Edge: The Need for Heretics

[David Breecker]

Interestingly enough, the two pernicious forms of growth are  
population, and energy intensity per capita.

The only well-established way to halt population growth (that I know  
of) is economic development through industrialization.  Which, to  
date, has meant greater energy intensity and more burning of carbon-
emitting fuels.

But we can flip that interaction if we develop non-fossil based  
energy sources, thus allowing greater energy intensity in the  
developing world, leading to economic development, industrialization,  
and a brake on population growth.
db

On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:36 PM, sy at synapse9.com wrote:

> Yes, that's one of the tightly reasoned paths, but how do you stop  
> growth without wrecking everything??
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

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/20070812/e922d9a8/attachment.html 

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Well, trying to run a growth economy on renewable energy should stop
growth fairly effectively, when the ecologies collapse.   It does appear
that family size shrinks when people are satisfied, and the seems to
potentially do both.    The question, since $=energy use and growth
therefore guarantees multiplying energy intensity percapita, is whether
we figure out how to fix that first or second.
 
 

Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
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 David Breecker
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


Interestingly enough, the two pernicious forms of growth are population,
and energy intensity per capita.

The only well-established way to halt population growth (that I know of)
is economic development through industrialization.  Which, to date, has
meant greater energy intensity and more burning of carbon-emitting
fuels.

But we can flip that interaction if we develop non-fossil based energy
sources, thus allowing greater energy intensity in the developing world,
leading to economic development, industrialization, and a brake on
population growth.
db

On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:36 PM, sy at synapse9.com wrote:


Yes, that's one of the tightly reasoned paths, but how do you stop
growth without wrecking everything??

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry



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/20070812/a9148f97/attachment.html 

[glen ep ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roger Critchlow wrote:
> 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.

Now hang on there! You were doing fine up until you did a
bait-and-switch between "defenders of the status quo" and "rhetoric of
conservatism".

A conservative would argue for burning less _now_ in order to save for a
rainy day.  The "defenders of the status quo" are simply lazy
opportunists and span the gamut between conservative and liberal.  Lazy
liberals will fly around in jets (to attend conferences about climate
change) and eat tofu shipped from half-way around the world.  Lazy
conservatives will commute in SUVs in order to avoid buying a
commute-vehicle and a work-vehicle.  On the other hand, industrious
conservatives and liberals will cooperate to construct policies that
balance resource usage.

The artificial dichotomy between so-called "conservatism" and so-called
"liberalism" is just so much stupid hoo-ha propagated by lazy verbiage
like your "rhetoric of conservatism" statement above.

One of the necessary steps toward a useful dialect about anthropogenic
climate change is:  stop abusing English.  And in this sense, we can say
that the current status quo is _liberal_ in our policies of dousing
problems with resources (like highly paid CEOs, digging up more oil to
feed our machines, finding exponentially richer supplies of energy to
feed our ambition, etc.)  We are _liberally_ applying the earth's
resources, with little forethought, to perceived problems.

The answer is to stop being so liberal with our resources... tighten up
the belt... conserve ... be conservative.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The
first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to
feed the mind with canned chatter. -- Aleister Crowley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGwMUMZeB+vOTnLkoRAr1XAKCYDcyHQkhr1oeF9MHsXOs4drQ37ACdFBIy
wZuEQk+QrSOYWBiOoAL8Fnc=
=h3MI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

> One of the necessary steps toward a useful dialect about anthropogenic
> climate change is:  stop abusing English.

I think you lead with your chin on this one... someone deliberately
spoofing or lampooning you couldn't have picked a better mischoice of
words in this context.

Unless you are using the term "dialect" in a sense radically different
than I am familiar with, I assume you meant "dialog".

I think Roger's original comment still holds:

To paraphrase Roger:
    Both the global economy and ecology are complex dynamical systems
which are likely to have unpredictable (and presumably unpleasant)
responses to small perturbations.   The same arguements often used by
so-called "conservatives" to protect the economy  from the perturbation
of environmental regulations (interference) can as readily be applied in
the protection of the ecology from the perturbation by continued
profligate release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the
name of  "industry, commerce and progress".

While my sympathies are generally aligned with the issues favored by
Liberal or Progressive politics, I have very little use for most of the
politicians wearing those colors on their sleeves (podiums?).  

I am still waiting for Al Gore to reconcile his support of lifting the
55mph speed limit with his profession of having been deeply aware of the
problem of releasing so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through
our extravagant use of fossil fuels.  As much as I hated that
nearly-arbitrary constraint on my desire do drive like a bat out of
hell, I cannot imagine how lifting it did not increase our "carbon
footprint", as it were, significantly.  If Gore is as scientific as he
professes to be and as aware of and interested in preventing global
warming as he seems to be, why in hell did he help increase our
consumption of fossil fuels (and release of carbon dioxide) in highway
transportation for personal and commercial use?

It would be hard to convince me that increased average speeds *improve*
fuel efficiency and even more significantly, that increased average
speeds lead to fewer miles driven by private and commercial drivers.  
Surely there are estimates of miles driven and fuel consumed before and
after that speed limit change.   The point (as I remember it) was to
stimulate our economy through increased efficiency in transportation.  
I think it worked, but Gore of all people should have known the cost in
terms of carbon emmissions.  

Anyone know the numbers around this?  Or any explanation Gore has given
for these seemingly contradictory political positions?

[Robert Holmes]

You're right Steve, average fuel efficiency does not go up after 55mph, it
goes down. It varies from car to car but you'd see something like a 20%
increase in fuel consumption going from 55mph to 75mph. Consumption is also
highly dependent on how you drive. See
http://eartheasy.com/live_fuel_efficient_driving.htm.

The conclusion? Anyone on this list who professes to really really care
about doing something about climate change yet doesn't start driving along
freeways at 55 mph instead of 75 mph is - like Gore - nothing more than a
posturing demagogue.

Robert

On 8/13/07, steve smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

>
> Glen -
>
> > One of the necessary steps toward a useful dialect about anthropogenic
> > climate change is:  stop abusing English.
>
> I think you lead with your chin on this one... someone deliberately
> spoofing or lampooning you couldn't have picked a better mischoice of
> words in this context.
>
> Unless you are using the term "dialect" in a sense radically different
> than I am familiar with, I assume you meant "dialog".
>
> I think Roger's original comment still holds:
>
> To paraphrase Roger:
>     Both the global economy and ecology are complex dynamical systems
> which are likely to have unpredictable (and presumably unpleasant)
> responses to small perturbations.   The same arguements often used by
> so-called "conservatives" to protect the economy  from the perturbation
> of environmental regulations (interference) can as readily be applied in
> the protection of the ecology from the perturbation by continued
> profligate release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the
> name of  "industry, commerce and progress".
>
> While my sympathies are generally aligned with the issues favored by
> Liberal or Progressive politics, I have very little use for most of the
> politicians wearing those colors on their sleeves (podiums?).
>
> I am still waiting for Al Gore to reconcile his support of lifting the
> 55mph speed limit with his profession of having been deeply aware of the
> problem of releasing so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through
> our extravagant use of fossil fuels.  As much as I hated that
> nearly-arbitrary constraint on my desire do drive like a bat out of
> hell, I cannot imagine how lifting it did not increase our "carbon
> footprint", as it were, significantly.  If Gore is as scientific as he
> professes to be and as aware of and interested in preventing global
> warming as he seems to be, why in hell did he help increase our
> consumption of fossil fuels (and release of carbon dioxide) in highway
> transportation for personal and commercial use?
>
> It would be hard to convince me that increased average speeds *improve*
> fuel efficiency and even more significantly, that increased average
> speeds lead to fewer miles driven by private and commercial drivers.
> Surely there are estimates of miles driven and fuel consumed before and
> after that speed limit change.   The point (as I remember it) was to
> stimulate our economy through increased efficiency in transportation.
> I think it worked, but Gore of all people should have known the cost in
> terms of carbon emmissions.
>
> Anyone know the numbers around this?  Or any explanation Gore has given
> for these seemingly contradictory political positions?
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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/20070814/b3cdc7db/attachment.html 

[glen ep ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

steve smith wrote:
>> One of the necessary steps toward a useful dialect about anthropogenic
>> climate change is:  stop abusing English.
>
> I think you lead with your chin on this one... someone deliberately
> spoofing or lampooning you couldn't have picked a better mischoice of
> words in this context.

I always lead with my chin.  It encourages criticism.  And criticism is
the path to truth.

> Unless you are using the term "dialect" in a sense radically different
> than I am familiar with, I assume you meant "dialog".

No.  I meant _dialect_, a.k.a. a particular form of speech unique to a
clique.  The embedded joke is that the words "dialectic" and "dialect"
come from different uses but dialectic is really a particular dialect.
I.e. using rhetoric in the search for truth is a method of speech.
Dialectic is the dialect of critical rationalists.  (For the modelers
out there, it's a synonym for "cross-model validation".)

And I'm _very_ glad to (interpret what I) hear that my use of language
would be difficult to spoof. [grin]

> I think Roger's original comment still holds:
>
> To paraphrase Roger:
>     Both the global economy and ecology are complex dynamical systems
> which are likely to have unpredictable (and presumably unpleasant)
> responses to small perturbations.   The same arguements often used by
> so-called "conservatives" to protect the economy  from the perturbation
> of environmental regulations (interference) can as readily be applied in
> the protection of the ecology from the perturbation by continued
> profligate release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the
> name of  "industry, commerce and progress".

No, the intent of his comment still stands.  But the language used (here
and in Roger's original) does not.  The willful propagation of the term
"conservative" to refer to these wasteful and irresponsible people is an
abuse of English.  Worse yet, it exacerbates the artificial dichotomy
foisted upon us by our two-party system.

Those who wish to preserve the status quo are NOT conservative.  In many
ways, those who wish to preserve the status quo are very liberal.
Liberal with their own and other peoples money (opm).  And in many ways,
the people we commonly call "liberal" are not liberal at all!  The
stereotypical vision of a hippie recycling his own waste, growing native
edible plants, re-using old clothing, living in a commune, etc. is an
image of an extremely _conservative_ person.

Every time a "liberal" blames "conservatism" for the nation's woes,
they're propagating a _false_ and willfully ignorant point of view on
their audience.  Every time a "conservative" blames "liberals" for the
nation's woes, they're propagating a _false_ and willfully ignorant
point of view on their audience.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
But what no person has a right to, is to delude others into the belief
that faith is something of no great significance, or that it is an easy
matter, whereas it is the greatest and most difficult of all things. --
S?ren Kierkegaard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGwfUkZeB+vOTnLkoRAl3QAKCPuqF0KDoi0Kvf7NIzqsCcliOcKQCgiNYn
eeW9gQ28QlhcqAp1gcefT5M=
=YXRK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[glen ep ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

How about if I use my own form of "carbon offset"?  E.g. if I drive our
Honda Civic or my motorcycle, then I can go 75mph; but if I drive my V8,
I stick to 55mph?

Do I qualify as a non-posturing non-demagogue?  Or, perhaps at least a
posturing non-demagogue?

- From that url:  http://eartheasy.com/live_fueleff_graph.jpg

This image clearly distorts the truth.  The correlation between speed
and fuel usage is governed by the gear box.  If I go 60 mph in 4th gear,
I get much better gas mileage than if I go 60 mph in 3rd gear.  Now,
that's compensated for to some extent by the engine being tuned for
maximum efficiency at some RPM.  Below and above that RPM, I can imagine
that the engine spews more pollutants than it does at that optimal RPM.
   That's what allows my bike to get better mileage at 75 mph than it
does at 60 mph.

But, overall, I think burning more gas results in more emissions.  So,
the graph should relate RPMs (possibly crossed with displacement) and
MPG, not speed and MPG.  At least there's a comment about this at the
bottom of that url.

Robert Holmes wrote:

> You're right Steve, average fuel efficiency does not go up after 55mph,
> it goes down. It varies from car to car but you'd see something like a
> 20% increase in fuel consumption going from 55mph to 75mph. Consumption
> is also highly dependent on how you drive. See
> http://eartheasy.com/live_fuel_efficient_driving.htm.
>
> The conclusion? Anyone on this list who professes to really really care
> about doing something about climate change yet doesn't start driving
> along freeways at 55 mph instead of 75 mph is - like Gore - nothing more
> than a posturing demagogue.

- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
But what no person has a right to, is to delude others into the belief
that faith is something of no great significance, or that it is an easy
matter, whereas it is the greatest and most difficult of all things. --
S?ren Kierkegaard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGwfhyZeB+vOTnLkoRAuD9AKDUYp7l7qcNrnQc8CpAPhyVU1FuHwCgq+R/
y5Lm5ifeLFNvzu4+7itDvEc=
=Zmtp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> How about if I use my own form of "carbon offset"?  E.g. if I drive our
> Honda Civic or my motorcycle, then I can go 75mph; but if I drive my V8,
> I stick to 55mph?
Or, you drive your whatever gas guzzling car to work at 75mph to be
productive ASAP, and make big $$$.  Which you then use to by $100k Tesla
sports car which you drive at 130mph creating no emissions.   Such a
person should get many tax breaks, IMO.   ;-)

 http://www.teslamotors.com

[Robert Holmes]

Creating no emissions? Really? Wow - you must be generating the electricity
for your car from one of those zero-emission power stations we keep hoping
for.

R

On 8/14/07, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

>
> Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> > How about if I use my own form of "carbon offset"?  E.g. if I drive our
> > Honda Civic or my motorcycle, then I can go 75mph; but if I drive my V8,
> > I stick to 55mph?
> Or, you drive your whatever gas guzzling car to work at 75mph to be
> productive ASAP, and make big $$$.  Which you then use to by $100k Tesla
> sports car which you drive at 130mph creating no emissions.   Such a
> person should get many tax breaks, IMO.   ;-)
>
> http://www.teslamotors.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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070814/2e24b0d4/attachment.html 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Robert Holmes wrote:
> Creating no emissions? Really? Wow - you must be generating the
> electricity for your car from one of those zero-emission power
> stations we keep hoping for.
Like this one?  It's been around a while.  :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoover_dam_from_air_corrected.jpg

or this one?

http://users.owt.com/chubbard/gcdam/highres/dam01.jpg

[ Roll on Columbia, Roll On!  ]  (18 Gigawatts from Grand Coulee!)

or even:

http://www.palmsprings.com/services/wind1.html

or:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070329-its-easy-being-green-google-goes-solar.html

or:

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/207415

[glen ep ropella]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Holmes wrote:
> Creating no emissions? Really? Wow - you must be generating the
> electricity for your car from one of those zero-emission power stations
> we keep hoping for.

You purposefully _choose_ to mis-interpret Marcus' words?  Your
interpretation assumes that Marcus meant "no emissions throughout the
development and usage lifetime of the vehicle".  But, normal people read
his words and interpret "no emissions resulting from driving the vehicle".

That's fine as a joke or as a demonstration that all of our ideas are
just random shots in the dark.  But if we took that interpretation to
its full logical extent, exactly _zero_ of the efforts we have in place
or have thought of, as a species, generates a net positive.  I.e. it's
_all_ a zero-sum game.  And that means that the only way for an
individual to "help" the planet is by committing suicide ... and taking
as many of his fellows as possible with him ... at least until we reach
a population more commensurate with our individual usage patterns.

Are you truly advocating _for_ suicide bombers? [grin]

> On 8/14/07, * Marcus G. Daniels* <marcus at snoutfarm.com
> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
>     Or, you drive your whatever gas guzzling car to work at 75mph to be
>     productive ASAP, and make big $$$.  Which you then use to by $100k Tesla
>     sports car which you drive at 130mph creating no emissions.   Such a
>     person should get many tax breaks, IMO.   ;-)


- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
But what no person has a right to, is to delude others into the belief
that faith is something of no great significance, or that it is an easy
matter, whereas it is the greatest and most difficult of all things. --
S?ren Kierkegaard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGwhBmZeB+vOTnLkoRAnYbAKDY8OQ2veOXFoqqKqpKNax/j4dSMQCdFMEx
rLe4eJfH7HYX6JqC0BVikSQ=
=f6xF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marcus G. Daniels]

my bad, partially:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046

>
> In a study to be published in /Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
> for Global Change/, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse
> effect of emissions from the Curu?-Una dam in Par?, Brazil, was more
> than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by
> generating the same amount of electricity from oil.
>
> This is because large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other
> plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the
> plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter
> settling on the reservoir's bottom decomposes without oxygen,
> resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into
> the atmosphere when water passes through the dam's turbines.
>

I doubt in Nevada and Eastern Washington (my examples) there would have
been comparable biomass, though.

[Marko Rodriguez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

Since 2006 Robert W. Bussard has given talks on a reactor similar in  
design to the Fusor, now called Polywell, that he states will be  
capable of useful power generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell


On Aug 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> my bad, partially:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046
>>
>> In a study to be published in /Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
>> for Global Change/, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse
>> effect of emissions from the Curu?-Una dam in Par?, Brazil, was more
>> than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by
>> generating the same amount of electricity from oil.
>>
>> This is because large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other
>> plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the
>> plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter
>> settling on the reservoir's bottom decomposes without oxygen,
>> resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into
>> the atmosphere when water passes through the dam's turbines.
>>
> I doubt in Nevada and Eastern Washington (my examples) there would  
> have
> been comparable biomass, though.
>
> ============================================================
> 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

Marko A. Rodriguez
Los Alamos National Laboratory (P362-proto)
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Phone [phone]
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070814/e8dd1529/attachment.html 

[Robert Holmes]

So I take it you've not been following the literature on levels of CO2 and
methane emissions from hydroelectric plants? (
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046 for example). There's an
enormous pulse in greenhouse gases when the reservoir is flooded and trees
and vegetation rot. In some cases this represents more lifetime emissions
than if you'd been running an oil or gas plant.

Robert

On 8/14/07, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

>
> Robert Holmes wrote:
> > Creating no emissions? Really? Wow - you must be generating the
> > electricity for your car from one of those zero-emission power
> > stations we keep hoping for.
> Like this one?  It's been around a while.  :-)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoover_dam_from_air_corrected.jpg
>
> or this one?
>
> http://users.owt.com/chubbard/gcdam/highres/dam01.jpg
>
> [ Roll on Columbia, Roll On!  ]  (18 Gigawatts from Grand Coulee!)
>
> or even:
>
> http://www.palmsprings.com/services/wind1.html
>
> or:
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070329-its-easy-being-green-google-goes-solar.html
>
> or:
>
> http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/207415
>
> ============================================================
> 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/20070814/2bcb7db3/attachment.html 

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Robert Holmes wrote:
> There's an enormous pulse in greenhouse gases when the reservoir is
> flooded and trees and vegetation rot. In some cases this represents
> more lifetime emissions than if you'd been running an oil or gas plant.
I wonder in how many cases?   Seems like it would greatly depend on
geography, e.g. in the vicinity of Hoover and Aswan there would be
relatively less to rot than in Brazil.
Even the area around Grand Coulee is sort of the same sort of terrain as
New Mexico.   In the other cases, at least the trees could be harvested.

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Hmm, however big the pulse is, it needs to be compared to the lifetime
of the dam, and that could be in centuries..
So for one thing 1) the damage has been done, and 2) any decay of
vegetation that grows and dies as the water goes up and down, will be
matched to some extent by the CO2 conversion those plants do during
their life.  

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 11:32:04AM -0700, Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> steve smith wrote:
> >> One of the necessary steps toward a useful dialect about anthropogenic
> >> climate change is:  stop abusing English.
> >
>
> Every time a "liberal" blames "conservatism" for the nation's woes,
> they're propagating a _false_ and willfully ignorant point of view on
> their audience.  Every time a "conservative" blames "liberals" for the
> nation's woes, they're propagating a _false_ and willfully ignorant
> point of view on their audience.
>

And here in Australia, a Liberal is a conservative!
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia)
Very confusing.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
Mathematics                        
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Phil Henshaw-2]

An interesting corollary to that is that is that exponentials exceed even their own internal response times,...
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mirly <[hidden email]>

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:33:24
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


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

============================================================
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

[Phil Henshaw-2]

If multiplying our impacts has unexpected effects, maybe we shouldn't mess with that then.... Shouldn't interfear in the plan?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Roger Critchlow" <[hidden email]>

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:07:54
To:"The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


On 8/12/07, David Mirly <mirly at comcast.net <mailto: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 --


 ============================================================
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

[Phil Henshaw-2]

A surprisingly well founded measure of global enniron impact of anything is $1=8000btu, across the board!  It's valid measure of a global system property!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:26:32
To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics


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