breathing in toxic amounts of smoke. Dr. Daniel Swain: That's the problem. It's not the existence of wildfire. It's the intersection of wildfire. Dr. Daniel Swain: So instead of solving the real problem, a lot of this effort is going toward immediate extinguishment of every wildfire, for example. Dr. Daniel Swain: Which if you talk to the ecologists and the fire scientists to say that's going to backfire and lead to a larger problem in the long run. Dr. Daniel Swain: So that's just one very tangible example. I think that's sort of the case in almost every domain where some of the challenges we're focusing on the wrong problems for applying tech in some very uninformed end to end manner in a way that doesn't make sense. Dr. Daniel Swain: Whereas in fact, there actually are very obvious, important, critical applications of new and potential future technologies to address any number of problems. Dr. Daniel Swain: But we're kind of leapfrogging that development process and just assuming that these problems will magically solve themselves if we throw enough money and enough AI at them. Dr. Daniel Swain: And clearly, you know, AI is here to stay. Clearly, some of these things are, there are very useful applications of this, of this new technology in any number of domains, but uncritical applications. Dr. Daniel Swain: So we talk about the data center. And I think there's this notion that the ends justify the means and the means being quite harmful means in some cases. Dr. Daniel Swain: And also, I would argue that it's not so clear that the ends even that are that are hypothesized or even unto themselves a desirable or achievable along let alone the means to get to them. So it's a huge challenge. [00:49:19] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: And I do work with people in the space like I don't, I don't think that this is, you know, this is, but I think I see the problem when, for example, in Memphis x AI installed, you know, a huge data center. Dr. Daniel Swain: And a 90% of that neighborhood is African American, that's black neighborhood, and they already have a bad air quality. Dr. Daniel Swain: And it's like so many health issues. And then you installed turbines, which have no EPA license at all. Like literally, I was reading the other day, I was shocked. How could you do that? And that was during doge days. Dr. Daniel Swain: So it's like that's, that's my kind of, you know, a skepticism and worry that if you are unregulated and you do whatever you want, whatever, and that impact vulnerable communities more than others. Dr. Daniel Swain: Right. Dr. Daniel Swain: That's a fundamental problem. [00:50:08] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Oh, and that's, and that's where like the, the Silicon Valley big tech, and you know, this is me speaking personally, personal opinion here, but where the Silicon Valley big tech libertarianism has never made sense to me, even as sort of as a logic, internally consistent logic in the sense that, okay, well, you might, you might advocate for having few or no regulations on, you know, pollution from data centers or no regulation on AI or whatever it is. Dr. Daniel Swain: But what about the people who live in that neighborhood? Dr. Daniel Swain: Exactly. Dr. Daniel Swain: You're, you're, you're unilaterally imposing decisions on them, regardless of their input, regardless of what they want. Dr. Daniel Swain: In fact, even knowingly, in some cases, it's going to, to harm those specific people. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: So you're making some vague hand-waving argument about the importance of, you know, the, the free market and, and, and being able to, to be free of regulation in some broad sense. Dr. Daniel Swain: But in a very immediate, tangible sense, you're, you're imposing bad outcomes on specific real people in the present in the process of pursuing that. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: And so it's not to say that we should never use AI for anything. Dr. Daniel Swain: We should. [00:51:12] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, we should. Dr. Daniel Swain: But yeah, but not the way. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. [00:51:15] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: And that's the problem is, is it's difficult to have that in between conversation, I think, because there's a lot of people who understandably are very concerned with the technology because of how it's being implemented, because it's not being implemented safely or reasonably in a lot of cases. Dr. Daniel Swain: And, and then then then on the other end of the spectrum, there's there are people who are implementing or saying we don't care, the ends justify the means. Dr. Daniel Swain: And like we're how do we how do we actually have that dialogue so that you know people in communities and maybe broader swaths of people even aren't steamrolled in the process essentially. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I it's it's it's it's a difficult moment because I think it's it's we're losing the venues to have this conversation, so I think that's part of the importance of having science communicators and science practitioners domain knowledgeable. Dr. Daniel Swain: People in communities talking with journalists interacting with the public, because I think a lot a lot of these pieces of the conversation are disjointed they're not they're not, you know, we're not having these these interactions these conversations coming together in the places in the time. Dr. Daniel Swain: That we need them to to meaningfully solve the problem. Dr. Daniel Swain: So, you know, honestly, that's one of the reasons why the whole enterprise of science communication is so important in the first place, which is that that is what allows you to to to to have those important critically important conversations. [00:52:35] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: I also wanted to ask you. Dr. Daniel Swain: So your channel like the channel name is weather west right so do you generally focus mostly on the western side of the US or you just kind of. Dr. Daniel Swain: If that is the case like what is so unique. Dr. Daniel Swain: I know that region is more dry have more humid conditions and you know, like less rain. Dr. Daniel Swain: And if it rains, then it's going to flood. Dr. Daniel Swain: But is that the case or like if I'm like perceiving it wrong and you talk like in general about the US. Dr. Daniel Swain: And related to that, like it is some sometime we're so much invested talking about the US, but for example, what is happening in the Southeast Asia right now the flooding. Dr. Daniel Swain: Right. Dr. Daniel Swain: Indonesia, Malaysia, you know, Thailand and other Vietnam. Dr. Daniel Swain: It's terrible looking at you know that devastation and looking at the imagery and the videos. Dr. Daniel Swain: And there are disproportional effects of climate change like the West is meeting more the South is seeing more change and challenges and devastation. Dr. Daniel Swain: And do you think it's like also sometime we should be spending significant time or energy or something talking about how we are disproportionately affecting people who are not here. Dr. Daniel Swain: And that becomes sometime a proximity issue if it's not here, people don't care, but it is happening absolutely somewhere to the poorest people. [00:53:56] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, the short answer is yes. Dr. Daniel Swain: I do believe this and this is, by the way, one of the things that frustrated me so much about the recent Bill Gates memo, which is that someone who is has done some objectively very good things for global health and the global poor in the past. Dr. Daniel Swain: It seems to sort of fundamentally discount the really disproportionately adverse effects of climate change precisely in those places in the world and for those people who have who have the least ability to manage those increasing risks. Dr. Daniel Swain: And so, yes, the short answer is yes. Dr. Daniel Swain: For me personally, you know, I do a sort of have a telescoping focus where I do focus primarily on California and then more broadly the Western US and then sort of globally beyond that. Dr. Daniel Swain: Mainly just due to again this practical constraints of time and also given that, you know, I am probably most expert, I can speak most authoritatively about the details. Dr. Daniel Swain: In California and the Western US and I can speak in somewhat more general terms of other places. Dr. Daniel Swain: I don't know the, you know, the details, for example, of the of the river valleys and deltas in Vietnam that are experiencing severe flooding right now. Dr. Daniel Swain: So I can look at a topographic map, I can go and do some research, but it requires me to do just that I have to go and look at the data and do the research. Dr. Daniel Swain: Whereas for California and the Western US at this point I can pretty much just draw upon the virtual encyclopedia of the brain and just speak contemporaneously and spontaneously about that. Dr. Daniel Swain: So the reality is it's it's it's it's it's triage, but I do try to expand that global focus and I do that in particular with journalists. Dr. Daniel Swain: So less so on the Weather West channel, the Weather West blog, you know, they're they're thusly named for it for the Western US. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah, but when interacting with journalists and policy folks and the UN and people like entities like that. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yes, I mean, I am trying because, you know, often if I don't give a comment on the flooding in Vietnam or in, you know, or in Mozambique or some part of the world where there aren't as many do for historical reasons of inequity, there aren't going to be as many local folks available for a variety of reasons. Dr. Daniel Swain: To give that comment in that moment that a journalist from CNN or the Washington Post or BBC wants it. Dr. Daniel Swain: I am going to try and offer that perspective to the to the best of my ability, so. Dr. Daniel Swain: You're exactly right and you know I grapple with that all the time. Dr. Daniel Swain: And you know my primary job, of course, also is is centered within California, but I try and expand that focus as globally as I can, but the ultimate solution to that is what we really need are domain experts from all corners of the world. Dr. Daniel Swain: Absolutely. Dr. Daniel Swain: And the challenges with that, of course, are you know embedded in everything we've been talking about. Dr. Daniel Swain: Yeah. Dr. Daniel Swain: And then some, but you're absolutely right. [00:56:49] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: So, my last question, I wish we have more time, but maybe in another episode. Dr. Daniel Swain: What is something, and for that question, I always tell my guests, you can have 19 seconds to think. Dr. Daniel Swain: What is something you think we should be spending more time talking when it comes to climate change and extreme weather events and we're not spending as much time as a society as a scientist. [00:57:13] Dr. Daniel Swain: Dr. Daniel Swain: I mean I think that maybe the one word answer is adaptation. Dr. Daniel Swain: And we actually talked a lot about the mitigation side of this. Dr. Daniel Swain: So, thinking about how we can quickly level off, actually level off, and then eventually reduce to near zero the net emission of carbon in the atmosphere, which would solve the underlying problem of the warming itself. Dr. Daniel Swain: But because, as we talked about, we're not going to do that overnight, there will be additional warming, there will be additional harm. Dr. Daniel Swain: How much remains to be told, but I can guarantee you, unfortunately, it will be considerable. Dr. Daniel Swain: And also, there is, as we've also been talking about, already considerable harm being wrought by the warming we've already seen. Dr. Daniel Swain: So, we talk about mitigation. Dr. Daniel Swain: A lot of the poorer nations on earth, a lot of the discussion in the global south, as some folks call it now, is focused, I think correctly, on national to regional scale adaptation. Dr. Daniel Swain: So, how can we improve our resilience to the kinds of events that are already occurring that we know are going to occur in the near future? Dr. Daniel Swain: Yes, mitigation, reducing the underlying problem is also important, but we need interventions now. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think that's absolutely true. Dr. Daniel Swain: I don't think it's only true there. Dr. Daniel Swain: I actually think even places like wealthy places in a relative global sense, like California, are also behind on adaptation as opposed to mitigation. Dr. Daniel Swain: Some places that are leaders in mitigation are lagging behind on adaptation. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think that there's this argument that we have to sort of pick one, and I don't think that that is reasonable. Dr. Daniel Swain: We have to do both. Dr. Daniel Swain: We don't really have a choice. Dr. Daniel Swain: And I think we have to do both as much as we possibly can. Dr. Daniel Swain: We're not doing enough of either, but in relative terms, I don't even think we're talking enough about the adaptation side of things, making for better outcomes with the events we know are already occurring and going to occur. Dr. Daniel Swain: So I think I could have chosen several things for that response, but I think maybe that's the most succinct one and maybe the most critical one at a higher level. Dr. Daniel Swain: Makes sense. [00:59:09] Speaker 2: Dr. Daniel Swain: With that, I think we have to leave it there. Dr. Daniel Swain: Thank you so much for joining me on Science Talk. Dr. Daniel Swain: Appreciate that and appreciate all the work you do and you put into that to create awareness and educate people on these critical, critically important issues. Dr. Daniel Swain: So thank you so much. Dr. Daniel Swain: Thank you so much. [00:59:25] Speaker ?: Dr. Daniel Swain: Thank you so much. Dr. Daniel Swain: Thank you so much. Dr. Daniel Swain: Thank you so much. Dr. Daniel Swain: Thank you so much.