Edge: The Need for Heretics
Locked
123
123
 
|
Certainly there is a need for heretics and I consider myself a minor heretic and mystic outlaw, but to deny the reality of global warming/climate change is just stupid. Freeman should look outside himself and look at the latest IPCC reports and the NSIC report which Nick (and others) have circulated. It's not outside and extreme weather is global. Paul ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070811/9d599f8c/attachment.html |
|
|
On 8/11/07, PPARYSKI at aol.com <PPARYSKI at aol.com> wrote:
> > Certainly there is a need for heretics and I consider myself a minor > heretic and mystic outlaw, but to deny the reality of global warming/climate > change is just stupid. <snip> > No it's not. Given the conclusion of the IPCC report that there's a 90% confidence in the existence of anthropogenic warming, Dyson's comment is 10% not stupid. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070811/24655fbf/attachment.html |
|
Administrator
|
On Aug 11, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Robert Holmes wrote:
> On 8/11/07, PPARYSKI at aol.com <PPARYSKI at aol.com> wrote: >> >> Certainly there is a need for heretics and I consider myself a minor >> heretic and mystic outlaw, but to deny the reality of global >> warming/climate >> change is just stupid. <snip> >> > > No it's not. Given the conclusion of the IPCC report that there's > a 90% > confidence in the existence of anthropogenic warming, Dyson's > comment is 10% > not stupid. > > Robert I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist couched the issue: There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an upward trend in temperature. But when one looks at multi-million year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/ effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like meteor impacts and volcanic action. Thus much of the buzz is likely very inaccurate and unfounded. BUT, personally, there is certainly no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages and hot ages. We may get hints if we really honestly try. But I go along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious. Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice caps. Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay? Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities that contribute a great deal to oil. -- Owen |
Edge: The Need for Heretics
|
|
Owen Densmore wrote:
> BUT, personally, there is certainly > no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. > He (Freeman Dyson) wrote: > There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the > warming is not global. I am not saying that the warming does not cause > problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to > understand it better. I am saying that the problems are grossly > exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems > that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and > infectious disease and public education and public health, and the > preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans I wonder what is the vast budget that he imagines is or will go into global warming above and beyond research, which he advocates? Maybe forcing transportation and energy companies to come up with renewable sources of energy, that we will need sooner or later anyway? He goes on to say: > When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are > taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they > can be cured. Huh, I'm I the only one that's has had a doctor say "you have one of three things, they are all treatable with X." (where X is antibiotics, steroids, etc.) If the risks are high enough, and the costs much less, then even 90% _uncertainty_ seems pretty reasonable. What if you went to the airport and they shrugged, "oh, there's a 10% chance your plane will crash". Of course you nod in disgust and say, "Don't bother me with your neurotic worries!" 1 out of 10 planes crashing to the ground?? |
Edge: The Need for Heretics
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Owen,
I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint that we simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global warming. My left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on their knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up. Even the smart ones are totally sold on the concept that humans caused the current global warming trend. Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global complex system and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause of the current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad gullible. I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are affecting the global climate. But we certainly don't understand the global/celestial climate dynamic well enough to prove it. I mean come on, for crying out loud: we just discovered that neutrinos have mass. We think. --Doug -- Doug Roberts, RTI International droberts at rti.org doug at parrot-farm.net 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote: > > > I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist > couched the issue: > There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an > upward trend in temperature. But when one looks at multi-million > year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/ > effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like > meteor impacts and volcanic action. Thus much of the buzz is likely > very inaccurate and unfounded. BUT, personally, there is certainly > no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. > > I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we > simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages and > hot ages. We may get hints if we really honestly try. But I go > along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious. > > Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice > caps. Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay? > Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities > that contribute a great deal to oil. > > -- Owen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070811/82ea0415/attachment.html |
|
Administrator
|
Indeed!
BTW: Just as a pointer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology .. has an overview of Paleoclimatology Note the quote: Changes in the atmosphere may also exert an important influence over climate change. The establishment of CO2-consuming (and oxygen- producing) photosythesizing organisms in the Precambrian led to the production of an atmosphere much like today's, though for most of this period it was much higher in CO2 than today. Similarly, the Earth's average temperature was also frequently higher than at present, though it has been argued that over very long time scales climate is largely decoupled from carbon dioxide variations (Veizer et al. 2000). BTW: I really do hedge my bets .. and I am thinking about various means of minimizing my personal impact. But I sure don't think we understand this critter. The whole damn earth, fer heaven sakes! Talk about Gaia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis -- Owen On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > Owen, > > I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint > that we > simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global > warming. My > left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on > their > knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up. Even the smart > ones are > totally sold on the concept that humans caused the current global > warming > trend. > > Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global > complex system > and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause of > the > current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad gullible. > > I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are > affecting > the global climate. But we certainly don't understand the global/ > celestial > climate dynamic well enough to prove it. I mean come on, for > crying out > loud: we just discovered that neutrinos have mass. We think. > > --Doug > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > droberts at rti.org > doug at parrot-farm.net > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote: >> >> >> I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist >> couched the issue: >> There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an >> upward trend in temperature. But when one looks at multi-million >> year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/ >> effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like >> meteor impacts and volcanic action. Thus much of the buzz is likely >> very inaccurate and unfounded. BUT, personally, there is certainly >> no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. >> >> I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we >> simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages and >> hot ages. We may get hints if we really honestly try. But I go >> along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious. >> >> Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice >> caps. Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay? >> Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities >> that contribute a great deal to oil. >> >> -- Owen >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I am frankly mystified by the conversation. No one I know of who is
legitimately evaluating the data pretends to have any certainty as to the anthropogenic component. The issues have to do with the likelihood of continued warming; the effects that that trend would have; the risks and rewards of inaction (supposing that we are a primary cause); and the risks and reward of action (same supposition). And I haven't seen a legitimate analysis within that framework that comes out anywhere but here: Act now, because if it is anthropogenic, the risk/reward profile of action is overwhelmingly positive, and that of inaction potentially (or even probably) catastrophic. Surely folks don't think we need certainty before acting, especially when we know we won't be certain until it's (probably) too late to act, if we are the cause? That kind of thinking could give scientists a bad name ;-) db On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:15 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: > Indeed! > > BTW: Just as a pointer: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology > .. has an overview of Paleoclimatology > > Note the quote: > Changes in the atmosphere may also exert an important influence > over climate change. The establishment of CO2-consuming (and oxygen- > producing) photosythesizing organisms in the Precambrian led to the > production of an atmosphere much like today's, though for most of > this period it was much higher in CO2 than today. Similarly, the > Earth's average temperature was also frequently higher than at > present, though it has been argued that over very long time scales > climate is largely decoupled from carbon dioxide variations (Veizer > et al. 2000). > > BTW: I really do hedge my bets .. and I am thinking about various > means of minimizing my personal impact. But I sure don't think we > understand this critter. The whole damn earth, fer heaven sakes! > Talk about Gaia! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis > > -- Owen > > > On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > >> Owen, >> >> I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint >> that we >> simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global >> warming. My >> left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on >> their >> knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up. Even the smart >> ones are >> totally sold on the concept that humans caused the current global >> warming >> trend. >> >> Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global >> complex system >> and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause of >> the >> current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad gullible. >> >> I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are >> affecting >> the global climate. But we certainly don't understand the global/ >> celestial >> climate dynamic well enough to prove it. I mean come on, for >> crying out >> loud: we just discovered that neutrinos have mass. We think. >> >> --Doug >> >> -- >> Doug Roberts, RTI International >> droberts at rti.org >> doug at parrot-farm.net >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-670-8195 - Cell >> >> On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist >>> couched the issue: >>> There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an >>> upward trend in temperature. But when one looks at multi-million >>> year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/ >>> effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like >>> meteor impacts and volcanic action. Thus much of the buzz is likely >>> very inaccurate and unfounded. BUT, personally, there is certainly >>> no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. >>> >>> I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we >>> simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages >>> and >>> hot ages. We may get hints if we really honestly try. But I go >>> along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious. >>> >>> Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice >>> caps. Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay? >>> Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core >>> activities >>> that contribute a great deal to oil. >>> >>> -- Owen >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. Santa Fe: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu: 505-685-4891 www.BreeckerAssociates.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070811/5a330c3e/attachment.html |
|
|
Yes, that's one of the tightly reasoned paths, but how do you stop growth without wrecking everything??
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: David Breecker <[hidden email]> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:50:35 To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics I am frankly mystified by the conversation. No one I know of who is legitimately evaluating the data pretends to have any certainty as to the anthropogenic component.? The issues have to do with the likelihood of continued warming; the effects that that trend would have; the risks and rewards of inaction (supposing that we are a primary cause); and the risks and reward of action (same supposition). And I haven't seen a legitimate analysis within that framework that comes out anywhere but here:? Act now, because if it is anthropogenic, the risk/reward profile of action is overwhelmingly positive, and that of inaction potentially (or even probably) catastrophic. Surely folks don't think we need certainty before acting, especially when we know we won't be certain until it's (probably) too late to act, if we are the cause?? That kind of thinking could give scientists a bad name ;-) db On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:15 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: Indeed! BTW: Just as a pointer: ?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology> .. has an overview of Paleoclimatology Note the quote: ?? Changes in the atmosphere may also exert an important influence ? over climate change. The establishment of CO2-consuming (and oxygen-? producing) photosythesizing organisms in the Precambrian led to the ? production of an atmosphere much like today's, though for most of ? this period it was much higher in CO2 than today.? Similarly, the ? Earth's average temperature was also frequently higher than at ? present, though it has been argued that over very long time scales ? climate is largely decoupled from carbon dioxide variations (Veizer ? et al. 2000). BTW: I really do hedge my bets .. and I am thinking about various ? means of minimizing my personal impact.? But I sure don't think we ? understand this critter.? The whole damn earth, fer heaven sakes!? ? Talk about Gaia! ?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis> ?? ? -- Owen On Aug 11, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Owen, I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint ? that we simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global ? warming.? My left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on ? their knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up.? Even the smart ? ones are totally sold on the concept that humans caused the current global ? warming trend. Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global ? complex system and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause of ? the current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad gullible. I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are ? affecting the global climate.? But we certainly don't understand the global/? celestial climate dynamic well enough to prove it.? I mean come on, for ? crying out loud:? we just discovered that neutrinos have mass.? We think. --Doug --? Doug Roberts, RTI International droberts at rti.org <mailto:droberts at rti.org> doug at parrot-farm.net <mailto:doug at parrot-farm.net> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net <mailto:owen at backspaces.net> > wrote: I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist couched the issue: ?? There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an upward trend in temperature.? But when one looks at multi-million year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/ effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like meteor impacts and volcanic action.? Thus much of the buzz is likely very inaccurate and unfounded.? BUT, personally, there is certainly no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages and hot ages.? We may get hints if we really honestly try.? But I go along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious. Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice caps.? Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay? Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities that contribute a great deal to oil. ?? ? -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org <http://www.friam.org> ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org <http://www.friam.org> ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org <http://www.friam.org> dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc. Santa Fe: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu:? ?505-685-4891 www.BreeckerAssociates.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
The Copenhagen Consensus is a Danish think-tank that gets economists and
politicians to address the question "in a world of limited resources, if we cannot do everything at once what should we do first?". The top-4 ratings from their 2006 meeting are: 1. communicable diseases 2. sanitation and water 3. education 4. malnutrition and hunger Climate change slips from #10 (its position at the first CC meeting in 2004) to #27. (Full list at: http://tinyurl.com/39udey) What's your take on this people? Part of me wants to reject this as the ravings of right-wing Kyoto-protocol-hating ideologues. But then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions have a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, climate control is poorly understood and it takes decades to measure the effect. Where would you put your limited $$? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/fc4b8ef0/attachment.html |
Edge: The Need for Heretics
|
|
Robert Holmes wrote:
> But then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get > far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these > problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions have > a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, climate > control is poorly understood and it takes decades to measure the > effect. Where would you put your limited $$? It depends what's measured. Climate control may be hard to measure and correlate to mitigation efforts but output of CO2 can be identified, measured, and mitigated. Further it matters what the question is. For example, if someone owns valuable coastal property that risks being underwater in a century, they might well care about the impact on their grandkids more than what happens to someone they don't know on the other side of the planet. |
Edge: The Need for Heretics
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
On 8/12/07, Robert Holmes <robert at holmesacosta.com> wrote:
> > The Copenhagen Consensus is a Danish think-tank that gets economists and > politicians to address the question "in a world of limited resources, if we > cannot do everything at once what should we do first?". The top-4 ratings > from their 2006 meeting are: The Copenhagen Consensus is a centre of the Copenhagen Danish Business School which brings together economists and subject matter experts to do cost-benefit analysis on problems and proposed solutions and rank the proposed solutions. As they say: If the world would come together and be willing to spend, say, $50 billion EXTRA over the next five years on improving the state of the world, which projects would yield the greatest net benefits? Well, they obviously have to stay within their budget. Googling "climate change cost" popped up a CNN article which estimated $60 billion in natural disaster costs for the year 2003, up 10% from the previous year. The UNEP issued a report in 2002 estimating that costs for natural disasters could reach $150 billion per year by 2012. The maligned Stern report of last fall estimated costs of climate change at 3.68 trillion pounds. Kim Stanley Robinson has a three book series, 40 days of rain, 50 degrees below, 60 days and counting, set in a near future that includes some lovely science fiction estimates of the cost of climate remediation. How much salt do you need to throw into the North Atlantic to restart the Gulf Stream? How much water do you have to pump out of the oceans to keep sea level from flooding the major population centers on the coasts? The deniers have an undeniable interest in maintaining status quo, they do well at what they do, it makes them the most powerful people in the world, the moment they admit there is a problem, they're bankrupt. Capitalism works by dumping external costs until forced to account for them, then they have to redo the spreadsheets, what a bother. -- rec -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/0c712c61/attachment.html |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
What an interesting list! Note that the same Challenge may occur
multiple times due to a different Opportunity (solution). Communicable Diseases occurs 3 times and Malnutrition and Hunger 4 times, for example. That's good, makes the list specific solution oriented, thus clearer on cost of individual solutions, not broad problems. One way to look at potential effectiveness of a given Opportunity is whether or not it is sustainable solely by local resources, the old "teach to fish, don't give fish" realization. In other words, giving away $$ is best done in such a way that the initial effort is locally sustainable afterwards. The list doesn't fair well, IMHO, in this regard. Look at number one: Communicable Diseases Scaled-up basic health services I'm not sure that paying for scaled up health services produces better health services down the line. It might if education were built-in. But then, if sustainability were built into the solutions, it might all work. Great list! -- Owen On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:05 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > The Copenhagen Consensus is a Danish think-tank that gets > economists and politicians to address the question "in a world of > limited resources, if we cannot do everything at once what should > we do first?". The top-4 ratings from their 2006 meeting are: > communicable diseases > sanitation and water > education > malnutrition and hunger > Climate change slips from #10 (its position at the first CC meeting > in 2004) to #27. (Full list at: http://tinyurl.com/39udey) > > What's your take on this people? Part of me wants to reject this as > the ravings of right-wing Kyoto-protocol-hating ideologues. But > then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get > far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these > problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions > have a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, > climate control is poorly understood and it takes decades to > measure the effect. Where would you put your limited $$? > > Robert > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
I can't remember the source (sorry) but I do remember some "expert"
saying that the problem isn't just that the climate is warming. We've already pointed out the the Earth has been much hotter than it is now. He said the problem is that it is warming up too fast (because of human activity) and the ecosystem isn't able to adapt as fast. He gave specific examples including the current average temperature rate change at various latitudes and correlated that with the migration speed of plants, insects, etc. and said the additional velocity we have added makes the temperature change outpace the migration speed of the organisms. On the other hand, the Earth has gone through significant climate changes before and life has a way of adapting and surviving. The problem from some peoples perspective is that the surviving organisms may not include humans. For others, that might not be a problem. ;) Personally I have enough "evidence" to have the following conclusions. 1) The Earth's climate is changing at a rate that we can observe in our lifetime or at least observe within a couple of generations or so. 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a complex system when we don't even partially understand the consequences. 3) As a whole we are not interested and/or too stupid to minimize our impact. At least until it's too late. On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Robert Holmes wrote: >> But then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get >> far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these >> problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions >> have >> a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, climate >> control is poorly understood and it takes decades to measure the >> effect. Where would you put your limited $$? > It depends what's measured. Climate control may be hard to measure > and > correlate to mitigation efforts but output of CO2 can be identified, > measured, and mitigated. > Further it matters what the question is. For example, if someone > owns > valuable coastal property that risks being underwater in a century, > they > might well care about the impact on their grandkids more than what > happens to someone they don't know on the other side of the planet. > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Edge: The Need for Heretics
|
|
Dyson writes:
> To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to > grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year. Good > topsoil contains about ten percent biomass, [Schlesinger, 1977], so a > hundredth of an inch of biomass growth means about a tenth of an inch > of topsoil. Unfortunate, then, in the U.S., we are losing 1.8 billion tons of soil a year. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_organic_matter/som_manage.html ..and that even under ideal agricultural conditions, it takes about 3 years to form one tenth of an inch of topsoil: http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/se3.html#A |
Edge: The Need for Heretics
|
|
In reply to this post by David Mirly
On 8/12/07, David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a > complex system when we don't even partially understand the consequences. Just to beat on the defenders of the status quo some more, their rationale for denying climate change and not messing with the economy is essentially the same: it, the economy, is a complex system where we don't even partially understand the consequences of even small changes, so it would be wise to minimize our impacts on it. So we have the same rhetoric of conservatism on both sides of the question. -- rec -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/1b3d3620/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Robert,
Conceptually speaking, anything is conceptually possible, and on that basis all the conditional biases you mention are meaningful and relevant. Still, it's pretty obvious that the consumption of fossil fuels releases CO2 changes the transparency of the atmosphere to radiation. The interesting part of the dispute is why there is one at all. I think it's because we switch languages sometimes, with 'code word' political meanings in place of ordinary practical meanings. The issue seems to have little to do with the science. The scientists know their models don't fully reflect the physical system, they also know their models have been getting incrementally better and better, continually reinforcing the atmospheric chemistry theory that goes into them. Those are things a practical approach are based on, not cause and effect statements with all sorts of social overtones. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 10:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics Owen, I find it quite refreshing to hear someone express the viewpoint that we simply don't know to what extent human activity effects global warming. My left-wing-nut friends all go batty on the subject, falling down on their knees to worship Al Gore when the subject comes up. Even the smart ones are totally sold on the concept that humans caused the current global warming trend. Anyone who claims to have figured out this particular global complex system and is stating with absolute certainty that humans are The Cause of the current climate trend goes down in my book as just a tad gullible. I concede that it is possible, perhaps even likely that humans are affecting the global climate. But we certainly don't understand the global/celestial climate dynamic well enough to prove it. I mean come on, for crying out loud: we just discovered that neutrinos have mass. We think. --Doug -- Doug Roberts, RTI International droberts at rti.org doug at parrot-farm.net 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On 8/11/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote: I have to agree .. in the sense that a SFI climate paleontologist couched the issue: There is certainly a very recent correlation between CO2 and an upward trend in temperature. But when one looks at multi-million year variations, we are actually in a cool area, and that the cause/ effect between any human activity pales in comparison to things like meteor impacts and volcanic action. Thus much of the buzz is likely very inaccurate and unfounded. BUT, personally, there is certainly no reason to NOT minimize man's impact on the environment. I think when the dust settles (so to speak!) we'll find that we simply currently have no idea why the earth goes through ice ages and hot ages. We may get hints if we really honestly try. But I go along with the SFI researcher: it doesn't hurt to be cautious. Its interesting that there are large gas/oil reserves under the ice caps. Yet how did that happen if these result from organic decay? Dyson also has an answer for that: there may be earth-core activities that contribute a great deal to oil. -- Owen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/dc968358/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
daaa.... in a complex system don't we always do everything at once????
Playing the opposition game with things that can only work all together is popular, of course. I just don't think it works. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 10:05 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics The Copenhagen Consensus is a Danish think-tank that gets economists and politicians to address the question "in a world of limited resources, if we cannot do everything at once what should we do first?". The top-4 ratings from their 2006 meeting are: 1. communicable diseases 2. sanitation and water 3. education 4. malnutrition and hunger Climate change slips from #10 (its position at the first CC meeting in 2004) to #27. (Full list at: http://tinyurl.com/39udey) What's your take on this people? Part of me wants to reject this as the ravings of right-wing Kyoto-protocol-hating ideologues. But then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions have a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, climate control is poorly understood and it takes decades to measure the effect. Where would you put your limited $$? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/4b9e5109/attachment.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Paryski
Paul, I'm afraid I agreed with him almost entirely. Hywel
_____ From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of PPARYSKI at aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:49 PM To: friam at redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics Certainly there is a need for heretics and I consider myself a minor heretic and mystic outlaw, but to deny the reality of global warming/climate change is just stupid. Freeman should look outside himself and look at the latest IPCC reports and the NSIC report which Nick (and others) have circulated. It's not outside and extreme weather is global. Paul _____ Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070812/ee83ebb9/attachment.html |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2
On Aug 12, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> On 8/12/07, David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net> wrote: >> 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a >> complex system when we don't even partially understand the >> consequences. > > Just to beat on the defenders of the status quo some more, their > rationale > for denying climate change and not messing with the economy is > essentially > the same: it, the economy, is a complex system where we don't even > partially understand the consequences of even small changes, so it > would be > wise to minimize our impacts on it. > > So we have the same rhetoric of conservatism on both sides of the > question. One of the best retorts against the status quo is "total cost" of a product, including its entire life cycle. Many opportunistic capitalists "cheat" by leaving much of the cost of their products to others. The computer industry is improving in this regard: offering responsible recycling for every product, included in the original cost. Apple lets you send computers back to them at their end of life. HP includes ink jet recycling envelopes. This is at least hopeful. And Gore, for all his faults, is doing an astounding job of raising awareness. -- Owen |
|
|
In 1993, Paul Hawken wrote a good book on externalities titled "The
Ecology of Commerce". I imagine most of the readers of this list already know of this book, but for those who don't it's a decent work. On Aug 12, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: > On Aug 12, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: >> On 8/12/07, David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net> wrote: >>> 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a >>> complex system when we don't even partially understand the >>> consequences. >> >> Just to beat on the defenders of the status quo some more, their >> rationale >> for denying climate change and not messing with the economy is >> essentially >> the same: it, the economy, is a complex system where we don't even >> partially understand the consequences of even small changes, so it >> would be >> wise to minimize our impacts on it. >> >> So we have the same rhetoric of conservatism on both sides of the >> question. > > One of the best retorts against the status quo is "total cost" of a > product, including its entire life cycle. Many opportunistic > capitalists "cheat" by leaving much of the cost of their products to > others. > > The computer industry is improving in this regard: offering > responsible recycling for every product, included in the original > cost. Apple lets you send computers back to them at their end of > life. HP includes ink jet recycling envelopes. This is at least > hopeful. And Gore, for all his faults, is doing an astounding job of > raising awareness. > > -- Owen > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |